The URL can be used to link to this page

1994-07-12 .F MOUND MISSION STATEMENT: The City of Mound, through ~°°Peration, provides at a r. easonable cost, quality services ~at Iresp°nd t°:t~h-~ ~eeds of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL . REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, jULy 12, 1994, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28, 1994, REGULAR MEETING. - PG. 2744-2758 PUBLIC HEARINGg TO CONSIDER MODIFICATION OF SECTION 350:760, SUBD. 4 OF THE MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH REGULATES TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. PG. 2759-2781 P~UBLIC HEARING1 TO CONSIDER THE MODIFICATION OF SECTION 300:10 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE TO ADD PROVISIONS REQUIRING THE COMPLETION OF STRUCTURES W/THIN A ONE YEAR PERIOD OF TIME. PG. 2782-2788 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ABOUT ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. REAPPOINTMENT OF LEONARD KOPP TO MOUND HRA FOR A FIVE YEAR TERM BEGINNING 8/29/94 - 8/29/99. PG. 2789 RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION RE: VACANCY. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT W/TH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR 1994 (YEAR XX') URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTy COMMUNITy DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (CDBG). PG. 2790-2794 PG. 2795-2827 2742 10. 11. 12. 13. PORTABLE SIGN PERMIT: OUR LADY OF THE LAKE INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL - 6 LOCATIONS FROM 7/13/94 TO 8/1/94. PG. 2828-2829 TREE REMOVAL LICENSE APPROVAL - WOODSMAN TREE SERVICE. PG. 2830 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE. PG. 2831-2832 PAYMENT OF BILLS. PG. 2833-2848 _INFO IRMA TIO N/MIS C ELLANFO US Monthly Reports for June 1994, as prepared by Department Heads. PG. 2849-2878 B. L.M.C.D. mailings. PG. 2879-2907 C. Letter from the City Attorney concerning opinion of the Court of Appeals in a City of Orono case concerning zoning, variances and boat dockage. PG. 2904-2907 D. Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 1994. PG. 2908-2912 E. Letter written to Secretary of State Joan Growe regarding Election Judge Training Video. PG. 2913 2743 Mound City Council Minutes June 28, 1994 M/NUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 28, 1994 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, June 28, 1994, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, and Phyllis Jessen. Councilmember Ken Smith was absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Edward $. Shulde, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Planner Bruce Chamberlain, Building Official Jori Sutherland, City Engineer John Cameron and the following interested citizens: Mary Ament4ohnson, Michael Henry, Ann Eberhart, Tracy & Mark Walstrom, Dustin Frantsen, Holly Wolverton, Bill Knosalla, Louis Zsabo, Sharron Zsabo, Tim Zsabo, Carol Johnson, Thomas & Debbie Hall, Diane Akey, John Costello, Marge & Curt Olson, Paul Erickson, John Blumentritt. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to approve the Minutes of the June 14, 1994, Regular Meeting, and the June 21, 1994, Committee of the Whole Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA KN WN AS PELICAN POINT - BOYER DEVE PMENT ORPORATION. The City Planner presented the resolution that has now been prepared for Pelican Point. The recommendations discussed at the last Council Meeting have been included in this resolution. Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94-78 The vote was unanimously in favor. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) WITH VARIANCES AS NOTED FOR PELICAN POINT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Motion carried. June 28, 1994 Mound City Council Minutes 1.2 ~ppRQVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) FOR PELICAN POINT. The City Planner explained the EAW for Pelican Point is completed. This EAW addresses all aspects of the project so reviewers can evaluate the full realm of project impacts. He further explained that the City Council is acting as the "Responsible Governmental Unit' (RGU) in regard to the EAW and is responsible for its approval, distribution and evaluation. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to approve the Pelican Point Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and authorizes its distribution to the appropriate agencies. The vote was unanimously in favor· Motion carried. RESOL TION OF DENIAL ROD LARSON ~A NOYD, 2976 HIGHLAND_ 1.3 #23-117-2441 01 VARIAN EF R ARA EADDITIO · _B_BLVD., PID The Building Official stated that at the last meeting the Council directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial. The proposed resolution was presented. Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//93-79 RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST OF ROD LARSON AND MYRNA NOYD OF 2976 HIGHLAND BLVD. FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE ADDITION ON PID//23-117-24 41 0016 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. · A- ~,TROM 4°72 L~LIE ROAD. ~ A E 4- 0, MARK W _ 2~NCE FOR FENCE. 1.4 .~_~3 _ . //24-117-24 41 00 BIX) K 21 WYCHWOOD PID The Building Official explained that the applicant is seeking a 2 foot fence height variance for a portion of the yard fronting on Monmouth Road. The staff and the Planning Commission have recommended denial of the request because it is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance provisions regarding fences and other alternatives are available, such as planting foliage. The applicant stated that their property line is 1 foot from the wood retaining wall and plantings would damage the wall. The Council discussed the request. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to deny the request for a fence height variance to allow a 6 foot fence and asked staff to work with the applicant on a 4 foot high conforming fence. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mound City Council Minutes June 28, 1994 1.5 ~LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 5, SHADYWOOD POINT PID #13-117-24 11 0030j VARIANCE FOR PORCH. ' The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94-80 The vote was unanimously in favor. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING PORCH AT 1773 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 5, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID//13-117-24 11 0030, P & Z CASE ~94-31 Motion carried. 1.6 A E 4- 2' A PETER N 2561WEXF RD LANE LOT 4-13 BLOCK 7 SETON PlD//24-117-24 14 0001 VARIANCE FOR DECK. The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval, including required compliance to the conditions listed within Resolution//93-128. Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94-81 The vote was unanimously in favor. 1.7 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR A NONCONFORMING DECK AT 2561 WEXFORD LANE, LOTS 4-13, BLOCK 7, SETON, PID//24-117-24 14 0001, P & Z CASE g94-32 Motion carried. The Building Official explained that the applicant is seeking variance to reconstruct an existing nonconforming deck. The deck is nonconforming to the 50 foot lakeshore setback by approximately 10 feet and also to the rear yard setback by approximately 9 feet. The existing dwelling is nonconforming to the 20 foot front yard setback by 19.85 feet. The site grossly exceeds the maximum hardcover due to the minimal lot size of 4,300 square feet +/-. The additional green space on the right-of-way, the commons, and the right-of-way access to the east lessens the impact of this excessive hardcover. The Planning Commission recommended approval, (3 to 3 vote), as recommended by staff, with the exception that a 12 foot deck be June 28, 1994 Mound City Council Minutes allowed to be constructed as long as the deck does not encroach over the property line. The Council discussed the minimum variance which would allow a 10 foot deck and would lessen the nonconformance. The Building Official explained that the applicant could do repairs to the present deck and keep the 12 foot deck, but would like to replace it. The Council also discussed the need to be consistent in their decisions on such matters. Ahrens moved the following resolution: RESOLUTION/194-82 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF A NONCONFORMING DECK AT 4801 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT I & E 3' OF 2, BLOCK 13, DEVON, PID # 25-117-24 11 0122, P & Z CASE//94-33 The motion died for lack of a second. The Council discussed allowing only a 10' deck, if it were replaced and decided that was the minimum variance. The Council asked that all references to the 12' deck in the resolution after Also that #2.b. be changed to RF~OLUTION//94-82 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 10 FOOT DECK AT 4801 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 1 & E 3' OF 2, BLOCK 13, DEVON, PID # 25-117-24 11 0122, P & Z CASE//94-33 Councilmember Ahrens stated she is in favor of allowing a 12' deck because it already there and that a 10' deck is not functional. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. A E 4- 4' DU TIN FRANTSEN 29 1 M~_ADOW LANE, LOTS 1 & B K TA BAPTI T R AS EMBLY, PID #23-117-24 42 1.8 ~0104, VARIANCE FOR GARAGE_. The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval. The original request was for a street vacation of a portion of unimproved Glenwood Road. The City Engineer's report was not favorable for a vacation because there are utilities in this street and several lots on the unimproved section that could someday be developed. The City Engineer's recommendation was to allow this private driveway in City right-of-way to allow the Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, be changed to a 10' deck. read as follows: WA 10' deck may be constmcted.~ lensen moved and lessen seconded the following resolution: I Mound City Council Minutes June 28, 1994 access to the proposed garage. Then, if and when an additional building site is created on the north side that the street be improved to City standards and cost assessed to abutting, benefited properties, which would include the parcel now owned by the applicant for this variance. The City Attorney stated that the applicant needs to understand that whatever improvements are put in the unimproved right-of-way may be disturbed if City utilities need to be dug up and it would be the applicant's responsibility to put their improvements back, not the City's. The City is only allowing the applicant to use the unimproved right-of-way for access to their property. The Building Official stated he would like to add one condition that was not in the proposed resolution: 'The applicant will remove the existing rock driveway on Lot I.~ Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94-83 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 2901 MEADOW LANE, LOT 1 & 9, BLOCK 5, MINNESOTA BAPTIST SUMMER ASSEMBLY, PID//23-117-24 42 0104, P & Z CASE//93-34 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Building Official asked if a Construction on Public Lands Permit was needed to construct their driveway on a public right-of-way? The City Attorney stated the whole purpose of having an easement for street purposes is so that people can use it to get to and from something. Therefore a Construction on Public Lands Permit is not necessary. 1.9 VARIAN E F R ADDITION. The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval. The Council commended the applicant for the revisions to the application that were made to allow the minimum variance. Jessen moved and .lensen seconded RESOLUTION//94-84 the following resolution. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION AT 5135 DRUMMOND ROAD, LOTS 9 & 10, BLOCK 14, WHIPPLE, PID //25-117-24 12 0114, P & Z CASE//94-35 Mound City Council Minutes The vote was unanimously in favor. 1.10 June 28, 1994 Motion carded. The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Ahrens moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94--85 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO 4994 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 4, BLOCK 3, JOHN S. CARLSON ADDITION, PID//13o117-24 43 0040, P & Z CASE//94-38 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. 1.11 ADDITION. The Building Official explained the request. The planning Commission recommended approval. Ahrens moved and ]ensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g94-86 A VARIANCE TO NONCONFORMING TO ALLOW A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING FRONT YARD SETBACK CONFORMING GARAGE ADDITION AT 1721 GULL LANE, LOTS 5, 6, 7, BLOCK 14, DREAMWOOD, PID//13-117-24 13 0014, P & Z CASE g94-38 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. 1.12 AR_aga_c . The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94-87 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING I ,Il Mound City Council Minutes The vote was unanimously in favor. 1.13 June 28, 1994 SITUATIONS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NONCONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 1920 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 6, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 23 0008, P & Z CASE g94-40 Motion carried. The Building Official explained that the request is to remove an existing deck and replace it with a three season porch. The Council discussed the fact that there is property adjacent to this that is city property that is being used for drainage & utility purposes. The City Attorney stated that the property could be sold retaining the drainage and utility easements, which would not allow anyone to build over it, but it would make the applicants property more conforming. The Staff will check into the sale of the adjoining property. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94-88 The vote was unanimously in favor. 1.14 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A PORCH AT 1564 CANARY LANE, LOTS 7 & 8, BLOCK 4, WOODLAND POINT, PID #12-117-24 43 0013, P & Z CASE #94-42 Motion carried. CASE//94-4 · WILLIAM & DEDRA KNOSALLA 1705 EAGLE LANE LOT 1 The Building Official explained the request. He reported that the neighbor to the west has concerns about increased drainage. The applicant has developed a plan to deal with increased drainage which was given to the Council tonight. The City Attorney suggested the following change in the proposed resolution to read as follows: "l.b. The City Council notes and recognizes the applicant's letter of June 26, 1994, relating to drainage and directs staff to work with the applicant to resolve and/or improve the drainage problem." The Council agreed. Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #94-89 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD Mound C~ty Council M~nutes June 28, 1994 SETBACK VARIANCE AND IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING GARAGE ADDITION AT 1705 EAGLE LANE, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 12, DREAMWOOD, PID//13-117-24 12 0064, p & Z CASE g94-43 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MME A TI N FR M ITIZEN PR ENT. There were none. 1.15 ~LIC LANDS PERMITS: DOCK SITES - 12550 & The Building Official explained that Dock Site//22360 should be deleted from this action and resolution because Mr. Botko has removed the electrical outlet from the Commons. He further explained that Dock Site #12550 had an old concrete block stairway that was in very poor condition. Staff recommended removal and the applicant was unable to do this by herself. A volunteer will be removing it for her. The dock site has not been used for many years. Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94-90 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REMOVAL OF PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LANDS FOR DOCK SITE #12550 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.16 ~OR pUBLIC LANL)~S PERMITS' D KITES - 02665 13 10 AND 51030. The Building Official explained that the Park & Open Space Commission has recommended approval of the three stairways. The Building Official explained that the Park & Open Space Commission at its April 14th meeting, recommended removal of the light, and tabling the portion of the request relating to the outlet and the pump in order to determine the respective benefits. At the June 9th POSC Meeting, they recommended the outlet, light and pump be permitted according to//15 of the flow chart, "Grant permit up to 3 years and renewable.~ The Council discussed Dock Site #13810 which has an electric outlet, pump (for an underground watering system), and electric light. The Council suggested that the light should conform to the Lighting Guidelines, with regard to shielding the light from shining on the lake and only lighting the dock area. The Council questioned whether the pump needs to be on the dock or could it I ,Il, Mound City Council Minutes June 28, 1994 be on the owner's property. The applicant was present and explained that the gray box on the shoreline is just a cover box to cover the pipes that go to the underground sprinkling system. The pump itself is on the dock and plugs into the electrical outlet that is on the post. The Council discussed the fact that there is nothing on the Commons visible to suggest that this is a private area. Councilmember Ahrens stated that allowing Mr. Riebe to water his lawn and the Commons with lake water keeps him from having to use fertilizers. The Council asked that a statement be added to the proposed resolution regarding Dock Site //13810 which reads: "Light to conform to the Lighting Guidelines and as approved by the Park Director.' The applicant agreed. Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94-91 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LAND FOR DOCK SITES 51030, 31360, 31390, 02665 AND 13810 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.17 HENRY 47 7 I LAND VIEW DRIVE FORMERLY DEAN HA S The Building Official explained that the City and the previous owner were involved in litigation and the City obtained an order from removal of a boathouse on the Commons. The restoration of the Commons is still incomplete and the new owner Michael Henry has revised the plans for the abutting Commons and seeks permits to lower the height of the existing retaining walls, modify the slope to a more natural grade, and fill in the old boathouse. The plan utilizes existing materials on site. The proposal is a combination of the applicant's initial request and staff's recommendations. The Park Commission recommended approval with conditions. The applicant was present. The Council discussed how this ties into the property next door. The Building Official explained that is one of the reasons this recommendation is being made. He further stated that the retaining walls on the property were constructed by the former owner without a permit from the City. Michael Henry stated that the retaining walls on the Commons are very good construction. He stated that the only reason he agreed to do this is because Mound has his $3,000 in escrow. He stated that he has had 5 different contractors come out and look at the retaining walls and they think it is crazy to take them down. He stated he was under duress, 3 days before closing on his house, and that is why he agreed with the staff recommendation. June 2g, 1994 Mound City Council Minutes The City Manager commented that Mr. & Mrs. Henry came in an visited with staff about a month before they purchased the property wanting to know what the City expected of them should they purchase the property. At that time things were outlined for them and they were told that it was not the City's responsibility to put together a plan for them and get the work done so that they could purchase the property from Mr. Hanus. The City Manager stated that he feels the Henrys were hoping that the City would put something together for them that would series of meetings with the Henrys and if anyone was under tess, ~i was probably the C~ty because o, m~ v-', ..... Mr. ' lye their problems. There_w. ere a ,, .~- .... ~qnre Hanus was puttang on the Henrys a~d in mm the Henrys put on the City. The City already negotiated this with the Henrys. The City Attorney pointed out that the City had a Lis Pendens filed against this property and the court had ordered Mr. Hanus to remove his encroachments on the Commons and restore the Commons. The court gave Mr. Hanus a year to do so. Thus, the City was not in a position to move forward on this because he had a year to complete the action. The City took the position that if Mr. Hanus did not restore the property within the year that the City would have gone to the court and asked permission to restore the Commons and charge it against the Hanus property. Mr. Hanus voluntarily, once the court made the order, took down part of the boathouse (left the foundation). The City Attorney pointed out that Mr. Henry knew there was a Lis Pendens and there was an obligation of Mr. Hanus. Then Mr. Henry stepped into Mr. Hanus' shoes, thus assuming his responsibility. Mr. Henry stated that he understood that. Mr. Henry then complained that the property next door does not have Escrow money with the City. The City Attorney stated that the Commons problem on the Munson property had different circumstances and was resolved without a trial. The two issues were not the same. The Munson issue was with existing structures. The Hanus issue was about structures that were built without permits or approval of the City. The City Manager stated that Mr. Henry has signed an Agreement to restore the commons shoreline to a more natural state and restore the boathouse area to the flood plain level. The Council discussed item g. in the resolution. The City Attorney suggested the following wording be revised to read as follows: 'The document (a copy of this resolution) shall not be filed if the property owner completes the work on or before January 15, 1995. If the work is not done by such date, a copy of this resolution granting a special permit shall be filed as a memorial in the office of the registrar of ritles of Hennepin County or in the office of the County Recorder if the property is abstracted property. The legal description of this property affected by this permit is: Lot 7, Block 7, Devon. The applicant shall file and pay the costs of filing a Certified copy of this resolution. A copy of the recorded document with all recording data shown by proper County officials shall be submitted to the City Clerk." Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: Mound City Council Minutes RESOLUTION//94-92 June 28, 1994 RESOL~ION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LAND INCLUDING A RETAINING WALL, STAIRWAY, AND LAND ALTERNATIONS ON DEVON COMMON AB~G 4737 ISLAND VH~W DRIVE, LOT 7, BLOCK 7, DEVON, DOCK SITE #42351 The Council discussed expenses that may be charged against the Escrow of $3,000. The Building Official stated that they expect the costs to be minor. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.18 MARKETIN IN 1 H RELINE DRIVE BALB A BLD . The Building Official stated that at the last meeting the Council directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval. The proposed resolution was presented. Jensen moved Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//94-93 The vote was unanimously in favor. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN OPERATIONS PERMIT FOR INFINITI MARKETING, INC., 5318 SHORELINE DRIVE (BALBOA BUILDING) Motion carried. 1.19 ~RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS A NATURE CONSERVATION AREA A' IN THE ITY FMO . The City Manager stated that at the COW Meeting last week the recommendations from the POSC for Nature Conservation Areas were reviewed. Based upon those recommendations, the City Council chose 3 properties to be considered Nature Conservation Areas. He presented the proposed resolution. The three parcels are' PID #23-117-24 31 0077, #23-117-24 22 0003, and #14-1117-24 31 0013 & 0014. The Council discussed storm water management. The City Attorney suggested that the Council could add to the third Whereas, the following: "It should be understood that this resolution does not preclude future action by the City Council to use this property as a part of the City's water management program; and". Also the Now, Therefore Be It Resolved should read as follows: " ..... that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby designates the following as Nature Conservation Areas under the definition and the conditions set forth bore: ..... the The Council agreed to add the language suggested by the City Attorney. a " Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: Mound City Council Minutes RESOLUTION t194-94 June 28, 1994 RESOLU~ON DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS AS NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS IN THE CITY OF MOUND The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.20 PPR E PLAN AND PE IFI ATI N AND ET BID DATE RE; JOINT~ P LI W RK ST RAGE ITE ITY F ~TRISTA AND _ADVERTISING FOR BIDS ON THE PROJECT~. The City Engineer presented the plans for the storage site. He reported that the plan is generally the same as the preliminary plan, with more detail. The schedule is that the City of Mound needs to submit and application to the City of Minnetrista for a Land Use Permit (Grading Permit) which will go to their Planning Commission the last Monday of July. The following Monday to the Minnetrista City Council. He asked the Council to set the bid opening for July 29, 1994, which will be between those two meetings. He will be submitting an application to the Watershed District this week. Their meeting is the 21st of July. If all this falls into place the contractor who gets the bid should be ready to start the project by the middle of August. He estimated that completion date should be about October 1. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens to approve the plans and specifications and set the bid opening for the Site Grading and Access Road Reconstruction Mound/Minnetrista Public Works Material Storage Site for July 29, 1994, at 11:00 A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.21 _AAPPOINTMENTS T~-~BAN ALLIANCE BOARD_. The City Manager reported that there are two positions open on the Suburban Alliance Board of Directors for the City of Mound. He stated he contacted Kiki Sonnen of WECAN and obtained two names of people who might be interested in serving. They are Charles Pugh and Roberta Cook. The City Manager reported that Charles Pugh has stated he is interested and we are waiting for Roberta Cook's acceptance. The Council discussed funding for Suburban Alliance. The Council also asked that the people appointed be requested to submit regular reports to the Council on what is happening. Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g94-95 RESOLUTION APPOINTING CHARLES PUGH AND ROBERTA COOK TO THE SUBURBAN ALLIANCE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mound City Council Minutes 1.22 . June 28, 1994 1.23 MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to authorize issuance of the following licenses to Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church for the Incredible Festival to be held July 30 and 31, 1994: Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Permit Set-Up Permit - Fee Waived Public Dance Permit - Fee Waived The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. APPROVE PAYMENT REOUEST #1 WATER METER READ Y TEM HL BERGER INDUSTRIES _ 25 433.40. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to approve Payment Request #1 from Schlumberger Industries for the water meter reading system in the amount of $25,433.40, when funds are available. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.24 PAYMENT OF BILL,~ Councilmember Ahrens stated that she did not think the $475.00 for concrete for the fishing pier at Centerview Beach should be charged to the Dock Fund. The City Manager agreed and stated that is in error and will be taken from Parks. Councilmember Ahrens asked that the following bills be voted on separately: Concept Landscaping/nc, $660.00 - wall installation (Munson property) charged to 81-4350-5300; and McCombs Frank Roos, $108.00 - mitigation plan (Munson property) charged to 81-4350-5300. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to authorize the payment of bills in the amount of $140,506.02, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION made by Johnson seconded by Jensen to pay the following: Concept Landscaping Inc, $660.00 - wall installation (Munson property) charged to 81-4350-5300; and McCombs Frank Roos, $108.00 - mltigatlon plan (Munson property) charged to 81-4350-5300. A roll call vote was 3 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried. Mound City Council Minutes 1.25 Juno 28, 1994 MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens to set July 26, 1994, 7:30 P.M. for a public hearing to consider an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit approve by Resolution #85-37 for a Planned Industrial Area at 5300-5400 Shoreline Drive (Balboa Building), Balboa Addition, PID #13-117-24 34 0096. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. II~RMATIQN/MI$(~ELLANEOUS A. Financial Report for May 1994, as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. Be C. D. E. H= L.M.C.D. mailings. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of June 9, 1994. Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 1994. Preliminary population and household estimate (April 1, 1993) for the City of Mound, as prepared by the Metropolitan Council. Letter of Application for the planning Commission vacancy. Interviews will be conducted by the planning Commission at their meeting June 27, 1994, beginning at 7:30 P.M. You are invited to attend. Proposed amendments to Hennepin County's Recycling Ordinance. Proposed amendments require commercial waste generators to separate high grade office paper, corrugated cardboard, aluminum cans, glass bottles and jars, and wood pallets from their normal trash for recycling. The public Service Committee will be meeting on June 30, 1994, to discuss. Also, on June 30th, the Public Service Committee will be considering a revised Recycling Funding Policy for 1995-1999. The revised Recycling Funding Policy proposes that recycling grants from Hennepin County to cities be limited to a distribution of and annual SCORE revenues which Hennepin County receives from the State. The policy also allows cities which do not contract for curbside recycling service to retain up to 10% of the grant funds for administration and promotional expenses. Mound City Council Minutes June 28, 1994 MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to adjourn at 10:15 P.M. The vote was unanhnously in favor. Motion carried. Attest: City Clerk Edward $. Shuk/e, Jr., City Manager PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE MODIFICATION OF SECTION 350:?60, SUBDIVISION 4 OF THE MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH REGULATES TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the C°uncil Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 12, 1994 to consider the modification of Section 350:760 of the Mound Zoning Ordinance which regulates truck parking in residential areas· The current ordinance states: k Parkin in Res~den ~al Ar__e~ ' IIv licensed tratler shall be No motor vehicle over one (1) ton Subd, 4, bearing a commerc~a, ,'~ ommercla _ wl~en loading, capacity' parked or stored in a platted residential district or a public street except unloading, or rendering a service, Recreation vehicles and pickups are not restricted by the terms of this provision, The proposed Zoning Ordinance modification would remove the above language and insert the following: · Off-street parking facilities accessory to a residential use shall be utilized solely for passenger automobiles, pickup trucks, and recreational vehicles. Additionally, no more than one (1) commercial truck, bus, or trailer, not to exceed the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds nor a height of nine (9) feet nor a length of twenty-six (26) feet shall be allowed. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting Francene C. C {To be published in 'The Laker' June 27, 1994) July, 1994 City of Mo nd HOLIDAY OFFICES CLOSED **CITY COUNCIL MEETS 7:30 PM COMMITTEE OF THE IdHOLE MEETS 7:30 PM #CITY COUNCIL MEETS 7:30 PM *PLRNNING COMMISSION MEE TS 7:30 PM PLflNNING COMMISSION MEETS 7:30 PM MONTHLY REPORTS RRE DUE PflRK RNO OPEN SPflCE COMMISSION MEETS 7 PM ECONOMIC DEVELOP. COMMISSION MEETS FULL MOON PUBLIC HEARINGS IN JUL Y: ~ 7-11-94 - PLANNING CO~ffM/$SION: Conditional Use Permit amendment for Toro to install canopies. · · 7-12-94- CITY COUNCIL: Truck ParMng in Residential Areas - Comp/et/on of structures w/thin one year of building permit issued. 11 7-26-94 - CITY COUNCIL: Conditional Use Permit amendment for Toro to instal/canopies. Il ,I Il I Il, ,it I II, MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 9, 1994 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DISCUSSION: SECTION 350:760. SUBD. 4. TRUCK PARKING IN RE~;IDENTIAL AREAS. PUBLIC HEARING, City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the history of the proposed ordinance change. The current ordinance states: Subd. 4. Tru(;k p0rkina in Residential Areas. No motor vehicle over one (1) ton capacity bearing a commercial license and no commercially licensed trailer shall be parked or stored in a platted residential district or a public street except when loading, unloading, or rendering a service. Recreation vehicles and pickups are not restricted by the terms of this provision. The proposed Zoning Ordinance modification would remove the above language and insert the following: Subd. 4. Truck P~rking in Residential Areas. Off-street parking facilities accessory to a residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, pickup trucks, and recreational vehicles. Additionally, no more than one (1) commercial truck, bus, or trailer, not to exceed the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds nor a height of nine (9) feet nor a length of twenty-six (26) feet shall be allowed to be parked outside. The City Planner further suggested that the proposed language be amended to delete the last four words, "to be parked outside". His feeling is this will clarify that only one commercial vehicle may be parked or stored on each residential property. The Commission confirmed that this modification will make the ordinance less restrictive. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. Gerold Esselman, 5870 Lynwood Blvd., spoke in opposition of the ordinance amendment. He believes the existing ordinance is adequate, and he is not in favor of having large, unappealing commercial vehicles parked adjacent to his property. He is not in favor of having diesel fueled commercial vehicles allowed to be parked in a residential area because they are noisy and require to be warmed up before they can be driven. He is also concerned about the safety of children when commercial vehicles are driven in residential zones. There being no further citizens wishing to speak on the issue, Chair Michael closed the public hearing. Hanus commented that he would like to consider the possibility of using the Conditional Use Permit process to regulate commercial vehicles in a residential zone. Mueller commented that residents should be allowed to have one vehicle stored outside, and they should be allowed to store more vehicles inside a garage if they are able. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment to City Code Section 350:760, with the deletion of 'to be parked outside'. Motion carried 5 to 3. Those in favor were: Voss, Clapseddie, Bird, and Jensen. Those opposed were: Weiland, Mueller, and Hanus. Weiland commented that he is in favor of keeping the ordinance the way it was. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE MODIFICATION OF SECTION 350:760, SUBDIVISION 4 OF THE MOUND ZONING CODE WHICH REGULATES TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, May 9, 1994 to consider the modification of Section 350:760 of the Mound Zoning Code which regulates truck parking in residential areas. The current ordinance states: Subd. 4. Truck Parkin.q in Residential Areas, No motor vehicle over one (1) ton capacity bearing a commercial license and no commercially licensed trailer shall be parked or stored in a platted residential district or a public street except when loading, unloading, or rendering a service. Recreation vehicles and pickups are not restricted by the terms of this provision. The proposed Zoning Code modification would remove the above language and insert the following: Subd. 4. Truck Parking in Residential Areas. Off-street parking facilities accessory to a residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, pickup trucks, and recreational vehicles. Additionally, no more than one (1) commercial truck, bus, or trailer, not to exceed the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds nor a height of nine (9) feet nor a length of twenty-six (26) feet shall be allowed to be parked outside. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. F~ancene C. Clark, City Clerk (published in "The Laker" 4-25-94) MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 12, 1994 _..,.,,.,.,...~-nu~n~ FROM I, LA~C~ Co~Oss~o~ 1.7 ~: SEC .... -' '7 The City planner stated that this item as well az the next two items ar~ not formal recommendations from the Planning Commission, but does represent their direction. This is an update because all three of these items will need a p~hlic hearing before adoption. The City Planner reported that the Planning Commission discussed the issue of truck parking in residential areas at their March 14th meeting. The Commission expressed consensus that ollly one commercial vehicle should be allowed per lot, commercial vehicles housed in garages am acceptable (up to a certain size - ie. semi tractors), and that consideration should be given to regulating trucks by height and length. The proposed ordinance amendment as prepared by the City planner was as follows: Section 350:760, Sub& 4. T~_g_P_.aL~g in Resi~Jj. aJ_b._r, eas. Off-street parking facilities accessory to a residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, pickup trucks, and recreational vehicles. Additionally, no more than one (1) truck and/or trailer not to exceed the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds nor a height of nine (9) feet nor length of twenty-six (26) feet shall be allowed, provided they are stored at all times within an enclosed garage. The following draft of a new ordinance provision is the Planning Commission's recommendation which seeks to accomplish the primary objectives: Section 350:760, Sub& 4. Truck Parking in Residential Areas. Off-sta'eet parking facilities accessory to a residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, pickup Ixucks, and recreational vehicles. Additionally, no more than one (1) mmr,9._~d.C~ trock~)3~ a,'~,~or trailer not to exceed the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds nor a height of nine (9) feet nor length of twenty-six (26) fee~ shall be allowed tf/Jt~[~t~L~t The Planning Commission did discuss a whole variety of parameters on sizes of vehicles, types of vehicles, etc. There was discussion at one time of allowing some of these types of vehicles to be housed within garages or buildings, but that was not part of the recommendation at this time. The Planning Commission is a~king if the Council has specific comments on this as direction to them. The Council reviewed the examples of acceptable trucks and examples of those that would be excluded from residential areas that were in the packet. The Council asked why the Planning Commission deleted the enclosed in a garage verbiage. Mark lianus, Planning Commissioner, stated, that the Planning Commission was split on that decision. The concern on the garage issue was that the City would see a lot of v~riance cases on oversize garages to store larger vehicles. He stated there was really no consensus of the Planning Commission on whether "stored in garages" should be left in the proposed amendment. Mr. Hanus reminded the Council of one provision in the zoning ordinance which does not allow a garage to be taller than the principal structure. Mayor Johnson commemted that if we allow cerlain vehicles to be stored outside, that he hope~ additional consideration is given to allowing garaging of vehicles that exce~l some of the standards, Jx~cause a 40 foot motor home is allowed and some of those are not as nice looking as some of tl~ trucks he has seen. He further stated that some people make their living driving trucks and do not have access to a commercial area to park these vehicles. The Planner stated that motor homes are more accessory to a residential use than a commercial vehicle. The City Attorney stated that another thing to keep in mind is that if we allow storage in a garage in a residential area, you are kind of allowing warehousing or commercial activities in a residen6al area. Councilmember Smith stated a lot of people would not like to have commercial vehicles parked in their neighborhoods and most cities in the metro m would nm allow this. The Planner stated that this could be before the Planning Commission for a public hearing on May 9th. 7J- ~ooo ~ ' I 55Z.4 5P,~oc~ Rb. 12..oo0~ ~ooo~ Iz.ooo~ -1 15 oo0-;1~ I~ooo~ r 5084 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 1994 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: SECTION 350:760, SUBD. 4, TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREA$~ City Planner, Mark Koegler, explained that the City Council has determined there is a need to look at the current Code regarding truck parking in residential areas, and has referred this issue to the Planning Commission for further input and recommendation. Mound's current provision states, "No motor vehicle over one (1) ton capacity bearing a commercial license and commercially licensed trailer shall be parked or stored in a platted residential district or a public street except when loading, unloading, or rendering a service. Recreational vehicles and pickups are not restricted by the terms of this provision." Samples of other cities ordinance were reviewed. The common trend seen in the various communities used for sampling, is that certain types of commercial vehicles are prohibited from parking in residential areas. Some communities permit such parking, provided that it is contained within a garage. Only six of these communities (including Mound) mention recreational vehicles and allow them to be exempt from this provision. Weight restrictions and the terminology used to describe weight limits Planning Commission Minutes TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL February 28, 1954 varies from community to community. Weight terms were reviewed. Mound, Prior Lake, St. Louis Park and Bloomington use the term "capacity" to regulate truck weight. However, this is only the load capacity, not the entire gross weight of the vehicle and its load. Thus, it is impossible to compare Mound's current weight limit with the other communities that use the same weight term as Mound. The basic definition of Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) remains as the total weight of the vehicle and the load. Terms such as capacity, gross capacity and rated capacity are not used to determine truck weight at the state level. When the term GVW is used, the specifications (either manufacturers, registered, or actual) must be used to clarify whose rating system the GVW has been determined. .The City Planner concluded, that Mound's current provisions restrict commercial vehicles from parking in residential areas at any time. The City Council would like to consider whether it is appropriate to allow some commercial licensed vehicles and some vehicles used for business purposes to be parked or stored in residential areas. Other communities have allowed certain commercial vehicles in residential areas if they are parked in garages. The inconsistent weight limit definitions do not allow accurate comparisons of Mound's weight restrictions to all of the communities used as examples within the City Planner's report. One approach to consider would be to standardize Mound's weight limit to that of the States standard (GVW) and specify which standards would be used (state registration, manufacturers, or actual). This may help clarify and allow for better enforcement of weight restrictions in the future. However, standardizing the weight definition would mean modifying the current weight restrictions. These new weight restrictions could be defined by determining which commercial vehicles and vehicles used for business would not cause safety, value and appearance problems if stored and parked in residential areas. Weiland stated that he is not in favor of requiring the vehicles be covered as this would create the construction of extra large garages which can be just as unsightly. Mueller's written comments were recognized by the Commission. Voss does not want to impact the private business person and is not in favor making the ordinance more stringent, however, he does not want to see large trucks such as semi trailers allowed that would be obtrusive in a neighborhood. He questioned how large trucks compare to the storage of campers or boats. Koegler stated, that generally, recreational vehicles are accessory to the residential use, and people who live in homes have boats and campers, but most people who live in homes don't have dump trucks. Johnson questioned what types of vehicles have been tagged. The Building Official commented that tool trucks and other service type vehicles have been tagged. a n n I ~n, ,it I I, Planning Commission Minutes TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL February 28, 1994 Hanus questioned if the City would conside~ allowing the storage of larger vehicles through a Conditional Use Permit process? Koegler suggested that the ordinance needs to further clarify what types of vehicles should be allowed to be stored in the residential district. It was suggested that the ordinance limit the storage of one vehicle per property. Koegler clarified for the Commission that a I ton vehicle, depending on the manufacturer or brand, could equal 12,000 to 15,000 pounds. He clarified, that if the manufacturers weight is used as the determining factor, it does not matter how much weight you are hauling. Koegler noted that Jim Larson, who is with the City Attorney's office, stated it would be preferrable to use the manufacture's GVW as posted on the vehicle. Resident, Bob Smith, informed the Commission that he has a truck that looks like a bread truck, it is 22 feet long, and the truck is used for his private business. His truck is his store, he sells tools. He has a 10 foot high garage door, the garage is 32' x 32', and he still had to partially disassemble his truck to get it to fit inside. He believes the truck weighs about 15,000 pounds. Weiland stressed that the issue is not how much the vehicle weighs, but how big it is and how obtrusive it is to the neighborhood. It was also suggested that the type of vehicle and what it is used for be taken into consideration. Michael suggested the Commissioners think about what they would like to allow, then bring back the ideas back to the next meeting for further discussion. It was suggested that staff take a poll of the types of vehicles currently being parked within the City. There was discussion about publicizing the issue to get public input. This issue will be brought back to the Planning Commission at the March 14, 1944 meeting for discussion. The Commissioners should bring their ideas to the meeting. -% Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Planning Commission FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: February 4, 1994 SUBJECT: Truck Parking in Residential Areas During a December City Council meeting, staff was asked to look at Section 350:760, Subd. 4 of the City Code which regulates truck parking in residential areas. The intent in requesting the review was to compare Mound's standards to those commonly used in other municipalities and to determine if Mound is too strict or too lenient under the current provisions. After staff review and further discussion of this issue at the January 11, 1994 City Council meeting, Council determined that modifications to the existing Code should be further investigated and the issue should be referred to the Planning Commission for input and recommendation. Mound's current provision states "No motor vehicle over one (1) ton capacity bearing a commercial license and commercially licensed trailer shall be parked or stored in a platted residential district or a public street except when loading, unloading, or rendering a service. Recreation vehicles and pickups are not restricted by the terms of this~provision." This provision prohibits any commercially licensed vehicle from parking in any of Mound's residential areas. Zoning Ordinances contain provisions such as the one stated above as an attempt to segregate residential, commercial and industrial uses. Allowed uses, provisions, and restrictions applicable to any of these three general zoning classifications are intended to ensure that they can contain uses that are not impeded by undue conflicts. In most communities, parking in residential zoning districts is limited to automobiles, pickup trucks and recreational vehicles; while most types of trucks which are commonly associated with commercial and industrial uses are excluded from residential areas. Mound's provisions may contain this language in order to carry out the general zoning philosophy as stated above, as well as to protect residential properties from commercial/industrial trucks that could pose a safety problem, diminish the attractive appearance and decrease the value of residential neighborhoods. Also, because of Mound's smaller lots and short front yard setbacks (20' in many areas), any large vehicle such as a truck parked in a residential area has a high probability of impacting neighboring properties. Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 ' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 ' Fax: (612) 835-3160 a · ii I I ,it I I, Truck Parking Memorandum February 4, 1994 Page 2 To determine if Mound's standards are too strict, a random sampling of other communities restrictions were studied and are listed below. Prior Lake: Motor vehicles over one (1) ton capacity bearing a commercial license and commercially licensed trailers shall not be parked in a residential area except when loading, unloading or rendering a service. Such vehicles may be stored in residential areas if they are parked in garages. Recreational vehicles and pickups are not restricted by the terms of this provision. Falcon Heights: Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential uses shall be utilized solely for the parking of passenger automobiles and/or one (1) truck not to exceed 7,000 pounds gross capacity for each dwelling unit. Under no circumstances shall required parking facilities be used for the storage of commercial vehicles or for the parking of automobiles belonging to the employees, owners, tenants or customers of nearby business or manufacturing establishments. Golden Valley: It is unlawful to park or leave standing a truck having a capacity to haul more than one (1) ton or a gross vehicle weight of 7,000 pounds (except a recreational pickup camper or a pickup truck), a bus having a seating capacity of more than fourteen (14) passengers, commercial equipment (whether mounted, dismounted or towed), truck-tractor, truck-trailer, or tractor-trailer on any street in a district zoned for residential uses except while such vehicle is being actively loaded or unloaded to or from the premises immediately adjacent to the place where it is parked. Shakopee: Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential uses shall be utilized solely for the parking of passenger automobiles, except that for each dwelling unit, one truck not in excess of 9,000 pounds rated capacity may be parked by the occupant within a structure. Under no circumstances shall parking facilities accessory to residential structures be used for open storage of commercial vehicles nor open air parking of automobiles belonging to the employees, owner, tenant or customers of a business or manufacturing establishment. Bloomington: No commercial motor vehicle rated at more than one-ton capacity; no motor vehicle designed, used, maintained for the towing of other motor vehicles or equipment; and no commercial trailer shall be parked or stored in a platted residential district except when loading or unloading or rendering a service. No more than one commercial vehicle shall be parked on or adjacent to a platted residential lot at any time except when loading or unloading or rendering a service. The word "platted" as used in this section shall include actual plats, registered land surveys, and auditor's subdivisions. Hopkins: Residential parking facilities may be used for the parking of automobiles and one truck not to exceed a 9,000 pound rated capacity. 772. Truck Parking Memorandum February 4, 1994 Page 3 Wayzata: Trucks of more that 12,000 GVW or greater than thirty (30) feet in length and contracting or excavating equipment may not be parked, stored, or otherwise continued on any property within the City for a period greater than twelve (12) hours unless being used in conjunction with a temporary service benefitting the residential or commercial premises, except that such trucks and equipment may be parked, stored and otherwise continued on property zoned C-3 if used regularly by the property owner in his business. Excelsior:. Permitted Accessory Uses - Within R-1 to R-4 districts, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: Subd. 1. Private garage, parking space, carport for passenger cars and for trucks, not in excess of 7,000 pound licensed gross weight, utility trailers, recreational trailers, mobile and motor homes when owned or assigned to the occupant. St. Louis Park: Required off-street parking facilities in an "R" Use District may be utilized only for parking passenger automobiles, however one truck not exceeding 1.5-ton capacity may be parked by the occupant of each dwelling unit inside a building on the resident's property. No required parking facilities or public rights-of-way in any "R" Use District shall be used for open-air storage of commercial vehicles, customer's vehicles, or vehicles belonging to employees, owners, tenants or customers of business or manufacturing establishments. Shorewood: Off-street parking facilities incidental to residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of currently licensed and operable passenger automobiles; no more than one truck not to exceed gross capacity of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds; and recreational vehicles and equipment. Under no cirucumstances shall required parking facilities accessory to residential structures be used for the storage of commercial vehicles or equipment or for the parking of automobiles belonging to the employees, owners, tenants, or customers of business or manufacturing establishments. Maple Grove: Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential uses shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles; no more than one (1) truck not to exceed gross capacity of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds; and recreational vehicles and equipment. Under no circumstances shall required parking facilities accessory to residential structures be used for the storage of commercial vehicles or equipment or for the parking of automobiles belonging to the employees, owners, tenants, or customers of business or manufacturing establishments. The common trend seen in all of these communities is that certain types of commercial vehicles are prohibited from parking in residential areas. Some communities permit such parking, provided that it is contained within a garage. Only six of these communities (including Mound) mention recreational vehicles and allow them to be exempt from this provision. Weight restrictions and the terminology used to describe weight limits varies from community to community. Truck Parking Memorandum February 4, 1994 Page 4 Because the weight terms vary, a definition has been provided to determine the extent to which Mound compares to these other communities. Each of the terms used by the communities to describe weight restrictions have been given general definitions since the standards for these regulations are not specified and could have many meanings. Capacity - The carrying capacity of the vehicle, only the load, not the vehicle weight. Gross Capacity - The vehicle and load weight. Rated Capacity - Either registered or manufactured weight of the vehicle and the load weight. Mound, Prior Lake, St. Louis Park and Bloomington use the term "capacity" to regulate truck weight. However, according to the definition of capacity above, this is only the load capacity, not the entire gross weight of the vehicle and its load. Thus, it is impossible to compare Mound's current weight limit with the other communities that use a total gross weight. However, comparisons can be made with the three communities that use the same weight term as Mound ("capacity"). Of these three communities, St. Louis Park allows trucks not over 1.5 ton capacity; while Prior Lake, Bloomington and Mound allow trucks not over 1- ton capacity. All three communities, except Mound, allow inside storage of certain trucks in residential areas. State classifications for truck weight indicate Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) as the current terminology used to determine truck weight. This is the maximum amount of weight of a vehicle including both the truck and its load. Terms such as capacity, gross capacity and rated capacity are not used to determine truck weight at the state level. When the term GVW is used, the specifications (either manufacturers, registered, or actual) must be used to clarify by whose rating system the GVW has been determined. Although these terms need to be clarified, the basic definition of GVW remains as the total weight of the vehicle and the load. GVW - Gross Vehicle Weight - The actual physical weight of the vehicle and load. GVWR - Gross Vehicle Weight Rating - The manufacturer's rating system which includes the total weight of the vehicle plus the load. Registered GVW - Registered Gross Vehicle Weight - The registered GVW of your vehicle plus the load, which is administered during the licensing of the vehicle. This weight includes the vehicle plus the load. Truck Parking Memorandum February 4, 1994 Page 5 In conclusion, the City Council has determined there is a need to look at the current Code regarding truck parking in residential areas for several reasons. Mound's provisions currently restrict commercial vehicles from parking in residential areas at any time. The City Council would like to consider whether it is appropriate to allow some commercially licensed vehicles and some vehicles used for business purposes to be parked or stored in residential areas. Can this be done without having a negative impact on safety, value and appearance within the residential areas? Other communities have allowed certain commercial vehicles in residential areas if they are parked in garages. The inconsistent weight limit definitions do not allow accurate comparisons of Mound's weight restrictions to all of the communities used as examples in this report. One approach to consider would be to standardize Mound's weight limit to that of the State's standards (GVW) and specify which standards would be used (state registration, manufacturers or actual). This may help clarify and allow for better enforcement of weight restrictions in the future. However, standardizing the weight definition would mean modifying the current weight restrictions. These new weight restrictions could be defined by determining which commercial vehicles and vehicles used for business would not cause safety, value and appearance problems if stored and parked in residential areas. · · · · · · · · · · · I I C C ~- · · · · · · · MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 1994 1.14 DISCUSSION: SECTION 350:760, SUBD. 4 - TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS The City Planner reported that this is a discussion item requested by the Council and no action can be taken this evening. The Council asked Staff to look at Section 350:760, SUBD. 4 of the City Code and compare Mound's standard to those commonly used in other communities. The Planner explained that Zoning Ordinances are an attempt to segregate residential, commercial and industrial uses. Parking in most residential zoning districts is limited to automobiles, pickup trucks and recreational vehicles. Most types of trucks which are commonly associated with commercial and industrial uses are excluded from residential areas. Section 350:760, Subd. 4, reads as follows: "No motor vehicle over one (1) ton capacity bearing a commercial license and no commercially licensed trailer shall be parked or stored in a platted residential district or a public street except when loading, unloading, or rendering a service. Recreation vehicles and pickups are not restricted by the terms of this provision.' The Planner speculated that this was put in the code because of Mound's smaller lots and short front yard setbacks (20' in many areas). Allowing commercial vehicles could, in some instances, cause a safety problem; an appearance issue; and could have a value impact on properties. He gave a random sampling of restrictions used in the following communities: Prior Lake, Falcon Heights, Shakopee, Hopkins, Wayzata, and Maple Grove. He stated that some of the restrictions vary, but virtually all of them prohibit commercially licensed vehicles in residential areas. He stated that the weight of those vehicles and some of the terms that they use in describing the load of the vehicles does vary. He stated that weight and loads need to be looked at closely so that you are comparing apples to apples. The Council discussed the fact that Mound's weight restriction limitation (1 ton) is on the Iow end of the communities sampled. They discussed disruption of residential areas with certain commercial vehicles; cottage industries; parking commercial vehicles in garages; the number of warning tickets issued for this violation, etc. The Council asked that this (Section 350:760, Subd. 4) be referred to the Planning Commission for them to look at it as it is and asking for their input on ways to allow certain people who use such vehicles to park or store them, with clarification on those terms, in residential areas. Also the Council would like to have input from neighbors who would be affected by the change in the ordinance. The Mayor commented that one sentence in the report states, "The weight of allowed vehicles varies from one ton to 12,000 pounds." He stated that really isn't true, because the weight of a one ton pickup truck certainly exceeds 2,000 pounds, but it has to do with load capacity. Ali the sample ordinances use different terminologies ie. rated capacity, gross vehicle weight, etc. This needs to be clarified and understood. All the comparisons with other city's ordinances need to be apples to apples. The Council also suggested that the Planning Commission keep in mind how large motor homes have gotten. The Mayor pointed out that some of the commercial vehicles look better than some motor homes that are parked next to homes. The Council is looking for a way to allow some commercially licensed vehicles and some vehicles used for business purposes to be parked or stored in residential areas, which is currently prohibited by our ordinance. Is there a way to do this without having a negative impact on safety, value and appearances within residential areas? The City Manager stated that apparently the people who did get warnings have moved their vehicles elsewhere. The Planner stated this item could be on a Planning Commission Agenda within the next 30 days. The Council asked that this item be back to the Council by the second meeting in April. Tim Miller, 3149 Inverness Road stated he would be willing to contact some other owners of commercial vehicles and give input to the Planning Commission. The Council thought this was a good idea. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE MODIFICATION OF SECTION 300:10 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE TO ADD PROVISIONS REQUIRING THE COMPLETION OF STRUCTURES WITHIN A ONE YEAR PERIOD OF TIME NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 12, 1994 to consider the modification of Section 300:10 of the Mound City Code to add provisions requiring the completion of structures within a specified period of time. The following section is proposed 3 be added to the Code: Subd. 5. Time Limits on Building Completion. All work to be performed pursuant to a building permit obtained for new construction, repairs, remodeling, and alterations to the exteriors of any building or structure in any zoning district shall be completed within one (1) year from the date of permit issuance. The person obtaining the permit and the owner of the property shall be responsible for completion. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor offense. The City Council may extend the time for completion upon written request of the permittee, establishing to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Council that circumstances beyond the control of the permittee prevented completion of the work for which the permit was granted. The extension shall be requested not less than thirty (30) business days prior to the end of the one-year period. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk (To be published in 'The Laker' June 27, 1994) MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 9, 1994 3. pROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: TIME LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETIONS. ~I)BLIC HEARING. The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the proposed modification to Section 300:10 of the Mound City Code to add provisions requiring the completion of structures within a specified period of time, as follows: Subd. 5. ~'ime Limits on Buildin¢~ Comoletior~. All work to be performed pursuant to a building permit obtained for new construction, repairs, remodeling, and alterations to the exteriors of any building or structure in any zoning district shall be completed within one (1) year from the date of permit issuance. The person obtaining the permit and the owner of the property shall be responsible for completion. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor offense. The City Council may extend the time for completion upon written request of the permittee, establishing to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Council that circumstances beyond the control of the permittee prevented completion of the work for which the permit was granted. The extension shall be requested not less than thirty (30) business days prior to the end of the one- year period. Chair Michael opened the public hearing. There being no comments from citizens present, Chair Michael closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add provisions requiring the completion of structures within a one year pedod of time. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC.HEARING TO CONSIDER THE MODIFICATION OF SECTION 300.10 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE TO ADD PROVISIONS REQUIRING THE COMPLETION OF STRUCTURES WITHIN A ONE YEAR PERIOD OF TIME NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, May 9, 1994 to consider the modification of Section 300:10 of the Mound City Code add provisions requiring the completion of structures within a specified period of time. The following section is proposed to be added to the Code: Subd. 5 Time.Limits..on B. uildin~l Completio.n. All work to be performed pursuant to a building permit obtained for new construction, repairs, remodeling, and alterations to the exteriors of any building or structure in any zoning district shall be completed within one (1) year from the date of permit issuance. The person obtaining the permit and the owner of the property shall be responsible for completion. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor offense. The City Council may extend the time for completion upon written request of the permittee, establishing to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Council that circumstances beyond the control of the permittee prevented completion of the work for which the permit was granted. The extension shall be requested not less than thirty (30) business days prior to the end of the one-year period. Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk (published in "The Laker" 4-25-94) MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 12, 1994 GOMPLETIONS The Planner stated that the Planning Commission is proposing the following for the proposed ordinance amendment for time limitz on building completions: 'All ~xterior work required to be performed pursuant to a building permit obtained for new construction, repairs, remodeling, and alterations to-the-erde~lo~ of any building or structure in any district shall be completed within one (1) year from the date of permit issuance. The person obtaining the permit and the owner of the property shall be responsible for this completion. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor offense.' The Council agreed that this would cover what was asked. It was agreed that this amendment is to deal with beginning exterior work and not completing it within one year causing neighbors to have to look at unsightly buildings longer than one year. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on this May 9, 1994. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Planning Commission FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: February 4, 1994 SUBJECT: Time Limits on Building Completions The City Council recently directed staff to investigate the feasibility of restricting the amount of time allowed for building completion. This issue was raised because there have been a number of instances where building construction has been started but takes a number of years to complete. This can have negative impacts on the aesthetics of neighborhood properties and neighboring areas. Other communities facing this issue have enacted ordinance provisions placing limits on the time allowed for building construction. Similar provisions may be applicable to Mound since the City Council feels this issue needs to be examined further and has asked for the Planning Commission's input and recommendation. In order to determine if Mound's provision regulating building completion is consistent with other communities, a survey (conducted by White Bear Lake) on this issue was analyzed. This survey looked at several communities ordinance provisions regarding time limits on building completion. The survey indicated that communities generally approach this issue in one of three ways: 1) Ordinance provisions are enacted controlling the time allowed for completion of the exterior of a building 2) Ordinance provisions require total building completion within specified time limits, or 3) Communities employ the UBC provisions which allow construction to continue indefinitely provided that the work is not abandoned for a continuous period exceeding 180 days. The following is the summary of all the communities surveyed and how they compare to one another. Cottage Grove, Edina, Maplewood, Minneapolis, and St. Louis Park: Require the exterior finish of one and two family dwellings and their accessory buildings to be completed within a specified amount of time. These periods of time ranged from 160 days to one year after permit issuance. Cottage Grove also applies the requirement to non-residential buildings. Oakdale: Requires one and two family dwellings to be totally complete (interior and exterior) within one year and their accessory buildings within six months. 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 Land Use/Environmental · Planning/Design · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax:(612)835-3160 Building Completion Memorandum February 7, 1994 Page 2 Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Richfield, Shoreview, West St. Paul, and White Bear Lake: Enforce the Uniform Building Code provisions which allow construction to continue indefinitely provided the work is not abandoned for a continuous period exceeding 180 days. Mound currently handles building completion by employing the UBC provisions which allow construction to continue indefinitely provided the work is not abandoned for a continuous period exceeding 180 days. However, this provision is difficult to enforce because the exterior of the building would have to be in very bad shape before concern would be raised, and then the hazardous building ordinance would be enforced. The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission draft provisions regulating the completion of buildings. Issues that need to be considered include: 1) Should such an ordinance apply only to the exterior finish of a building or should it regulate total completion? 2) Should such provisions apply to all types of structures including residential, commercial and industrial buildings as well as accessory structures? 3) How much time should be allowed for building completion? Based on comments offered during the City Council discussion, the Council is generally leaning toward regulating exterior completions only, applying such provisions to residential structures only, and allowing a one year completion time. Does the Planning Commission concur with this direction? I I L, MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 11~ 1994 1.15 I I N' ~TIME LIMI N B DIN MPLETI N The Planner stated this item also can be discussed and should be referred back to the Planning Commission for their review. He explained that there are a variety of ways to approach this: 1. Ordinance provisions enacted controlling the time allowed for completion of the exterior of a building; 2. Ordinance provisions requiting total building completion within specified time limits; and 3. UBC provisions which allow construction to continue indefinitely provided that the work is not abandoned for a continuous period exceeding 180 days. presently Mound uses the UBC provisions. He suggested that the following be the Planning Commission: He stated that considered by 1. Should such an ordinance apply only to the exterior finish of a building or should it regulate total completion? 2. Should such provisions apply to all types of structures including residential, commercial and industrial buildings as well as accessory structures? 3. How much time should be allows for building completion? The Building Official stated that his experience with problems in other communities has been with residential only, and he feels that 1 year is enough time to get an exterior completed. He stated that Oakdale has a provision allowing the person to appeal to the City Council if they disagree with the Building Official. The Building Official explained that presently using the UBC provisions of 180 days, it is very difficult to enforce because the exterior of the building would have to be in very bad shape and then the hazardous building ordinance would come into play. He stated that the exterior is the thing he is most concerned about because it affects the neighbors. The Council agreed that the exterior of residential is the most important. This item was referred to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendations. July 12, 1994 RESOLUTION NO. 94- RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING LEONARD KOPP TO THE MOUND HRA - TERM TO EXPIRE 8-29-99 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby reappoint Leonard Kopp to the Mound Housing & Redevelopment Authority for a five year term to expire August 29, 1999. i I, MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 27, 1994 INTERVIEWS FOR NEW COMMISSIONER; A. EDWARD SURKO. 2314 CHATEAU LANF Mueller confirmed that 'Ed' is preferred, and questioned if Mr. Surko would not be more suited for the Economic Development Commission, considering his experience. Ed explained that he has had more experience in that area, and has had little 'planning' experience, however, he is interested in learning more about planning, and would like to help in some way. He has the time to devote to the Commission. He has worked in construction on oil rigs. When asked where he sees the City in twenty years, he stated that he has only lived in Mound since April 15, 1994, however he sees potential for redevelopment in Mound to attract possibly some tourism. Based on his experience, he has seen City's deteriorate, and has seen what he does not want to happen to Mound. He has not been involved in any other volunteer organizations, political or otherwise. He has coached children's basketball and baseball. He has no future plans for elective office. What does he see as problems in Mound? He sees Mound as a mixed community, in terms of economics. He sees problems with businesses, but he also sees a lot of potential for Mound. Mound needs to attract businesses into the City, then the rest will follow. He sees future development for the lost lake area to include a boardwalk type atmosphere for merchants and tourist to merge with the community with dockage and store fronts. He has no conflict with meeting times. B. CKLAIR HASSE. 6627 BARTLETT BLVD. Mr. Hasse was a City Council member for one year in 1974, and also served on the Park Commission and Planning Commission for an undetermined number of years until his job interfered with his schedule to attend the night meetings. In the last twenty years, he feels the lost lake area should have been completed since a lot of money has been spent on plans. He has resided in Mound since 1949, and he has stayed here because he likes the lake and the people. He is a charter member of the Jr. Chamber. He would like to see the lost lake area remain in a natural state, not developed into a park or anything, just remain natural. He is in favor of housing maintenance, however, he feels the rental ordinance should be split between multiple dwellings and single family rental dwellings. He has a rental dwelling and does not feel he should be responsible to keep the sidewalks shoveled free of snow and ice. He has no conflict with meeting times. DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSION ON INTERVlEW~; Chair Weiland noted that the secretary has received a ballot from Geoff Michael who was unable to be present this evening. The Commission determined the ballot should not be entered into the vote. The difference between the two applicants was noted to be great. There was considerable discussion about the good qualifications of both applicants. The ballots were submitted to the secretary to be tallied. The applicant with the least amount of points wins the vote. Ed Surko 1,1,2,1,2,1 = 8 Cklair Hasse 2,2,1,2,1,2 = 10 MOTI~)N made by Voss seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend Edward Surko be appointed to the Planning Commission to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Brian Johnson, with the term expiring December 31, 1994. Motion carried 5 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Mueller, ross, Jansen, and Hanus. Weiland was opposed. The City Council will review this recommendation on July 12, 1994. Edward Shukle, Jr. City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RECEIVED JUN ?. Edward W. Surko 2314 Chateau Lane Mound, MN 55364 Tel.: 472-7045 June 1,1994 Dear Edward: I was very pleased to see the article concerning a planning commission vacancy in the May 30th Laker. I would like to apply for that position having recently moved into Mound and being ve,~' interested in involving myself in the community. This particular position is one in which I have experience. Although it was a few years ago, I served with the New York City Planning Commission while in college. I worked with them in re-developing the Manhattan theater district and attempting to attract more tourist traffic. I also assisted in work having to do with waterfront property development on the North Shore of Long Island. I am particularly interested in helping to economically and aesthetically develop Mound. I have read some of your plans and they are very exciting. I believe that my background can provide real value to you. I am a Political Science graduate with an MBA in finance. As I mentioned above, I have worked with the NYC Planning Commission, the New York City Metropolitan Museum of Art and for the past 14 years in the banking industry. My assignments in banking include both domestic and overseas assignments and I am currently employed with First Bank. I have lived in Minnesota for over three years and am a father of two. Although I have traveled much in the past, I have settled and wish to call Mound my home. I very much would like to contribute to its growth and continued vitality. I have included my resume for your review and look forward to meeting with you shortly. Edward W. Surko EXPERIENCE 1991-Present FIRST BANK SYSTEM, Minneapolis, MN Vice Presldent, Retail Product Group 1993-Present Responsibilities include creating the organizational design and system support structure for all retail and commercial revolving and non-revolving credit products. · Defined organizational processes and system requirements necessary to support all revolving and non-revolving credit products in order to reduce product development time, improve speed of response to customers, and reduce operations and system support costs. · Identified software solution necessary to satisfy those requirements. Vice President & Business Manager, Agent Services 1991-1992 Responsibilities included total accountability for the Agent Services Business which provides retail payment product services to financial institutions and has over $110 million in assets under management. · Consolidated First Bank System Agent Services business into Rocky Mountain Bank Card Inc., which will yield a $2.3 million cost savings during 1993. Reduced attrition rates by over 20% through focusing on retention programs and converting accounts to variable rate pricing. Grew Agent Services distribution units over 100% via acquisitions and new sales initiatives. Preserved asset levels and sales volumes of portfolios during a period of significant economic decline. 1990-1991 CORESTATES BANK OF DELAWARE, Wilmington, DE Vice President and Manager, Corporate/Business/Procurement Card Products Responsible for the development of Sn'ategic Plan for CoreStates' new credit card products. Implemented Phase I of Strategic Plan. Edward W. Surko Page 2 CORESTATES BANK OF DELAWARE (cont.) · Developed product and system specifications to support commercial and agent bank credit card businesses. · Identified internal and external distribution channels and created and implemented cross selling strategies for credit card products. 1987-1990 CHEMICAL BANK, New York, NY Manager, Business Card Products · Developed and implemented the strategic plan for commercial revolving and non-revolving credit products. · Identified appropriate systems support solutions for credit card products. · Selected third party processor for retail and commercial credit card products. · Member of MasterCard's BusinessCard Advisory Committee which determined product development and marketing initiatives for the association members. 1980-1987 CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, New York, NY Financial Controller Managed the financial reporting and evaluation of various business segments, including retail, commercial, corporate, and mast services. · Integrated accounting system of newly acquired banks located in Spain and the Netherlands into the Chase Manhattan Corporation. · Developed and managed new accounts payable system which processed approximately $10 million in annual payments and resulted in increased control and operating efficiencies and reduced operating expenses. · Managed divestiture of Merchant Services business to achieve significant cost savings. 1978-1980 METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART, New York, NY Securities Lending Manager Managed the museum's securities' lending operation as well as all National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) grants used for financing special exhibitions for the public. EDUCATION M.B.A., Long Island University, New York B.A., Political Science, St. John's University, New York JUN 2 0 199 June 17, 1994 City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Sirs: I would like to apply for the opening on the planning commission. I have resided in the Mound area for 47 years. I was on the planning & park commission for ten years and on the Mound council one year. A member of the Mohawk Jaycees for 12 years. I was in the construction business for 45 years and have now retired. I feel with my previous experience on the planning & park commission and my knowledge of the construction business I am qualified for this position. Sincerely, Cklair Hasse 6627 Bartlett Blvd Mound, MN 55364 Phone 472-1938 RESOLUTION NO. 94- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR 1994 (YEAR XX) URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of MOUND has executed a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County for the purpose of participating in the 1994 (Year XX) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County is the recipient of an annual grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposes of the program, and the City is a subrecipient under the program and receives a share of the grant; and WHEREAS, program regulations require that the City and County execute a Subrecipient Agreement which sets forth the specific implementation processes for activities to be undertaken with program funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the MOUND City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and the City Council to execute the Subrecipient Agreement on behalf of the City. July 12, 1994 Mayor Date ATTEST: City Clerk RecTcled Paper DATE: June 30, 1994 TO: FROM: Urban Hennepin County Participating Communities Barbara Hayden, Planning Supervisor, Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development SUBJECT: 1994 (Yr. XX) CDBG Subrecipient and Third Party Agreements Accompanying is the 1994 CDBG Subrecipient Agreement. A Third Party Agreement(s) is also enclosed for communities with project(s) that will be implemented by an entity other than the city. To reduce paper and streamline the process, master agreements for the Subrecipient Agreement and Third Party Agreement are being utilized this year. This is intended to eliminate the cumbersome process of executing and returning multiple copies of each Agreement. The Agreements are essentially the same as the 1993 Agreements. To create the master Agreement, only minor changes to the first two pages and the signature page were required. There are now separate signature pages for the city and the County. Similar changes were made to the Third Party Agreement. Please follow the steps identified below to execute these Agreements. Executed signature Daqes should be returned by Auqus; SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT 1) Council resolution (enclosed) authorizing execution of Agreements 2) Execute page 12, Subrecipient Execution Indicate city organization City Clerk attests to signatures Stamp with city seal. 3) Keep a copy of the executed Subrecipient Execution page 4) Return signed Subrecipient Execution page by August 15. Do not return the Subrecipient ,4Ereement. 5) County will execute master Agreement with signature page from each community attached. 6 City will receive copy of executed County (Recipient Execute page. This should be attached to the city copy of the Agreement. THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT Agreement will be executed by the city first. 1) Execute page 9 - City Execution Keep original of the executed page 2) Return copy of the City Execution page by August 15. Note: If the agreement is with another public agency (HRA or EDA) the Agreement must also be executed by the agency. Return an executed copy of each signature page. 3) County will submit Agreement with signed City Execution page/s to the Third Party for execution. 4) City will receive a copy of the signed Provider Execution page. This should be attached to city copy of the Third Party Agreement. If you have questions about the Agreements or execution process please call Mark Hendrickson at 541-7084. Enclosures: Subrecipient Agreement Third Party Agreement Sample Resolution SUBRECIPIENT EXECUTION Subrecipient, having signed this Agreement, and the Subrecipient's governing body having duly approved this Agreement on Ju[y 12 , 1994, and pursuant to such approval and the proper city official having signed this Agreement, Subrecipient agrees to be bound by the provisions of this Agreement. CITY OF By: MOUND ItsMayor And: Its Acting City Manager Date: July 12, 1994 CITY MUST CHECK ONE: The City is organized pursuant to: _ Plan A X Plan B ... Charter 12 CITY EXECUTION The City of MOUND having duly approved this Agreement on .J~, 1994, and pursuant to such approval and the proper city officials having signed this Agreement, the city agrees to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Upon proper execution, this Agreement will be legally valid and binding. Dated: July 12,_, 1994 CITY OF MOUND STATE OF MINNESOTA By Its Mayor And Its Acting City Manager 9 SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA, hereinafter referred to as "RECIPIENT," A-2400 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, and the cities executing this Master Agreement, each hereinafter respectively referred to as "SUBRECIPIENT," said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59: WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Recipient has received a $3,688,000 Federal Fiscal Year 1994 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement allocation under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, to carry out various community develop- ment activities in cooperation with Subrecipient, according to the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 570; and WHEREAS, Federal Fiscal Year 1994 CDBG funds and any resulting program income have been approved by Recipient for use by Subrecipient for the implementation of eligible and fundable community development activity/les as included in and a part of the 1994 Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and as set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Subrecipient agrees to assume certain responsibilities for the implementation of the approved activities described in Exhibit 1, said responsibilities being specified in part in the Joint Cooperation Agreement effective October 1, 1993, executed between Recipient and Subrecipient on June 20, 1993 and in the 1994 Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program and the Certifications contained therein. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereunto do hereby agree as follows: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES The Subrecipient shall expend all or any part of its CDBG allocation only on those activities identified in Exhibit 1, subject to the requirements of this Agreement and the stipulations and requirements set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement. The Subrecipient shall take all necessary actions, not only to comply with the stipulations as set out in Exhibit 1, but to comply with any requests by the Recipient in that connection; it being understood that the Recipient is responsible to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for ensuring compliance with such requirements. The Subrecipient also will promptly notify the Recipient of any changes in the scope or character of the activity/les which it is implementing. 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT The effective date of this Agreement is July 1, 1994. The termination date of this Agreement is December 31, 1995, or at such time as the activity/les constituting part of this Agreement are satisfactorily completed prior thereto. Upon expiration, the Subrecipient shall relinquish to the Recipient all program funds unexpended or uncommitted and all accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds for the activities described in Exhibit 1, as may be amended. THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS, The Subrecipient may subcontract this Agreement and/or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, only with the prior consent of the Recipient and only through a written Third Party Agreement acceptable to the Recipient. The Subrecipient shall not otherwise assign, transfer, or pledge this Agreement and/or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior consent of the Recipient. AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT Any material alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when reduced to writing as an Amendment to this Agreement signed, approved and properly executed by the authorized representatives of the parties. An exception to this process will be in amending Exhibit 1 to this Agreement. Exhibit 1, shall be deemed amended to conform to any amendments to the Final Statement of Community Development Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, as such amendments occur. Any amendments to the Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, which constitute substantial changes, must be accompanied by documentation that a local public hearing was conducted and by an authorizing resolution. Amendments which do not constitute substantial changes may be handled administratively. Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development staff may approve administrative amendments provided they are eligible, fundable and satisfy the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives. Substantial change is defined as a change in (1) beneficiary; (2) project location; (3) purpose; or (4) scope,' (more than a 50% increase or decrease in the original budget or $10,000, whichever is greater), in any authorized activity. The total budget of multi- community activities will be used in determining substantial change. 2 o pAYMENT OF CDBG FUNDS The Recipient agrees to provide the Subrecipient with CDBG funds not to exceed the Hennepin County authorized budget to enable the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG- eligible activity/les as described in Exhibit 1. It is understood that the Recipient shall be held accountable to HUD for the lawful expenditure of CDBG funds under this Agreement. The Recipient shall therefore make no payment of CDBG funds to the Subrecipient and draw no funds from HUD/U.S. Treasury on behalf of a Subrecipient activity/ies, prior to having received a proper Hennepin County Warrant Request form from the Subrecipient for the expenses incurred, as well as copies of all documents and records needed to ensure that the Subrecipient has complied with the appropriate regulations and requirements. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCF The Subrecipient does hereby agree Jo release, indemnify, and hold harmless the Recipient from and against all costs, expenses, claims, suits or judgments arising from or growing out of any injuries, loss or damage sustained by any person or corporation, including employees of Subrecipient and property of Subrecipient, which are caused by or sustained in connection with the tasks carried out by the Subrecipient under this Agreement. Bo The Subrecipient does further agree that in order to protect itself as well as the Recipient under the indemnity agreement provisions hereinabove set forth it will at all times during the term of this Agreement and any renewal thereof, have and keep in force: a single limit or combined limit or excess umbrella commercial and general liability insurance policy of an amount of not less than $1 million for property damage arising from one occurrence, $1 million for damages arising from death and/or total bodily injuries arising from one occurrence, and $1 million for total personal injuries arising from one occurrence. Such policy shall also include contractual liability coverage protecting the Recipient, its officers, agents and employees by a certificate acknowledging this Agreement between the Subrecipient and the Recipient. The Subrecipient's liability, however, shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466. .CONFLICT OF INTEREST Ao In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and services by the Subrecipient, the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR 85.36 and OMB Circular A-110 shall apply. B. In all other cases, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.611 shall apply. 3 e 10. DATA PRIVACY_ The Subrecipient agrees to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations relating to data privacy or confidentiality, and as any of the same may be amended. The Subrecipient agrees to defend and hold the Recipient, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any claims resulting from the Subrecipient's unlawful disclosure and/or use of such protected data. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION. A. If the Subrecipient materially fails to comply with any term of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of this Agreement, this shall constitute noncompliance and a default. Unless the Subrecipient's default is excused by the Recipient, the Recipient may take one or more of the actions prescribed in 24 CFR 85.43, including the option of immediately cancelling this Agreement in its entirety. B. The Recipient's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. C. This Agreement may be cancelled with or without cause by either party upon thirty (30) days' written notice according to the provisions in 24 CFR 85.44. D. CDBG funds allocated to the Subrecipient under this Agreement may not be obligated or expended by the Subrecipient following such date of termination. Any funds allocated to the Subrecipient under this Agreement which remain unobligated or unspent following such date of termination shall automatically revert to the Recipient. REVERSION OF ASSETS Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, the Subrecipient shall transfer to the Recipient any CDBG funds on hand or in the accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including CDBG funds provided to the Subrecipient in the form of a loan. Any real property under the control of the Subrecipient that was acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000 shall either be: A. Used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208 and not used for the general conduct of government until: (1) (2) Or, For units of general local government, five years from the date that the unit of general local government is no longer considered by HUD to be a part of Urban Hennepin County; or For any other Subrecipient, five years after expiration of this Agreement. 4 Not used in accordance with A. above, in which event the Subrecipient shall pay to the Recipient an amount equal to the current market value of the property less any portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. The payment is program income to the Recipient. No payment is required after the period of time specified in A. above. 11. PROCUREMENT The Subrecipient shall be responsible for procurement of all supplies, equipment, services, and construction necessary for implementation of its activity/ies. Procurement shall be carried out in accordance with the "Common Rule" Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR 85 and all provisions of the CDBG Regulations in 24 CFR 570 (the most restrictive of which will take precedence). The Subrecipient shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, all advertisements, negotiations, notices, and documents; enter into all contracts; and conduct all meetings, conferences, and interviews as necessary to ensure compliance with the above described procurement requirements. The Recipient shall provide advice and staff assistance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG-funded activity/ies. 12. ACQUISITION, RELOCATION, AND DISPLACEMENT Bo The Subrecipient shall be responsible for carrying out all acquisitions of real property necessary for implementation of the activity/les. The Subrecipient shall conduct all such acquisitions in its name, or in the name of any of its public, governmental, nonprofit agencies as authorized by its governing body, which shall hold title to all real property purchased. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for preparation of all notices, appraisals, and documentation required in conducting acquisition under the latest applicable regulations of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and of the CDBG Program. The Subrecipient shall also be responsible for providing all relocation notices, counseling, and services required by said regulations. The Recipient shall provide advice and staff assistance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG-funded activity/les. The Subrecipient shall comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as required under 24 CFR 570.606(a) and HUD implementing regulations at 24 CFR 42; the requirements in 24 CFR 570.606(b) governing the residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (the Act); the relocation requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing displacement subject to section 104(k) of the Act; and the requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(d) governing optional relocation assistance under section 105(a)(11) of the Act. 5 13. 14. 15. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW_ The Recipient shall determine the level of environmental review required under 24 CFR Part 58 and maintain the environmental review record on all activities. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for providing necessary information, relevant documents, and public notices to the Recipient to accomplish this task. LABOR STANOARDS, EMPLOYMENT, AND CONTRACTING. The Recipient shall be responsible for the preparation of all requests for HUD for wage rate determinations on-CDBG activities undertaken by the Subrecipient. The Subrecipient shall notify the Recipient prior to initiating any activity, including advertising for contractual services which will include costs likely to be subject to the provisions on Federal Labor Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity and related implementing regulations. The Recipient will provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient to ensure compliance with these requirements. PROGRAM INCOME If the Subrecipient generated any program income as a result of the expenditure of CDBG funds, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.504 shall apply, as well as the following specific stipulations:- - A. The Subrecipient will notify the Recipient of any program income within ten (10) days of the date such program income is generated. When program income is generated by an activity only partially assisted with CDBG funds, the income shall be prorated to reflect the percentage of CDBG funds used. B. That any such program income must be paid to the Recipient by the Subrecipient as soon as practicable after such program income is generated unless the Subrecipient is permitted to retain program income. C. Recipient will retain ten percent (10%) of all program income paid to Recipient to defray administration expenses. The remaining ninety percent (90%) of the program income paid to the Recipient shall be credited to the grant authority of Subrecipient whose project generated the program income and shall be used for fundable and eligible CDBG activities consistent with this Agreement. D. The Subrecipient further recognizes that the Recipient has the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of any such program income. The responsibility for appropriate recordkeeping by the Subrecipient and reporting to the Recipient by the Subrecipient on the use of such program income is hereby recognized by the Subrecipient. The Recipient agrees to provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient in establishing an appropriate and proper recordkeeping and reporting system, as required by HUD. 6 That in the event of close-out or change in status of the Subrecipient, any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the close-out or change in status shall be paid to Recipient as soon as practicable after the income is received. The Recipient agrees to notify the Subrecipient, should close-out or change in status of the Subrecipient occur. 16. USE OF REAL PROPERTY The following standards shall apply to real property under the control of the Subrecipient that was acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds: Ae The Subrecipient shall inform the Recipient at least thirty (30) days prior to any modification or change in the use of the real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvements including disposition. The Subrecipient will comply with the requirements of 24 CFR 570.505 to provide affected citizens the opportunity to comment on any proposed change and to consult with affected citizens. The Subrecipient shall reimburse the Recipient in an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non- CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or -transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations. Said reimbursement shall be provided to the Recipient at the time of sale or transfer of the property referenced herein. Such reimbursement shall not be required if the conditions of 24 CFR 570.503(b)(8)(i) are met and satisfied. Fair market value shall be established by a current written appraisal by a qualified appraiser. The Recipient will have the option of requiring a second appraisal after review of the initial appr.aisal. Co Any program income generated from the disposition or transfer of real property prior to or subsequent to the close-out, change of status or termination of the Joint Cooperation Agreement between the Recipient and the Subrecipient shall be repaid to the Recipient at the time of disposition or transfer of the property. 17. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS The uniform administrative requirements delineated in 24 CFR 570.502 and any and all administrative requirements or guidelines promulgated by the Recipient shall apply to all activities undertaken by the Subrecipient provided for in this Agreement and to any program income generated therefrom. 18. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY During the performance of this Agreement, the Subrecipient agrees to the following: In accordance with the Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the County Commissioners' Policies Against Discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, 7 19. 20. 21. 22. sex, disability, marital status, affectional/sexual preference, public assistance status, ex-offender status, or national origin; and no person who is protected by applicable federal or state laws against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. The Subrecipient will furnish all information and reports required to comply with the provisions of 24 CFR Part 570 and all applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to discrimination and equal opportunity. NON-DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DISABILITY A. The Subrecipient shall comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, to ensure that no otherwise qualified individual with a handicap, as defined in Section 504, shall, solely by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination by the Subrecipient receiving assistance from the Recipient under Section 106 and/or Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. B. When and where applicable, the Subrecipient shall comply with, and make best efforts to have its third party providers comply with, Public Law 101-336 Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Title I "Employment," Title II "Public Services" - Subtitle A, and Title III "Public Accommodations and Services Operated By Private Entities" and all ensuing federal regulations implementing said Act. LEAD-BASED PAINT. The Subrecipient shall comply with the Lead-Based Paint notification, i.nspection, testing and abatement procedures established in 24 CFR 570.608. FAIR HOUSING The Subrecipient shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funds for activity/ies subject to this Agreement should it not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or impede action taken by Recipient to comply with the fair housing certification. LOBBYING A. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the Subrecipient, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal Grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. 8 If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement Subrecipient will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. 23. USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES Subrecipient has adopted and is enforcing a policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and a policy of enforcing applicable state and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction. 24. OTHER CDBG POLICIES The Subrecipient shall comply with the applicable section of 24 CFR 570.200, particularly sections (b) ISpecial Policies Governing Facilities); (c) (Special Assessments); (f) (Means of Carrying Out Eligible Activities); and (j) (Constitutional prohibitions Concerning Church/State Activities). 25. TECHNICAL ASSlSTANCF The Recipient agrees to provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient in the form of oral and/or written guidance and on-site assistance regarding CDBG procedures and project management. This assistance will be provided as requested by the Subrecipient, and at other times at the initiative of the Recipient when new or updated information concerning the CDBG Program is received by the Recipient and deemed necessary to be provided to the Subrecipient. 26. _RECORDKEEPING The Subrecipient shall maintain records of the receipt and expenditure of all CDBG funds, such records to be maintained in accordance with OMB Circulars A-87 and the "Common Rule" Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR 85 and in accordance with OMB Circular A-110 and A-122, as applicable. All records shall be made available upon request of the Recipient for inspection/s and audit/s by the Recipient or its representatives. If a financial audit/s determines that the Subrecipient has improperly expended CDBG funds, resulting in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) disallowing such expenditures, the Recipient reserves the right to recover from the Subrecipient such disallowed expenditures from non-CDBG sources. Audit procedures are specified below in Section 22 of this Agreement. 9 27. ACCESS TO RECORDS 28. The Recipient shall have authority to review any and all procedures and all materials, notices, documents, etc., prepared by the Subrecipient in implementation of this Agreement, and the Subrecipient agrees to provide all information required by any person authorized by the Recipient to request such information from the Subrecipient for the purpose of reviewing the same. AUDIT The Subrecipient agrees to provide Recipient with an annual audit consistent with the Single Audit Act of 1984, (U.S. Public Law 98-502) and the implementing requirements of OMB Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments, and, as applicable, OMB Circular A-110, Uniform Requirements for Grants to Universities, Hospitals and Non-Profit Organizations. A. The audit is to be provided to Recipient on July 1 of each year this Agreement is in effect and any findings of noncompliance affecting the use of CDBG funds shall be satisfied by Subrecipient within six (6) months of the provision date. B. The audit is not required, however, in those instances where less than $25,000 in assistance is received from all Federal sources in any one fiscal year. C. The cost of the audit is not reimbursable from CDBG funds. D. The Recipient reserves the right to recover from the Subrecipient's non-CDBG funds any CDBG expenses which are disallowed by an audit. 10 .RECIPIENT EXECUTION The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on , 1994, and pursuant to such approval and the proper County officials having signed this Agreement, the Recipient agrees to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. APPROVED AS TO FORM LEGALITY AND EXECUTION Assistant County Attorney Date: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA By: Chairman of its County Board Attest: Deputy/Clerk of the County Board 11 SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM EXHIBIT I The Subrecipient, as identified below, will be provided with Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant fund in the not-to-exceed amount indicated to assist Subrecipient in funding the activity/les in the amount and under the stipulations individually specified in the Project Description/Projected Use of Funds attached here to: Subrecipient 1994 CDBG Funds Brooklyn Center 261,194 Brooklyn Park 534,981 Champlin 78,830 Chanhassen 48,544 Corcoran 22,998 Crystal 147,424 Dayton 20,847 Deephaven 13,711 Eden Prairie 186,897 Edina 197,821 Excelsior 16,595 Golden Valley 113,269 Greenfield 7,281 Greenwood 3,075 Hanover 3,557 Hassan 11,460 Hopkins 160,940 Independence 15,359 Long Lake 10,939 Loretto 3,894 Maple Grove 153,277 Maple Plain 10,474 Medicine Lake 875 Medina 14,002 Minnetonka 181,015 Minnetonka Beach 1,802 Minnetrista 20,208 Mound 69,861 New Hope 176,799 Orono 23,131 Osseo 25,306 Richfield 267,533 Robbinsdale 91,246 Rockford 19,972 Rogers 4,204 Shorewood 17,403 Spring Park 12,088 St. Anthony' 21,403 St. Bonifacius 8,002 St. Louis Park 302,187 Tonka Bay 7,736 Wayzata 29,444 Woodland 1,613 PROJECT DESCRIPTION URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBO STATEMENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS YEAR XX/1994 COOPERATING UNIT ACTIVITY : See Below : Rehabilitation of Private Property LOCATION ADDRESS : Citywide CENSUS TRACT: : 4. NUMBER : See Below 5. ACCOUNT NUMBER : 59890 6. BUDGET/SOURCES 10. : $569,581 $569.581 /FY 1993 CDBG /Program Income /TOTAL 7. ELIGIBILITY CITATION : 570.202 (a)(1) 8. NATIONAL OBJECTIVE CITATION: [ ] L/M Area Benefit 570.208(a)(1) IX] L/M Limited Clientele 570.208(a)(2) [ ] L/M Housing 570.208(a)(3) [ ] Job Creation or Retention 570.208(a)(4) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: [ ] S/B Area 570.208(b)(1) [ ] S/B Spot 570.208(b)(2) [ ] P/A Exempt [ ] Exempt (EX) [ ] Categorically Excluded (CE) IX] Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE/EX) [ ] Assessment Required (AR) DESCRIPTION: Provide grants to eligible low/moderate income homeowners for improvements to their homes consistent with the Urban Hennepin County Procedural Guides for Housing Rehabilitation. This multi-year activity is funded to the extent indicated for the following cooperating units. The program is operated by Hennepin County. $157,194 90,000 30,213 45,000 3,000 468 91 719 11 009 10 000 6 474 9 073 28 991 30 000 32 996 10000 13.444 ~ooperat{ng Uni~ Activity Brooklyn Center 004 Brooklyn Park 011 Champltn 021 Crystal 026 Dayton 033 Deephaven 035 Golden Valley 051 Independence 067 Maple Grove 076 Maple Plain 080 Mtnnetrista 093 Mound 098 New Hope 107 Robblnsdale 125 St. Anthony 138 Wayzata 155 Total $569,581 11. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this agreement. Supplemental Agreement Type: [ ] Non-Profit Agency [ ] Public Agency [ ] Other An agreement must be executed between subreciptent and any other agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipient. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified herein. [Xl [] ~chedul~ Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December 31, 1995. Labor Standards/Equal Employment Opportunity Ail construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part with federal funds shall Comply with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act. Ail federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order 12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part 60. ix] Procuremen~ Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate. - Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. . Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when the purchase/s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting construction bids. Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed-price or ix] [] cost-reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically used for procuring professional services. Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 In connection with the planning and implementation of any project assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible, opportunities for training and employment be given to iow and moderate income persons residing within the unit of local government or the metropolitan area in which the project is located, and that contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the same metropolitan area as the project. Contracts for work may include, but are not limited to, contracts for supply of goods and/or services. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property AcqutstttoB The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistanc~ Ail occupied and vacant occupiable low-moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced low-moderate income household in accordance with the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti- displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606. Property Management The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement. ..Land Disposition Agreement This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period. Other Requirements: The standards described in the Urban Hennepin County Housing Rehab Deferred Payment Loan Program Procedural Guide shall apply to this activity. ?KA~ XX/199~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG STATEMENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS yEAR XX/1994 1. COOPERATING UNIT 2. ACTIVITY : See Below : Public Service - Westonka Intervention LOCATION ADDRESS : Citywfde CENSUS TRACT : 4. NUMBER : See Below 5. ACCOUNT NUMBER : 59970 6. BUDGET/SOURCES : $11,500 $~1,5oo /FY1994 CDBG ../Program Income ./TOTAL 7~ ELIGIBILITY CITATION : 570.201(e) NATIONAL OBJECTIVE CITATION: [ ] L/M Area Benefit 570.205(a)(1) [X] L/M Limited Clientele 570.208(a)(2) [ ] L/M Housing 570.208(a)(3) [ ] Job Creation or Retention 570.208(a)(4) 9. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: 10. [ ] S/B Area 570.208(b)(1) [ ] S/B Spot 570.208(b)(2) [ ] P/A Exempt IX] Exempt (EX) [ ] Categorically Excluded (CE) [ ] Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE/EX) [ ] Assessment Required (AR) DESCRIPTION : Finance office supports costs for Westonka Intervention, Inc., a community based organization which acts to prevent family violence through intervention. This multi-year activity is funded from the planning allocations of the following cooperating units to the extent indicated: Cooperating Uni~ Activity Budget O95 $ 1,800 Minnetrista 101 5,700 Mound 111 1,500 Orono 1,500 Spring Park 134 St. Bonifacius 140 1.000 Total $11,500 11. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this agreement. [X] Supplemental Agreement Type: [X] Non-Profit Agency [ ] Public Agency [ ] Other Westonka Intervention Project, Inc, An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipient. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified herein. [X] Schedule Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December 31, 1995. [ ] Labor Standards/Equal Emplo~vment Opportunity Ail construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act. All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order 12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part 60. [ ] Procurement Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate. Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when the purchase/s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting construction bids. Competitive Proposals. %~is method is normally used when more than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed-price or cost-reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically used for procuring professional services. Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 196~ In connection with the planning and implementation of any project assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible, opportunities for training and employment be given to low and moderate income persons residing within the unit of local government or the metropolitan area in which the project is located, and that contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the same metropolitan area as the project. Contracts for work may include, but are not limited to, contracts for supply of goods and/or services. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitto~ The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement .of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistanc~ Ail occupied and vacant occupiable low-moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced low-moderate income household in accordance with the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti- displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606. Property Managemen~ The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement. Land Disposition Agreement This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period. Other Requirements: yF..AR X~1199A PROJECT DESCRIPTION URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG STATEffENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS YEAR XX/1994 1. COOPERATING UNIT : See Below 2. ACTIVITY LOCATION ADDRESS CENSUS TRACT Public Service - Westonka Community Action Network/Operations : Citywide : 4. NUMBER : See Below 5. ACCOUNT : 59970 6. BUDGET/SOURCES : 10. o $17,050 /FY1994 CDBG -0- /Program Income $37,050 /TOTAL ELIGIBILITY CITATION : 570.201(e) NATIONAL OBJECTIVE CITATION: [ ] L/M Area Benefit 570.208(a)(1) IX] L/M Limited Clientele 570.208(a)(2) [ ] L/M Housing 570.208(a)(3) [ ] Job Creation or Retention 570.208(a)(4) [ ] S/B Area 570.208(b)(1) [ ] S/B Spot 570.208(b)(2) [ ] P/A Exempt 9. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: [X] Exempt (EX) [ ] Categorically Excluded (CE) [ ] Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE/EX) [ ] Assessment Required (AR) DESCRIPTION : Assist WECAN social service referral office serving low- and moderate-income households within the Westonka area. Project funds will be used for rental of office space, payment of telephone bills, and salary support of a full-time program director and part time assistant. This multi-year activity is funded to the extent indicated below by the following cooperating units: ~ooperattng Unit Activity # Budget Greenfield 056 $ 400 Independence 066 1,400 Maple Plain 081 2,000 Minnetrista 096 1,000 Mound 099 8,000 Orono 110 1,500 Rockford 129 250 Spring Park 135 1,000 St. Bonifacius 141 1,000 Tonka Bay 152 _ 500 Total $17,050 11. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this agreement. IX] S~Supplemental Agreement~ Type: IX] Non-Profit Agency _West°nka Community Action Network [ ] Public Agency [ ] Other An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrectpient. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified herein. Ix] Schedule Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December 31, 1995. Labor Standards/Equal Employment Opportunity Ail construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or ~pa~ with federal fUnds ~halI c6mPlY with the provisions of the Davis- Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act. Ail federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order 12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part 60. Procurement Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally assisted programs. Ail procurement shall be made by one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate. - Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. . Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when the purchase/s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting construction bids. Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed-price or cost-reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically used for procuring professional services. [ ] ~ection 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 196~ In connection with the planning and implementation of any project assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible, opportunities for training and employment be given to low and moderate income persons residing within the unit of local government or the metropolitan area in which the project is located, and that contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the same metropolitan area as the project. Contracts for work may include, but are not limited to, contracts for supply of goods and/or services. [ ] ~niform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitto,! The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. [ ] ~esidential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance Ail occupied and vacant occupiable low-moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced low-moderate income household in accordance with the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti-displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606. [ ] ~roperty Management The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement. [ ] ~and Disposition Agreement This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period. [ ] Other Requirements: Y~ XX/199& PROJECT DESCRIPTION URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG STATEMENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS YEAR XX/1994 1. COOPERATING UNIT 2. ACTIVITY : See Below : Public Service - Senior Community Services/ Senior Center Operations LOCATION ADDRESS : Citywide CENSUS TRACT : 4. NlJMBER : See Below 5. ACCOUNT : 59970 6. BUDGET/SOURCES : $~4,706 ./FY1994 CDBG -0- ./Program Income $94,706 ./TOTAL 7. ELIGIBILITY CITATION : 570.201(e) NATIONAL OBJECTIVE CITATION: [ ] L/M Area Benefit 570.208(a)(1) IX] L/M Limited Clientele 570.208(a)(2) [ ] L/M Housing 570.208(a)(3) [ ] Job Creation or Retention 570.208(a)(4) 9. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: Cooperating Uni~ [ ] S/B Area 570.208(b)(1) [ ] S/B Spot 570.208(b)(2) [ ] P/A Exempt 10. [ ] Exempt (EX) [ ] Categorically Excluded (CE) [X] Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE/EX) [ ] Assessment Required (AR) DESCRIPTION : Funds will be used for the salary of the center coordinators, program staff and transportation service for the period between July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995. The project will allow for the continuation of the center operations and outreach services. Senior Community Services, a local non-profit organization, has a contract with the municipally owned senior centers for the staffing and program administration. This multi-year activity is funded from the following cooperating units to the extent indicated: Southshore Center 301 County Road 19, Excelsior, MN 023 $ 5,000 Chanhassen 036 13,243 Deephaven 050 8,669 Excelsior 3 075 Greenwood 057 ' 132 10,625 Shorewood 151 3,609 Tonka Bay $~4,221 Subtotal Westonka Center - 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound, MN Minnetrista 094 Mound 100 Spring Park 133 Subtotal Tamarack Senior Center - 133 South Brown Road, Long Lake, MN Long Lake 069 Wayzata 153 Subtotal Delano Center - 205 Bridge Avenue East, Delano0 MN $ 6,335 24,670 5,896 $36,901 $4,160 3,000 $7,160 Greenfield 055 $1,200 Independence 065 2,950 Loretto 072 524 Maple Plain 082 1,000 Rockford 128 ~50 Subtotal TOTAL $94,706 11. GENERAL KEQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an ~XH are applicable to this activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this agreement. iX] Supplemental Agreemen~ Type: iX] Non-Profit Agency Senior Community Services [ ] Public Agency [ ] Other An agreement must be executed between subreciptent and any other agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipient. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in Subrectptent Agreement and such other requirements as are identified herein. Schedule Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December 31, 1995. Labor Standards/Equal Employment Opportunity Ail construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act. Ail federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order 12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part 60. Procurement Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate. - Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. . Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when the purchase/s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting construction bids. Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed-price or cost-reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method typically used for procuring professional services. ~ectton 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 In connection with the planning and implementation of any project assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible, opportunities for training and employment be given to low and moderate income persons residing within the unit of local government or the metropolitan area in which the project is located, and that contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the same metropolitan area as the project. Contracts for work may include, but are not limited to, contracts for supply of goods and/or services. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisttio,., The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistanc~ Ail occupied and vacant occupiable low-moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced low-moderate income household in accordance with the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti- displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606. .property Management The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement. ~and Disposition Agreemen~ This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecfptent community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period. Other Requirements: YEAR XX/199& PROJECT DESCRIPTION URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG STATEMENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS YEAa XX/1994 1. COOPERATING UNIT : 2. ACTIVITY : 3. LOCATION A~DRESS : CENSUS TRACT: : 4. NUMBER 5. ACCOUNT NUMBER 6. BUDGET/SOURCES o 10. See Below Public Service - CASH: HOME Line Program Community Action for Suburban Hennepin Citywide : See Below : 59970 : ~_7_~__/FY 1994 CDBG -0- /Program Income 319,700 ../TOTAL ELIGIBILITY CITATION : 570.201(e) NATIONAL OBJECTIVE CITATION: [ ] L/M Area Benefit 570.208(a)(1) IX] L/M Limited Clientele 570.208(a)(2) [ ] L/M Housing 570.208(a)(3) [ ] Job Creation or Retention 570.208(a)(4) 9. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: [ ] S/B Area 570.208(b)(1) [ ] S/B Spot 570.208(b)(2) [ ] P/A Exempt IX] Exempt (EX) [ ] Categorically Excluded (CE) [ ] Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE/EX) [ ] Assessment Required (AR) DESCRIPTION : Funds will be applied toward the operating costs of the HOME Line Program. This program is operated by CASH (Community Action for Suburban Hennepin). The HOME Line Program provides the following three services to County residents: a Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention Program, Tenant Advocacy Hotline and Tenant Organizing. This service has not previously been provided by or in behalf of these cities. Cooperattn~ Unit Activity ~udge~ Champltn 015 $1,500 039 3,000 Eden Prairie 043 2,000 Edtna 079 1,500 Maple Grove 090 2,500 Mtnnetonka 102 2,500 Mound 1,700 Robbinsdale 124 St. Louis Park 147 5,00Q Total $19,700 11. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this agreement. IX] Supplemental Agreement Type: IX] Non-Profit Agency Community Action for Suburban Hennepi~ [ ] Public Agency [ ] Other An agreement must be executed between subrectpient and any other agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipient. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified herein. IX] Schedule Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December 31, 1995. [ ] Labor Standards/Equal Employment Opportunity Ail construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis- Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act. Ail federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order 12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part 60. IX] Procurement Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally assisted programs. Ail procurement shall be made by one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate. Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when the purchase/s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting construction bids. Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed-price or cost-reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically used for procuring professional services. [X] Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 In connection with the planning and implementation of any project assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible, opportunities for training and employment be given to iow and moderate income persons residing within the unit of local government or the metropolitan area in which the project is located, and that contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the same metropolitan area as the project. Contracts for work may include, but are not limited to, contracts for supply of goods and/or services. [ ] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acqutsitto~ The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. [ ] Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance Ail occupied and vacant occupiable low-moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced low-moderate income household in accordance with the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti-displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606. [ ] Property Management The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement. [ ] Land Disposition Agreement This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period. [ ] Other Requirements: SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION QUASI PUBLIC FUNCTION- PORTABLE SIGN City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 FAX: 472-0620 Portable signs used for the purpose of directing the public used in conjunction with a governmental unit or quasi-public functions. The period of use shall not exceed ten (10) consecutive days and requires approval of the City Council. Signs shall be placed on the premises of the advertised event. A permit is required, however is exempt from all fees. 1111' _ PHONE. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS.. ,?, ~ ~ 5- ~-----~~_v'~ '~v~0 ADDRESS OF SIGN LOCATION ~ /._~ 4;~.~-~) ~<~ (If more than one, please list on separate sheet of paper) Number of signs: TYPE OF SIGN: / banner ~temporary SIZE OF SIGN REQUESTED: ~ DATES OF USE: FROM..'~ ///~/~ TO _ DESCRIBE REASON FOR REQUEST: ~{ ~ wall mount permanent ft high x ~ree standing ftwide = -~ sqft _ DESCRIBE SIGN (message, materials, is it illuminated, etc.): ApPl,cant;s Signa.t.ure._- (") Date ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON: $25.00 Annual Fee Original Renewal CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 APPROVED TREE REMOVAL AND TREATMENT LICENSE STREET '~ .... ~ITY - '~ STATE --'- Z~ IS '£HE FIPd~ A CORi~)RATION: PARTNERSHIP:__ PRIVATE OWNER:~u__ IF CORPORATION: NAME, BUSINESS ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBERS OF OFFICERS: _-'7</,,~ ~,,~,, ,, c ,"'/¢~ /-/;11 ~t. (Na~e~' ' ' 7 (Address) - (Telephone #) (Name) (Address) (Telephone #) (Name) (Address) (Telephone #) (If more space is needed, use back of application.) ~NAGER OR S~,~ERVISOR NAME: ,~x,,-m C . ADDRESS: ~ PHONE #: EMP__LOYEES .NAME .ADD .RES___~S pHON~_~ LIABILITY INSURANCR CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE MUST ACCOMPANY APPLICATION 15 DAY CANCELLATION CLAUSE THE CITY BE AN ADDITIONAL PARTY INSURED CANCELLED INSURANCE AUTOMATICALLY SUSPENDS IS REPLACED LICENSE '~.'~-~ ~5_- NAME OF AGENT: x-.c m u, UNTIL INSURANCE SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE Serving the Communities of.' Carver County Scott County McLeod County Excelsior Greenwood Tonka Bay Shorewood Chaska Chanhassen Shakopee Mound St. Bonifacius Minnetrista Prior Lake June 20, 1994 To: Task Force Committee Members Re: Cash Match Letters and Resolutions It is once again that time of year to start preparing for the upcoming grant. If I could ask each of you to get your letters of intent for participation and cash match back to me no later than Ju].y 15th, 1994. I need these letters so I can meet 'the ODP deadline Resolutions cash come at a later date as long as it. is before the end of August. I haw~ a%tached a copy of last years letters and resolutions to this me~o. Thanks in advance. Sgt. John J. Wolf July 12, 1994 RESOLUTION NO. 94- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, authorizes entering into a cooperative agreement with the Office of the Drug Policy in the Minnesota Department of Public Safety for the project entitled, "Southwest Metro Drug Task Force" during the period from January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. is hereby authorized the execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the Mound Police Department. BILLS ......... July 12, 1994 BATCH BATCH 4063 4064 TOTAL $154,832.64 63,738.53 $218,571.17 U IIIIIIIII 0 I I 0,. .,0 0,. ~o I Ir o o o o 0 o 0 oo 0 0 I o 0 I o --I u Z ~ 0 '0 ~ ~0 ,(0,. 0 J Z 0 Z 0 ~D I ZZ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 O0 000 O0 I ti I U I II I Z Q~ uJ Z I Z UJ,~ 0 oo o o ! o o I o ° ~ ° III III I1~1 Z 0 Z 0 .r 0 >- Z ,,mo ZZ 0 Z UJ o ~'~ >" I~v'~ ,r O, 0 0 %./ '~ L9 tn I Z 0 I I I I I IIIII 0 Z uJ o oo o .-4 o o ! 0 ! ,-4 0 Z 0 O0 3::3: Z Z ~,.~ ,..I .J _,l ,-4 0 oO o I o o o ~J ~.~ Z 0 ~ I ZZ ujr~' 00000000 IIIIIII, 0000000 IIIIIII, 0 o 0 O0 0 0 ! ,.*4 0 oo o ! o 0 ! o 0 .! 000000000~ 0000~000 ~~00~ IIl.lilli .J UJ .J · t-- Z 0 2=: n I ,# I .-4 o o o ~ o O~ 0 o o o 0 ~,~o oo 0---¢ I ,I .I ,-4 ~J ..J ,< Z ':3: ::::) 0 '-! Z UJ '::) Z 0 0 : %/~ ,,r ,--* ,<u,. 0.. >.. L.~ ,,.J ~./I,,,- ~ ::3 0 UJL.~ #'~0 ~.91 ZZ <,", uJ I I I o oo 0 O0 o oo Z ,0 oo ,,< :::) I ]: C~ -J 0 OO ! o~ : ? PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94- TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE ADDITION 3110 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 58, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION, PID #19-117-2334 0081 P&Z CASE #94-48 WHEREAS, the owners, John and Joleen Price, have applied for a variance to recognize the following nonconforming setbacks to allow construction of a garage addition, entryway addition, driveway, and deck: REQU RED Side, South 6 Lake 50 EXISTING/PROPOSED 3.7' (to house) 2.3' 41.0' +- (to deck) 9.0' VARIANCE 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 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, topography on this site is the greatest difficulty to overcome in order to provide for a garage. The garage as proposed represents a positive improvement, is reasonabte, and hardcover and setbacks are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the proposed deck does exceed the 10 foot setback requirement to the top of the bluff, and; WHEREAS, the house does not meet the 50 foot setback, it is setback approximately 49 feet, and; WHEREAS, an 8 foot deck is minimal in size and deck expansion to the north side is prohibited due to the location of the sewer line, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval with conditions, and with the finding that it is a reasonable use to allow the proposed 8 foot deck as it is minimal in size, and the location of the sewer line prohibits expansion to the north. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a variance to allow a setback of 41' from the ordinary high water to the deck, and to recognize an existing nonconforming side yard setback of 3.7 feet to allow construction of a conforming garage addition 22' x 24', and entryway addition 6' x 30', a driveway, and a deck 8' x 36' (approx.), subject to the following: Proposed Resolution #94-48 - Price Page 2 The survey be updated to show the sewer and water line locations. B. Drainage on the property be acceptable to staff. 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 a garage addition 22' x 24', and entryway addition 6' x 30', a driveway, and a deck 8' x 36' (approx.), subject to the following: This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 58 in Phelps' Island Park First Division, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for said County of Hennepin; That certain premises bounded as follows: Bounded on the Westerly side by the Easterly or front boundary line of Lot 58 in Phelp's Island Park First Division; on the Easterly side by the Iow water line of Lake Minnetonka; on the Northerly side by the Northerly line of said Lot 58 extended on a straight line to the said lot water mark of said Lake Minnetonka; on the Southerly side by the Southerly line of Lot 58 extended in a straight line to the said Iow water line or said Lake Minnetonka, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for said County at Hennepin. 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. I ,I I I i, ,,,, · ', MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE ~~'~ MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1994 CASE #94-48: -OHN & JOLEEN PRICE 3110 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE LOT 58 PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION PID #19-117-23 34 0081. VARIANCE GARAGE ADDITION. The applicant is seeking several variances for a new garage, entryway, driveway and deck. This property is located in the R-lA Zone which requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, 40' of street frontage. Following are the setbacks and requested variances: REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED VARIANCE_ Front 20 87 +- Okay Side North 6 20 +- Okay Side South 6 3.7 2.3' Lake 50 41' +- 9' Bluff 10' 10' + Okay The topography on this site is the greatest difficulty to overcome in order to provide for a garage. The applicant has spent a considerable amount of time and effort in developing this plan. The garage as proposed represents a positive improvement, is reasonable, and hardcover and setbacks are conforming. Just prior to the meeting, staff received a revised survey which indicates that the deck does exceed the 10 foot setback requirement to the top of the bluff. The location of the sewer and water still needs to be located. It appears possible to re-orient the deck to the north side to a conforming location. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the garage as proposed. The proposed deck will need further discussion at the Planning Commission meeting when additional information is expected. The applicant, John Price, confirmed with the surveyor that there are no utility easements on his property. Also, according to Greg Skinner, Sewer and Water Superintendent, the water is located on the street side, and the sewer line extends from the north side of the house and hooks up to the line on Lot 57. Therefore, the deck, as proposed, does not interfere with the utility locations. Mueller expressed a concern that an 8 foot deck will not provide enough space for a table and chairs. Mr. Price noted that their original plan included a 12 foot deck, however, it has been scaled back after discussions with City staff. Staff confirmed that the house does not currently meet the 50 foot setback, that it has been scaled to be 49 feet. Other possible locations for the deck was discussed. The applicant noted that the deck cannot be larger on the north side due to a door on the lower level and the location of the sewer line. Planning Commission Minutes #94-48 - Price July 14, 1994 The Building Official stated that an 8 foot deck is minimal in size and in light of the sewer line location would recommend approval of the deck as proposed, however, the sewer line location must be reviewed by Public Works and the City Engineer. Mueller questioned if there are any concerns relating to drainage. The applicant commented that the driVeway has been cut back 8 feet in width from the original plan, that some type of rock terracing will be installed along the driveway to help slow the drainage, and he is considering the installation of a grate at the bottom of the driveway. Mueller expounded that the intent of the hardcover ordinance is to slow water runoff into the lake by allowing it to first filter through the ground. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff, subject to the following: 1. The survey be updated to show the sewer and water line locations. 2. Drainage on the property be acceptable to staff. The Planning Commission finds there is reasonable use to allow the proposed 8 foot deck as it is minimal in size, and the location of the sewer line prohibits expansion to the north. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Staff informed the applicant that this request is scheduled to appear before the City Council on July 26, 1994. The applicant requested that it be heard by the City Council on July 13, 1994. J ! II I J, ,11 IA, ,11,, CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO: LOCATION: ZONING' BACKGROUND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OF JULY 11, 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION, APPLICANT AND STAFF JON SUTHERLAND, BUILDING OFFICIAL ~J~l~x~"~ VARIANCES FOR GARAGE AND DECK JOHN AND JOLEEN PRICE 94-48 3110 ISLANDVIEW DRIVE, LOT 58, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION, PID #19-117-23 34 0081 R1A The applicant is seeking several variances as listed below,' for the existing and proposed development on this site. A new garage, entryway, driveway and deck is proposed. This property is located in the R1A Zone which requires a lot area of 6000 square feet, 40' of frontage and the following setbacks: REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED VARIANCE Front 20 87 +- Okay Side North 6 20 +- Okay Side South 6 3.7 2.3' Lake 50 41' +- 9' Bluff 10' Verify Verify The topography on this site is the greatest difficulty to overcome in order to provide for a garage. The applicant has spent a considerable amount of time and effort in developing this plan. The garage as proposed represents a positive improvement and is reasonable, hardcover and setbacks are conforming. Additional information is pr n~ed on recycled paper PLANNING REPORT - PRICE - PAGE 2 needed to evaluate the proposed deck. This site contains a bluff and this plus the 10' setback must be identified on the survey. In addition, the utilities must be located on the lakeside in order to evaluate setbacks and prevent encroachment into this easement. It appears possible to re-orient the deck to the north side to a conforming location. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the garage as proposed. Staff will respond to the proposed deck at the Planning Commission meeting or as soon as the additional information is provided. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner ~ Public Works City Engineer " DNR Other Application Fee: $50.00 Please type or print the foflowing information: Address of Subject Prope~y 3110 Islandview Drive, Mound, Lot 5.3 Phelps Island Park 1st Division Use of ProperS: John & Joleen Price Addition 55364 Zoning District Owner's Name Owner's Address Block PID No. 19-117-23 340081 Homestead 3110 Islandview Drive, Mound, .~N 55364 Day Phone (John) (Jolee' 347-4831 or 475-410. Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure fdr this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. ff yes, list date(s) of application,, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1979 - To build parkinz area which was qranted. The current plan is to remove that parkin~ area and tie wall. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): 0'~' ~/- To add a ~araoe measuring. 22' x 24', an entry way 6' x 30', a driveway and a deck to existin,~ house (see blue print for details). ~ ,m Il I, Ii ,11 !1 I,, Variance Application (l 1/93) Page 2 No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No 1~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) ~oO~ Deck Front Yard: ( N~.S.,E W ) Side Yard: (~ W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lakeside: ( N S/~W ) L~Ees;Je. (N~,V ) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: · ~o'ft.4q '+/-" ft. I ' +/- ft. ~r,, ft.ii,z.~.~ ft. ~, rt. 4D/ ft.ft. I ,'7t' ft. .:34tL, sqft 341~, sqft ol< sqft 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 each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow Please describe:(,,~!O (J_~-~ ) topography )?drainage ~shape )oil xisting situation ther: specify Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. o 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 O0. ff yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No t~j. If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No,['O. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signatu Applicant's Signa{tm'e~ Date Date '~'~-* ~NCHOR SClENTIFI ~ 001 :5 CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALOULATIONS NAME: ADDRE,8$: EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA 5'" HOUSE: GARAGE: 8Q FT X 30% = '.¢4./6".. SQ FT X 15%. = /~ LENGTH ' WIDTH ~ . 3 X _ .,~o , 4 = ~. 3 X _ /7. / = /o7.7 ~.7 X ..~,~ = .~, / TOTAL HOUSE ******************* 24. o X _ Z~. ~ = ~7Z ,¢',~,,,o~-r,, (?'Z~ X · TOTAL'GARAGE *'~"~'% *'* * * * * · ·, ~,,,, DRIVEWAY: · ."TOTALDRJVEWAY **************.*** DECK: ~:~,o X " (if imperv-tous ~ /,6',D X ~' ~,~ = 6~, o surface under ,. - ~ - deck = 100~) OTHER: ",TOTALDECK .***,**..****. **** z q 7, z ,' ,. . ~;-~., /TOTAL' '" '"'""' ....... ' ' ' ' · ';~'.' :':'.,. · . ..... ' ;~, X _ = Ex'/Ir/,~¢. 87~.¢ TOTAL OTHER ******************* TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* UNDER (OVER) *****************************,. .- ..:.;, ,.., .'%. , · , MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS.'* * * * * * * * * * * * * * · .,,,. ..' ,' ( 3 ',' / g) 5;: L .., · .!~.. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ...... :: :.,::::::::: :::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::: ::~.: ....... ~..:...~..~. · :: ...... ::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ,.o.o .... . ......... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: . : -0 ;..* . ~ : .... ::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: )i~ ]1t NHOP :~0~ 30N30153~ 7'7 ~3 ?/'?0 Ji ,J J I, ~, ,il I i,, I.~.ADDRESS: ~ · J- t~ '1~ ZONE: J lU~UUZ~J~D _ ~ J ZXZSTZN= ___ J ~ired ~t Width: WII . ~ (frontage on an ~prov~ ~blic ~treet} SETBACKS REQUIRED~ FRONT z N S SlDgz N S W R~E:~d~ ~ N W ~SHO~: . 50' f~asur~d ~om 9,~.W.) E~ISTIN6 ~/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIPAL BUILDING FRONT, N S g W FRONT ~ N S J W J SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' SIDEz N S E W 4' or 6' REAR: N S E W ~AKESHOI~; $0' Imeasur~d from O.N.W. J FRONT: N $ · W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N $ · W SIDI~ N S · W REARz N S · W BY, ~ CONFORMI Ni2 ? YES D."~..i,~;L/.f,.,,~/._..~ I ' ""' NO CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 July 8, 1994 To: From: Subject: Ed Shukle Greg Skinner Public Works June Activity Report Street Department We have completed repairs of water main breaks. We are now working on crack sealing for sealcoating that will begin at the end of July. We have also repaired, replaced signs, removed and dug out storm sewer ditches. We have haul out about 250 yard of fill from the stockpile. Water Department The meter project is coming along. At this time they have installed about 700 meters. The water tower project should be completed by the end of July. Sewer Department Damon and Scott have been working on the lift station project and have been filling in for the street department. JJ Il ! J, ,11 Ii, I,, LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle Len Harrell Monthly Report for June 1994 STATISTICS The police department responded to 1,179 calls for service during the month of June. There were 53 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included' 2 burglaries, 3 aggravated assaults, 44 larcenies, 3 vehicle thefts, and 1 arson. There were 86 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 8 child abuse/neglect, 3 forgery/NSF checks, 1 weapon, 3 narcotic, 12 damage to property, 2 liquor law violations, 13 DUI's, 1 simple assault, 9 domestics (6 with assault), 4 harassments, 7 juvenile status offenses and 23 other offenses. The patrol division issued 121 adult citations and 1 juvenile citation. Parking violations accounted for an additional 31 tickets. Warnings were issued to 67 individuals for a variety of violations. There were 3 adults and 6 juveniles arrested for felonies. There were 43 adults and 3 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were an additional 7 warrant arrests. The department assisted in 15 vehicular accidents, 5 with injuries. There were 28 medical emergencies and 130 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 13 occasions in June and requested assistance 11 times. There were 162 zoning ordinance issues reported. Property valued at $36,342 was stolen and $11,708 was recovered in June. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - JUNE 1994 II. INVESTIGATION The investigators worked on $ child protection issues and one criminal sexual conduct accounting for 42 hours of investigative time. The department has investigated 27 child protection matters and 6 criminal sexual conduct cases in the first 6 months of 1994. Other cases in June involved burglary, assault, theft, damage to property, NSF checks, auto theft, indecent exposure, harassment, hit and run accident, DWI, and absenting. Formal complaints were issued for theft, assault, procuring alcohol for minors, and violation of restraining order. III. Personnel/Staffing Sgt. Hudson remains out on sick time. Officer Ewald underwent surgery in June and will be out for up to three months. Officers earned 96 1/2 hours of overtime and 70 hours of comp-time. Officers used 78 hours of comp-time, 123 hours of sick-time, 118 hours of vacation, and 4 holidays. IV. Training Officer Christenson attended a week long course in June to become a Crime Prevention Specialist. Sgt. McKinley has begun taking courses in Emergency Preparedness as'a back up. Ve Reserves The Reserves donated 414 hours during the month of June. OFFENSES REPORTED CLEARED UNFOUNDED JUNE EXCEPT. CLEARED 1994 CLEARED BY ARREST ARRESTED ADULT JUVENILE PART I CRIMES Homicide 0 0 0 0 Criminal Sexual Conduct 0 0 0 0 Robbery 0 0 0 0 Aggravated Assault 3 0 0 1 Burglary 2 0 0 0 Larceny 44 0 2 4 Vehicle Theft 3 0 0 1 Arson 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 2 0 0 TOTAL 53 0 2 6 3 PART Il CRIMES Child Abuse/Neglect 8 1 2 3 3 Forgery/NSF Checks 3 0 1 0 0 Criminal Damage to Property 12 0 1 1 0 Weapons 1 0 0 0 0 Narcotics 3 0 0 3 3 Liquor Laws 2 0 0 2 3 DWI 13 0 0 13 13 Simple Assault 1 0 0 1 2 Domestic Assault 6 1 2 4 5 Domestic (No Assault) 3 0 0 0 0 Harassment 4 0 0 0 0 Juvenile Status Offenses 7 0 6 1 0 Public Peace 0 0 0 0 0 Trespassing 1 0 0 0 0 Att Other Offenses 22 0 1 13 14 · 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 TOTAL 86 2 13 41 43 PART III & PART IV Property Damage Accidents 10 Personal Injury Accidents 5 Fatal Accidents 0 Medicats 28 Animal Complaints 130 Mutual Aid 13 Other Generat Investigations 839 TOTAL 1,025 Her~nepin County Child Protection 4 Inspections 11 TOTAL 1,179 2 15 47 ~6 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT JUNE 1994 GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY THIS MONTH Hazardous Citations 57 Non-Hazardous Citations 39 Hazardous Warnings 11 Non-Hazardous Warnings 28 Verbal Warnings 59 Parking Citations 31 DWI 13 Over .10 11 Property Damage Accidents 10 Personal Injury Accidents 5 Fatal Accidents 0 Adult Felony Arrests 3 Adult Misdemeanor Arrests 50 Juvenile Felony Arrests 6 Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests 3 Part I Offenses 53 Part II Offenses 86 Medicals 28 Animmal Complaints 130 Ordinance Violations 162 Other Public Contacts 839 YEAR TO DATE 359 261 114 211 408 194 46 38 60 20 0 16 189 29 33 157 343 147 577 287 5,092 LAST YEAR TO DATE 284 284 77 8O 769 177 39 29 44 10 0 20 118 24 38 148 323 194 410 4,406 TOTAL 1,624 Assists 53 Follow-Ups 29 Henn. County Child Protection 4 Mutual Aid Given 13 Mutual Aid Requested 11 8,581 295 295 29 70 42 7,474 204 155 28 56 7 CITATIONS DWI More than .10% BAC Careless/Reckless Driving Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding No DL or Expired DL Restriction on DL Improper, Expired, or No Plates Stop Arm Violation Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield Equipment Violations H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance Illegal or Unsafe Turn Over the Centerline Parking Violations Crosswalk Dog Ordinances Code Enforcement Seat Belt MV/ATV Miscellaneous Tags TOTAL MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT JUNE 1994 ADULT 13 11 5 5 2 44 2 0 6 0 2 0 3 0 21 0 1 31 0 2 0 2 0 152 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' I MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT JUNE 1994 WARNINGS No Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL WARRANT ARRESTS Felony Warrants Misdemeanor Warrants ADULT 1 11 12 0 10 19 0 0 0 11 64 0 7 JUV 1 1 1 0 o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~11 J J ! Il, ,il !1 Run: 1-Jut-94 10:19 PRO03 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 1 Primary lSN's only: No D ' ~eported range: 05/26/94 - 06/25/94 ,ctivity codes: Property Status: Property Types: ALt Property Oescs: ALt Brands: Att Mode[s: ALL Officers/Badges: AL[ Enfors Property Report STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED Prop Prop lnc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd StoLen Tp Desc SN Stat StoLen VaLue Date Recov'd Quantity Act Brand Model Off-1 Off-2 RecovWd Vatue Code Assnd Assnd 4 94001008 01 01 S 6/04/94 15.000 A 94001131 01 01 R 6/19/94 11,000 A 96001168 01 01 S 6/26/94 2,500 B 94000980 01 01 R 5/31/94 300 B BICYCL 94000949 01 01 S 5/27/94 100 B BICYCL 94000984 01 01 R 6/01/94 200 8 BICYCL 94001033 01 01 S 6/08/94 300 B BICYCL 96001095 01 01 S 6/14/96 117 B BICYCL 96001101 01 01 S 6/16/94 392 B BICYCL 94001103 01 01 6/16/94 25 B BICYCL 94001112 01 01 R 6/17/94 150 S BICYCL 94001135 01 01 S 6/19/94 150 E 94000983 01 01 S 6/01/94 10 94001032 01 01 S 6/08/96 16 E 94001063 01 01 R 6/10/94 1 J 94001119 01 03 S 6/18/94 300 J 94001132 01 01 S 6/19/94 1,200 R 94000969 01 01 S 5/30/94 400 R 94001126 01 01 S 6/18/94 200 R 94001174 01 01 S 6/23/94 100 S 94000965 01 01 S 5/30/94 450 S 94000969 01 02 S 5/30/94 1,000 S 94001039 01 02 S 6/09/94 150 S 94001075 01 01 R 6/13/94 5 S 94001118 01 01 R 6/17/94 33 S 94001144 01 01 S 6/20/94 150 S 94001157 01 02 S 6/22/94 100 S 94001182 01 01 S 6/24/94 400 T 94001072 01 01 R 6/13/94 3 T 94001076 01 02 S 6/13/94 15 T 94001096 01 01 R 6/15/94 49 T 94001097 01 01 S 6/15/94 11 T 94001119 01 02 S 6/18/94 10 T 94001132 01 02 S 6/19/94 620 V 94001076 01 03 S 6/13/94 99 V 94001118 01 02 S 6/17/94 10 ~ 94000942 01 01 S 5/26/94 100 ~ 94001005 01 01 S 6/03/94 60 t 94001039 01 01 S 6/09/94 50 ~ 94001039 01 03 S 6/09/94 5 X 94001142 01 01 S 6/20/94 185 X 94001157 01 01 S 6/22/94 10 X 9400118~ 01 01 S 6/24/94 20 X 94001186 01 01 S 6/24/94 10 1 F2252 411 416 6/20/94 11,000 1 V1021 416 I V2021 HONDA CIVIC 421 422 5/31/94 300 1 U3497 418 1 83494 421 6/15/94 200 1 U3498 DYNO VFR 411 1 U3497 BUTTE 411 1 U3498 HUFFY MOUNTAIN 411 1 U1497 TREK 830 411 1 U3498 FUJ! 10 SPEED 421 6/17/94 150 1 U3498 HUFFY 411 1 U3498 421 1 T6169 411 1 U3289 411 6/13/94 1 1 TG039 430 405 1 T6151 418 422 1 T1029 404 422 1 TC159 421 1 T6159 ALP[NE 419 1 T6159 411 414 1 TF059 404 TC159 421 1 TG029 418 6/13/94 5 1 U3288 418 1 T6169 405 414 1 TG029 418 1 T6169 411 1 TF169 EAGLE ULT[MA 411 6/13/94 2 1 TG021 416 1 T6159 418 6/20/94 49 1 T6159 405 616 1 B3434 421 1 TG151 418 422 1 T1029 404 422 1 T6159 418 1 T6169 405 414 1 T6159 411 1 T6159 411 1 TG029 CRAFTSMAN 418 1 TG029 418 1 TG059 405 422 1 T6169 411 1 T6169 ' 611 422 1 T6169 411 Run: 1-Jut-94 10:19 PRO03 HOUND POLICE DEPARTHENT , Page 2 Primary ISN's c~Ly: No Date Reported range: 05/26/94 - 06/25/94 Activity codes: ALL Property Status: ALL Property Types: ALL Property Descs= ALL Brands: ALL ModeLs: ALt Officers/Badges: ALL Enfors Property Report STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED Prop Prop Inc no ZSN Tp Oesc Pr Prop Date Rptd StoLen Date Recov'd Quantity Act SN Stat StoLen VaLue Recov'd VaLue Code X 94001188 X 94001190 Y 94000939 Y 94001016 Y 94001O67 Y 94001076 Y 94001119 Y 94001120 Y 94001130 Y 94001148 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 S 6/24/94 10 1 TG169 S 6/24/94 10 1 TG169 S 5/26/94 1 TOO60 S 6/06/94 21 1 U3068 S 6/12/94 50 1 TG159 S 6/13/94 50 1 TG159 S 6/18/94 50 1 TG151 S 6/18/94 1 TG069 R 6/19/94 135 6/19/94 1 1 TG059 S 6/21/94 10 1 TG169 **** Report TotaLs: 36,342 11,708 53.000 Brand Mode t Off-1 Off-2 Assnd Assnd 411 422 411 421 461 404 418 418 418 422 411 418 416 411 Primary ISN's onty: No Oa~'"eported range: 05/26/94 - 06/25/94 Ti nge each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Ho~ Received: Activity Resulted: Dispositions: AlL Officers/Badges: A~L Grids: Patrol Areas: Days of the ~eek: Enfors CalLs For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9000 SPEEDING 44 9001 J-SPEEDING 1 9003 J-NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 2 9012 OPEN BOTTLE 2 9014 STOP SIGN 2 9018 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION 3 ~ CARELESS/RECKLESS 5 9026 OVER THE CENTER LINE 1 9038 ALL OTHER TRAFFIC 1 9040 NO SEATBELT 2 9100 PARKING/ALL OTHER 31 9200 DAS/DAR/DAC 5 9210 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 6 9220 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 21 9300 LOST ARTICLES/OTHER 2 9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 5 9313 FOUND PROPERTY 14 9430 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS 4 9440 H/R PERSONAL INJURY ACC. 1 . 9, PROPERTY DAJ4AGE ACCIDENTS 8 9451 H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC. 2 9500 RECREATIONAL VEHICLE ACC/OTHER 3 Run: 30- Run: 30-Jun-94 10:57 CFS08 Primary ISN's o~{y: No Oate Reported range: 05/26/94 - 06/25/94 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Ho~ Received: Activity Resutted: Att Dispositions: Att Officers/Badges: Att Grids: Att Patrot Areas: Att Days of the week: Att MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors carts For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9561 DOG BITE 2 9563 DOG AT LARGE 3 956/, DOG BARKING 1 9566 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 2 9567 DANGEROUS DOG 1 9710 NEDICAL/ASU 2 97'50 MEDICALS 24 97'51 MEDICALS/DX 2 9800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIEO 11 9801 DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT 3 9802 PUBLIC ASSIST 3 9900 ALL HCCP CASES 4 9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 2 9920 INSPECTIONS OEPARTMENT 11 9944 UNWANTED GUEST 1 9980 WARRANTS 7 9990 MISC. VIOLATIONS 6 9992 MUTUAL AID/8100 4 9993 MUTUAL AID/6500 5 9994 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER 4 A2242 ASLT 2-SUBSTANTIAL INJURY-OTHR WEAP-ADLT-ACQ 1 A3252 ASLT 3-SUBSTANTIAL iNJURY-HANDS ETC-ADLT-ACQ 1 Page Run: 30-Jun-g4 10:57 CFS08 Primary ISN's onLy: No Da .... ~eported range: 05/26/94 - 06/25/94 T ~nge each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: At[ Activity Resutted: Dispositions: Officers/Badges: AIl Grids: AIl Patrol Areas: AIl Days of the week: AIl MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Carls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS A3253 ASLT 3-SUBSTANTIAL INJURY-HANDS ETC-ADLT-STR 1 A5351 ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM 6 A5352 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-ASLT-AC 1 A5354 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAM 1 A5501 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WEAP-ADLT-FAM 1 B3434 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 B7 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 08500 DRUGS-SMALL AMOUNT MARIJUANA-POSSESSION 1 DCSO0 DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH-POSSESS-UNK-UNK 2 F2252 ARSON 2'UNINHAB-NO WEA-OT COMCL-10000-19999 1 12109 CRM AGNST FAM-GM-ENDANGER CHLD-OTHER 3 13060 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD 3 J2500 TRAFFIC-GM-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR 2 J2700 TRAF-ACCID-GM-AGGRAVATED VIOLATION 1 J2900 TRAFFIC-GM-OTHER 1 J2EO0 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 2 J3500 TRAF-ACCID-MS-ORIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR 10 J3EO0 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 9 K6004 OEPRIVE OF PARENTAL RIGHTS-UNK WEAP-CHLD-FAM 1 M4~ LIQUOR - OTHER 2 M5313 JUVENILE-CURFEW 1 M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY 6 Page Run: 30- Jun-94 10:57 CFS08 Primary ISN's onty: No Date Reported range: 05/26/94 - 06/25/94 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Ho~ Received: Att Activity Resutted: Att Dispositions: Att Officers/Badges: At[ Grids: Att Patrol Areas: A(t Days of the week: At( ACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTION MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Carts For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE TG151 TG159 TG169 NUMBER OF INCIDENTS N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS 4 03602 08SENITY-MS-INDECENT-EXPOSURE-TO ADULT 1 P2110 PROP DAHAGE'GH'PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 1 P3110 PROP DAHAGE'MS'PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 6 P3120 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT 4 P3130 PROP DAHAGE-MS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT 1 P3310 TRESPASS-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 1 P3600 LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBA6E-MS 1 03299 STLN PROP-NS-POSSESS-OTH PROP-200 OR LESS 1 TO060 THEFT-UNK LVL VAL-FRM HAIL-UNK PROP 1 T1029 THEFT-MORE $2500-FE-FRM BUILDIN6-OTH PROP 1 TC159 THEFT-SO1-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 1 TF059 THEFT-~O1-5OO-GM-YARDS-OTH PROP 1 TF169 THEFT°~O1-5OO-GM-~ATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 1 TG021 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-BUILDING-HONEY 3 TG029 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-BUILD]NG-OTH PROP 2 TG039 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-COIN MACH-OTH PROP 1 TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-YARDS-OTN PROP 2 TG069 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-HAILS-OTH PROP 2 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MOTOR VEH-MONEY 1 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 7 THEFT-LESS 200-GH-~ATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 9 Page ~1! Il I, ia, ,Il I, !, Run: 30- Jun-94 10:57 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No D~ .... ~eported range: 05/26/94 - 06/25/94 T, ange each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Ho~ Received: AL[ Activity ResuLted: Att Dispositions: Att Officers/Badges: Att Grids: Att Patrot Areas: Att Oays of the week: Att MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors CaLLs For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS U1497 THEFT'FE'BICYCLE'NO NOTOR-201-500 U3018 THEFT-MS-BY CHECK'200 OR LESS U3068 THEFT'NS-BY SWINDLE OR TRICK-200 OR LESS U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS U3289 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-35000-OR MORE U3497 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS VEH THEFT-FE-OVER $2500-AUTO VEH THEFT-FE-$251-$2500-AUTO VEH-501-2500-FE-THEFT-AUTO WEAPONS-MS-USES-OTHER TYPE-NO CHAR CRIM AGNST ADMN JUST-NS'OSST LEGAL PROCESS U," V1021 V2021 VB021 W3190 X3080 **** Report TotaLs: 393 Page 5 R~.m~: 30-Jun-94 13:54 OFF01 Primary ISN~s on[y: No Date Reported range: 05/26/94 - 06/25/94 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: At[ Activity codes: Officers/Badges: AIl Grids: Ali MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 1 ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL COOE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING A2242 ~252 ~253 ~351 ~352 ASLT 2-SUBSTANTIAL INJURY-OTHR WEAP-ADLT-ACO ASLT 3-SUBSTANTIAL INJURY-HANDS ETC-ADLT-ACQ ASLT 3-SUBSTANTIAL iNJURY-HANDS ETC-ADLT-STR ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BO HRM-HANDS-ASLT-AC ~354 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAN /[5501 ASLT 5-THRT BOOILY HARM-NO WEAP-ADLT-FAM B3434 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-UNK WRAP-COt4 THEFT B3494 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK ~EAP-COH THEFT 08500 DRUGS-SMALL AHOUNT MARIJUANA-POSSESSION DCSO0 DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH-POSSESS-UNK-UNK F2252 ARSON 2-UNINHAB-NO WEA-OT COHCL-10000-19999 [2109 CRM AGNST FAM-GM-ENDANGER CHLD-OTHER [3060 CRIM AGNST FAN-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD J2500 TRAFFIC-GM-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR J2700 TRAF-ACC[D-GM-AGGRAVATEO VIOLATION JL>~l:)O TRAFFIC-GM-OTHER J2EO0 TRAF-ACC-GN-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH J3500 TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR J3EO0 K6004 M41~ N5313 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED ADULT JUVENILE BY EX' PERCENT ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED TRAF'ACC-NS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH DEPRIVE OF PARENTAL RIGHTS-UNK ~EAP-CHLD-FAH LIQUOR - OTHER JUVENILE-CURFEW 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 I 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 6 0 6 0 4 0 2 6 100.0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 100.0 · 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 50.0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0 10 0 10 0 10 0 0 10 100.0 9 0 9 1 8 0 0 8 88.8 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 10 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 · i · I ~n, ,ii i Jrt,, Run: 30-Jun-94 13:54 OFF01 Primary lSN's onty: No ~eported range: 05/26/94 - 06/25/94 1 ange each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: Att Activity codes: Att Officers/Badges: Alt Grids: Att MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 2 ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL COOE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY 6 0 6 0 0 0 6 6 100.0 N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASS[NG COMMUNICATIONS 4 0 4 4 0 0 0 ' 0 0.0 03602 OBSENITY-MS-INDECENT-EXPOSURE-TO ADULT 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 P2110 PROP DAMAGE-GM-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 P3110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 6 0 6 5 0 1 0 1 16.6 P3120 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT 4 0 4 3 0 0 1 1 25.0 P3130 PROP DAMAGE-MS-BUSINESS-UNK iNTENT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 P' TRESPASS-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 P3600 LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-MS 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 TO060 THEFT-UNK LVL VAL-FRM MAIL-UNK PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 T1029 THEFT-MORE $2500-FE-FRM BUILDING-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 TC159 THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 TF059 THEFT-201-5OO-GM-YARDS-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 · 0 0.0 TF169 TNEFT-201-5OO-GM-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 TG021 THEFT'LESS 200-GM-BUILDING-MONEY 3 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 33.3 TG029 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-BUILDING-OTH PROP 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 TG039 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-COIN MACH-OTH PROP 1 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0.0 TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-YARDS-OTH PROP 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 TG069 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MAILS-OTH PROP 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 TG151 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MOTOR VEH-MONEY 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 TG THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP ? 0 7 6 0 1 0 1 14.2 TG169 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 9 0 9 8 0 1 0 1 11.1 U1497 TNEFT-FE-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 Run: 30-Jun-94 13:54 OFF01 Primary ISN'$ on[y: No Date Reported range: 05/26/94 - 06/25/94 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: AtL Activity codes: Air Officers/Badges: AtL Grids: Alt MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 3 ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN' ACTUAL COOE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED U3018 THEFT-MS-BY CHECK-200 OR LESS 3 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 33.3 U3068 THEFT-MS-BY SNINDLE OR TRICK-200 OR LESS 1 0 1 0 I 0 0 1 100.0 U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 U3289 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-35000-OR MORE 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 U3497 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 I 50.0 U3498 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0.0 V1021 VEH THEFT-FE-OVER $2500-AUTO 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 V2021 VEH THEFT-FE-$251-$2500-AUTO 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 VB021 VEH-501-2500-FE-THEFT-AUTO 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 ~/3190 NEAPONS-MS-USES-OTHER TYPE-NO CHAR 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 X3080 CR[M AGNST ADMN JUST-MS-OBST LEGAL PROCESS 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 **** Report TotaLs: 129 2 127 65 40 7 15 62 48.8 111 Il ! ~, ,11 Il, CITY of MOUND 534~ MAYWOOD ROAD LIOUNB r.'hNNESOTA555~64 ,612:Z72-0690 FAX 6!2~412-0620 July 7, 1994 TO: FROM: RE: CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK JUNE MONTHLY REPORT There were 2 regular Council Meetings in June. Packet preparation was done for each of these meetings. Minutes were prepared after each meeting. There were follow-up items from each meeting. June was a very busy month for me. Mound City Days took up part of my time. I think it was a really excellent weekend and everyone seemed to enjoy themselves. Civic pride prevails again. The 1994 Budget process started and all the budget pages were updated and distributed to the Department Heads. There were several meetings on elections. One was a mandatory meeting so that the Secretary of State can tell us how to run an election. The others dealt with the editing of the Election Judge Training Video that was filmed in early 1994. We have put together a workbook to go with the video and are currently working on a procedures manual for elections for City Clerks. There were the usual calls from residents and questions from the general public on property, cemetery, research items, and other various issues. printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472~0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 July 6, 1994 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR OPERATIONS DIRECTOR JUNE 1994 MONTHLY REPORT The month of June, unlike May which started out slowly, began very strongly and just kept building and building. There are many events going on this month which are beneficial to our store. There is "Mound City Days" festival activities for example. Even though we were absolutely dead for two hours during the Saturday morning parade, that day was perhaps the best we've ever had for a non-holiday. Then there are the three weekends in which parents hold graduation parties for their scholars. I believe we sold approximately 14 kegs of root beer this month. Baseball is in full gear, the N.B.A. playoffs are still on, and people are traveling up north to their cabins or camping, and the don't want to pay those exorbitant prices up there. And, naturally, there's the lake and people finally have a summer in which to enjoy it. Sales were up 5.5% grossing out at $142,222. Last year they were $134,935. As I am writing this we are right in the middle of our "Red, White and Blue" sale for the Fourth of July. The ad appeared in the June 27th issue of "The Laker" newspaper. Did you see it? Hope it is a success. Oh, by the way, June 17th marked by ten year anniversary as Liquor Operations Manager for the City of Mound. JK:ls ~ll II I I, ,11 !1, I,, PARKS CITY OF MOUND / JIM FACKLER 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-168' (612) FAX (612) 472-0620 The fishing pier was installed at Centerview Beach. Installation was done with the help of the Department of Natural Resources staff. The Parks Department will now be responsible for maintaining it. If there is a need for major repairs, the DNR will contribute towards completing needed work. The summer parks program has begun and will be located at various parks through June and July. This program was advertised in the Westonka Community Services publication for summer programs. The improvements at Mound Bay Park are complete now with the installation of the timber boarder along the beach and the back ordered climber for the play structure. BEACHES June began the opening of all of the beaches with regular life guard supervision and daily cleanup of the beaches by the Parks Maintenance Staff. This will be done through the first part of August and will occupy a lot of time providing this service. CEMETERY The caretaker of the Cemetery, Phil Haugen, has had some medical problems and has had to take some time off from maintaining the cemetery. The parks crew has taken this work over and will do so until Phil is able to return. DOCKS The dock inspector has been busy with inspections of the dock sites for proper installation and conforming boat registration. This season has been busy due to all sites being assigned. The dock inspector has also been working with the building official in the up dating of the Public Lands Permits. TREE/WEED NOTICES Fourteen trees have been marked for removal from city property along with three threes to be trimmed of hazardous branches. One tree was marked on private property that was hazardous and was removed by the owner. Three notices were sent requiring the owners to mow private property. Two of the owners complied while the third did not and a contractor was hired to do the work. This bill is the responsibility of the owner. JF:ls THIS .LAS~ '~[IS YEAR LAST MON~ MONTH ~ DA~ TO DA~ ~ 0F ~ 1994 ,, ~. OF C~ 46 51 ~7 292 11 14 58 59 FI~ ~OUND 21 16 117 116 ~INNETONKA BEACH F~ 1 2 7 13 MINNETRI STA ~G~ ~ 1 22 21 ORONO ~ 0 0 o SHOREWOOD FI~ 2 4 13 1 5 SPRING PARK R-~G~ 3 2 15 28 MUTUAL AID - FI~ 1 I 3 TOTAL FIRE CALLS 16 28 117 TOTAL EMERGENCY CALLS ~ 2~ 17~ 187 ~CI~ 2 D 5 6 ~ID~ 3 8 25 27 ~S & ~~S 5 12 34 29 A~ 0 D 2 6 F~E ~ / FIRE ~ 5 fi fi7 - MOUND ~G~ 4~5 ~1 23~ _. - MTKA BEACH ~G~ ~ D ]~ FI~ 12 ~ 107 237 - M' TRISTA ~.~G~ 48 24 4~5 386 ~ 60 54 522 62~ FI~ 21 1 ~ 394 236 ORON0 ~G~ 43 27 172 .350 ~ 64 127 566 5 R6 FI~ 0 0 0 27 - SHOREWOOD m~G~ 0 33 55 26 ~ O 33 }~ FI~ 35 87 291 - SP. PARK ~G~ 94 27 ~ 575 ~ 129 114 ~99 qn5 F~E 15 40 151 - ~ ~D ~G~ 0 27 27 T~ 15 67 178 1 ~q TOTAL DRILL HOURS 180 172~ I~Z~ q&74 TOTAL FIRE HOURS 328 563 2592 ~39R , TOTAL EMERGENCY HOURS 631 ~439 32~ ~ F~E & ~G~ ~S 959 1~2 5856 ~45 MUTUAL AID RECEIVED 1 0 3 2 MUTUAL AID ~IVEN 1 2 4 3 MOUND, MINNESOTA FOR MONTH OF jI~NE lqq4 FIRE FIGHTERS DRILLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE 6/6 6/20 W~ES HRIqS }U~RS RAIE 1 JEFF ANDI~RRFN X X 2 19.00 1~ 37 ~,O0 222.00 X X 2 19.00 0 35 6.00 210.00 2 C. R Ff]. X X 2 19.00 ! 26 6,(~) ].56.00 3 ,)'k-~RRY RARB X X 2 19.00 2 37 6.00 222.00 6, PA(~ RABR X X 2 19.00 2 24 6.00 144,00 5 DAVE ~DYD X (~ 1 9.50 0 18 6.00 108,00 6 ~COTr BRYCE X X 2 19.00 0 20 6.00 120.00 7 DAVE CARLSON X X 2 19.00 2 23 6.00 138.00 8 JIM CASEY X X 2 19.00 0 26 6.00 156.00 9 STEVE COLLINS X X 2 19.00 5 20 6.00 120.00 10 BOB CRAWFORD X X 2 19.00 0 26 6.00 156.00 11 RANDY ENGELHART 12 STEVE ERICKSON X X ~ 19.00 0 %5 6.50 2?3.50 13 PHIL FISK X X 2 19.00 2 18 6.00 108.OO 14 DAN GRADY X X 2 19.00 4½ 4~ 6.00 246.00 15 KEVIN GRADY X X 2 19.00 4 24 6.00 144.00 16 CRAIG H]~qDERSON X X 2 19.00 5 35 6.00 210.00 17 PAUL HENRY X X 2 19.00 3 11 6.00 66.00 18 JASON MAAS X X 2 19.00 5 40 6.00 240.00 19 JOHN NAFUS X X 2 19.00 5 27 6.00 162.00 20 JAMES NELSON X · X 2 19.00 1 33 6.00 198.00 21 MARV N~3.qON X X 2 19.00 2 19 6.00 114.00 22 BRET NICCUM X X 2 19.00 8 28 6.00 00 23 GREG PALM X X 2 19.00 9 22 6.00 ~oz.00 24 MIKE PALM X X 2 19.00 0 21 6.00 126.00 25 TIM PAI~M X X 2 19.00 2 30 6.00 180.00 26 GREG PEDEP~ON X X 2 19.00 0 24 §,25 150.00 27 CHRIS POUNDER X X 2 19.00 2 25 ~.00 150.00 28 TONY RASMUSSEN X X 2 19.00 1½ 15 6.00 90.00 29 MIKE SAVAGE X X 2 19.00 5 29 6.00 174.00 30 KEVIN SIPPRFLL X X 2 19.00 0 28 6.00 168.00 31 RON STALLMAN X X 2 19.00 2 16 6.00 96.00 32 TOM SWIm, SON X E~ 1 9.50 0 0 6.00 -0- 33 BRUCE SVOBODA X X 2 19.00 2 ?9 6.00 X X 2 19.00 0 34 6.00 34 gD VANECEK 55 RICK WILLIAMS X X 2 19.00 6½ 30 6.00 1~0 _mm 36 TIM WILLIAMS X X 2 1~.00 1½ 23 6.00 37 D~INNIS WOYTCKE X X 2 19.00 6 30 6.00 37 35 72 ~ 92% s?~ ~0 6~.00 90% 959 280 ~;s 684.00 90½ ~ 1,167.00 1DIAL ? '. 5O DRILL REPORT MOUND--FIRE--DEPARTMENT b~scipline and Teamwork Critique of fires Pre-plan and Inspections Tools and Apparatus Identify Hand Extinguisher Operation Wearing Protective Clothing Films First Aid and Rescue Operation Use of Self-Contained Masks ~Pumper Operations Fire Streams & Friction Loss House Burnings Natural/Propane Gas Demos. Ladder Evolutions Salvage Operations Radio Operations House Evolutions Nozzles & Hose Appliances Hours Training Paid : Excused X Unexecused 0 Present / Not Paid cel laneous PERSONNEL ~\~--J.Andersen 5m_G. _j.Anderson Babb %Z~_7_P.Babb .~_~D.Boyd S Bryce kZ~_D.Carlson \~.Casey .Collins .Crawford \~.l._p'Engelhart ~ S.Erickson .Fisk _~_~D.Grady ~_K.Grady ~_C.Henderson f~.Henry ~J.Maas ~.Nafus 2~ ~J.Nelson 3_M.Nelson '~i Niccum Palm Palm .Palm Pederson .~C.Pounde~ T.Rasmussen ~_~M.Savage K.Sipprell %~3,~R.Stallman Sv°b°da T.Swenson Vanecek Williams .Williams .Woytcke DRILL REPORT MOUND--FIRE--DEPARTMENT Discipline and Teamwork Critique of fires Pre-plan and Inspections Tools and Apparatus Identify Hand Extinguisher Operation Wearing Protective Clothing Films First Aid and Rescue Operation Use of Self-Contained Masks Pumper Operations Fire Streams & Friction Loss House Burnings Natural/Propane Gas Demos. Ladder Evolutions Salvage Operations Radio Operations House Evolutions Nozzles & Hose Appliances Hours Training Paid : Excused X Unexecused Miscellaneous: O Present / Not Paid PERSONNEL G'And'ersen _ .Anderson Z 2-~J.Babb ~ L P.Babb S Bryce D Carlson -~l~C.Pounde~ ~T.Rasmussen Z~I~ M.Savage A~-~K.Sipprell ~.%~_~R.Stallman ~__B.Svoboda l~.~T.Swenson .~ E.Vanecek ~__~_R.Williams ~T.Williams ~.~_D.Woytcke DATE MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT 0 TOTAL MAINTENANCE FOR MONTH OF MEN ON DUTY J. ANDERSEN G. ANDERSON J~ BABB P, BABB D BOYD S BRYCE D CARLSON 3 CASEY S COLLINS- B CRAWFORD R ENGELHART S. ERICKSON P. FISK D. GRADY K. GRADY C. HENDERSON P. HENRY 3. MAAS J. NAFUS / J. NELSON -~ M. NELSON ~/ B. NICCUM ~ G. PALM 0 H. PALM c~. T. PALM ~ G. PEDERSON ~ C. POUNDER , /~ _T. RASMUSSEN ~ M. SAVAGE ~ K. SIPPRELL R. STALLMAN (Q . T. SWENSON -~g B. SVOBODA ~ E. VANECEK ~i R. WILLIAMS /A T. WILLIAMS ~ D. WOYTCKE TOTAL MONTHLY llOURS CIT5 of MOUND MEMORANDUM DATE: July 6, 1994 TO: FROM: City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff · Jon Sutherland, Building Official SUBJECT: June 1994 MONTHLY REPORT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY In June 48 building permits were issued, along with 41 plumbing, mechanical and other miscellaneous permits, for a total of 89 this month and 350 year to date. Not included in this month's tally is the Our Lady of the Lake addition and work progressing on Grandview Middle School. PLANNING & ZONING With the assistance of the City Planner, staff processed 17 + zoning cases. In addition, the City Council acted on several Construction on Public Lands Permits for City Commons. RENTAL COMPLAINTS Several complaints were received regarding exterior storage and trash at a four-plex on Belmont Lane. A citation has recently been issued by our Community Service Officer. COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER {CSO) ACTIVITY Total ordinance contacts for the month of June was 162. JS:bka printed on ~ecycled paper a ii BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT Month: J~E Year: z99~ THIS MONTH SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 1 ! ! 2 !, 492 9 !, 044,970 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (CONDOS) TWO FAMILY / DUPLEX MULTIPLE FAMILY (3 OR MORE UNITS) TRANSIENT HSG. (HOTELS / MOTELS) SUBTOTAL ! 1 121,492 9 1,044,970 EW CONSTRUCT)ON ,, COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) J OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC / SCHOOLS SUBTOTAL ADDITIONS/ALTERATION$ ADDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING 7 2 ! 9,000 20 399,687 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 2 20,736 5 50,57 ! DECKS ! l 44,962 23 91,292 SWIMMING POOLS '0 ! [0,000 REMODEL- MISC RESIDENTIAL 23 58,209 96 323,783 REMODEL - MULTIPLE DWELLINGS 0 3 303,000 SUBTOT~J. 43 342,907 148 !, 178,333 COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT} 1 6,, 000 5 39,600 OFFICE I PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL 1 ! 2,000 5 ! 37,527 PUBLIC / SCHOOLS DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SUBTOTAL 2 ! 6,000 ! 0 177, ! 27 DEMOLITIONS Il ' PERMITS I ' UNITS [ VALUATION Il 4~ PERMITS I VALUATION RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS ! (CO: VENT) .5 NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ! (GA: AGE) 6 TOTAL DEMOLITIONS 2 I PERMITS I UNITS VALUATION ~ VALUATION 48 1 480,399 t 2,400,430 TOTAL t78 PERMIT~:OUNT J THIS MONT. I YEAR-TO-DATE · BUILDING 4 8 17 8 FENCES & RETAINING WALLS 9 27 SIGNS ! 5 PLUMBING ! 1 70 MECHANICAL t 4 50 GRADING 2 2 S&W, STREET EXCAV.. FIRE, ETC. 4 18 LTM '" 89 I 35o 05-Jul-94 TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR JUNE FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT June investment activity Balance: June 1, 1994 $5,279,263 Bought: Money Market 4M - Income Reinvested 438 CP Smith Barney 4.22 292,902 CP Smith Barney 4.25 99,577 CP Smith Barney 4.32 373,522 CP Smith Barney 4.05 99,854 CP Dain Bosworth 4.27 103,750 Matured: Money Market 4M (110,000) CP Smith Barney 3.72 (291,486) Fed Home Loan Dain Bosworth 7.50 (100,000) Balance: June 30,1994 $5,747,820 GFOA Convention During the first week of June I attended the Government Finance Officers Association National Convention at the Convention Center in Minneapolis. Over 4,700 people from the U. S. and Canada attended the conference. It gave me the opportunity to attend many excellent presentations. In addition to topics relating to financial accounting and reporting, I attended presentations that dealt with investments, economic development, standards in reporting, and total quality leadership. A sincere thanks to the Council and the City Manager for allowing me to attend. It was a unique opportunity to get an update on finances and to meet and talk to many peers on current financial issues. City of Mound Monthly Report Utilities Month of: June 1994 No. of Customers: Water Sewer Water Used: (in 1,000 gallons) Billing: Water Sewer Recycle Total Payments: Water Sewer Recycle Total Residential 1,064 1,068 18,868 $23,419 $44,538 $3,141 $71 ,O98 $25,828 $46,209 $3,508 $75,545 Commercial 121 121 5,281 $7,278 $13,490 $20 $20,788 $4,348 $11,225 $14 $15,587 07/07/94 Utility- 94 Total 1,185 1,189 24,149 $30,697 $58,028 $3,161 $91,886 $30,176 $57,434 $3,522 $91,132 R[C'D JUL 13 ...... LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT To: Brigitte Kay Reuther Weekly News, Inc. 240 S. Minnetonka Ave. Wayzata MN 55391 From: Eugene R. Strommen Executive Director 473-7033 Date: June 24, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION PELICAN POINT MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District will hold a public hearing at suite 135, Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata, 8:00 AM on Saturday, July 9, 1994 to consider an application from John Boyer, Boyer Building Corporation, for a new multiple dock lfcense at the proposed Pelican Point development in Mound on Spring Park Bay. ~ug.e~e R. StrOmm-en, Exec or La~Minnetonka Conservation District -I'T mi I LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT July 1, 1994 To: LMCD Board of Directors From: Rachel Thibault Administrative Technician Subject: PUBLIC HEARING, LMCD HEADQUARTERS, WAYZATA 8:00 AM, Saturday, July 9, 1994 Pelican Point Multiple Dock License Spring Park Bay, City of Mound APPLICATION: John Boyer, Treasurer , Boyer Building Corp., Wayzata, has submitted a new multiple dock license application requesting a 40 slip seasonal dock on Outlot C of the proposed Pelican Point development, Spring Park Bay. BACKGROUND REVIEW: The proposed multiple dock is to serve 40 residences planned at the development, 2820 Tuxedo Blvd., Mound. The proposed development will have 20 twinhomes on 13.7 buildable acres. The preliminary plat was approved by the City of Mound 6/28/94. Outlot C has been designated to include the shoreline frontage of the mainland at 1,387 feet, and an island at 1,471 feet, total 2,858 shoreline feet. The applicant states that the island was a peninsula many years ago. Dredging in the 1920s, and some erosion, resulted in a 140' wide channel between the mainland and the island. The applicant maintains that because the island was at one time connected to the mainland, it has a justification to count the combined shoreline of the island and mainland. The City of Mound has stated that they do not want docks on the island. The applicant is applying for a 40 slip dock based on the combined shoreline of the mainland and the island, 2,858 feet. This amount of shoreline would allow 57 boat storage units (bsu). Code Sect. 2.02, Subd. 1, allows one boat per 50' of contiquous shoreline. The island is not contiquous, therefore the code does not allow the island shoreline to be included for boat density storaqe purposes. LMCD attorney Charlie LeFevere addresses this point in his memorandum of 6/28/94. The Code does allow up to 28 bsu's based on the 1:50 formula for the 1,387 feet of mainland shoreline. Mound Mayor Skip Johnson submitted a 6/29/94 letter stating that the city council supports the 40 slip multiple dock on the mainland. Boyer Building Corp., 7/9/94 Public Hearing, Page 2 The proposed dock is within the authorized dock use area of the site. The dock is located in the center of the development, with over 100' side setback on the north and over 500' side setback on the south. The dock structure is over 20,000 square feet. This requires an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The City of Mound planning consultant is preparing the EAW including the dock installation. The city of Mound is distributing the EAW to interested agencies, including the LMCD. A 60 day comment period is allowed. Boyer Building Corp. has submitted a dock permit application to the MN DNR. The dock construction will be seasonal with steel posts and wood deck construction. Attorneys at Law RC~ T A. AI~OP R H. BATTY ST~_ _~N J. BUBUL JOHN B. DEAN ~r~ARY G. DOBBINS STEFANIE N. GALEY CORR1NE A. HEINE JAMES $. IIOLMES DAVID J. KENNEDY JOHN R. LARSON WELLINGTON H. LAW CHARLF~ L. LEFEVERE JOHN M. LEFEVRE, JR. ROBERT J. LINDALL June 28, 1994 HOLMES & GRAVEN CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 {612) 337-9300 Facsimile (612) 337-9310 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL (~12) 337-921~ Gene Strommen Lake Minnctonka Consetwation District 900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Suite 160 Wayzata, MN 55391-1836 RE: Pelican Point Development ROBERT C. LONG LAURA K. MOLLI~r BARBARA L. PORTWOOD JAM~S M. ~rROMMEN JAMES J. THOMSON, LARRY M. WERTRE~M BONNIE L. WILKINS GARY P. WINTER DAVID ~ ~N (D29-1~1) OF CO~S~ ROBERT C. CAR~ON ROBERT L. DA~ON T. JAY SALM~ Dear Gene: An application has been submitted by Boyer Building Corporation of Wayzata for a multiple dock license on Pelican Point in the city of Mound. The applicant owns mainland with a shoreline of 1,387 feet and a nearby island which is not attached to the mainland with a shoreline of 1,471 feet. The applicant seeks to construct and maintain a dock facility with 40 slips on the mainland. Under the one boat per 50 feet of shoreline density limitation in the LMCD code, a facility with 40 slips could only be allowed if the applicant were allowed to count shoreline on the island. However, under LMCD Code Section 2.02 the shoreline is counted by reference to "continuous shoreline in existence on May 3, 1978". Because the island shoreline is not "continuous" with the mainland shoreline, the proposed development would not be allowed under the LMCD code. The code does not allow the transfer of density credit or combination of non- continuous shoreline in such cases. This prohibition against transfer of density credit serves several purposes. The first such purpose is the protection of the vicinity to which density credit might be transferred. Experience with commercial marinas would suggest that it is generally physically feasible to accomplish a density of one boat per 10 feet of shoreline. A transfer of density credit from one part of the lake to another would concentrate any undesirable effects of such an increased density such as increased boat activity, noise, lights, etc. Such density could result in adverse effects similar to those caused by a commercial marina at any area of the lake, including residential zones. The second purpose served by prohibiting transfer from one area of the lake to another is the limitation of overall boat density on the lake. It is true that by transferring density from one area to another, there could be a decrease in density in one area of the lake whenever there is an increase in another. This may not be of'much comfort to the owners of property in the vicinity r3£I_he lake shore where the increased density is allowed. But more importantly, it may not be JUL I I,{tl10-4 L.~4.C.O. Gene Strommen June 30, 1994 Page 2 safe to assume that for each such increase in density in one location, there will be a corresponding decrease in another. Many parts of the lake are not currently developed to the level of one boat per 50 feet of shoreline. This is true for a number of reasons. Development may be at less than 1:50 because of zoning restrictions, personal decisions not to have the full number of watercraft allowed, unusual shoreline situations such as property along narrow channels where it is not feasible to store boats, wetland areas which are not economical to develop at 1:50 level, shoreland which is held for investment and not currently used for boat storage, publically owned property, and the like. If the code allowed transfer of density credit to non-continuous shoreline, the owner of any property could temporarily or permanently transfer dockage rights to another part of the lake. For example, if an owner of 300 feet of lakeshore wished to develop an outlot association serving a new residential development of 30 lots, the current code would only allow dockage for 6 watercraft. However, it could be physically possible to construct 30 slips, one for each residential lot. If the owner could legally transfer shoreline, for density purposes, from one property to another, it could acquire undevelopable wetland shoreline on another part of the lake at a relatively low cost and transfer the density credit to the new residential development. Another approach would be to solicit the transfer of shoreline credits from other owners who are p..ot currently using their property to the maximum 1:50 level. Dockage could be purchased, on a temporary or permanent basis, from numerous property owners around the lake who had, for example, two watercraft stored on 200 feet of shoreline, and who therefore could transfer the dockage rights to half of their shoreline to the developer. It would seem that the development which could .theoretically result from allowing the transfer of shoreline could cause a substantial increase in overall boat storage density on the lake. The LMCD could amend its code in such a way as to allow the counting of non-continuous shoreline. The reasons for declining to do so would be the same as those noted above. If the board decides that it is appropriate to allow the transfer of shoreline under some circumstances, I would recommend that any code amendment which is created to allow such transfer include whatever restrictions or limitations the board feels are appropriate (1) to limit the undue concentration of watercraft storage in any one area and (2) to assure that the resulting overall l~ke wide boat storage density does not become excessive. Il' you have any further questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL:ckr JUN g 1994 ..... ..M.C.D. received DOCK - NEW Lake Minnetonka Conservation District iLicense Year LMCD Receipt # /O&~j '~70 ~ ~No. of Boats City response due . Boat Density Index · Can be reached at phone # (for LMCD use) Because this form is to be copied, please use black ink or type.! APPLICATION: NEW MULTIPLE DOCK, LAUNCHING RAMP, ~ AND/OR MOORING LICENSE Pursuant to LMCD Code §2.03, a new multiple dock license is requested, in accordance with all data and other information submitted herewith and made a part hereof. Ralph Turnquist / Boyer Building Corporation Print or type owner'~ name 4875Re e t W Shorewgo~, ~N 9~31 / Owner's address 18283A Minnetonka Blvd,Wayzata MN Phone; if no answer, call: 475-2097 Phone; if no answer, call: Phone Business name (if different from owner) John Bover (~/~c, '~C~J~,-~"/~r( Contact person; (if different from owner) 18283A Minnetonka Blvd., Wayzata, MN Street address 55391 Mailing address (if different from street address) Property located in the City of Mound Property is riparian to LMCD bay/area(s)~Pelican Point/Spring P~ No(s). Bay 1. Classification of use per §2.11, Subd. 2 (please check one): a) commercial marina d) transient g) private residence__ b) private club e) outlot association x h) other (explain) c) municipal f) multiple dwelling__ 2. Type of dock construction, describe and attach to-scale drawing: Wood palletized, Steel posts 3. Please submit names and mailing addresses of owners of abutting sites and owners of other affected sites. Such owners may be verified by checking with Hennepin County property description offices, 348-3271, which can provide actual mailing labels at a cost of $1.00 per tax parcel. This service usually takes three days, and you must have your tax parcel identification number ready when calling for this assistance. M~chael Koc~ - Lakewinds Condo, Manager Ron Johnson, 4416 Dorchester Road, Mound, MN 55364 4. Documents listed below are required; check that they are attached: Locator map ~ Scaled drawing showing present dockage~/~ .. County plat map Scaled drawing showing proposed dockage --~Scaled drawin~ of docks on abutting properties Certified land survey, ! o .~l_' ' legal description X and other affected dockage~. Absence of significant data requested above could result in a processing delay. (over) Lake Minngtonka Conservation District ~ 2 New Dock License Application ...... Boyer Buildin_q Corporation ( Name ) 5. All required permits, licenses and approvals have been obtained from the MN DNR and from the city in which the multiple dock, ramp, and/or mooring is ,locate~, copies attached: ( )Yes ( X)No.. If No, explain; Have verbal approval but have not received final permit. 6. Public liability insurance: Coverage $ lt000f000 CompanNState Farm Ins~lrmn~o. All commercial applicants, and others where applicable, must provide the following additional information 7, 8 and 9: 7. Check the nature of services and parking required by the city: a) Boat storage ................ number of parking spaces b) Launching ramps ............. - number of parking spaces Times ramp is open for public use; c) Sales ........................ d) Service ..................... e) Boat rentals ................ f) Restaurant .................. g) Other (explain) - number of parking spaces - number of parking spaces - number of parking spaces - number of parking spaces - number of parking spaces TOTAL parking spaces 8. Rest room facilities provided; Indoor, ~C~C Outdoor portable (number),.__ 9. Boat toilet pumping service provided? Yes__ No AI.I. APPLICATIONS: ,~.~,,_~,._~,.~,_,(~ /~Sb' ~r 10. Lake frontage of site: 2~¢7- feet. Total square footage of dock area including maneuvering space = sq.ft. If 20,000 sq.ft, or over, an Environmental Assessment Norksheet (EA~) i8 required. E~q IS ~TTACHED 11. Boat Storage Units (BSU) computation; Frontage. Z~v ~ 50 = ~7 BSU's allowable under the one-boat-per-fifty-foot rule. If this number is less than the total BSU's applied for in No. 12 below, an application for a Special Density License is required per Code ~2.O5. 12. Number of BSU's applied for: by Location at slips ....................... 40 BSU at slides ...................... BSU at lifts ....................... BSU at tie-ons ..................... BSU at moorings .................... BSU at off-Lake rack storage ....... BSU other BSU 40 BSU TOTAL BSU applied for; by Use for rent, lease, etc.. BSU for service work ...... ~BSU for company use ....... .BSU for private use ....... ~BSU for transient use ..... ~BSU other BSU TOTAL BSU applied for; BSL (continued) Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ~ 3 New Dock License Application Boyer Buildino CorDorakion (Name) 13. Watercraft Storage Units (WSU) computation schedule: 33 BSU @ 1 WSU (each slip up to 20 BSU @ 1½ WSU (each slip 20'+ to 24 BSU @ 2 WSU (each slip 24'+ to 32 BSU @ 2½ WSU (each slip 32'+ to 40 BSU @ 3 WSU (each slip 40'+ to 48 BSU @ 4 WSU (each slip over 48 long and/or up to 10' wide) = 33 WSU long and/or up to 11' wide) = ~_WSU ~ long and/or up to 12' wide) = 14 WSU long and/or up to 14' wide) = WSU ~ long and/or up to 16' wide) = WSU long and/or over 16' wide) = WSU 40 BSU Total Watercraft Storage Units (WSU) = 47 WSU ~.~ 14. Fee calculation: Base fee .............................................................. $ 500 Plus number of Watercraft Storage Units (WSU) 4~ @ $10 as determined from WSU computation and schedule shown in No. 13 above .... + 470 Total fee enclosed (this fee is for processing of the application and does not entitle the applicant to a license) .................. $ 970 Fees are non-refundable. ( , .~ / ~,.,,., ~ ~ _ I certify that the information provided herein and the attachments hereto are true and correct; I understand that any license issued may be revoked by the District for violation of the LMCD Code. I agree to reimburse the District for any legal, surveying, engineering, inspection, maintenance or other expenses incurred by the District in excess of the amount of the application fee. I consent to permitting officers and agents of the District to enter the premises at all reasonable times to investigate and to determine whether or not the Code of the District is being complied with. I agree to submit a certified, as-built survey upon completion of the docks. Authorized s igna t ~/~~ ~z~-/L~~¢ Title /Treasurer Date 5/23/94 Relationship to owner Developer Return this application and attachments to: Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Suite 160 Wayzata MN 55391 Phone (612) 473-7033 8/92 3 's Bay BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION PELICAN POINT ADDITION A fl?! Point Bay ~ Phelps Point W~st A SPRIHC~ ........ RD. CT Crystal Ca r t n ti n Bay 0 EDGI wOOD RD. SH MINNtWASHTA $CH ~/~ U Z I I · I I ,il i, I,~ I --1' 0 J' I JUN 2 1994 L~4.C.D. OUTLOT ,y OUTLOT C [vistlr~ Zoning: .. ~ch~e ~on ~e~ment: ' ~oss ~;[e oreo: . ..~1o~ '' .Cro)s vetlo~ oreo: .. Net ~o~e oreo: T~ol num~( o~ st~cturet ~o~ed: 'Lr~ Cross density (e~cl~i~ Net de~s;ty (exc~d[~ TGIQI b~tu~;n~s street o~ dr~woy Totel res~enllol building oreo: Totel hordcovet oreo: Tolol ~in~nd site hord c~eroge: . - Totol moinlo~d site o~n s~e; T~f ~e o~eo: Bluff oreo: Public r~ht-of-woy: TKr two oreo: ~,~ woy (~n;mum) ~HORE ~TA ' Uoinlond ~keshore fr~tO~e;' Islond ~kesh~e Ir~loge: Totol ~keshore frontoge: Pro.sod ~kogc: Res;denial S;gnle Fom~ Res;dc.~lk)l. Lo- Oe~;ty (I-4 0U/AC) P~ ~" 598.51~ S~ . ' 32.481 SF 13.7 ~es ' ~0 Tw~es I We(er ~¢ess~s' 40 2.S2 (m/~) .. 2.92 (~/~) 92.07~ 5~ · 90,024 Sr t82,103 Sr 30.426~ 69.574~ 246.~.56 SF 34,956.~ S~ 4,128.~ S~ 263.ee0.16 S~ 88.01528 Sr 80 S~oces-l~ I~r Ch, e~;ng Unil) ESO Spoces per I~eU;ng Unit) 13~6.5 LF 1471.0 Lr 2857.5 Lr One X.~soc~tion Dock with 40 Boot Azeos OV,'t~ RB DEY[3. (N:~ R 'E~o~,er 6u,ta,n9 Corporol,on 18283A U;nnel~ko ~. ~e~en. UN 55391 P: 612-475-2~7 F: 612-475-2~5 · ....' NOT 81TE EXGINEER '~.K' Xsso,cmte$. Ltd. 922 Uoln Street Hopkins. UN 55.343 P: 6t2-933-0972 F:. 612-953-1153 ., ' Ke~n G. NOrby ond ~s~tes t togoI Red Circle ~e. S~te 125 . · U,nnel~kO. UN .55345 FOR SURV~'YOR Lgon ~,eid ond htS.,ok 741.5 Woyzoto I,J[nne~>olis. MN ~26 P: 612-~6-6857 F: 612-~6-~9 CONSTRUCTION PELICAN POINT ADDITION 2J20 T~[DO O' 60' 120' 180' \ Lot ! $\ 680~ SF Lot 18 6936 SF 1 ,}6.07 Lot ,7.~ 4 S F Lo-t 14 6159 SF / 40 B AR ACCESS~O RIES BUILDING%, \ \ O BOYER BUILDING CORP. PELICAN POINT ADDITION CITY OF MOUND SPRING PARK BAY T GE 7'3 BEACH / / / / JUN 3 0 1994 L. IVl. f~. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 June 29, 1994 Mr. Gene Strommen Executive Director LMCD 900 East Wayzata Blvd Wayzata, MN 55391 RE: Pelican Point Dear Gene: Over the past 10 years, the City of Mound has received a number of development inquiries and proposals for the property commonly known as Pelican Point which lies on the shore of Lake Minnetonka with street frontage along Tuxedo Boulevard. The Pelican Point site consists of a 13.7 acre mainland area and an island totalling approximately 3/4 of an acre. For a variety of reasons, all of the proposals to date have not received approval and therefore, obviously have not been implemented. Boyer Building Corporation is currently going through the approval process to construct 40 twin home units on the site marketed for the empty nester segment of the population. Their proposal calls for a 40 slip marina to be located as shown on the attached plan. Boyer's proposed plan which is being processed as a Planned Development Area is both sensitive to the environment and the surrounding neighborhood area. On June 14, 1994, the Mound City Council approved the preliminary plat for Pelican Point subject to a number of conditions, one of which relates to both DNR and LMCD approval of the proposed dock arrangement. After approving the preliminary plat, the Mound City Council unanimously approved a motion "giving strong support to the 40 slip marina at Pelican Point". The motion further directed me as mayor, to prepare this letter highlighting our support not only for the project but also for the dock arrangement as proposed. JUN 3 0 1994 Mr. Gene Strommen June 29, 1994 Page 2 The proposed plan for Pelican Point will be a high quality development that will have a positive impact on the City of Mound and the Lake Minnetonka area. We encourage the LMCD and the DNR to support the plan as proposed. I am available to answer any further questions that you might have on the City's position on this issue. Thank you for your consideration. Mayor Skip Jol~son ~ cc: Ceil Strauss, DNR LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT June 29, 1994 REC'D JUL TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LMCD cities Treasurer Bob Rascop 1995 Adopted LMCD Budget The LMCD board of directors adopted the 1995 budget June 22 as presented in draft form to the cities on June 2. The draft budget prompted no city recommendations for change. If any member city finds it wishes to object to portions of the adopted budget, the LMCD is still required to hold a hearing, consider the objection and determine whether changes should be made in the budget as a result. city officials will recall from the June 2 memorandum accompanying the draft budget that both the Administrative Fund Operating Reserve and Milfoil Fund Operating Reserve are being budgeted for current expenses for 1995 from each fund. The amounts budgeted are estimated to reduce the Administrative Reserve to approximately six months of operating expenses of $125,000 and the Milfoil Reserve of approximately 12 months of operating expenses of $125,000. The LMCD also administers the Save the Lake Fund which contains donations by private parties and earned interest. The Save the Lake Fund is used to fund special projects of benefit to the lake which the board does not believe are appropriate for funding from public funds. The concluding comment of the June 2 memorandum merits attention. The 1995 LMCD budget indicates that the LMCD will have to further reduce expenditures in future years or find supplemental funding sources. The 1995 budget relies on the use of approximately $60,000 of reserves to fund current program expenditures. This is acceptable for 1995 because of funding available from reserves. It will not be in future years. A 1993 law amends Minnesota Statutes 103B.635, subd. 2 and limits "the total funding from all municipalities in the district" to ".00242% of the total taxable market value within the district, unless three-fourths of the municipalities in the district pass a resolution concurring to the additional costs." The LMCD board thanks city officials for their interest in and concern for the projected 1995 budget. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 E. 'Wayzata Blvd., Suite 160 Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 473-7033 RECEIVED LMCD MEETING SCHEDULE JULY 1994 Monday 4 Saturday 9 Friday 15 nday 18 Wednesday 20 Wednesday 27 Independence Day - Legal holiday LMCD Offices closed Public Hearings-New dock license applications 8:00 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Water Structures Committee 8:15 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force 8:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Lake Use & Recreation Committee 5:30 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata Zebra Mussel and Exotics Action Plan Subcommittee 8:30 am, LMCD Office, Wayzata Administrative Committee 6:30 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall, Tonka Bay LMCD Board of Directors Regular Meeting 7:30 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall, Tonka Bay LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM LMCD CITIES BILL JOHNSTONE, cHAIR LMCD JUNE 2, 1994 PROPOSED 1995 BUDGET RECEIVEO3 0 Under its enabling act, the LMCD is required to adopt a budget before July 1 of each year for the next calendar year and submit the budget as adopted to the member cities for comment. If any member city objects to the budget, the LMCD is required to hold a hearing, consider the objection and determine whether changes should be made in the budget as a result thereof. In recent years the LMCD Board has solicited city input concerning the budget prior to its adoption pursuant to the enabling act. This is not intended to and does not prevent cities from exercising their right to object to the actual budget and request a hearing thereon pursuant to the enabling act. It does afford the cities more time to consider the budget and raise and discuss questions with respect thereto with their representatives and the LMCD staff. Consistent with this practice, enclosed is a preliminary draft of the budget for the LMCD for the year commencing January 1, 1995. The LMCD Board received the draft budget from the staff at its May 25th meeting, and authorized it to be distributed to the cities prior to its consideration at the Board meeting of June 22th. Please take the time to review it and direct your questions and comments with respect thereto to your representative, myself or Gene Strommen, the LMCD Executive Director. We would appreciate hearing your comments by June 21, 1994. Several comments are relevant: - The enclosed budget, is a draft. It has not been considered or acted upon by the Board. It will not be acted upon until June 22th, at which time changes and adjustments may be made. - For purposes of presentation the budget is divided into two principal categories: Administrative and Milfoil. Administrative covers projected revenues and expenditures with resect to the normal operations of the LMCD, exclusive of the milfoil control program. Milfoil covers the projected revenues and expenditures with respect to the milfoil control program. - Consistent with the policy adopted by the Board in February of this year, money in both the Administrative Fund Operating Reserve (the "Administrative Reserve") and the Milfoil Fund Operating Reserve (the "Milfoil Reserve") is being budgeted for current expenses from each Fund in amounts which are LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Page 2 estimated to reduce the Administrative Reserve to approximately six months of operating expenses ($125,000) and the Milfoil Reserve to approximately 12 months of operating expenses ($125,000). In addition to the Milfoil Reserve, the LMCD has established an equipment depreciation reserve therein. The draft budget anticipates transfer of $35,000 from the Milfoil Reserve to the depreciation reserve in 1995. This will increase the depreciation reserve balance to approximately $210,000. - The LMCD also administers the Save the Lake Fund which contains donations by private parties and interest income thereon. The Save the Lake Fund is used to fund special projects of benefit to the lake which the Board does not believe are appropriate for funding from public funds. The enclosed draft budget anticipates approximately $32,500 of expenditures from the Save the Lake Fund in 1995. This amount will be reviewed later in the year based on the success of the fund raising efforts and the needs for special project funding. - Overall, the enclosed 1995 Budget is essentially flat from the 1994 Budget. ' - With respect to estimated revenues in 1995 the following comments are relevant: (a) The requested funds from the cities total $143,323 consisting of $80,323 for administrative purposes and $63,000 for milfoil purposes. Under state law, the maximum amount that the cites can provide (without a 3/4 vote of all of the cities) is $144,135 based on 1993 assessed valuation. In 1994, the amount of city funds requested, after adjustments for reserve reductions, was $88,117. (b) License revenue from multiple dock and other licenses is estimated to be $86,000 in 1995 compared to $112,000 in 1994. The reduction is due to (i) a decrease in multiple dock license fees resulting from protests from the licensees and an analysis by the LMCD of the costs associated with regulating the multiple dock licenses and (ii) the elimination of duplicating licensing of special events. (c) Revenue from fines and interest income is reduced to reflect actual 1993 experience and reduced fund balances. (d) The proposed 1995 budget anticipates receipt of approximately $40,000 of funds from the DNR and Hennepin County for purpose of the milfoil program. This is consistent with our 1994 experience. However, we have no assurance that we will in fact receive the money. If we do not, it may be necessary to curtail the milfoil program. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Page 3 " - On the expense side, the following conunents are relevant: (a) The salary expense has increased about 6% due to a personnel change in 1994 and salary increases. The salary increases account for approximately 4% of the total increase. (b) Office lease expense has increased from 1993 due to a new lease. It is essentially the same as the 1994 budget. (c) Legal expenses are estimated to increase by about 10% from 1994's budget, but are about 10% less than 1993 actual. We are continuing to look at this item. (d) Our contractual services expenses are estimated to be down 40%, due in large part to the completion of several projects. (e) The 1995 budgeted expenditures for the milfoil program are in line with the 1994 budget. As always actual expenditures will be affected by lake levels and the intensity of our harvesting. One final overall note. The proposed 1995 budget indicates that the LMCD will have to further reduce expenditures in future years or find supplemental funding sources. The proposed 1995 budget relies on the use of approximately $60,000 of reserves to fund current program expenditures. This is acceptable this year because of the size of our reserves. It will not be in future years. Thanks for your assistance. comment's. We look forward to your lotus.budget95 May 26, 1 ,~94 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 Adopted Budget 1993 1993 1994 1995 Budget Actual Budget Budget 1 LMCD Communities Admn Levy 2 Reserve Fund Allocation 3 Court Fines 4 Licenses 5 Interest, Public Funds 6 Shoreland Rules, DNR City Grants 7 Shoreland Rules, DNR Consultants 8 Other Income (a) $60,000 ~54,215 $25,117 880,322 43,432 0 65,383 39,625 45,000 37,733 45,000 41,000 117,300 119,577 112,000 86,000 7,000 13,105 6,000 6,000 0 22,665 4,000 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 508 0 0 Income Prepaid at 80% in 1992 9 EW Milfoil Program a City Levy b Other Public Agencies c Private Solicitation d Reserve Fund Allocation e $63,000 $56,925 $63,000 $63,000 57,280 43,069 49,500 40,000 7,930 7,702 0 0 0 0 5,000 18,500 Interest 5,700 15,326 6,000 8,000 D ISBURSiEME ADMINISTRATION Personnel Services: 1 Salaries 2 Mgmt Plan Impl/PT Tech. $105,700 $103,372 $106,150 $113,000 15,000 0 0 0 18,000 18,005 19,600 19,700 Employer Benefit Contributions T0ta perS°~l::Se~ices.. 138:;7oo:::9121,377 ~125i75o ~132;7oo Contractual Services: 5 Office Lease & Storage ~10,482 $10,897 911,600 911,647 6 Professional Services 5,550 5,439 5,400 5,700 7 T°tai c°ntr~tu:~i se~i:~~ 16~o32: i iH6,336 17;oo0 i~ H7;347 Office & Administrative: 8 Office, General Supplies 93,500 84,557 $4,300 94,500 9 Telephone 2,300 1,939 2,000 2,000 10 Postage 4,000 3,913 4,000 4,500 11 Printing, Publ. 3,000 1,345 3,000 2,000 12 Maintenance, Office Equipment 2,000 1,656 2,000 2,000 13 Subscriptions, Memberships 200 175 250 200 14 Insurance, Bonds 5,800 3,932 5,000 4,200 15 Mileage, Expenses, Training : 2,500 1,689 3,000 2,500 !6 Total Office& Administration 923,300 $19,206 923,550 .~21;900 Page 2 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 Adopted Budget 1993 1993 1994 1995 Budget Actual Budget Budget Capital Outlay: 17 Furniture, Equipment $5,000 $1,084 $3,000 $2,000 Legal 19 Legal Services $25,000 $25,780 $20,000 $22,000 20 Prosecution Services 27,000 31,670 30,000 30,000 21 Henn. Cty Room & Board 3,170 0 3,000 22 Process Service 200 0 200 0 Contract Services/Studies 24 Shoreland Rules, DNR Consultant 25 Shoreland Rules, DNR City Grants 0 26 Lake Use Density Study 0 27 Public Information, Legal Notices 3,000 28 Public Access Studies 2,000 29 Mgmt Plan Environment Implementation 27,500 :3.0 School District Boater Ed. Program 5,000 TOtal contract s~r~i~e~/StUdieS : i i $37;500 $1,250 $2,000 $0 4,665 4,000 0 0 7,000 0 592 2,000 1,000 0 0 0 14,361 15,000 13,000 0 10,000 10,000 $20,868 : :$40,000 :$24,000 Eurasian Water Milfoil (EWM) Weed Harvesting Program 33 Trucking Contract 34 Salaries & Employer Taxes/Insurance 35 Administrative 36 Operation Supplies 37 Contract Services $35,280 $20,324 $28,1 60 $32,000 51,060 34,939 43,360 46,000 6,440 4,049 5,900 6,1 O0 25,500 23,198 29,000 30,500 9,250 7,303 8,500 8,900 38 Contingency 6,380 0 8,580 6,000 39 TOTAL EWM OpERATIONS ~:.~. :~ i~.,133.;910 $89,813 $123;500.1:$:129;500 40 TOTAL:ADMN;EWMEXpENSE i:::~; ~ ~$406i642:$329;304 $383;000 $382,447, Save The Lake Program Income: a Private Donations $10,000 $15,076 $22,500 $28,000 b Interest 4,000 3,832 4,000 4,500 Sub Total, Save the Lake 814,000 818,908 $26,500 $32,500 oave the Lake Program Expense: $14,000 $14,792 $26,500 $32,500 INFORMATIONAL: EWM Equipment Reserve Allocation $0 $0 $35,000 $35,000 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 BUDGET DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENSE Market Value % of Total Market Value Share of Share of Share of EWM Pg. Admin. Total Budget $63,000 $80,322 9143,322 Deephaven 303,839,500 8.08 5,088 6,492 Excelsior 97,155,800 2.58 1,627 2,071 Greenwood 59,671,300 1.59 999 1,280 Minnetonka 2,946,311,200 20.00 12,600 16,064 Mtka. Beach 69,127,100 1.84 1,158 1,479 Minnetrista 271,390,000 7.21 4,545 5,789 Mound 343,925,000 9.14 5,759 7,341 Orono 658,911,700 17.51 11,034 14,062 Shorewood 425,119,000 11.30 7,119 9,076 Spring Park 57,378,500 1.53 961 1,232 Tonka Bay 128,390,200 3.41 2,150 2,737 Victoria 150,848,900 4.01 2,526 3,221 Wayzata 356,093,300 9.47 5,963 7,610 Woodland 87,833,200 2.33 1,471 1,868 11,580 3,698 2,279 28,664 2,637 10,334 13,100 25,096 16,195 2,193 4,887 5,747 13,573 3,339 TOTAL 5,955,994,700 100. O0 Less Minnetonka 2,946,311,200 3,009,683,500 5,955,994,700 X .0000242 144,135.07 Total of market value less Minnetonka because Minnetonka is a constant 20%. 63,000 80,322 143,322 Calculating per centage:. City market value divided by 3,009,683,500 times .80 equals per cent Use only 80% because Minnetonka is always 20%. i.e. amount of city market value divided by 3,009,683,500 X .80 = % of total May 26, 1994 Lotus:9§MKTVAL FRI , 1ST SAT, 2ND SUN, 3RD MON, 4TH TUE, 5TH WED, 6TH THU, 7TH RI, 8TH SAT, 9TH SUN, 10TH TUE, 12TH WED, 13TH THU, 14TH SAT, 16TH UN, 17TH RECEIVEO 3 0 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT JULY. 1994 LAKE MINNETONKA EVENT CALENDAR 9:00 ;tM 10:00 AM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 5:30 PM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM 6:00 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM 6:15 PM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 1:30 PM 5:30 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM 6:00 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM 6:15 PM 10:00 AM 2:00 PM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 5:30 PM MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake area MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake Wednesday Evening Bassin', Goose Island UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake WYC Sailboat Race, Big Island MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area SYC Sailboat Race, Big Island WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake Wednesday Evening Bassin', Goose Island UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake JULY .1994 LAKE MINNETONKA EVENT CALENDAR,. Paqe ~ TUE, 19TH WED, 20TH THU, 21ST FRI, 22ND SAT, 23RD SUN, 24TH MON, 25TH TUE, 26TH WED, 27TH THU, 28TH SAT, 30TH SUN, 31ST 6:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM 6:15 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM 6:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 A/~ 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 7:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 1:30 PM 5:30 PM 6:00 PM 6:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 6:00 PM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 1:30 PM 5:30 PM UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area Wednesday Evening Bassin', Mtka Boat Works MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area Wednesday Evening Bassin',Goose Is/Exc Park Tavern MYC Sailboat Race, Big Island East WYC Sailboat Race, Big Island MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area Westonka MDA Brighter Light Bass Open/Exc Park Tav MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area Wednesday Evening Bassin', Goose Island MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake WYC Sailboat Race, Wayzata Bay SYC Sailboat Race, Big Island MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area WYC Sailboat Race, Wayzata Bay MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Suite 160 Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 473-7033 LMCD MEETING SCHEDULE REVISED JULY 1994 Monday 4 Thursday 7 Saturday 9 Friday 15 Monday 18 Wednesday 20 Wednesday 27 Independence Day - Legal holiday LMCD Offices closed Save the Lake Advisory Committee Meeting 5:00 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata Public Hearings-New dock license applications 8:00 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Water Structures Committee 8:15 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force 8:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Lake Use & Recreation Committee 5:30 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata Zebra Mussel and Exotics Action Plan Subcommittee 8:30 am, LMCD Office, Wayzata Administrative Committee 6:30 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall, Tonka Bay LMCD Board of Directors Regular Meeting 7:30 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall, Tonka Bay L~KE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT AGENDA Saturday, July 9, 1994 Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E Wayzata Blvd, Rm 135 (Elevator handicapped access, west entrance, Wayzata Blvd) 8:00 AM PUBLIC HEARING Boyer Bui14ing Corp., Multiple Dock License application for Pelican Point Development, in Mound on Spring Park Bay 8:15 AM WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE 1. Boyer Building Corp., multiple dock license application for Pelican Point Development, Mound, Spring Park Bay; review findings from the public hearing and make a recommendation to the board 2. Rockvam Boat Yards, Spring Park, West Arm; as-built surveys of Site 1 and Site 2 3. Proposed ordinance amending Sect. 2.07 Temporary Structures, changing the distance from 200' to 150' and delegating permitting authority to the Water Patrol 4. Draft ordinance amending Sect. 2.12, Subd. 12 Dock Dimensions, to allow 10' dock width for gas docks 5. Draft ordinance amending Sect. 2.03, Subd. 11 Service Consoles to allow construction of a weatherproof shelter to accommodate 2 people in a 6' x 6' space for protection of electronic equipment on a gas dock 6. DNR proposal to enter into a cooperative agreement with the LMCD, to authorize the LMCD to issue multiple and permanent dock permits in lieu of the DNR 7. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park, Minnetrista, regarding proposal to place a launch ramp on Halsteds Bay per LMCD permit requirements 8. Report on 6/1/94 Envelope Subcommittee meeting 9. Variances application deposit refunds: A. Colson Construction Co. B. Kent & Mary Carlson 10. Pending issues before the committee (not ready for action): A. Minnetonka Yacht Club, Deephaven, Carsons Bay; new multiple dock license application pending resolution of issue regarding shoreline ownership B. Minnetonka Boat Works, Wayzata, Wayzata Bay; new multiple dock license, special density license and dock length variance applications; Pending revised site plan with structures within 200' 11. Additional business A. ThOmAS WURST, P.A. CURTIS A. PEARSON, P.A. UAmES D. LARSON, P.A. THOMAS f. UNDERWOOD. P.A. CRAIG M. MERTZ ROGER U. FELLOWS LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ ONE FINANCIAl PLAZA, SUITE IIOO I~O SOUTH SIXTH STR[I~T MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA $$402-1B03 June 29, 1994 TELEPHONE RECEIVED Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 Re: City of Orono Case Dear Ed: I am enclosing a copy of an opinion of the Court of Appeals rendered on June 24, 1994. This is an unpublished opinion and it therefore has some limitations, but I think the discussion of Judge Crippen may be of interest to the Council and Planning Commission members. You will note that the findings of the City Council are cited and the definitions are very similar to those contained in our zoning code, and people should understand when they buy these properties that the conditions may be unique and they basically have placed themselves in a position as the court states where their "plight is at least partially their own doing." It should not be assumed that municipalities are going to win all these cases, but it does indicate that with proper factual backgrounds and proper presentation, the Court has a much easier time sustaining the municipality's actions. Sincerely, CAP:ih Enclosure Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney ~ ~'I~Nct;.O~o COMM~ZCE APP~,L~,TZ COURTS EDmON Jt~E 24, 1994 taken in the underinsured motorist insurance provision prior ~o the 1980 repeal of that provision. Id., (emphasis in original). Under the add.on approach, underinsured motorist benefits are recoverable to thc exlznt damages exceed thc amounl .recoverable from thc tortfcasor's liability coverage. Id.; Broton v. Western Nat. Mut. Ins. Co., 428 N.W.2d 85, 88 (Minn. 1988). Thc analysis unfolds ns follows. Underinsured motorist coverage is available when a person is injured by Ixvo or 'more vehicles whenever one of those vehicles meets the definition of underinsured vehicle. Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 4a (1992). An underinsured vehicle is any vehicle subject to a bodily injury damages claim that exceeds the vehicle's liability limits. Minn. Stat. § 6513.43, subd. 17 (1992). The Petree children suffered damages in excess of the occupied vehicle liability limits. Thus, the Petree children have underinsured motorist claims. Underinsured motorist claimants must first seek benefits from the occupied vehicle. Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 3a(5) (1992). Here, underinsured motorist coverage is unavailable on the occupied vehicle, however, because of the principles outlined in Thommen v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 437 N.W.2d 651,654 (Minn. 1989) and Myers v. State Farm MuL Auto. ins. Co., 336 N.W.2d 288, 291 (Minn. 1983) (undefinsured motorist coverage should not be converted to third-party liability coverage). Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd 3a(5) fu.rther provides that insureds may recover excess under- insured motorist coverage from their own carrier when their policy limit for like coverage exceeds 'the limit of liability of the coverage available to the injured person from the occupied motor vehicle.' Here, 'no underinsured coverage is available from the occupied vehicle. The $30,000 per person, $60,000 per accident limits on underinsured coverage provided by Penny Petree's policy exceed the underinsured coverage available from the occupied vehicle. Therefore, American Standard is obligated to provide underinsured motorist coverage. . Also present is the policy consideration that Penny Petree puro chased underinsured motorist coverage for herself and her children, yet will receive no benefits because of the fortuitous circumstance that Swanson also carried lhe minimum amount of coverage. The conclusion that the Petrees may recover uninsured motorist benefits from American Slandard appears inescapable and requires reversal. This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Sial § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1992) Hennepin County Crippen, Judge District Court File No. 91-8308 Richard Stodola, et al., Jeffrey A. Car~on Steven C. Hey Respondcnt~ , Carson and Clelland . 305 Brookdale Corporate Center 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway Minneapolis, MN 55430 VS. City of Orono, Appellant. .Leon R. Erstad Sandra L. Jones Erstad & Riemer, P.A. 1000 Northland Plaza 3800 West 80th Street Minncapolis, MN 55431 ~0~ Filed: June 21, 1994 Offic~ of Appellate Courts t~onsidered and decided by Forsberg, Presiding Judge, Crippen, · Judger and Mulally, Judge. ' Retired judse of the district co..m?, ~n~t_ lng ns Jt~. se.o_f the Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. a~. vi, ! z. UNPUBLISHED OPINION CRIPPEN, Judge (Hon. John M. Stanoeh, District Court Trial Judge) Appellant City of Oronochallenges the district court's determina- tion that thc city acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to allow resPOndents to build a shared dock. Appelhnt also contends that the district court exceeded its authority in ordering the city to adopt a specific shared dock proposal. We reverse. FACTS In September 1987, ~spondents Richard Stodola and Me~t Peterson bought a lot in the City of Orono from Ewald Gustafson for the purpose of building a dock, but not a residence, on the property. Glen Tillotson owned an adjoining lot that had a house on it. At the time of the purchase, there was an existing dock that had been constructed in 1960. The existing dock was believed to be on Tillotson's property, but it was later discovered it was on respondents' property. In a letter dated July 30, 1987, Gustafson's atlorney wrote Peter- son: This is to inform you that Mr. Gustafson was told by a member of the staff of the city of Orono that it is necessary to own a home nearby in order to place a dock on a piece of property in Orono. We understand that you have made your own investigation and are willing to take your chances m 'convincing the city of Orono to grant you a variance. We just want to be on record as not having made any guarantees in regard to the use of this proper~y. Would you kindly sign a copy of this letter so that we may have it in our files. Peterson signed the letter and dated it September 24, 1987. Respondents built a new dock in the spring of 1988. Shortly after they built it, the city 'red-tagged' the dock, indicating that it was an illegal dock. The city wrote to Peterson to inform him that the dock was illegal. After meetings with city officials, respondents filed a variance application, seeking "authority to construct boat dock on a non-buil- dable lot {n_o, primary structure).' The planning commission denied respondents proposal and the city council passed a resolution citing the following reasons for denial: (A) The lack of the principal structure means that there is no individual responsible for protecting the dock nor the boats maintained at that dock. 03) An adjacent neighbor [Tillotson] already has a dock [the 1960 dock] located on Tract F. (C) The property is not wide enough to provide adequate parking. * * * (D) Approval of the use of an accessory structure such as a dock, without a principal structure would establish a nega- tive precedent in dealing with a similar requests for lots of similar size. Respondents later sent a memo to the city council, outlining the concerns the city council expressed and suggesting a different proposal that they thou. gM would satisfy those concerns. Respon- dents proposed conveying some property to Tillotson to provide him legal access to the lake, and building a single common dock to be shared by Tillotson, Peterson, and Stodola. At a city council meeting, the council denied the shared dock proposal. At a later meeting, the council adopted a resolution denying the shared dock proposal. The resoluti,o.? indicated that: Council refused to accept the interpretation ot me aocessory use/structure ordinance as proposed by applicants based on the following findings: · (A) The City has never credited a preliminary structure on an adjacent property to allow accessory uses or structures on lots that did not sustain principal residences. 03) Thc credit of the principal rcsidence for an acceasory us~structure serving an adjacent property will establish a negative precedent for the City when dealing with similar ~L~, 24, 1~4 FINANCE AND COMMERCE APpF:IlATE COURTS EDITION rcqucsts for accessory uses and su'ucturcs on unbuildablc, ~ubstandard lots. (C-')Thc applicants' .l~'OjX)sed interpretation of thc accessory .structu re ordinances is m complete con fl ice with thc original intent of thc code. Orono, .Minn., Resolution 2576 (Feb. 13, ]989). The resolution required thc removal of thc dock and it was subsequently removed by Tillotson. In May 1991, Stock)la and Pctc~on filed a complaint, alleging: (1) illegal removal of a non-conforming boat dock, (2) unconstitu- tional taking, (:3) arbitrary and capricious conduct, (4) vague and ambiguous regulations, and (5) denial of equal protection. Thc trial court determined that thc denial of respondents' application was arbitrary and capricious, and ordered thc city to approve respondents' application for a shared dock. It stayed the order for 30 days to allow thc parties an opportunity to negotiate the specific terms of the shared dock project. When the parties could not agree, the court issued an order adopting respondents' proposal. This appeal followed. DECISION In zoning matters, this court independently reviews the record and the city's decision. Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865, 868 (Minn. 1979). For both legislative (zoning) and quasi-judicial (special use permits and variances), decisions by · city, the standard of review is whether the action was reasonable. VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights, 336 N.W.2d 503, 508 (Minn. 1983). Thc nature of the action bears on what is reasonable: In enacting a zoning ordinanc: or in amending an ordinance to rezone, the approach is legislative; what is involved is a kind of municipal planning in which a wide range of value judgments is considered. On the other hand, in granting or denying a special use Igrmit, the inquiry is more judicial in character since the zoning authority is applying specific use standards s~t by the zoning ordinance to a particular in- dividual use. Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 417 (Minn. 1981). Thus, a zoning authority is less circumscribed by judicial oversight when it acts legislatively than when it acts in a quasi-judicial role. Id. Still, a municipal decision-making body has broad discretionary power to deny an application for a variance. VanLandsehoot, 336 N.W.2d 503,508-09 (Minn. 1983). The fact that a court reviewing the action of a municipal body may have arrived at a different conclusion, had it been a member of the body, does not invalidate the judgment of the city officials if they acted in good faith and within thc broad .discretion accorded them by statutes and the relevant ordinances. Id. at 509. In variance cases, reasonableness is to be measured by the standard set out in the local ordinance. Id. at 508 n.6. The city argues that its decision to deny the shared dock proposal was legislative, and that even if the decision were quasi-judicial, it still was reasonable. The city argues that, because under the Orono City Code an accessory use is limited to the exclusive use of the principal supporting structure, any'dock on Tillotson's land can be for the use of the people living in Tillotson's house only. The parties do not make it clear whether respondents arc seeking a declaration that the ordinance permits the shared dock proposal, or whether they seek a varianc~ from the ordinance as the ordinance doeg not permit such a use.. There is, at least initially, an ordinance interpretation question. The Orono City C. ode defines 'accessory use or structure" as a 'use or structure subordinate to and serving the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto.' Orono, Minn., § 10.02(1) (1984). Thc cxxle also defines 'use-accessory" as a 'use subordinate to the principal use on a lot and exclusively used for purposes incidental to those of the principal use." Id., § 10.02(72). The code provides that: "No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of con- struction of the principal building to which it is accessory." Id., § 10.03, subd. 9(A). The code indicates that · dock is an accessory use under section 10.23, subd. 5(A), which lists "Ia]ny accessory use as regulated in the 'R-lA' District and 'private docks' subject to the City Code and other applicable regulations including boat storage density regulations" as a "permillcd accessory use." Construing these provisions together, we conclude: (1) a dock is an accessory use, and (2) the definition of the accessory use and the prohibition against building an accessory use before a principal use indicate that the code presumes there has to be a primary structure on the property in order for an accessory structure to be pertained. Thus, building a boat dock without a primary structure on the property would not be permitted by thc code. This construction explains the denial of respondents' first dock proposal. At issue in this appeal is respondents' shared dock proposal. The code makes it "unlawful for any person to engage or par- ticipate in business use or joint use without first having obtained a license therefor from the City." Id., § 5.42, subd. 2. The code &fines "joint use" as *more than two persons joining for the purpose of using lakeshore property for swimming, bathing, fishing, docking or mooring boats, Or for any other purpose." Id., subd. IF. In this case, Tillotson and respondents wished to usc the same piece of property for docking boats. In addition, the code indicates that "private" docks are a permissible accessory use. The usc of thc dock by both Tiliotson and respondents did not seemingly transform it into a business use, but the proposal did not call for a purely private dock for the Tillotson home. The definition of "use-accessor3~" provides that it is a use "exclusively used for purposes incidental to those of the principal use." Id., § 10.02, subd. 72. In this case, the principal use, the house, was Tillotson's. The accessory use, the dock, was respondents'. The~use of the dock by respondents would not have been incidental to Tillotson's use of his house and the dock would not have been exclusively used for purposes incidental to thc house. Read together, these provisions did not permit respondents' shared dock proposal. Next, we consider whether respondents were entitled to a variance. The district court correctly noted that the shared dock proposal addressed some of the concerns expressed by the city council regarding the original dock proposal. But addressing the concerns raised by the first proposal did not necessarily address the concerns raised by the second proposal. Even though the shared dock proposal may not have had the disadvantages of the earlier dock proposal, it had disadvantages all its own. The city council properly considered these disadvantages in denying the variance. The Orono City Code provides that: In considering applications for variance, the Council shall consider the advice and recommendation of the Board and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of thc community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk Io the public safety, and the effect on values of properly in thc surrounding area. Before granting a variance, thc Council shall hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of this Chapter in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances uni- que to thc individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will he in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. Orono, Minn. § 10.08, subd. 3A (1984). The code defines "undue hardship": 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable usc i fused under conditiofiS allowed by thc official controls. 2. Thc plight of thc landowner is duc to circumstances unique to his property not created by thc landowner. * * 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. 11. The granting of the proposed ~a~nce wBI no~ in any way impair health~ safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respecl be contrary to thc intent of thc Zoning Code. la., subd. 3(AX1). As thc city conectly argues, respondents were aware when they purchased .the property that they might not be able to build 59 I 1 negative _p,r~cedent ,f. or other pieces of property; respondents hardship was not a .condition uniqu.e.to ~coC~r piece of pmocrty. Furthermore, thc city reasonamy sidered the afeared dock proposal to be. contra,fy t,o the. of the Zoning Code. As mcasur~l by thc stanaaras s~t torm in the Orono City Cod(:, thc city's action in denying respondents' shared dock proposal was reasonable. Because we determine that the city's denial of respondents' second proi~sal was reasonable, we do not reach thc issue of whether the district court exceeded its authority in ordering the city to adopt a specific shared dock proposal. Reversed. FINANCE ~ COMMERCE Atn'~-~ l ATE COO K-is EDITION a dock without obuining a variance because the property had no prim,u'y structure. Respondents' plight is at least pLni~lly their own doing. In addition, in denying thc variance, the city cited the coflcem that it would set a This opinion will be unpublished and amy not be dted except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1992) Clay County Huspeni, Judge District Court File No. CX921160 Steven Timm, Trustee for the Heirs of Chad Timm, Plaintiff, VS. Northern States Power Company, et al., Defendants, and Often Valan, Jr., third-party plaintiff, Craig E. Johnson Jne A. Johnson Wcgner, Fraasc, Nordeng, Johnson & Ramstad 15 South Ninth St. Fargo, ND 58103 Appellant, Marcus J. Christianson Daniel L Giles Christianson, Stonebcrg, Giles & Myers, P.A. 300 O'Connell St. Marshall, MN 56258 Filed: June 21, 1994 Office of Appellate Courts Considered and decided by Huspcni, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Amundson, Judge. UNPUBLISHED OPINION itUSPENI, Judge 0'Ion. Homer A. Saetre, Retired, District Court Trial Judge) Appellant Often Valan challenges the trial court's determination that although the exclusion language of the policy was ambiguous, appellant's expectation, of insurance coverage was not reasonable and therefore respondent North Star Mutual Insurance Company was not obligated to defend or indemnify appellant under a farm liability policy for the death of appellant s employee on appellant s farm. B~caust we find that the language in thc policy unambiguous- ly excludes appellam from coverage in this instance, we affirm on grounds other than those relied upon by the trial court. VS. North Star Mutual Insurance Company, third-party defendant, Respondent. FAUi'~ Chad Timm (Timm), an employee on appellant's farm, was electrocuted when rig grain auger he was helpin.g apl~_ll.ant_mOwV~ contacted high voltage power lines owned by Northern a,~ates ro Company. Appellant had a farm liability policy with responden! North Star Mutual Insurance Company (North Star) and tendered defense to respondent when Timm's family an~l for wrongful death. Respondent denied liability on the policy, invoking an exclusion in the policy that denied bendits "if benefits ag payable or are required to be provided by an insured under a workers' compensation * * * law." Since appellant never re, ad his North Star policy, he did not know about the exclusion and firat learned about it when his in- surance agent visited him in the hospital foilowingTimm's accident. For many years before Timm's accident, appellant purchased farm liability and workers' compensation insurance, but he dropped the workers' compensation policy based on his agent's repre- sentation that the farm liability would be sufficient. A few months before Timm's accident, a n~ighbor told appellant that the law required him to have workers' compensation insurance. Appellant's insurance agent verified the neighbor's atatement and provided a quote for coverage. Appellant also obtainM a quote from another insurance company, but ultimately never purchased a policy. He thus had no workers' compensation coverage at the time of Timm's accident. Appellant sued respondent, seeking'a judgment that the farm liability policy covered Timm's accident and that n~x)ndent was obligated to defend appellant. At trial, the court found that the policy's exclusion language was ambiguous, but that appellant's expectation of insurance coverage was not reasonable and that respondent therefore was not obligated to defend and indemnify appellant for any damages arising out of the wrongful death action. DECISION 1. Appellant, while contesting the trial court's denial of(overage, docs agree with the trial court's conoluslon that the language of.the policy exclusion is ambiguous. Respondent, however, challenges that conclusion,t ~ R~-snnnde. m did not file a no6c~ of review challenging thc findings of -- r- ' · '~1 coufl's decision, we will ambii~uity. Because we are affn'mmg tb~ ~ ......... exercise our authofit~y under Minn. R. Civ. P..102 and .l~;O4.aaa ;.=,. ,4.<nlte m~nondent's failure t~ satisfy the proceourM rules. _.a~...n~. u, ~,'~.~.,.~,~g ~fi-~ las. Co., 394 N.W.2d 791,794 (Minn..1986) ~aeosw, n_ .'.'~."~'~'~'~.~" its nnwer to address soecific issues (:lcspjte a pa~l. y:s fa;h,r~ tO satisfy th~ oro(~dutal rules Is wltnl~l mc ~°u~ ~ a ='"':"' ~'.~"~ .... ~ -. · · · · · b~ mistaken, however, Exercise of our d~scretwn m thLs runner should ? ........ fo~ condouatioa of respondem's failure m comply w~tb the rules o~ cay, appellate proc~lure. Wc agree with respondent. Determining whether thc language of an insurance policy is ambiguous is a question of law. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co. ~. Coppa, 494 N.W.2d 503, 506 (Minn. App. 1993). This court will avoid reading an ambiguity in. to a c~n~aCts in order to provide coverage if thc plain language is oear. tar~a · ltartfor~! Accident & Indem. Co, 285 Minn. 324,.327, 173 tl.W.2d 21, 24 (1969). In concluding that the policy exclualon's language w. as am- biguous because it was capable of more than one meaning, the court stated: The policy excludes coverage where 'benefits arc payable or are requi~ to he prodded t,y :n ~.red_~,~.n~r_, workers' compensation, non-occupauonM.? ..s~_m,~, cupational disease or like law.' Because prsmun t ltmmj has e~ec~d to proc~ with a com.m, on l.? ~m~ _~s remedy. rather than a workers' compensation cJasm t~nefits are no[ required to be pwvided to the Heirs of Chad Timm under the workers' comi~nsatioo law and it is possible to con- dude that the exclus~' 'onary clause does not ap~iy. Our reading of the policy is that the exclusion unambiguously (:kales coverage in this case. The. trial court's interpretation goes beyond the language of the policy by Iookin8 to the type of claim brought against the insured. It is rather the contract between the insured and ~r that ~te~min-- wheat cover? ~ ,v..),?: .not · party's decision regarding what cause o! acuon xt wm t)nng agmm MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 27, 1994 Those present were: Commissioners Franl~ Weiland (Acting Vice-Chair), Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Mark Hanus, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. The following people were also in attendance: Ed Surko and Cklair Hasse. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of 1994 were presented for approval. Hanus requested a modification to the minutes on page 2, 3rd paragraph, and explained that his intent was that he thinks due to the lateral impact a fence may be preferable. Therefore, the first sentence in this paragraph was amended as follows: "Hanus commented that due to the lateral impact, it is his thou.qht that a fence may be preferable to ~' ....... ~'~ "'"~' ~ ~ ........ ........... ~. ............ c.,., foliage in this instance because of the limited space between the retaining wall ~3nd the curb." MOTION made by Voss seconded by Clapsaddle to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 1994 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. INTERVIEWS FOR NEW COMMISSIONER: A___~. EDWARD SURKO, 2314 CHATEAU LANE Mueller confirmed that "Ed" is preferred, and questioned if Mr. Surko would not be more suited for the Economic Development Commission, considering his experience. Ed explained that he has had more experience in that area, and has had little "planning" experience, however, he is interested in learning more about planning, and would like to help in some way. He has the time to devote to the Commission. He has worked in construction on oil rigs. When asked where he sees the City in twenty years, he stated that he has only lived in Mound since April 15, 1994, however he sees potential for redevelopment in Mound to attract possibly some tourism. Based on his experience, he has seen City's deteriorate, and has seen what he does not want to happen to Mound. He has not been involved in any other volunteer organizations, political or otherwise. He has coached children's basketball and baseball. He has no future plans for elective office. What does he see as problems in Mound? He sees Mound as a mixed community, in terms of economics. He sees problems with businesses, but he also sees a lot of potential for Mound. Mound needs to attract businesses into the City, then the rest will follow. He sees fut~Jre development for the lost lake area to include a boardwalk type atmosphere for merchants and tourist to merge with the community with dockage and store fronts. He has no conflict with meeting times. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994 B._~. CKLAIR HASSE~ 6627 BARTLETT BLVD. Mr. Hasse was a City Council member for one year in 1974, and also served on the Park Commission and Planning Commission for an undetermined number of years until his job interfered with his schedule to attend the night meetings. In the last twenty years, he feels the lost lake area should have been completed since a lot of money has been spent on plans. He has resided in MOund since 1949, and he has stayed here because he likes the lake and the people. He is a charter member of the Jr. Chamber. He would like to see the lost lake area remain in a natural state, not developed into a park or anything, just remain natural. He is in favor of housing maintenance, however, he feels the rental ordinance should be split between multiple dwellings and single family rental dwellings. He has a rental dwelling and does not feel he should be responsible to keep the sidewalks shoveled free of snow and ice. He has no conflict with meeting times. DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSION ON INTERVIEWS; Chair Weiland noted that the secretary has received a ballot from Geoff Michael who was unable to be present this evening. The Commission determined the ballot should not be entered into the vote. The difference between the two applicants was noted to be great. There was considerable discussion about the good qualifications of both applicants. The ballots were submitted to the secretary to be tallied. The applicant with the least amount of points wins the vote. Ed Surko 1,1,2,1,2,1 = 8 Cklair Hasse 2,2,1,2,1,2 = 10 MOTION made by Voss seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend Edward Surko be appointed to the Planning Commission to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Brian Johnson, with the term expiring December 31, 1994. Motion carried 5 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Mueller, Voss, Jensen, and Hanus. Weiland was opposed. The City Council will review this recommendation on July 12, 1994. TRUTH IN HOUSING DISCUSSION. Mueller explained that the proposed ordinance and forms have been modified to include the concerns expressed by the Minnesota Society of Housing Inspectors (MSHI) board members on November 22, 1993. A few minor questions still remain, as outlined in the memorandum from Peggy James, Secretary, dated March 17, 1994, as follows: 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994 On the Disclosure Report, Part A - Housing, the extra "comments" section that was at the end of the form was eliminated, only because the rest of the form fit on four pages. If it is important to have this put back in, please advise. The Commission noted that this is okay. Please verify that item 15 is correct in the Evaluator's Guide, Part A - Housing; relating to "copper" water lines. The Commission modified this item to read as follows: "15. Copper or Acceptable Material on Street Side of Meter 'A. The Evaluator shall indicate if the water piping on the street side of the meter is copper or a material accepted by the State Plumbing Code." Also, item 15 on the Disclosure Report, Part A - Housing, should be amended to read as follows: "15. Copper or Acceptable Material on Street Side of Meter?... __yes no" Please verify that item 86 is correct in the Evaluator's Guide, Part A - Housing; relating to zoning. The Commission modified this item as follows: "86. The ~ Seller shall ensure that both "Part A - Housing" and "Part B - Zoning" of the Truth in Housing Disclosure Report are submitted together." Also, item 4 on the first page of the Disclosure Report form, Part A - Housing, was amended as follows: "4. This is a two-part Report. The seller or seller's agent must make sure that this . complete Report is publicly displayed on the premises when the house is shown to a prospective buyer. The seller or agent must give a copy of this Report, both Part A and Part B, to the buyer prior to the signing of a Purchase Agreement." Jensen noted a typo on the Disclosure Report form, Part A, on page 2, at the top, "work" should be "word". Also, "non" should be capitalized and bolded. Mueller also noted a correction on Page 2, "a) Sump basket..." should be moved under item 2; this will correlate with the guide. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Voss, to send the Truth in Housing Disclosure Report form, Part A - Housing, and the Evaluator's Guide, Part A - Housing, back to staff to develop an implementation plan, and for review by the City Attorney. The implementation plan and attorney's comments should then be returned to the Planning Commission for review prior to holding a public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994 The Commission determined to add a questioned to the form as 2.B., and move the current "B." to 2.C., as follows: "2. ZONING HISTORY B. There are documents on file at the City which suggest this property is nonconforming ........... YES NO " Subsequently, 2.B. was added to the Zoning Guide, as follows: "2. Zoning History: B. The City Zoning Administrator shall indicate if there are documents in the property jacket at City Hall which indicate that the property is nonconforming, such as a survey or resolutions for variances, subdivisions, or conditional use permits." The Commission feels this information is very important and they want to move the concept forward. Mueller noted that the title of the guide should be changed from "Evaluator's Guide" to "Zoning Administrator's Guide". MOTION made by Mueller seconded by Clapsaddle to send the Truth in Housing Disclosure Report form, Part B - Zoning, and the Zoning Administrator's Guide, Part B - Zoning back to staff to develop an implementation plan, and for review by the City Attorney. The implementation plan and attorney's comments should then be returned to the'Planning Commission for review prior to holding a public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Proposed Ordinance Addina Chapter 318 to the City Code relatin(~ to Truth in Sale of Houses.. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland to send the Proposed Ordinance Addition Chapter 318 to the City Code Relating to Truth in Sale of Houses back to staff to develop an implementation plan, and for review by the City Attorney. The implementation plan and attorney's comments should then be returned to the Planning Commission for review prior to holding a public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission suggested that all the documents be cleaned up by removing the strikeouts and underlining. The Commission requested that staff have the implementation plan and City Attorney's comments available for review at the July workshop meeting. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT. Councilmember Jensen reviewed the City Council Meeting Minutes of June 14, 1994. 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994 Hanus asked if the City Attorney could provide an opinion relating to a recent case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court relating to municipalities exacting land dedications from developers. Jensen stated that she will check with the attorney. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to adjourn the meeting at 10:08 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Acting Vice-Chair, Frank Weiland Attest: 5 June 30, 199~, Joan Growe Secretary of State 180 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 Joan: Re: Election Judge Training Video A committee of metro area city clerks and election officials have been working for the past 18 months on an optical scan election judge training video. The project has been completed and our video will be released July 15. The Elections Division of the Secretary of State's office has been aware of this project for some time. We are concerned about a duplication of effort. We believe sharing information, time, money, talent, and expertise ia the best way to keep taxpayers' costs down. Therefore, we were concerned and surprised to see a new training video presented by the Elections Division at the Secretary of State°s election training in June. We were especially shocked to see the title of their video was exactly the same as oursl Our committee's goals are the same as yours - a good instructional product. If we had pooled our resources and talent, the final product could have included both the general content in the State's video and the specific content outlined in ours. Local election administrators are your direct link to election iudges and ultimately, the voters. We hope you recognize this important link. Collaboration and interagency cooperation is the key to the successful conduct of elections in the state. We, through the Minnesota Clerks and Finance Officers Association, have been actively pursuing a better working relationship with your office for the past two years. The Committee would like to meet w{th you to discuss better ways of working together. Please call Joyce Mercil at 673-2073. Sincerely, The Election Judge Training Video Committee Laurie Ahrens - Plymouth Fran Clark- Mound Tom Ferber - Richfield Darlene George - Crystal Cathy Iago - Cottage Grove Nancy Iverson - Maple Grove Myrna Maikkula -Broo. klyn Park Jo¥ce Mercil - Minneapolis Shirley Nelson - Golden Valley Sue Olesen - Burnsville Liz Wilt - Eagan July 9, 1994 To: Peggy James and Park Commissioners JUL 111 "'1 12"I] JUL 1 3 From: Tom Casey Re: Park and Open Space Commission agenda - July 14, 1994 Pelican Point Referendum I will be attending the 14th North American Prairie Conference in Manhattan, Kansas during the week of July 10-17 and, therefore, unable to attend our July, 1994 POSC meeting. Because the preliminary plat for Pelican Point has been approved by the City Council, it is important to move quickly to put the referendum on the November general election ballot. Therefore, I have the enclosed the following materials along with this memo in the July agenda packet for your consideration and action: 1. Proposed referendum (with accompanying numbers) 2. "A Public Nature Area Is For Everyone - and Forever" (St. Paul Pioneer Press - 6/5/94) 3. "The Greening of the Suburbs" (Wayzata Weekly News - 5/26/94) 4. "Woodbury OKs Bond Issue For Park Improvement" (Mpls. Star/Tribune - 5/7/94) 5. "Parks Or Prisons? Fighting Crime With Green Space" (Mpls. Star/Tribune - 6/13/94) 6. Metro Region Forest Management Plan - Summary Report pages 16-17 (Desired Future Conditions) Some of the Park Commissioners have expressed opposition to protecting Pelican Point from development. However, whether they agree or disagree with protecting Pelican Point is no% the issue. The object of the proposed referendum is to give the citizens the choice of whether to preserve Mound's last remaining undeveloped parcel of private land. To say it another way, it would be presumptuous and undemocratic for the POSC to deny the citizens of Mound the chance to vote on this issue. (If any Park Commissioner opposes spending money to protect Pelican Point, they have the same opportunity as anyone else to vote against the referendum at the ballot box.) Thank you for your consideration. cc: Park Commission Agenda 7-14-94 GEd Shukle,~ity Manager RESOLUTION FOR REFERENDUM WHEREAS, the Park and Recreation Section of Mound's Comprehensive Plan states that Mound is presently 91% developed and that the City of Mound should expand its existing ownership of natural areas and open space; WHEREAS, the citizens of Mound are concerned about the loss of habitat throughout the world and recognize the need for local efforts to protect and restore natural habitat; and WHEREAS, Pelican Point will be lost forever to development unless immediate steps are taken to acquire and protect this property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mound Park and Open Space Commission requests that the Mound City Council place the following question on the November 1994 general election ballot: ' "shall the Mound City Council issue general obligation bonds in the amount of $1,240,000.00 for the purpose of acquiring Pelican Point in perpetuity as park land.,, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in the event that the fair market value of the property, costs of acquisition, bond costs, etc. exceed the dollar amount above, the dollar amount shall be amended to reflect a more accurate calculation. tOo . ~0 000 ooooooooooooooo ,_o ,, LU oooooo0ooooooooI ~ II "~ I II 0 Il ! I I · il. n, t ~0 n- ~0 0 I (/'J 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 Il LLI 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 O0 0 0 i CD II 0 Lt'" LI"I L'~ ILl 11 ! ! I I II I, I, 45 ill I I l, !1 !~, ,, lights so the bar leagues can get in a doubleheader after work.) i Huge outlying parks are necessary, not only for the nature appreciaters who can't afford a cabin up north, but also as a way to preserve the environment, Flyways, such as the land along the Mississippi Riv- er, act as hotels/or songbirds and game birds when they're migrating. The great need for this park won't come for anoth- er 20 ),ears, when Washington County likely will be home to another 63,000 people. But now is the time to start on this park. Most of the land is owned by one private landholder and the Shiely Co., which mines gravel on the island. Both are amenable to talking about a long-term plan for selling the land to the county. The legal hassles and expense can be kept to a minimum if the' acquisition is started early. Not everyone likes the idea of taking a huge piece of beautifulland and saving it for a park ia the dis- tant future. The most notable naysayers are the offi- . cials of the surrounding towns. They don't want to spend the money up front for a project that won't : come to fruition for many years, and they hate the thought of losing potential tax base. But development costs public money, too -- ask any community that has had to build roads', libraries, fire stations and -- schools to support the new houses. ·. , · Besides, the park plan asks only for Lower Grey Cloud Island; Upper Grey Cloud Island to. the north. would still be available for other uses. And the metro~)olitan aYea will get plent~,~of devel. opment in the next 20 )'ears. Let's hope we save enough space so that families like mine who moved here in the '80s and '90s can still find the beauty that appealed to us in the first place. ' , . -- In fact, th e-~-6p'l~-wh-6-w-ill 'a-bpF~-t~-' rOrOrOrOrOrOrOrOrg~ Cloud Island Park most aren't even alive yet. I hope to take my grandchildren there. .. Debta O'Conn~' covers education and writes a Neighbors col. oran that runs every Sunday. She also can be reached by com- puter at ploneerdeb @aoi.com. [1! i ! I, ,11 ~, ]. .- t :'.-' -', v :'. ,.j.: ,.. ,.':;:, ' ia ,[ I I l, II ,n, a, Wood.bUry'OKs'" 'bOnd' SSue'f°r.'?' park improvement Woodbury residents approved a $7.8 million park bond issue by a ,130- votemargir~$aturday. ~ ?.".'?. : ! ; ';'~ ".~' ;'.',.i-' .' ..'~' "7' The vote wa~' 2,033 1o'1,903 for the ;bonds, which'will pay for improving ,14 'neighborhoOd parks, buy more park land'and develop an 80-acre recreation complex with an ice arena-. field house and soccer and ball fields, Paying. 0ff*th¢ bonds will,increase roperty'taxes on the average 125.000 home by almost $70 a year, said Bob Klatt, park and recreation -director., He said thc turnout of 23 · percent of YegislCred voters was good for a referendum.- ; , Work wii'! start this year on the rec- reation complex and icc arena, which 'will open in stages, starting in 1995, Klatt said. · ~ J ! I I l. !1 .n, · ,. , '~.~ ' ' - ' '.' ,q,. .....' ~ ~.: "'~.~ -':9 , '~H',~' s~flfing iaea "Dick T~cy'~'s~p''a* fcT- d~ ;that urban parks'fost'e~.crime,' to tho cartoon detective, that'si beimuse park:..systerfis, Minneapolis and St.: Paul may 'trees and shrubbery giv~ ne'er-do-wells ~' 'b~ better eqU. ip~d in~ this reg/rd-than 1 ces from which ti5 leap out on ' --'most :American crees.-. But the trust hid,.ing p .a .... , -..~.;.~r^~,.~,.j.:,.:,-~ m'e~g~'tha('thi~' nation ~eedslhund~'.; unsuspccxmg. .pass.ers°Y'-. ':t' UClCtU!~" ' ':'""'t ::': of addiuonal xn~ ' ' '-' ~ '"" 'nei-~cit'¢, .-'par'ks has appn- cording to Xracy, me. way t.o ma.ke,a ~,y :'"°,;,,n'even here '~ :.-:'": '~-;' ':'" 0'. · {e is to ave over me par?,s. --/'. ,:':'. .... ,,~:;.v. ,. . ...: ;, ~,'; - .:: -:. - · sa p . . .,, . ;.-.'..':":..-..:.--:,:~:-,- -,...7.,:..,~;-.,- ,- fi.' - '-'.' --- ." st for Public Land has a bette ..... . - - .The Tru . ..' ..... · :-:' · · d Chairman Mark An-- idea: To fight urban 'crime, ..provide .,pm County Boar ' r~ ' arks ai~d'playgroiinds.--' draW' and others 'fori"a'jobs"and public-'. more inne '_ty p ..... _,.:., ..,x;t,o aro~ram* to'make up for the ~ela- rofit ~an rranc~sco-oaseo ,~ ,,,,,-,.- v e,- , · . · ~hA nonp , , · ' ...... les and o n spaces m : · '. ' v I '- txve.lack of par . pc . . 'conse~axion group a~ues..pe~uas.x .e:~ '.':,~,q}c .uiii~ehrmlii-compared to~ the n~w re ri that crime can De sxgntx~ .,: ,.,,;.? ---_ ~- - ' ' "13 en in a po, · .-* ' ' -- '-,- --,;- ~';',';~,, s lAke-studded southern nalL; y . educeo when cities provmc au~-; ...-1 . , . ' ica.ntly r . ... . ._,__.~ ...:.~.~.,. '- hanci'nlt th~.north s" s'upply of greenery ,quMe aha well-malntamcu n~tpt,.,,.,--.. ,- hood parks and, recreation facilities:'.-, .-.::'. andstrengttien:' play- space,"the areaPr°p°nentS'bverall' aS a hope. place tOin , - ~-'~ '.-"!. _ . '."..'?.= ', ",'r; -" - 'Ph0enix~'.:~izi', for examplc, ~xi~eri- , which i° live. A feasibility report On the ~need a' 55 pe. rcent decreas~'iri rep°rted'=-' idea is exi>ect d to be-released later this month~ -' .',: --; ?,:; /5 ::-' -J:".' "- '- .' .' ju~Tenile crime after the summer el°sing i, ¢' tin~ for recreational facilities was.' ex- . .:" ":':':~'-. 7::;. i .'-;~-' "---' '-'*-:.'-" '~en&d to 2 a,m, In a' philadelphia pre-' With 'itS focus- on crime-ftghtih~, the - i:ibct;', crimi~.droppcd' 90 'pcreent"afterv'' TrUst.for .Public Land. rePOt! ~m. akes a_ 'police helped'plant gai-dens ahd':clean ' riarrow~r'''case for urban ~rks and rec- ...... -'---~ :-'~0,-~ M,,ers, Fla ,-.'.reation facilities. But eve..n in that limit,~ ~p vacanl io~. ~uu u.t ~ ~, -. ~ * ? ~ · juvenile'arrests ch-opped by almost one-.."-: ed context, the arguments are'compct tiff rd' afteff'!he city began. a youth' iaea-, '"" h,'ng, i" 7-L :=;'xi:?.i: .: ..::': .,.'~i 'i,,_ ': .'."" i!.e~mcs and recreatton_ pr.o_,gra.m: ....... · ..The t~st's .report .refutes Republican ~ -~-i-- ':...'.' . '" ....... ' ' ' t One 'ob .rio_us ..reason for' SuCh results 'is. -.,' cgmplaints '. tha money,.earmarked in noun slers' wh6'cbristitute 'a ": congressional 'crime., bills 'for: midnight' thaI-whe. . - ¥ g - " ' m' '" basketball' 'le'ag'ues'and '0ther"re~eafion- '. majo,/part ofthe urban crime proble ........ ,, ,__ ,_:,. -. __. _=._.:, havean alterfiati-Ve-wa~ ~o expend time'-~-? p~rograms womo oe uctt. er spent - - e x~/iie sta o~i't of trouble, But '? on cells. "The-truth is :the other.way pnd.en rg¥, . ~y ,. Y - · ,: ,--,: ...... :?"'d~'oahd: iffhiany cases,-'money spent on. '- as the Philadeipma exampte xnm~c~,: ..-- · }:leanup .and beautification' of urban' .=:.parkS'is money thati~W0n't have to be spaces can have a positive,impact as':-.spcnt.onpi-isoncells,' ;'*;' .- .' . . . .... ................... . .... : ..::.: .-:: ............ !-_/..i i:i'-_ _'. :_.' .'- 1! ! ! I a, ,il s, a, Metro Region Forest Resource Management Plan - Summary Report DESIRED FUTURE CONDITIONS Imagine the Twbt CRies metropolitan area of the future. The desired future conditions (DFC's) describe a vision for the Metro Region forests .at some point bt the fitture. Ute DFC's in thi~ platt represent the collective thoughts of all those who were bn,olved in the planning process. ACROSS THE REGION Throughout the Region, thriving human communities are interwoven with natural area open space which work together in an ecologically sustainable pattern. Extensive use of well-managed native and cultivated vegetation have improved air and water quality, have increased wildlife, have effectively eliminated the urban heat island, and contribute significantly to the quality of life. All areas providing habitat for endangered and threatened species, wetlands, and significant examples of remnant natural communities are being preserved and protected as special management areas in public or private ownership. Major river corridors mostly resemble pre-settlement conditions of native bottomland forest interwoven with prairie, wetlands, and wooded ravines and bluffs. Together with some undeveloped secondary streams, these riparian corridors connect special management areas. Buffer strips are retained along environmentally sensitive areas such as lakes, bluffs, steep slopes, streams, rivers, rare communities and special management areas. Biological communities suitable for permanent retention have been designated as natural area open space. Open spaces are being actively managed to help natural processes, such as the hydrologic system, function without impediment and to preserve ecological communities. Abandoned railways have been converted to trails and open space. All residents live within walking or biking distance of a regional park or natural area open space. The water quality of area lakes and wetlands is excellent. Stormwater runoff is not polluted with sediment from erosion or from the use of fertilizers or pesticides. Wood waste from removed trees is utilized for fuel, mulch, lumber and pallet material. Landfills are no longer used for dumping wood waste. Property owners leave many dead trees standing, when not hazardous, to pro,,Sde habitat for birds and other wildlife. Tree losses from insects, diseases, and fires have been lowered to .5% to 1% per year. URBAN AND DEVELOPING AREAS The developed areas of the Metro Region have a dense tree canopy cover of over 50%. In addition, valuable open areas including lakes, wetlands, and prairie abound. The tree cover varies throughout each community, with limited interruptions from large buildings, parking lots and utility lines. The dense canopy shelters homes in the winter, cools the cities in the summer, provides habitat for a variety of birds and 16 other wildlife, and contributes to property value. a A minimum of 10% of the urban rea is kept in natural area open space land including large patches of restored native forests, wetlands, and prairies. Housing developments are clustered and interlaced with corridors of natural habitat. Trees have been strategically placed around homes and small commercial and institutional buildings to max/mize summer shade, to minimize winter shade, and to reduce winter ,,,,finds in order to conserve energy. Some outlying subdMsions and communities have large shelterbelts, planted to the west and north to protect the neighborhoods from winter winds. Attractive yards and properties designed to function like native plant communities have replaced much of the high maintenance turfgrass, Vegetation consists of carefully designed plantings of trees, shrubs and other plants which increase biological diversity and contribute to a healthy ecosystem. Plantings are typically mulched to encourage an active humus layer and reduce maintenance. Mowed tuffgrass is used selectively to demonstrate care for the landscape and allow for recreational activities. Noxious weeds and plants are controlled. Native trees and shrubs, from local seed sources best adapted to the local environment, have been planted wherever site conditions are appropriate. Introduced species have been planted where site conditions limit the use of native species. Each community has planted no more than 10-15% of any one species of tree and no more than 5% of any single cultivar. A mix of ages of trees (about 10% of each ten year age class) thrive in every community. Having diversity in the type and ages of trees has dramatically reduced the occurrence of disease and insect problems and provides habitat for a variety of birds and other urban wildlife species. Development in wooded areas preser,,'es 60% of the trees maintaining a 70% tree canopy cover in residential areas. RURAL FORESTS AND UNDEVELOPED LAND 17 Rural forests continue to contribute substantially to the environmental quality and economic vitality of the Region. Thoughtful forest preservation, reforestation, and management have resulted in unique systems of thriving forests in each of the regional landscapes. The forest species planted and the management practices used to sustain the forests are so well-suited to site conditions that the benefits of these forests are optimized. The rural forests in the Region are managed primarily for wildlife, aesthetic and recreational values. Rural woodlots have been reserved and are being managed to have a variety of mostly native species and a good mix of ages. Native forest plant communities and working timber stands have been re-established where new forest cover is needed and on marginal agricultural lands. A diversity in the type and ages of trees has increased forest health and provides habitat for a range of wildlife species. Several large tracts of land have been established as regional forest preserves. Many tracts of rural forestland have been purchased for environmental educational purposes. All farms have implemented complete soil and water conservation plans. All farmsteads have shelterbelts and field windbreaks along with strategic shade trees. Wood products come mostly from thinning operations. Wood from the thinning or har,,'est of rural forests is utilized for fuel, chips for mulch, lumber and pallet 1! ! I ! I, n ,n, n CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 May 9, 1994 TO: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION FROM: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER~''~ SUBJECT: BOND REFERENDUM - ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR PARK PURPOSES In reviewing the Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of April 14, 1994, and subsequently discussing the matter with the City Council, it is at the City Council's direction that I contact you regarding your request to have a bond issue during the General Election to be held in November 1994. As I read the Minutes of the April 14, 1994 meeting, it appears that the motion that was passed was intended to have a question on the ballot in order to poll the community on whether they were interested in authorizing city funds, through the levying of additional taxes, to pay for acquisition of land for park purposes. Upon reading this information, the City Council asked the city attorney if such a question can be asked on a ballot. The city attorney responded that Minnesota law does not permit the city to hold an election of an advisory nature. It is improper and illegal. The City Council does have the authority to hold a special election or place a question on a ballot. The City Council is not going to do so based upon there being no information, no program or study that really develops the issue to the point where the City Council can realistically ask voters to spend x dollars on a project. The City Council is not in the position to go forward on any type of an election because there hasn't been any type of a program developed with regard to the purchasing of additional lands for park purposes. Hopefully, this will clarify the City Council's position on this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. ES:Is LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force Agenda 8:30 am, Friday, July 15, 1994 Conference Rm. 135, Norwest Bank Bldg., Wayzata Introductions, Chair Tom Penn Review, accept/amend minutes of 6/10/94 meeting; LMCD milfoil harvest report, Project Mgr Todd Grams; a. Harvest progress since June 20 start date following operator training from June 13-17; b. Overview of milfoil growth being found in the lake this year compared to 1993; c. Forecast for harvesting as the season continues; d. Experience in fragment clean-up at public accesses; e. Results of herbicide treatment at public accesses; MN DNR report, Chip Welling: a. Garlon 3A (triclopyr) update on test treatment in Phelps and Carsons Bays with Carmans Bay control site b. Sonar (fluridone) update on test treatment in East Parkers and Lake Zumbra; c. New milfoil sightings among lakes throughout the state, and/or progress for control among infested lakes. d. Additional milfoil control priorities; Zebra Mussel and Exotics Action Plan Subcommittee report per meeting of 6/15/94 and agenda items for Wednesday, July 20 meeting (proposed agenda items): a. Zebra Mussel Draft Control Plan update on progress; b. Transportation survey on movement of boats; c. Survival rate studies of zebra mussel larvae (veligers) in boat bilge/wet wells; d. LMCD staff report on DNR opening of three public accesses on.Mississippi River in light of zebra mussel presence and threat of spread by boats; 6. Weed puller harvester development progress, LMLOA report 7. Lake association reports; 8. Hennepin Parks update; 9. Additional business; 10. Next meeting (August 12) and adjourn; FRI, 1ST SAT, 2ND SUN, 3RD MON, 4TH TUE, 5TH WED, 6TH .~HU, 7TH ~'RI, 8TH SAT, 9TH SUN, 10TH TUE, 12TH WED, 13TH THU, 14TH GAT, 16TH SUN, 17TH LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT JULY 1994 LAKE MINNETONKA EVENT CALENDAR (Revised) 9:00 AM MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake 10:00 AM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake area 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 5:30 PM MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 10:15 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area Excelsior Chamber of Commerce Fireworks, Exc Bay MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area 6:00 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake Wednesday Evening Bassin', Goose Island UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area 6:15 PM WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake 10:00 AM MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake 6:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM Limited Bass Predator Classic, Exc. Park Tavern MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake WYC Sailboat Race, Big Island MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 1:30 PM 5:30 PM MYC Sailbqat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area SYC Sailboat Race, Big Island WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake 6:00 PM MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake 6:30 PM UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area 6:00 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake Wednesday Evening Bassin', Goose Island UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area 6:15 PM WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake 10:00 AM WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake 2:00 PM UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 5:30 PM WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake JULY 1994 LAKE MINNETONKA EVENT CALENDAR, Paq~ ~ (Revised) TUE, 19TH WED, 20TH 6:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area Wednesday Evening Bassin', Mtka Boat Works MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area THU, 21ST FRI, 22ND 6:15 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area SAT, 23RD 6:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM Wednesday Evening Bassin',Goose Is/Exc Park Tavern MYC Sailboat Race, Big Island East WYC Sailboat Race, Big Island MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area SUN, 24TH 7:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 1:30 PM 5:30 PM Westonka MDA Brighter Light Bass Open/Exc Park Tav MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area SYC sailboat Race, Big Island WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MON, 25TH TUE, 26TH 6:00 PM 6:00 PM MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area WED, 27TH 5:00 PM Wednesday Evening Bassin' Goose Island 6:00 PM MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake THU, 28TH SAT, 30TH 6:15 PM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 6:00 PM WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake WYC Sailboat Race, Wayzata Bay SYC sailboat Race, Big Island MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area WYC Sailboat Race, Wayzata Bay SUN, 31ST 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 1:30 PM 5:30 PM MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area' SYC sailboat Race, Big Island WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake 7/6/94 ]OPIED FROM JULY ISSUE OF MANAGING ..... Fo O~TC~ WHAT DO WE PAY THESE FOLKS FOR? SOMEBODY TELL ME NOW! Just when some elected local official got caught doing something reprehensible and y~u thought you'd seen the bottom of the barrel, Congress goes it one better. Here's the deal (and quite a deal it is, too): You know all those labor laws that place employers in the private sector at liability:. The Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Employment Op- portunity Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act? Believe this: Those same statutes that are being strongly imposed on busine~,es do not app/y to Congress, What's more, an amendment making Congressper- sons and their top aides personally liable for discrimination claims fried by staffers is be- ing opposed by key iegislator~ Wl~t's curious is that the people making the laws see themselves as above compliance with those laws. Says Michael R. Losey, SI'HR, p~ident and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management ($HRM) and a longfime MANAGING OFFICE TECItNOL* OGY columni~ "It's an issue of practicality. Congressional coverage [by these laws] would provide for sound public policy and provide Congress with immediate feedback about how their laws work in the real world." Among the opposition are House Speaker Tom Foley, l)*Wash., and Rep. Charlie Reose, D-N.C. Foley offered this explanation (and notJting more) in a .ROLL (:ALL (a Congres* sio~ publication which updates readers on the status of bills) article: "I'm opposed to that, I have alwa~ been opposed to th~ and I will continue to be opposed to that." Well, tha~ ~ dear, at least. 8HRM notes that the Post Ot~ce and CMl Service Committee is considering the issue. The chair, Rep. Bill Clay, D-Pa., supports cov- erage for House staffers under the ADA, CMl Rights Act, and Age Discrimination in Em* ployment Act. The Federal Employee Fair* nessAct, H.R. 2721, is aimed at improvingthe review of discrimination claims filed by fed* er'al workers, and was recently amended by Rep. W'dllam F. Goodling, I~-P~., to allow Con* gressio~ a~ffers to take theft complaints to co~ and hold Congressional members and their top aides liable for up to $50,000 in pu* nJtive dm-~ge~ SHRM strongly supports Goodling's pro- posal. 'q'nis is the first time that meaningful Congressional coverage has been passed by a committee," Losey note~ Foley doesn't believe members of Congress are like private-sector managers because, he says, Congressional staff mem- bets are more likely to file lawsuits to gain political ground. But here's the kicker. Foley would rather have taxpayers foot the bill for damages paid to staffers from public funds. Hmmm...have taxpayers foot the bill. Now where have we heard that before? Losey disagrees with Foley's position. 'qqmt's punishing the wrong people and pro- vides no incentive for Congressional mem- bers to really understand the law, not to men- tion obey the law." Congress is considering coverage as part of overall Congressional reform being consid- ered this year. However, questions remain about the strength of coverage being consid- ered. For example, will the penalties be the same for private-sector employers and for Congress? fi, say, the m~ine's readers had to pay for my discriminatory acts, what would that teach me about obeying the law or the reason for discrimination laws in the first place? Nothir~ What's more, you wouldn't be very happy about having to pay for my non-com- pliance with the law while you have to com- ply with it--and you'd be right. Are you angry yet? Call your Representa- tive(s) and complain. Write them a letter. Send them a fax. That's why they're there. Then write or fax me (216/696-7648) and tell me what response you received, or if you got a response. Shouldn% our ruling bodies be exemplary in compliance with the laws they set? And shouldn% the offending individuals have per- sonal liability for their lapses in legal compli- ance? Sounds reasonable enough to me. · LURA K. ROMB I: II ! I I II 1, I MINNESOTA ELECTION LAWS - 1991 county agency shall assist applicants and recipients in completing the voter registration cards, as needed. Applicants must be informed that completion of the cards is optional. Completed forms shall be collected by agency employees and submitted to proper election officials. History: 1988 c 689 art 2 s 136 275.60 LEVY OR BOND REFERENDUM; BALLOT NOTICE. Notwithstanding any general or special law or any charter provisions, any question submitted to the voters by any local governmental subdivision at a general or special election after the day of final enactment, authorizing a property tax levy or tax rate increase, including the issuance of debt obligations payable including the issuance of debt obligations payable in whole or in part from property taxes, must include on the ballot the following notice in boldface type. "~By VOTIN__.__G "YES" ON THIS B~_.~LOT QUESTION, YOU ARE VOTING FOR A PROPE_~.~~REASE.. For purposes of this section and section 275.61, "local governmental subdivision" includes counties, home rule and statutory cities, towns, school districts, and all special taxing districts. This statement is in addition to any general or special laws or any charter provisions that govern the contents of a ballot question. This section does not apply to a school district bond election if the debt service payments are to be made entirely from transfers of revenue from the capital fund to the debt service fund. History: 1991 c 291 art 1 s 28 289A.08 FILING REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUAL INCOME, FIDUCIARY INCOME, CORPORATE FRANCHISE, MINING COMPANY, AND ENTER- TAINMENT TAXES. Subd. 14. Voter registration form. The commissioner shall insert securely in the individual income tax return form or instruction booklet distributed for an odd-numbered year a voter registration form, returnable to the secretary of state. The form shall be designed according to rules adopted by the secretary of state. This requirement applies to forms and booklets supplied to post offices, banks, and other outlets, as well as to those mailed directly to taxpayers. s 3Hist°ry: 1990 c 480 art 1 s 3,46; art 5 s 4,5; 1990 c 604 art 10 s 23; 1991 c 291 art 11 351.01 RESIGNATIONS. Subdivision 1. To whom made. Resignations shaH be made in writing signed by the resigning officer:. (1) By incumbents of elective offices, to the officer authorized by law to fill a vacancy in such office by appointment, or to order a special election to fill the vacancy; (2) By appointive officers, to the body, board, or officer appointing them, unless otherwise specially provided. Subd. 2. When effective. Except as provided by subdivision 3 or other express provision of law or charter to the contrary, a resignation is effective when it is received by the officer, body, or board authorized to receive it. Subd. 3. Contingent resignations prohibited; exception. (a) Except as provided in paragraph Co), no resignation may be made to take effect upon the occurrence of a future contingency. Statements explaining the reasons for a resignation must not be considered to be contingencies unless expressly stated as contingencies. (b) A resignation may be made expressly to take effect at a stated future date. Unless it is withdrawn as provided under subdivision 4, a resignation is effective at 12:01 a.m. on the stated date. RELATED LAWS - 8 HANDBOOK FOR MINNESOTA CITIES Two, the proposed bond Issue should be part of a long-term capltal Improvement plan for the city. This plan is a study showing the capltal expenditures which the city will need In future years, the probable dates when the cry will need them, their estimated cost, their priority when compared with other needed expen- ditures, the continuing operating and maintenance cost burdens which they will add to the annual city budget, and the probable availability of funds to pay for them. Every cry should have such a plan and should update It annually. Different capital expenditures obviously have a different priority for the city as a whole. and only ff a proposed bond Issue is evaluated In terms of the long-term capital needs of the city can the council feel assured that some higher priority project would not be unwisely postponed because of the program under consideration. This particular planning step helps to assure maximum long-range benefit for the ctty from each dollar the city spends In servic- Ing and repaying the proposed debt. Three, the council should clear the proposal with the long-range financial plan of the city, giving consideration to such questions as: Will the taxes the cry levies to service the debt Impose too great a burden on cry taxpayers in future years? Will the necessary taxes prevent other, more Important tax levies tn future years? Will the proposed bond Issue seriously Impair the city credit rating by causing a higher rate of interest on future bond Issues or by using up too great a percentage of the city's borrowing capac- Ity? Planning of thts nature should deter° mine whether the proposed bond Issue will financially harm the cry In the future. If, after this planning Is complete, the council decides to Issue the bonds, It must pass a resolution stating Its Intent, the amount to be borrowed, and the purpose of the Issue.3° The resolution should also provide for an election on the Issue If necessary. Election Requirements Most bond Issues must receive the approval of the voters. The exceptions a.]~:3i · Bonds the city issued to pay any unpaid Judgment against the city; · Bond Issues to refund other bonds: · Bonds that are payable wholly or partly from the proceeds of special assessments. Including bonds guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the city (this exception does not apply ff less than 20 percent of the city's cost of the improvement comes from the special assessments);~ · Bonds that are repayable wholly from the Income of revenue-producing facilities; or · Bonds the city issued under the provisions of a law permitting the issuance of obligations without an election, When an election Is necessary, the city must conduct it in the same manner as any other election. The question may go to the voters at either a general or special election. The city must follow notice requirements In the law, and must also state the maximum amount and the purpose of the proposed bond issue in the notice. Voters must vote separately on each purpose for which the city is plan- ning to issue the bonds, h~e~c.t_[0n_~i~., Invalid when a slngl_e__questl0n Includes two separate purposes for voter consider- a-U6n. For example. It would be Improper to submit a proposal to issue bonds for the construction of a city hall and the acquisition of a power and light utility in a single election quesUon,a3 If the voters reject a bond Issue. the council may not resubmit the question of authorizing the obligations for the same purpose and in the same amount within a period of 180 days from the date of the election. If the council submits a question a second time after 180 days and voters do not approve It. the council may not submit the exact same question for at least one year after the second election.34 Negotiating the Actual Sale With four exceptions, cities must sell all bonds publicly through either competitive bidding or public subscription? These exceptions are: · Bonds and obligations a city issues under laws specifically authorizing a different method of sale; · Bonds and obllgaUons a city sens In an amount not exceeding $1.200.000 In any 12-month period: