The URL can be used to link to this page

1996-01-09 AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1996, 7:30 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. PAGE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 1995 AND DECEMBER 19, 1995 ......................................... 5-21 PRESENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COMMONS TASK FORCE ........................................ 22-63 REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS - WINTERFEST 1996 ........................... ADVISORY COMMISSION REAPPOINTMENTS ............................ 64 APPOINTMENT OF ACTING MAYOR FOR 1996 ........................... 65 APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 1996 ..................... 66 DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 1996 ................... 67-69 APPROVAL OF BONDS FOR CITY CLERK AND FINANCE DIRECTOR ............................................ 70-7! DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR 1996 .................... 72 APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES TO VARIOUS COMMISSIONS ........................................ 73'75 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ................. -1 13. 14. 15. 16. RESET PUBLIC HEARING; FOR PROPOSED UTILITY AND ~TREET IMPROVEMENTS ON KILDARE ROAD (NOTE: PETITIONERS HAVE REQUESTED THE DATE TO BE CHANGED FROM JANUARY 23, 1996 TO FEBRUARY 13, 1996) SUGGESTED DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 1996 ................................ CASE ff95-53: HUNERBERG CONSTRUCTION FOR CHRIS PALM 1772 LAFAYETTE LANE, T_OT 1, BLOCK 3, DIRFTWOOD SHORES, PID #13-117-24 22 0011, REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR ADDITION ............ 76-92 APPROVAL OF PUBLIC LANDS PERMITS - BATCH #7: #42002 JOHN GABOS ~42167 TOM LATCHAM ~t2227 MILDRED PIERCE #42277 CARL ALEXANDER #42351 MICHAEL HENRY 4687 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 4711 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 4717 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE'~ 4725 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE 93-105 4737 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE ..................... APPROVAL OF PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION FOR HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVAL AND TREE TRIMMING - CITY OF MOUND: APPROVAL: CRESCENT PARK - POSC RECOMMENDS REPLACEMENT OF WILLOW TREE STREET EASEMENT ADJACENT TO 2549 EMERALD DRIVE - POSC RECOMMENDS APPROVAL TO TRIM DENIAL: RUSTIC PLACE (NCA) - POSC RECOMMENDS NO TRIMMING 106-131 DIAMOND LANE (NCA) - POSC RECOMMENDS NO TRIMMING ...................... 17. DISCUSSION: BID FOR MODIFICATIONS AND REFURBISHING TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S MACK ........................................... 132 PUMPER, MODEL CF685 18. APPROVAL OF SUMMARY OF CITY'S RECENTLY APPROVED TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE ................... t~.~ -~ ~ ~. -~ · · · · 19. DISCUSSION: FLACK VS. CITY OF MOUND .=-. :~. ............... 20. APPROVAL OF 1996 DOCK LOCATION MAP ........................ 21. RESOLUTION APPROVING CITY OF MOUND EMPLOYEE DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY UNDER THE OMNIBUS TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE TESTING ACT ...................... 133-134 135-145 146-171 172-203 program, but are being listed now subject to that condition. six for sure and the remaining sites on the location map, put an *, at the bottom, I~yy ~hat * with a note that these parcels (6) or whatever, designate those are subject currently to a temporary injunction and the remaining parcels are also subject to a ...may be affected by the decision of the court prior to granting permits for the 1996 season, the city council may delete some or all of these locations from the map. this was moved by Jessen, seconded by Liz ................... or '"'--.b. ere they voted 5/0 ,~ ..~-~ ¢---,',I to approve the 1996 dock location map denoting all of the dock sites between Bluebird la~' north through the Flack property (which are Dock site #'s 00490 - 01560) with the statement.on'~./ the 1996 Dock Location Map stating the six specific properties that are subject to a court order, and the balance of the sites may or may not be subject to removal from the dock program on the basis of the opinion of the court. approve map-- indicating there are a number of parcels, six of which, that unless there is an appeal, will not be the site of docks within the program this year and the balance of them may or may not be the site of docks under the city's program this year, depending upon future determination by the Council as to how to pursue with respect to those other plaintiff locations within the Wawanoissa Common. (no one voted here) 1.18 APPROVAL OF 1996 DOCK LOCATION MAP. 1.19 RESOLUTION APPROVING CITY OF MOUND EMPLOYEE DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY UNDER THE OMNIBUS TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE TESTING ACT. TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE. 1.17 DISCUSSION: FLACK VS. CITY OF MOUND. footnote say two things: Six of these properties are subject to a court order that pr~?,ludes from using them for dock purposes and the balance of the properties may or may not be subject to removal on the basis of the opinion of the court. here they voted 5/0 to approve the 1996 dock location map denoting all of the dock sites between Bluebird lane north through the Flack property (which are Dock site #'s 00490 - 01560) with the statement on the 1996 Dock Location Map stating the six specific properties that are subject to a court order, and the balance of the sites may or may not be subject to removal from the dock program on the basis of the opinion of the court. approve map-- indicating there are a number of parcels, six of which, that unless there is an appeal, will not be the site of docks within the program this year and the balance of them may or may not be the site of docks under the city's program this year, depending upon future determination by the Council as to how to pursue with respect to those other plaintiff locations within the Wawanoissa Common. (no one voted here) 1.18 APPROVAL OF 1996 DOCK LOCATION MAP. 1.19 RESOLUTION APPROVING CITY OF MOUND EMPLOYEE DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY UNDER THE OMNIBUS TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE TESTING ACT. December 12, 1995 Minutes - Mound City Council the main dwelling on Parcel A. A suggestion was to lower the roof line on the garage, the applicants did not approve of this. The proposed garage is conforming to all setbacks. Staff recommended approval. The Planning Commission recommended denial. Staff was directed to work with the applicant. Jon and the City Planner discussed in depth. Councilmember Hanus and Ahrens sunnorted the re-subdividin of the two_ arcels So arcel A would have enou h area to build the re sed ara e. Ahrens and Hanus were not in favor of buildin a ara e on arcel B to serve arcel A. The subdivision of the the re erties was not su orted b staff. The original request for a garage height variance is back before the Council. The Council discussed resubdividing, combining the two parcels and the eventual removal of the dwelling on parcel B. Councilmembers Jensen and Jessen agreed to the approval of a garage height variance thus keeping the two parcels tied together. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to approve the garage height variance request. The vote carried 3 - 2, with Hanus and Ahrens voting nay. A resolution will be in the Council packet at the December 19, 1995 council meeting. 1.4 ESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1996 BUDGET AND TAX LEVY FOR 1996 ~REVlSED PAGES AND RESOLUTION WILL BE HANDED OUT AT TUESDAY'S MEETING). City Manager Ed Shukle referred to his memo regarding the budget changes the Council had requested. The amended pages of the budget were attached along with the resolution for approval of the 1996 budget. The expenditures are now less than the revenues. Mayor Polston thanked the staff and Council for working to come up with this revised budget and a reduction of $32,000. Councilmember Hanus moved and Councilmember Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #95-121 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL 1996 GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,443,830; SETTING THE LEVY AT $1,850,295; LESS THE HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURAL CREDIT (HACA) OF $485,095; RESULTING IN A FINAL CERTIFIED LEVY OF $1,365,200 APPROVING THE OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1996. The vote was unanimously in favor. Resolution carried. '7 It J Minutes - Mound City Council December 12, 1995 1.9 APPROVAL OF PAYMENT REQUEST NO. 2, MOUND/MINNETRISTA PUBLIC WORKS MATERIAL STORAGE PROJECT TO IMPERIAL DEVELOPER S IN THE AMOUNT OF $44,014.23. City Manager Ed Shukle stated this payment request was for the work completed through November 1995 at the joint Mound/Minnetrista Public Works storage site. MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to approve the payment request of Imperial Developers in the amount of $~.,014.23 for work done through November 1995 at the Mound/Minnetrista Public Works storage site. 1.10 APPROVAL OF PAYMENT REQUEST FROM SUMMER HILL TREE FARM, MOUND/MINNETRISTA PUBLIC WORKS MATERIAL STORAGE PROJECT. City Manager Ed Shukle stated this payment request was for landscape work done at the Mound/Minnetrista Public Works material storage site. This was to appease neighboring property owners. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to approve payment to Summer Hill Tree farm in the amount of $8850 for landscaping done at the Mound/Minnetrista Public Works storage site. 1.11 1.12 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $354,590.61, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR NOVEMBER 1995. B. LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR NOVEMBER 1995. (HAND OUT TUESDAY) There were no meetings in November. C. MEMO FROM MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT RE: NEW LOCATION AT FRESHWATER FOUNDATION. D. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 11-27-95. Minutes - Moudd City Council December 12, 1995 MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Polston, and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 PM. City Manager Attest: Acting City Clerk 7 Mound City Council Minutes December 19, 1995 1.1 RESOLUTION APPROVING A GARAGE HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR GERALD AND CATHERINE PALEN, 6545 BARTLETT BLVD. City Manager Ed Shukle updated the Council stating the resolution in their packets had been revised. Item la had been changed and the applicant was in agreement with this change. Councilmember Jessen moved and Councilmember Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~95-122 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A GARAGE HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR 6545 BARTLETT BLVD., THAT PART OF LOT 18 LYING NORTH OF A LINE...HALSTEAD HEIGHTS, PID ~22-117-24 44 0033, P&Z CASE #95-49. The vote carried 3-1 with Ahrens voting nay. 1.2 APPROVAL OF CITY OF MOUND WATER SUPPLY PLAN. City Engineer John Cameron discussed with the Council the draft copy of the Water Supply Plan for the City of Mound that they had received. This plan will be submitted to the Metropolitan Council and they will review it and make comments by January 1, 1996. He felt the plan, as proposed, would be approved by the Met Council. He commented about the good support his company received from the Mound City Staff in preparing this document. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to approve the draft of the Mound Water Supply Plan and submit it to the Metropolitan Council for their comments and approval. 1.3 DISCUSSION: CITY ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT RE: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, XXXX KILDARE ROAD, - CURB, GUTTER AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS. City Engineer John Cameron updated the Council stating a brief history of this unimproved road. He referred to the Preliminary Engineering Report on Kildare Road that he had prepared. He referenced the suggested costs and how these costs would be shared. The applicant Mr. Schultz was present and asked why a cul-de-sac was required at the end of Kildare Lane. He was informed this area was for emergency vehicles, snow removal, and general traffic to turn around in. The property on Kildare before the Mound City Council Minutes December 19, 1995 1960's, the name of the entire Water Bank Commons became known as Waterside Lane. The intent was to show the lane and denote the common area on both sides of the road and that these individuals are abutting Water Bank Common. Councilmember Ahrens clarified this saying, "The road goes across the commons parallel to the shoreline and in front of the homes. The road is on what was originally designated as commons. The concern, is that their is commons on the homeowners side of the road and commons on the lake side of the road and there is a concern that the road will perhaps interfere with their abutting status as abutting property owners." Mayor Polston asked if changing the name of Water Bank Commons had to be done by ordinance? Councilmember Ahrens stated this area is referred to as Water Bank Commons according to the maps, plat. Waterside Lane goes through Water Bank Common. According to the plat map, it is Water Bank Commons that has Waterside Lane on it. Mr. Moffatt stated the abutters of this Water Bank Common do not want this common to assume the name Waterside Common as there is another Waterside Common in another location. These homeowners would like the commons in front of their properties, that has Waterside Lane through it, to be denoted as Water Bank Commons, as the plat map shows. Councilmember Ahrens stated that in the City's Use Plan, the area on Waterside Lane at the other end of Harrison's Bay has a different use plan than this area (Water Bank Common) of common. It is confusing when looking at the Use Plan, when both are named Waterside Common. Records had been changed internally somewhere along the way. It was confirmed the Water Bank Commons will be denoted as such by the plat map on the Dock Location Map and the homeowners abutting Water Bank Commons with Waterside Lane through it remain as abutting dock holders. No action was taken. Mr. Shukle asked if there were any other items from the list that needed discussion. Mr. Fackler stated the others were not major changes. City Attorney Curt Pearson stated there was a memo from himself to the Council regarding court action on the case Flack vs. City of Mound. There was a correlation between his memo and the proposed 1996 dock location map. He stated that before the map was approved, the Council should discuss the Flack case. At this point, the Mayor moved on to the next item regarding the approval of the 1996 dock forms. No action was taken at this time on the 1996 dock location map. /'7 Mound City Co~mcil Minutes December 19, 1995 follows: "While it is true that the suggested conclusions of law would confirm that the plaintiffs are the fee owners of their segments of Wawonaissa common, these segments would continue to be subject to the interests of the owners of all of the other lots in Woodland Point which were created by the dedication of the common to them in the plat. The nature of this interest, almost assuredly that of an easement, cannot be defined without bringing an action in which all of the lot owners and all of the encumbrancers are joined as parties. Under the current application by the city of the dock ordinance, the plaintiffs are assured of a dock site as the owners of lots which adjoin Wawonaissa Common. Ironically, a decision by this court for the plaintiffs will mean they no longer are assured of a dock site. All lot owners in Woodland Point will then have equal rights to use Wawonaissa Common. The only benefit to the plaintiffs would be that they would be free from the control exercised over Wawonaissa Common by the City." The City Attorney went on to state that Judge H. Peter Albrecht denied the City's motion to amend the report of the Referee. He denied the Plaintiff's motion against the City for refund of dock fees, and then made a rather strange concluding paragraph which states as follows: "That, until all appeals are exhausted, Defendant City of Mound is temporarily enjoined from collecting dock fees from Plaintiffs and licensing docks on the properties which are subject to this lawsuit". City Attorney Curt Pearson also stated the City's two options: "1. The City has 90 days after judgement has been entered to appeal the decision of the Court to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The Court order has not been adopted as of this date (December 18, 1995) but we expect that that will be forthcoming sometime in the next week or ten days, which will start the 90 day period rolling. This particular issue is the major decision that the Council will have to make as of this time. 2. If the City Council does not appeal the decision, the City will have lost its right to issue dock permits on these six properties. I assume that we would not license docks on the balance of the properties, since that Mound City Co~mcil Minutes December 19, 1995 MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:37 PM. City Manager Attest: Acting City Clerk lo 'MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER 12, 1995 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, December 13, 1995, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Persons in attendance: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Phyllis Jessen. Also present were: City Attorney Curt Pearson, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Manager Ed Shukle and Acting City Clerk Linda Strong. The following interested citizens were also present: Steve Kelm, Randy Lee, Pamela K. Anderson, Dennis and Shirley Flack, Jerry and Catherine Palen, R. Motyko, Peter Johnson, Leah Weycker, Marty and Marie Johnson. The Mayor called the meeting to order. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.1 Mayor APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 28, 1995 REGULAR MEETING, THE DECEMBER 6, 1995 TRUTH IN TAXATION (BUDGET MEETING). Polston stated page 2 had been amended by the city attorney. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to approve the Minutes of the November 28, 1995 regular Council meeting as amended. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to approve the Minutes of the December 6, 1995 Truth in Taxation meeting. The vote was 4 to 0, Jessen abstained. Motion carried. 1.2 PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A WARMING HOUSE AND TWO OUTDOOR SKATING RINKS ON PROPERTY ASSOCIATED WITH A PUBLIC SCHOOL AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD. Building Official Jon Sutherland reviewed the staff report for the Council stating the school district and the hockey association had applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 15' x 21' warming house, an outdoor hockey rink, an outdoor recreational skating rink, and lights for the hockey rink to be located on school property at 5600 Lynwood, just west of the Pond Arena. Staff and Planning Commission has unanimously approved the request. Minutes - Mound City Council December 12, 1995 the main dwelling on Parcel A. A suggestion was to lower the roof line on the garage, the applicants did not approve of this. The proposed garage is conforming to all setbacks. Staff recommended approval. The Planning Commission recommended denial. Staff was directed to work with the applicant. Jon and the City Planner discussed in depth. Councilmember Hanus and Ahrens supported the re-subdividing of the two parcels so parcel A would have enough area to build the proposed garage. Ahrens and Hanus were not in favor of building a garage on parcel B to serve parcel A. The subdivision of the the properties was not supported by staff. The original request for a garage height variance is back before the Council. The Council discussed resubdividing, combining the two parcels and the eventual removal of the dwelling on parcel B. Councilmembers Jensen and Jessen agreed to the approval of a garage height variance thus keeping the two parcels tied together. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to approve the garage height variance request. The vote carried 3 - 2, with Hanus and Ahrens voting nay. A resolution will be in the Council packet at the December 19, 1995 council meeting. 1.4 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1996 BUDGET AND TAX LEVY FOR 1996 (REVISED PAGES AND RESOLUTION WILL BE HANDED OUT AT TUESDAY'S MEETING). City Manager Ed Shukle referred to his memo regarding the budget changes the Council had requested. The amended pages of the budget were attached along with the resolution for approval of the 1996 budget. The expenditures are now less than the revenues. Mayor Polston thanked the staff and Council for working to come up with this revised budget and a reduction of $32,000. Councilmember Hanus moved and Councilmember Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #95-121 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL 1995 GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,443,830; SETTING THE LEVY AT $1,850,295; LESS THE HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURAL CREDIT (HACA) OF $485,095, RESULTING IN A FINAL CERTIFIED LEVY OF $1,365,200 APPROVING THE OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1996. The vote was unanimously in favor. Resolution carried. 3 7' Minutes - Mound City Council December 12, 1995 1.9 APPROVAL OF PAYMENT REQUEST NO. 2, MOUND/MINNETRISTA PUBLIC WORKS MATERIAL STORAGE PROJECT TO IMPERIAL DEVELOPER S IN THE AMOUNT OF $44,014.23. City Manager Ed Shukle stated this payment request was for the work completed through November 1995 at the joint Mound/Minnetrista Public Works storage site. MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to approve the payment request of Imperial Developers in the amount of $~.,014.23 for work done through November 1995 at the Mound/Minnetrista Public Works storage site. 1.10 APPROVAL OF PAYMENT REQUEST FROM SUMMER HILL TREE FARM, MOUND/MINNETRISTA PUBLIC WORKS MATERIAL STORAGE PROJECT. City Manager Ed Shukle stated this payment request was for landscape work done at the Mound/Minnetrista Public Works material storage site. This was to appease neighboring property owners. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to approve payment to Summer Hill Tree farm in the amount of $8850 for landscaping done at the Mound/Minnetrista Public Works storage site. 1.11 1.12 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $354,590.61, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. IN FOR MATION/MISC ELLAN EOUS A. DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR NOVEMBER 1995. B. LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR NOVEMBER 1995. (HAND OUT TUESDAY) There were no meetings in November. C. MEMO FROM MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT RE: NEW LOCATION AT FRESHWATER FOUNDATION. D. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 11-27-95. 5 Minutes - Moudd City Council December 12, 1995 MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Polston, and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 PM. City Manager Attest: Acting City Clerk 7 Mound City Council Minutes December 19, 1995 1.1 RESOLUTION APPROVING A GARAGE HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR GERALD AND CATHERINE PALEN, 6545 BARTLETT BLVD. City Manager Ed Shukle updated the Council stating the resolution in their packets had been revised. Item la had been changed and the applicant was in agreement with this change. Councilmember Jessen moved and Councilmember Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #95-122 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A GARAGE HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR 6545 BARTLETT BLVD., THAT PART OF LOT 18 LYING NORTH OF A LINE...HALSTEAD HEIGHTS, PID #22-117-24 44 0033, P&Z CASE #95-49. The vote carried 3-1 with Ahrens voting nay. 1.2 APPROVAL OF CITY OF MOUND WATER SUPPLY PLAN. City Engineer John Cameron discussed with the Council the draft copy of the Water Supply Plan for the City of Mound that they had received. This plan will be submitted to the Metropolitan Council and they will review it and make comments by January 1, 1996. He felt the plan, as proposed, would be approved by the Met Council. He commented about the good support his company received from the Mound City Staff in preparing this document. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to approve the draft of the Mound Water Supply Plan and submit it to the Metropolitan Council for their comments and approval. 1.3 DISCUSSION: CITY ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT RE: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, XXXX KILDARE ROAD, - CURB, GUTTER AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS. City Engineer John Cameron updated the Council stating a brief history of this unimproved road. He referred to the Preliminary Engineering Report on Kildare Road that he had prepared. He referenced the suggested costs and how these costs would be shared. The applicant Mr. Schultz was present and asked why a cul-de-sac was required at the end of Kildare Lane. He was informed this area was for emergency vehicles, snow removal, and general traffic to turn around in. The property on Kildare before the 2 Mound City Council Minutes December 19, 1995 1.5 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AN APPLICATION FOR INTERMODAL SURFACI= TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT (ISTEA) FUNDS BY THE CITY OF MOUND FOR TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS TO AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Councilmember Ahrens moved resolution: (G REENWAY/STRE ETSCA PE/'I'R ANSlT PROJECT). and Councilmember Jensen seconded the following RESOLUTION #95-124 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AN APPLICATION FOR ISTEA FUNDING FOR THE CREATION OF A MULTI- MODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS IN DOWNTOWN MOUND. The resolution passed 4-0, Hanus was absent and excused. 1.6 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. Resident Sherry Johnson asked Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator, questions regarding the proposed lockers at the proposed bike trailway concept planned for the Lost Lake area in downtown Mound. 1.7 APPROVAL OF 1996 DOCK LOCATION MAP. City Manager Ed Shukle informed the Council that Jim Fackler, Parks Director, would be joining the Council meeting from another meeting soon. At this time, City Attorney Curt Pearson requested moving to an Add-On item that could be decided by the Council while waiting for Mr. Fackler. 1.8 ADD-ON - PERMANENT EASEMENT - GLASS PLUS PROPERTY City Manager Ed Shukle reviewed his memo to the Council stating the city attorney, city engineer and himself had negotiated a Permanent Easement Agreement between Cossette Properties, Inc., and Ken and Sally Custer at the address of 5533 Shoreline Drive, known as Glass Plus. The Easement Agreement relates to approximately 1665 square feet of property that the City of Mound would need to obtain an easement on for purposed of the realignment of Auditor's Road. The property is located on the southeasterly portion of the Glass Plus site. The amount of $9200 was recommended by staff to be paid to the Custer's for the easement, subject to being able to record it and having pollution protection and approval of the State Aid Office. The Custer's /5' Mound City Council Minutes December 19, 1995 1960's, the name of the entire Water Bank Commons became known as Waterside Lane. The intent was to show the lane and denote the common area on both sides of the road and that these individuals are abutting Water Bank Common. Councilmember Ahrens clarified this saying, "The road goes across the commOns parallel to the shoreline and in front of the homes. The road is on what was originally designated as commons. The concern, is that their is commons on the homeowners side of the road and commons on the lake side of the road and there is a concern that the road will perhaps interfere with their abutting status as abutting property owners.' Mayor Polston asked if changing the name of Water Bank Commons had to be done by ordinance? Councilmember Ahrens stated this area is referred to as Water Bank Commons according to the maps, plat. Waterside Lane goes through Water Bank Common. According to the plat map, it is Water Bank Commons that has Waterside Lane on it. Mr. Moffatt stated the abutters of this Water Bank Common do not want this common to assume the name Waterside Common as there is another Waterside Common in another location. These homeowners would like the commons in front of their properties, that has Waterside Lane through it, to be denoted as Water Bank Commons, as the plat map shows. Councilmember Ahrens stated that in the City's Use Plan, the area on Waterside Lane at the other end of Harrison's Bay has a different use plan than this area (Water Bank Common) of common. It is confusing when looking at the Use Plan, when both are named Waterside Common. Records had been changed internally somewhere along the way. It was confirmed the Water Bank Commons will be denoted as such by the plat map on the Dock Location Map and the homeowners abutting Water Bank Commons with Waterside Lane through it remain as abutting dock holders. No action was taken. Mr. Shukle asked if there were any other items from the list that needed discussion. Mr. Fackler stated the others were not major changes. City Attorney Curt Pearson stated there was a memo from himself to the Council regarding court action on the case Flack vs. City of Mound. There was a correlation between his memo and the proposed 1996 dock location map. He stated that before the map was approved, the Council should discuss the Flack case. At this point, the Mayor moved on to the next item regarding the approval of the 1996 dock forms. No action was taken at this time on the 1996 dock location map. 6 /'7 Mound City CoUncil Minutes December 19, 1995 follows: "While it is true that the suggested conclusions of law would confirm that the plaintiffs are the fee owners of their segments of Wawonaissa common, these segments would continue to be subject to the interests of the owners of all of the other lots in Woodland Point which were created by the dedication of the common to them in the plat. The nature of this interest, almost assuredly that of an easement, cannot be defined without bringing an action in which all of the lot owners and all of the encumbrancers are joined as parties. Under the current application by the city of the dock ordinance, the plaintiffs are assured of a dock site as the owners of lots which adjoin Wawonaissa Common. Ironically, a decision by this court for the plaintiffs will mean they no longer are assured of a dock site. All lot owners in Woodland Point will then have equal rights to use Wawonaissa Common. The only benefit to the plaintiffs would be that they would be free from the control exercised over Wawonaissa Common by the City." The City Attorney went on to state that Judge H. Peter Albrecht denied the City's motion to amend the report of the Referee. He denied the Plaintiff's motion against the City for refund of dock fees, and then made a rather strange concluding paragraph which states as follows: "That, until all appeals are exhausted, Defendant City of Mound is temporarily enjoined from collecting dock fees from Plaintiffs and licensing docks on the properties which are subject to this lawsuit'. City Attorney Curt Pearson also stated the City's two options: "1. The City has 90 days after judgement has been entered to appeal the decision of the Court to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The Court order has not been adopted as of this date (December 18, 1995) but we expect that that will be forthcoming sometime in the next week or ten days, which will start the 90 day period rolling. This particular issue is the major decision that the Council will have to make as of this time. 2. If the City Council does not appeal the decision, the City will have lost its right to issue dock permits on these six properties. I assume that we would not license docks on the balance of the properties, since that Mound City CoUncil Minutes December 19, 1995 MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:37 PM. City Manager Attest: Acting City Clerk 10 Commons Task Force Process Established: June 1, 1995 Total Number of Meetings' Phase I: Discovery Phase I1: Phase II1: 26 Identify groups of people that have similar desires/ concerns regarding lakeshore commons. b. Identify full listing of issues that each group has: tour the commons talk to people July mailing to abutters/nonabutters soliciting input Quantify the attitudes of each group of users in order to draw conclusions based on facts, not conjecture: October survey mailed to 100% abutters (181 ), 100% nonabutting dock site holders (330), random sample of Citizens at Large (550) Draw conclusions based on survey and make recommenda- tions to council. Commons Task Force Recommendation Printed 1/4/96 Survey Results Citizens at Large Surveys mailed: 550 Responses: 81 (15%) a, Private lakeshore homeowners - 26 b, Citizens at large not living on lakeshore - 55 Conclusions: aw Most important issue is access to inexpensive boat dockage. The sum of the results are inconclusive since response was relatively Iow. Much of the geography/topography of commons is not conducive to public usage, There are a number of park facilities and lakeshore accesses in Mound to provide for the various activities of the citizens at large. 3 Commons Task Force Recommendation Printed 1/4/96 Survey Results - Abutters P. 2 Cost of Boat Dockage: aJ 81% of respondents cite inexpensive docks as important or very important, (Q2a) 44% feel dock fee structure is not reasonable, (Q3e) Some willingness to pay higher fees for additional control, Shoreline Maintenance: 57% comfortable doing.shoreline maintenance, (Q3e) 42% dissatisfied with shoreline appearance, (Q3d) 35% dissatisfied with riprapping. (Q3i) Dock Density: 48% of abutters with other docks in front of their house are not satisfied with dock spacing (note the attached Appendix A), 48 % of abutter with other docks in front of their house are not comfortable with having other docks there (note the attached Appendix A). 59 % feel nonabutting docks have an impact on their backyard privacy. (Q3a) Results vary widely by area. Important Uses of Commons: (Q2) 83% - impact of lakeshore access on value of home. 81% = inexpensive boat dockage, 35% = swimming. 31% - dock fishing, 18% = shore fishing, 15% - lake viewing / walking, 5 Commons Task Force Recommendation Printed 1/4/96 7 Commons Task Force Recommendation Printed 1/4/96 JI J Objective of Recommendations Take steps to improve the satisfaction level of abutters without lowering the Satisfaction levels of nonabutters and citizens at large. 1. Use the survey results to guide the above steps. 2. Make recommendations supported by quantified data. 3. Minimize the opportunity for commons policy to be driven by any of the existing polarized opinions. Task Force Recommendations Maintain program. homes. the total number of boats participating in the docks Keep nonabutter boats within walking distance from their Attempt to reduce the number of dock sites in front of some abutter's homes, recognize that some commons have more problems than others due to topography and/or tight quarters. a. Encourage increased shared dock usage. Explore creating small multiple boat dock complexes (about 6 boats) at neighborhood locations within walking distance. Explore creating multiple boat dock complexes, where possible, at public park locations (such as Mound Bay Park) without infringing on existing usage. Note: A majority of survey respondents are against multiple dock complexes' further study is needed keep things on a voluntary basis survey question was designed to be general 9 C~mmon$ Task Force Recommendation Printed 1/4/96 Task Force Definition City of Mound Mission Statement: "The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides, at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing community." Resolution #95-37, approved by the City Council on March 28, 1995 states the purpose of the task force to be: "Whereas, the City Councilmembers and individuals have stated that the existing program causes frustration for those that use and fund the program, and; Whereas, they have suggested that a task force be established to look at the commons that are applied to the Docks Program to identify the frustrations and irritations that are being experienced by the users of the proqram, and; Whereas, this task force would have the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council for consideration on how the existing dock program could be improved." The Commons Dock Program consists of: Platted Commons Street Easements / Platted Right-of-Ways Parks Tax Forfeited Land 11 Commons Task Force Recommendation Printed 1/4/96 Commons Task Force Quantitative Survey 1014/95 JI J I,, ti ABUTTERS TOTAL Revised 11/13/95 NOTE: The word 'commons' as referred to within this survey relates to any lakeshore property currentl~ being managed by the City of Mound within the dock program. What is your overall level of satisfaction with the commons program? [Circle one.) a. Very satisfied. -.~1 b. Somewhat satisfied. 31 -~ c. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. It~ d. Somewhat dissatisfied..3 I.~-~ e. Very dissatisfied. :;z ~ How important to you and your family are the following uses of commons? (Circle one response for e,ch of ~he below uses.) Inexpensive boat dockage. Swimming. Shore fishing. Dock fishing. Picnicking. Impact of lakeshore access on the value of your home. Walking along the lek,shore. Does Not Not Very Very Aoolv Important Important To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements as they relate to the commons next to your house. [Circle one response for each statemenL) Does Not Strongly Strongly Apply Agree Dieearee The commons has an impact on my backyard privacy. The spacing of the docks in front of my house seems reasonable. I am comfortable doing the normal of the shoreline and NA ~1 2 3 4 maintenance commons in front of my house ............ ~__~~ ~t ~ ~/ ABUTTERS TOTAL Revised 11/13/95 Please Rank the importance to you of the following statements. Strong priorities get more points than weaker priorities. Points must total 10. (Circle one response per statement.) EXAMPLE: Does Not least most important important a. I want ice cream to taste good. NA I 2 3 4 5 = ~ b. I want ice cream to be low in fat. NA I 2 3 4 5 = ;~ c. I want ice cream to be NA I 2 3 4 5 = ~ inexpensive. TOTAL .................. = lO be de I don't want dock permit fees to go up. I want more control over what happens to the commons in front of my house. I want fewer docks in front of my house. I want the city to do more maintenance of the commons, even if dock fees increase. I want to keep my existing private structures on the commons. Does Not Least Most ADDIv Important Important TOTAL ................. 0 To what extent are you willing to pay higher dock fees in order to receive additional control and privileges over the commons in,front of your house? fCircle one. J a. Willing to pay much higher fees. 7 b. Willing to pay somewhat high fees. c. Unwilling to pay higher fees. ~" ~ 3 Commons Task Force Quantitative Survey 10/4/95 ,, 11 NONABU'I'TER$ TOTAL Revised 11/13/95 ;..JNOTE: The word "co~,-~o~s' as referred to w/thin th/s survey relates to any/akeshore property currentlyJ · [be/ng'rnanaged by the City of Mound Within the dock program. d. ~.q:5 -'~ ':/:,.What is your overall level Of satlSfa~t?n ~th the Commons program? fclrc/e one. I · - Very satisfied. ;: -Somewhat satisfied.' .Neither satisfied nor ~d.'7 "~ Somewhat dissatisfied. /~-~ I~ e. Very dissatisfied. 2. How important to you and your family are the following uses of commons? (C/rc/e one response for each of ~e below uses.) Inexpensive boat do~ckage: Swimming. - '" Shore fishing. Does Not Not Very Very Apoly Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 NA I 2 3 4 5 Dock fishing. NA ~3 3 5 ~'; Impact of lakeShore access on' the value of your home. --.; . . ;- Picnicking. 'NA · NA 4 Walking along tho Viewing the lake': NONABUTTERS TOTAL Revised 11/13/g5 What is your level of satisfaction with the balance that the city has struck between the rights of - homeowners abutting commons and the rights of dock site holders that do not live on the lake? Or/O.,/ ' i-' a. Very satisfied. : b. Somewhat satisfied. · ":':. · c.' Neither satisfied or dissatisfied. -.' '. .d. Somewhat dissatisfied. .. :-' _~ e. Very dissatisfied. ' .. :¥'1,7,,.: u.~ . .' 6:~;~+O' What extent do you agree or disagree with ~he fOllowing sta'te'ments as they relate to the '-"~,: &:;,: ~0mmons. (Circle one response for each wtatement. I , ~..':. . ' ': :'-~.':~-'-~'~'~i':-::~'" :'~'' -:b~es Not Strongly ,..:~:7. ;:~" -::..-~;;.:;.-;~.-~:.. . b. The commons is accessible to all Mound residents. The dock fee structure is reasonable. Ce The property owner next to my commons dock site is comfortable with having a dock(s) in front of their house. do I feel comfortable having my commons dock in front of someone's house. NA Strongly "Aare~ Disa~re~ 2 3 4 The City's commons and dock ordinances exert too little control over the commons. The City has been reasonable in their enforcement of the commons and dock ordinances. I am comfortable doing the normal maintenance of the shoreline and commons around my dock site. NA 2 3 4 5 NA I 2 3 5 ::.~:~.-..:i-" '1:o what extent do you feel that existing private structures on commons (e.g. decks; stairs, buildings, retaining walls, etc.) are having an effect on your use of the commons? (ci,.c/e -:~ :. :.:--¥... · --:.::-: '- a;. No effect. . ".b-' Somewhat negative effect. ~,~~ ..~ c. Large negative effect. Commons Task Force Quantitative Survey 10/4/95 ~4 ~1~: InSa4~ciCrrt NOTE: The word "commons" as referred to within this survey re/ares to any/akeshore property currently] being managed by the City of Mound within the dock program. 1. What is your overall level of satisfaction with the commons program? (Circle one. I Very satisfied. Somewhat satisfied. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Somewhat dissatisfied, z- Very dissatisfied. ~, How important to you and your family are the following uses of commons? (Circle one response for eech of ~he below uses.) Does Not Apply, or Not Very Very · .Don't Know Important Important a. Access to inexpensive boat dockage. --' NA 1 2 3 4 5 b. Swimming. ~ o ~ ~ =. ' NA I 2 · 3 4 5 Shore fishing. .E J ~ ~ z NA I 2 3 4 5 Picnicking. ~ ~ ~' ~ ! ~ NA I 2 3 4 5 · Impact of lakeshore access on the value of your home. NA I 2 3 4 5 Walking along the lek,shore. Viewing the lake. Ce de fe NA I 2 3 4 5 NA I 2 3 4 5 3 ~/ I ~ $ -~ 4£ To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements as they relate to the commons, fCircle one response for each starernent.) Does Not Strongly Strongly ~ AareQ Disaaren a. The dock fee structure is reasonable. NA I 2 3 b. The commons is accessible to all NA I 2 3 Mound residents. 4 5 4 5 ~' 7 de The City's commons and dock NA 1 2 3 4 5 ordinances exert too little control ~1 f' ~ ~- 5' ~ over the commons. The City has been reasonable in their enforcement of the commons and dock ordinances. NA I 2 3 4 5 5' '3 :z. .~ .3 What is your level of satisfaction with the balance that the city has struck between the rights of homeowners abutting commons and the rights of dock site holders that do not live on the lake? (Circle on..) a. Very satisfied. ~ b. Somewhat satisfied. ~ c. Neither satisfied or dissatisfied. d. Somewhat dissatisfied. e. Very dissatisfied. f. Don't know or does not apply.?, To what extent do you feel that existing private structures on commons (e.g. decks, stairs, buildings, retaining walls, etc.) are having an effect on your use of the commons? fCircle on,.) a.' No effect. b. Somewhat negative effect. c. Large negative effect. d. Don't know or does not apply. Would you be in favor or opposed to a City multiple boat slip system (if it is possible)? (Circle one.] a. Strongly in favor. b. Somewhat in favor. c. Somewhat opposed. d. Strongly opposed. e. Don't know or does not apply. Commons Task Force Quantitative Survey 10/4195 INOTE: The word 'commons" as referred to w/thin this survey relates to any lakeshore property current/y~ Ibeing managed by the City of Mound w/thin the dock program. What is your overall level of satisfaction with the commons program? (Circle one. J Very satisfied. /! Somewhat satisfied. ~ Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Somewhat dissatisfied. // Very dissatisfied. ~ How important to you and your family are the following uses of commons~ (Circle one response for each of aS. I~elow uses.) · Does Not Apply, or Not Very Very _Don't Know Imoortant Important a. Access to inexpensive boat dockage. NA I 2 3 4 5 b. Swimming. '~ ~ ~- -~ ~' · f NA I 2 3 4 5 c. Shore fishing. ~ =1 ~ 3 /~ ~ NA I 2 3 4 5 d. Picnicking. 2- i o q Cl q t ~ NA 1 2 ~ 4 5 e. Impact of lakeshore access on the value of your home. NA I 2 3 4 5 Walking along the lakeshore. Viewing the lake. NA I 2 3 4 5 z G ~ & to z~ NA I 2 3 4 5 z. · s' 5' ~/ 31 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements as they relate to the commons. (Circle one response for each statement.) Does Not Strongly Strongly ' ~ Aoree Disaore~ a. The dock fee structure is reasonable. NA 1 2 3 4 5 b. The commons is accessible to all NA I 2 3 4 5 Mound residents. ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ The City's commons and dock NA 1 2 3 4 5 ordinances exert too little control -; ~(, ~' ~ ~ ~o over the commons. The City has been reasonable in their enforcement of the commons and dock ordinances. NA I 2 3 4 5 7 iz. ~z. I~, $ ~/ What is your level of satisfaction with the balance that the city has struck between the rights of homeowners abutting commons and the rights of dock site holders that do not live on the lake? (Circle one.) Very satisfied. [o Somewhat satisfied. ~ Neither satisfied or dissatisfied. Somewhat dissatisfied. 4 Very dissatisfied. ~- Don't know or does not apply. I; To what extent do you feel that existing private structures on commons (e.g. decks, stairs, buildings, retaining walls, etc.) are having an effect on your use of the commons? [Circle ae Would No effect. ~- c~ Somewhat negative effect. ~ Large negative effect, lo Don't know or does not apply. you be in favor or opposed to a City multiple boat slip system (if it is possible)? [Circle one. i Strongly*irt favor. ~.- Somewhat in favor. ~ ~ Somewhat opposed. ~ Strongly opposed. ~1 Don't know or does not apply, t o 'Random Comments Written on Surveys (Most comments were from abutters) Q.3.j. Q.3.c. Q.5.e, Q.5.d. Q.3.h. Q.3.e. Q.7.b. "City arbitrary on its enforcement." "Force to maintain shoreline - why must I get a permit and pay to keep-up land I do not own up to,snuff." Wiota Commons. "Non-abutting dock site holders contribute to the maintenance of the shore." Brighton. "1 think the city should realize that they are acting as trustees for the intended beneficiaries of a dedicated commons. We bought our property know there was a commons with rights restricted to the subdivision. If citizens from other areas are granted rights = it takes away part of the value." "Should be more space between them." "Should be same price for all docks." "This is stupid." CONTINUED .... Following are more comments copied directly from the surveys 13 Commons Task Force Recommendation Printed 1/4/96 Commons Task Force Exploratory S_urve. y Your Comments Will Make A Difference// Commons Dock Program Feedback Request Mayor Polston and the City Council have initiated a task force to review the commons dock program. The purpose of this task force is to identify the problems that participants may have with the program. The task force will then recommend policy changes that will increase the satisfaction levels for each of the different groups of users. Please review the issues identified by the task force, and comment on these or any additional issues that you think the task force should consider. WE NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU/ ;'01.,~ I,"~PUT I$ WTAL TO' "' '"'""=~' ~" Please return your comments in the enclosed envelope by Monday, JULY 10. Thank you! Preliminary issues identified thus far by the task force: Right to have access to the lake. Enforcement of commons/dock ordinances. Privacy for homeowners that border the lakeshore commons. Conflicts between homeowners and commons users. Dilapidated docks. City's handling of encroachments. Dock fees. Spacing between docks. Other? Pleas~ provide your vi~'.-.'3 on ~he "~- .... ' ~.-.~ ~ssu¢= end ~ny fu~her concerns .,-,, may have, ..... comments are anonymous): ~ .~ j~ yes n o ..... have a dock on lakeshore commons: ~_yes no ' ~"~~' The commons has an impact on my /./~k~D~ privacy. The spacing of the docks in front of my house seems reasonable. I am comfortable doing the normal maintenance of the shoreline and commons in front of my house. NA NA NA 2 3 4 5 (~ 2 3 4 5 O 2 3 4 5 my house seems reasonable. NA 1 I am comfortable doing the normal maintenance of the shoreline and NA I 2'~ 4 5 commons in front of my house. C~3 · . backyard privacy. NA I 2 (,~ 4 5 The spacing of the docks in front of my house seems reasonable. I am comfortable doing the normal maintenance of the shoreline and commons in front of my house. NA NA (~ 2 3 ...'4 5 ., ao The commons has an impact on my backyard privacy. The spacing of the docks in front of my house seems reasonable. NA NA ! am comfortable doing the normal maintenance of the shoreline and commons in front of my house. NA 2 3 4 5 I ' 2 '(~ 4 5 10. to be a problem for you? Icircla one. J . ,,~:~.,, . .c_ _.'-~ ~-_..,~ .~, '_., ~ Somewhat a problem. _~ ~ ~ n, ~ ._~- ~ ~ _ ~ ~ d Not applicable J '~-~ ~ _~ ~ _ r~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. If you have docks in front of your house other than your own, would you be willing to suppo~ a ~ multiple boat slip system (if it is possible) resulting in fewer commons docks in front of your house? /Circle one.] a. Very much. c. Not at all. .... ~= ......Not~j~_lica._b_le. 9. If y,o~in front of y0ur house other than your ow'n, to what extent do you find the doc 'S to.p~ a problem for you? fClrc/e oneiJ ---~' ~ Verymucha problem. /F. b. ~mew~t a problem. [ ' c. Not at ~ a p;oblem. -.-~- ' - ~. Not applica~im- 10 I~- · . If~~ve do~Es in front of your house other than your own, would you be willing to sup~ ~ multipl~slip system (if it is possible) resulting in fewer commons docEs in front of your7-";ouse~ The commons has an impact on my backyard @rivacy. 5/~,~/.~L n~ci The spacing of the docks in front of my house seems reasonable. NA ~ 2 3 4 5 NA I ~. 3 (~ 5 I am comfortable doing the normal maintenance of the shoreline and NA I 2 commons in front of my house. . If you have a private structure on commons (e.g. stairway, building, deck, etc.), are you willing to take responsibility for maintaining that structure? fCircle one.) If you have docks in front of your house other than your own, to what extent do you find the docks to be a problem for you? (circle one.i a. Very much a problem. b. Somewhat a probler~. Not-a~; ali a problem. Not applicable. ' 10. If you have docks in front of your house other than your own, would you be willing to support a ~ ," (CirclemUltipleone. lb°at slip system (if it is possible) resulting in fewer commons docks in front of your house? To what extent are you willing to pay higher dock fees in order to receive additional control and privileges over the commons in front of your house? a. Willing to pay much higher fees. Willing to pay somewhat high fees. Unwilling to pay higher fees. /' ~ If you have a private structure on commons (e.g. stairway, building, deck, etc.), are you willing to <~~ take responsibility for maintaining that structure? ICitc/e one./ ' a. -Yes. b. .o. (~ Not Applicable. If you have docks in front of your~house other than your own, to what extent do you find the docks to be a problem for you? fCircle 10. 11. Very much a'pr~blem. Somewhat a problem. c. Not at all a problem... ' d. Not appliCable. If you have docks in front of your house other than your own, would you be willing to support a multiple boat slip system (if it is possible) resulting in fewer commons docks in front of your house? [CJrcle one. l a. Very much. (~ Somewhat. Not at all. d. Not applicable. If a multiple boat slip system were installed, how willing would you be to put your boat at that location? fCircle one. J a. Very willing. (~ Somewhat willing Not at all willing. I am satisfied {Nith the appearance of the lakeshore in front of my house. Does Not Strongly Strongly AD=Iy ,Agree Disagrc- NA 4 5 I think that the dock fee structure is reasonable. NA 1 2 3~ 4 5 fe The size of boats (other than my own) docked in front of my house is reasonable. NA 1 2 .3~. 4 5 g. Having boat canopies (other than ' my own) in front o.f my house is 'NA I 2 3 4 ~ . reasonable. ~I~ -~ ~ '~JL- ~.~£¥~. mfortable ........... .commons ,docks in front of my NA . 1 2 I. The shoreline riprappingrn front of my house is in satisfactory NA 1 2 3 4 j. The City's commons and dock ordinances exert too little control NA I 2 3 4 '5~ over the commons. T~'~(_ c~ k. The City has been r)easo~a~le in their enforcement of the commons 1 2 3 4 5~ and dock ordinances. Which of the following locations do you prefer to use for: ~ public beach or park a. swimming ~ __~' b. picnicking c. shore fishing d. parties e. dock fishing " What is your level of satisfaction with the balance that th'e city has struck between the rights of homeowners abutting commons and the rights of dock site holders that do not live on the lake? fCircle a. Very satisfied. b. Somewhat satisfied. C. Neither satisfied or dissatisfied. Somewhat dissatisfied. Very dissatisfied. %' Janua~ 9,1996 RESOLUTION #96-~-., RESOLUTION APPOINTING /'Yl ~.~--- ~-~ c~ ACTING MAYOR FOR 1996 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby appoint Acting Mayor for the year 1996. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmem ber and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Manager Janua~ 9,1996 RESOLUTION ~f96- ~r~ RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE LAKER THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 1996 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby designate The Laker the official newspaper for the City of Mound for 1996. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Manager e h°r News December 6, 1995 18 ! 78 Minnetonka Boulevard Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 612-473-0890 Fax: 612-473-0895 RECEiVEO 3EC- 8 Mr. Gino Businaro, '~~ce Director City of Mound/ 5341 Mayw,,~Sd Road Mound,/iffN 55364 RE: Legal Notice Bid for 1996-97 Calendar year Dear Mr. Businaro: Thank you for the opportunity to bid on the contract for publication of legal notices for the City of Mound. Our rates will not change from 1995. Our bid for the upcoming year is $1.25 per published line per insertion. We will automatically deduct 10% from your lineage cost if you mail us a computer disk in DOS-Windows or Mac format (preferred) of the "legal" information you with to have published. (Your disk will be returned) Our ability to publish your legal notices, remains the same. If we get the information by Tuesday at 5 p.m. it will appear in that same week's paper, which comes out on Thursday. Invoices for legal notices published in Lakeshore Weekly News will be sent each Friday, along with two affidavits of publication of each item. We will be happy to provide extra copies of any insertions or affidavits at your request. Sincerely, Peter H. May Publisher PHM/cas Janua~ 9,1996 RESOLUTION #96-- ~ RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby authorize the purchase of at least a $20,000 bond for the City Treasurer/Finance Director, Gino Businaro. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Manager Janua~ 9,1996 RESOLUTION ~f96- RESOLUTION APPOINTING TO THE PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION AS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE FOR 1996 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby appoint to the Park Commission as Council Representative to the Park & Open Space Commission for 1996. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Manager Janua~ 9,1996 RESOLUTION #96-_~.~/ RESOLUTION APPOINTING TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE FOR 1995 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby appoint as Council Representative to the Economic Development Commission for 1996. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Manager I JI Proposed Re$olut/ol7 Palm, 95-53 P. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 23 foot lake side setback variance to allow construction of a second story addition, as proposed with the I foot cantilever. 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 second story addition. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: 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. PHONE NO. ~. STATE OF I DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESO 772_~970 WATERS, 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. U R C E S PAUL, MN 55106-6793 FILE NO. RECEIVE;- December 13, 1995 Mr. Jon Suthefland ~' City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Chris Palm Variance Application, (City 895-53), Lake Minnetonka, Harrison Bay (27-133P- 15), City of Mound, Hennepin County Dear Mr. Sutherland: We have reviewed the above-referenced variance request (received December 4, 1995) for 1772 LaFayette Lane. We do not object to approval of the proposal and have the following comments: 1. The proposed addition should approach no closer to the ordinary high water elevation of Lake Minnetonka than the existing structure. The applicant should be asked to improve the screening of the structure on the lot from view on Lake Minnetonka using existing vegetation, landscaping, color, and other means approved by the city. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Chris Palm's variance request. questions concerning this letter, do not hesitate to contact me at 772-7910. Sincerely, Should you have any Joe Richter Hydrologist JR/cds C.' Lake Minnetonka, Harrision Bay File (27-133-15) AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER .--/? Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 1995 Weiland questioned if a permit was issued for the existing decks. The applicant, Bruce Hunerberg, indicated that there was no record of a permit for the decks on file, and he assumed they were constructed when the house was built. Weiland doubted the deck is more than ten years old. Weiland noted that question $5 on the Variance Application was not completed, and asked where the survey is for when the house was built. Weiland also questioned staff about the shore impact zone as referred to within the~ecommendation. The Building Official clarified that the "shore impact zone" is a term within the zoning ordinance. The shore impact zone is recognized by the DNR as an especially sensitive area and there should not be encroachments into the area. Weiland sees the addition as an expansion of an existing encroachment and he does not agree with staff's recommendation. He understands that adjacent dwellings are closer, but feels this proposed addition creates a negative impact. The Building Official, Jon Sutherland, read question $5 from the variance application, "Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevents its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in the zoning district?,, Sutherland noted, that from the options listed, "shape of the lot" may apply, and it is an "existing situation.,, He noted that it is possible the house existed prior to the required 50 foot setback to the lake. Craig Goodrich of 1776 Lafayette Lane, representing the Driftwood Shores Association, stated that they are 100% in favor of the request. Hanus feels the impact of the addition is minimal considering the placement of the neighboring structures, however, expressed a concern about the one foot cantilever. Mueller stated that the additional one foot is not a substantial difference, but noted that if it is approved, the amount of the variance should be adjusted. Clapsaddle feels that the cantilever adds some style to the structure. Weiland requested that the association be advised that decks require building permits. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the variance for the secon~ story addition as proposed, includinq the one foot cantilever. Hotion carried $ to X. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Hanus, Michael, Glister, Voss, and Musller. Weiland was opposed. Weiland stated that he is not in favor of the cantilever. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on January 9, 1996. 2 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date:_. City Council Date: City Planner Public Works City Engineer ~1 DNR Other CI)'Y UF Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.~ Please type or print the following information: ................................................................... Address of Subject Property Lot I Addition District f~ Owner's Name &l}-%l Owner's Address_. A~H~t's Nme (if o~er Ad~s,, ~ -/oS ~o~ ~0 - 1. Use of Property: Block ..~ PID No. Day Phone Day Phone Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. e Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application (11/93) Page 3 Case No. o Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~4~. If yes, explain: e Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? No~. If yes, explain: Yes (), Are the conditions of hards~j4x, f~r~which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ~ ff no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry i~ or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the/C'qy of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removin~ch ,~]~es as mf~ rf~uired by law. Owner's Signature~ A ' , (/<~ ~ j~ Date ppHcant s Signature ~ ~ ~ Date / / / / I 4 L CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR HUNERBERG CONSTRUCTION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 3, DRIFTWOOD SHORES :, HENNEPIN 'COUNTY, MINNESOTA I I I ~.lk Existin9 · House. ~x~stin9 .::: Hou$~ ~'"'.LEGAL'D£SCRIP¥ION OF PR£N]$ES: ot 1, Block 3, DRJFTW00D SHOR£$ o: denotes iron marker , ,~*~: denotes existing spot elev- 'ation,.mean sea level datum J]J~]~]: denotes proposed spot elev- ation, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the bound~riesoT the above descr]beo property, the' location of an existing house, and the location of ail existing "hardcover" ~hereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encro'achments,~ ;- 4'28 WA IL:k/.:::I:::~,l C. LOS'ET" . ~ i 'D E_---E LEV AT.I 0 N :,~:~A~E f/4---"-- I ~=o" PROPOSED RESOLUTION #95- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC LAND KNOWN AS DEVON COMMON "BATCH #7" DOCK SITES 42002, 42167, 42227, 42277, & 42351 WHEREAS, The City of Mound is updating the permits for structures located on public lands, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, and; WHEREAS, "Batch #7" details the private encroachments located at Dock Sites 42002, 42167, 4222.?, 42277, and 42351, and these encroachments have been inspected by the Building Official and Dock Inspector according to the Procedure Manual, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this Batch #7 and has recommended approval, with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, approve Public Land Permits Batch #7, subject to the conditions listed. All conditions of approval must be completed within one (1) year of approval by City Council or the dock license will be withheld until completion. These permits will expire 5 years from the date of issuance and must be renewed with change in dock license holder. Batch #7 Public Land Permits Park and Open Space Commission 12/14/95 City Council 1/9/96 DOCK SITE ABUTTING ADDRESS r ENCROACHMENTI CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVON COMMON, CLASS D 42002 4687 ISLAND VIEW DR - WALKWAY ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. JOHN GABOS - STAIRWAY - LAWN SPRINKLER PIPE MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 1995 pUBLIC LAND PERMITS - BATCH #7 4183O 42002 42167 42227 42277 42314 42351 John Gabos Tom Latcham Darlene Depta/Mildred Pierce Carl Alexander Michael Henry 4665 Island View Drive 4687 Island View Drive 4711 Island View Drive 4717 Island View Drive 4725 Island View Drive 4729 Island View Drive 4737 Island View Drive City staff is in the process of updating permits for encroachments on public lands as directed by the City Council. Special permits are required for private encroachments located on public lands as specified in City Code Section 320. Staff recommended approval of a 5 year permit for Batch 87, subject to the conditions listed. All conditions of approval must be completed within one (1) year of approval by City Council or the dock license will be withheld until completion. Permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder. The Parks Director reported that #41830 Mark Smith/Gina Anderson, 4665 Island View Drive, and #42314 Stephanie Coon, 4729 Island View Drive, have been withdrawn from the agenda at the applicant's request. Bark anW Open Space Com~ission H/nu=es December 14, 1995 #42002. John Gabos, 4687 Island View Driv~ Ahrens questioned if the walkway and stairway are actually located on the public lands. The Parks Director noted that staff believes the last couple of steps and a landing are located on Devon Common. Ahrens commented that she would hate to give a permit if we do not know for sure if they are on the commons or not. She would like this verified before they issue a permit. Ahrens questioned staff who they had made contact with from this Batch. Fackler noted that the Building Official, Jon Sutherland, has tried to contact all the property owners by phone, but he was not successful in talking with everyone. Fackler confirmed that each person received a copy of the staff report twice, once ten days before the meeting, and then another was mailed with the agenda on Monday before the meeting. Ahrens feels that everyone should be contacted, or they should not review the packet. She suggested that the staff report should state that they have the opportunity to call if they have any questions. Ahrens recalled that the Council decided that if anyone who is not in agreement with staff recommendation, they can be put on hold until the task force recommendation is complete. Meyer questioned staff's process. Fackler reviewed that the Building Official visits the site with the Dock Inspector. The adjacent site owner is first mailed a copy of the staff report ten days prior to the meeting, then it is mailed again with the Park & Open Space agenda on the Monday prior to the Thursday meeting, and then they are notified again before it goes to the City Council. Fackler emphasized that staff is following the process as outlined in the procedure manual which was approved by the Council. Ahrens noted that the staff report does not offer an invitation to come to the meeting. Darling stated that if someone had a question, they would call. Casey noted that the Commission gives a recommendation only, then they can appeal at the Council. It was suggested that a statement could be added which implies that if they are in disagreement with the staff report, to please come to the Park Commission meeting or call us. Casey does not feel this should hold up their recommendation. Pederson noted that it was her first time looking at the staff report and thought it looked like a decision has already been made and.there is no invitation to come to a meeting. Casey suggested they move ahead and make some recommendations. Ahrens questioned if there has been any precedence set for phone outlets. Fackler confirmed that it is not staff's recommendation to require removal of the telephone wire from the common and that the wire can be disconnected at each end. Casey confirmed that the lawn sprinkler pipe is totally unde~-ground. MOTION by Darling to approve the Public Land Permit for Dock Site #42002, John Gabos, as recommended by Staff. Seconded by Casey. Ahrens recommended it be reviewed if the stairway and walkway is actually on the commons. Casey stated that if they are not on the commons then it is not an issue. Park and Open Space Commission Hinuces December 14, 1995 MOTION by Dading, seconded by Meyer to recommend that the electrical be approved as recommended by staff for Dock Site #42167, Tom Latcham. Motion carried 6-1. Those in favor were: Dading, Casey, Schmidt, Meyer, Geffre, and Pederson. Ahrens abstained. The LMCD's regulations for lights on the shoreline interfering with navigation was discussed. It was noted that the LMCD has no jurisdiction on private property. Motion carried 5-1-1. Those in favor were: Darling, Schmidt, Meyer, Geffre, and Pederson. Casey was opposed, and Ahrens abstained. Mr. Latcham was informed that his permit will be reviewed by the City Council on January 9, 1996. #42227, Mildred Pierce, 4717 Island View Driv, MOTION by Casey, seconded by Geffre, to refer this permit to the city attorney for separate legal review, as recommended by staff. Ahrens questioned why this property is this different than Coon's playhouse. The Parks Director noted that this structure had a building permit issued in 1960 from the City of Island Park. Motion carried 6-1. Those in favor were: Darling, Casey, Schmidt, Meyer, Geffre, and Pederson. Ahrens abstained. #42277, Carl Alexander, 4725 Island View Drivc Fackler noted that the Building Official has talked with Mr. Alexander. He reviewed that the encroachments include a stairway which is in poor condition and should be replaced, retaining walls that are in okay condition, and electrical which should be removed. Staff recommended that a new light and receptacle should be allowed to be installed according to the electrical code. The applicant has requested the pump house be allowed to be altered to meet the regulations of a lock box as allowed by the Shoreland Management Ordinance by reducing the size and changing the doors, staff would recommend that a lock box be approved. Ahrens asked if the same option was offered to Latcham to allow his pump house to remain as a lock box. Casey asked why minimum standards as permitted on private lands should apply to public lands. It was suggested that each item be addressed separately. MOTION by Casey, seconded by Darling to recommer~l approval of a permit to allow the existing stairway to be replaced, as recommended by staff. Motion carried 6-1. Those in favor were: Darling, Casey, Schmidt, Meyer, Geffre, and Pederson. Ahrens abstained. Darling confirmed that the retaining walls are needed to retain the hillside. 5 Decem]~e= Z4, Z995. Darling asked for an explanation of the iml~lications. Ahrens stated that it is the City's intention to clean the commons off for use by the general public, so the general public should pay for it. Ahrens stated that survey done by the task force shows that nobody cares about these encroachments and so everybody should pay to remove the structures. What the dock fund pays for was discussed. Ahrens noted that dock fund money pays for rip rap, even though she does not agree with it. MOTION carried 5-1-1. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Pederson, Casey, Schmidt, and Meyer. Geffre was opposed, and Darling abstained. Geffre stated that she opposed because she saw in the Commons Task Force minutes that the commons if financially sup ported by dock fees. #42351, Michael Henry, 4737 Islan;! View Drive, MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Darling, to recommend approval of the permit for #42351, Michael Henry, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. Batch #7 Public Land Permits Park and Open Space Commission 12/14/95 City Council 1/9/96 I DOCK NS OF APPROVAL DEVON COMMON, CLASS D 41830 4665 ISLAND VIEW DR - ELECTRIC LIGHT PROVIDE CERTIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL WORK.* MARK SMITH AND - OUTLET GINA ANDERSON - PHONE SHIELD LIGHT ACCORDING TO CITY GUIDELINES AND LMCD REGULATIONS. REMOVE PHONE OUTLET. 42002 4687 ISLAND VIEW DR - WALKWAY ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. JOHN GABOS - STAIRWAY - LAWN SPRINKLER PIPE DEVON COMMON, CLASS C 42167 4711 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY REMOVE PUMP HOUSE (POOR CONDITION). TOM LATCHAM - RETAINING WALL - PUMP HOUSE ALLOW ONE (1) ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLE AND ONE (1) - ELECTRIC LIGHT, BALANCE SHOULD BE REMOVED. LIGHT SHALL MEET - LAWN SPRINKLER CITY GUIDELINES AND LMCD STANDARDS. CERTIFICATION PIPE OF ELECTRICAL MUST BE PROVIDED. ~ i 42227 4717 ISLAND VIEW DF - STAIRWAY REFER TO CITY ATTORNEY FOR SEPARATE LEGAL REVIEW AS MILDRED PIERCE, - GUEST HOUSE NOTED IN FLOW CHART. C/O DARLENE DEPTA - RETAINING WALL - PLUMBING - ELECTRIC 42277 4725 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY STAIRWAY IS IN POOR CONDITION AND SHOULD BE CARL ALEXANDER ~ RETAINING WALLS REPLACED. - PUMP HOUSE - ELECTRIC RETAINING WALLS ARE OKAY. REMOVE EXISTING ELECTRICAL AND ALLOW NEW LIGHT AND RECEPTACLE TO BE INSTALLED PER PLAN AND ACCORDING TO ELECTRICAL CODE. PUMP HOUSE MAY BE MAINTAINED AS A LOCK BOX AS ALLOWED BY THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE, AND ALSO MAY BE UTILIZED AS A STAIR LANDING. NEW DOOR MAY BE INSTALLED, BUT ELECTRICAL MUST BE REMOVED. 42314 4729 ISLAND VIEW DR ~ STAIRWAY APPROVE STAIRWAY AND RETAINING WALL. MINOR STEPHANIE COON - PLAY HOUSE MAINTENANCE IS-NEEDED. - RETAINING WALL - FLAG POLE RELOCATE FLAG POLE AND PLAY HOUSE ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY. 42351 4737 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. MICHAEL HENRY - RETAINING WALLS All electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land. All power supply to the abutting propeGy must be properly disconnected until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify disconnection with staff. Wood WOOD ~ooD ~0~C ~- Woo~ STE p~N Woo ~ ~.e,~. ¢) ROANOKE LANE Z PROPOSED RESOLUTION #95- RESOLUTION TO DENY A SPECIAL LAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE TRIMMING AND REMOVAL OF TREES LOCATED WITHIN THE RUSTIC PLACE NATURE CONSERVATION AREA AND DIAMOND LANE NATURE CONSERVATION AREA WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for any alterations on public lands which would result in any changes to shoreline, drainage, grade, pitch, slope, trees,..., and; WHEREAS, the Parks Director expressed the need to remove hazardous trees and dead limbs from the trees along pathways within the two subject nature conservation areas, and; WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution #94-94 designating the subject areas as Nature Conservation Areas on June 28, 1994: Rustic Place: North of Bartlett Blvd., end of Rusticwood Road, PID #23- 117-24 31 0077 Diamond Lane: across the street from Philbrook Park, PID !4-117-24 31 0013 & 0014. and; WHEREAS, the Plan defined Nature Conservation Areas as: "City owned and/or controlled lands which are or could be, essentially natural and would conserve flora and fauna. Such areas are to be established in recognition of the benefits of preserving natural open space for present and future generations," and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission has reviewed these issues and recommended denial of the proposed tree trimming and removal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City-Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to deny the trimming and removal of dead and/or hazardous trees located within the designated Nature Conservation Areas known as Diamond Lane and Rustic Place. Unnatural intrusions should be removed from these Nature Conservation Areas. Park and Open Space Commission Hinutes December 14, 1995. Casey reiterated that dead standing trees create habitats for birds. Darling expressed a concern that if there is a risk to public safety, then it needs to be taken care of. Fackler confirmed that in public areas where you are inviting the general public into it, he would always recommend removal of any potential hazard, because he does not want to be responsible for any injuries. Casey commented that sometimes you have to assume a risk. Meyer stated that the purpose of an NCA is to preserve the flora and fauna, and dead, hardwood trees will stand for many years. Darling referred to the City's mission statement, "The City of Mound...fostering a safe, attractive a flourishing community." Motion failed, 34. Those in favor were: Darling, Schmidt, and Geffre. Those opposed were: Casey, Ahrens, Meyer and Pederson. MOTION by Ahrens to recommend that this proposed tree trimming be removed from the list. Meyer seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 to 2. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Meyer, Casey, Schmidt, and Pederson. Darling and Geffre opposed. 3. Street Easement Adjacent to 2549 Emerald Drive Fackler noted that this work would be paid for by the general fund, and explained that a complaint was received from a resident that the there were dead branches on a Cottonwood tree located on the public land next to his house. Ahrens questioned who will determine if the tree will need to come down. Fackler indicated that the trimmer will assess the condition of the tree while trimming and if poor conditions are found, he can bring it back to the park commission before total removal. MOTION by Casey, seconded by Meyer to recommend approval of trimming the Cottonwood tree located on the street easement adjacent to 2549 Emerald Drive. Ahrens commented that she does not want to be taken advantage of by the tree trimmer, because they can recommend that the tree needs to be removed just to get paid more money. Meyer feels that Fackler can make the determination if the tree should come down. The liability of property owners who have hazardous trees that encroach onto other peoples property was discussed. MOTION carried 6 to 1. Those in favor were: Darling;, Casey, Schmidt, Meyer, Geffre, and Pederson. Ahrens abstained. 1. Diamond Lane (NCA) Fackler reported that this NCA has been overtaken by brush and dead trees, and it is his opinion that in its current condition, it is not an NCA. He noted that the money for this work would come out of the general fund. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: December 5, 1995 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Park and Open Space Commission . Jim Fackler, Parks Director HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVALv AND TREE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: TRIMMING AT THE 2. 3. 4. EAST CRESCENT RUSTIC PLACE NCA, PID 23-117-24 31 0077 STREET EASEMENT ADJACENT TO 2549 EMERALD DRIVE DIAMOND LANE NCA, PID 14-117-24 31 0013 & 0014 This report is being provided for your information, using the public lands permit process. It was distributed to staff for interdepartmental review, and no comments were received. I will give a verbal report at the meeting. The City Council will review these permits at their meeting on January 9, 1995. pJ Enclosures 1 printed on recycled paper East Crescent Park June 28, 1994 RIeSOLUTION NO. 94-94 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS AS NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS IN THE CITY OF MOUND WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound directed that a Nature Conservation Area Plan be developed; and WHEREAS, in July 1993, a Plan was prepared by Mark Koegler, Hoisington/Koegler Group, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the Plan defined Nature Conservation Area as: "City owned and/or controlled lands which are or could be, essentially natural and would conserve flora and fauna. Such areas are to be established in recognition of the benefits of preserving natural open space for present and future generations.' It should be understood that this resolution does not preclude future action by the City Council to use this property as a pan of the City's water management program.; and WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission has devoted a great deal of time to studying potential sites for possible Nature Conservation Area status; and WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission has made some recommendations regarding certain sites as Nature Conservation Areas; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered those recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 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 above: [SIJ~-{~-.~' >. North of Bartlett Blvd, end of Rusticwood Road (Rustic Place). ~'¢rg~as'~t'~ PID #23-117-24 31 0077. e e Indian Mound property on Westedge Blvd. PID g23-117-24 22 0003. Diamond Lane, across the street from Philbrook Park. PID #14-117-24 31 0013 & 0014. 201 /Is'- PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound. MN Phone: 472-0~00, Fax: 472-0620 OFFICIAL __PARKS DIRECTOR DNR MCWD 55364 DATE RECEIVED PARK MEETING DATE CITY COUNCIL DATE" lchecklone): I , CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). I~1 ~. ! PUBLIC I~%-ND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). I I ~.,. ~ CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing improvement to remain in an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). X~a-ND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subd. 4). like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the CitF to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits are granted for a limited time and are non-transferable. StairwaF construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new permit is applied for due to change in dock site holder Phone (home)_ (work) ~- Abutting Address~~~~~~L bf ~' '~ property Owner Legal Lot ~;"/ 9 ~'~ I0 Block Description Subd. S~%~,, ~ [~',~ ~ Public Name ~y~ ~ Property Dock Site $ Shoreline Type Contractor Name ~ . Phone ~g~--30[~ - ' - ' '' VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF P~OJECT (~ ,S~~ -of~ l~ant D/t~e-P6 --~ //7 il PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Ro~d, Mound, MN Phone: 472-0500, Fax. 472-0620 55364 BUILDING OFFICIAL ~PARKS DIRECTOR DNR MCWD DATE RECEIVED PARK MEETING DATE CITY COUNCIL DATE ~check.~one) =CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT ON PUBLIC LAND SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). "~ PUBLIC LANDNAINTEN~NCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure ~- '! (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). ~ "'~ CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing improvement to remain in ' an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3) ~ ~- '/~ ~ ~%LTEI~TION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, ~ "~ fill etc. (city Code Section 320, Subd. 4). . . .. .............. activity icly ow .d ;t res 'or work the intent of the ~he struc~r~ you a e · like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It Ks structures will at some City to bring all these uses into conformance which means that those granted for a time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits are limited time and are non-transferable, stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new permit is applied for due to change in dock site holder. Applicant Name~ Address Phone (home) (work) Abutting Address ~ Owner Block [I Legal Lot Description Subd. Public Name ~--~~-~-~ Shoreline Type ~ .~C~+ VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS): [~ ~ ! Date //~ June 28, 1994 RESOLUTION NO. 94-94 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS AS NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS IN THE CITY OF MOUND WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound directed that a Nature Conservation Area Plan be developed; and WHEREAS, in July 1993, a Plan was prepared by Mark Koegler, Hoisington/Koegler Group, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the Plan defined Nature Conservation Area as: "City owned and/or controlled lands which are or could be, essentially natural and would conserve flora and fauna. Such areas are to be established in recognition of the benefits of preserving natural open space for present and future generations." It should be understood that this resolution does not preclude future action by the City Council to use this property as a pan of the City's water management program.; and WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission has devoted a great deal of time to studying potential sites for possible Nature Conservation Area status; and WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission has made some recommendations regarding certain sites as Nature Conservation Areas; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered those recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 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 above: 1. North of Bartlett Blvd, end of Rusticwood Road (Rustic Place). ~.9~anC'"a~'''~ PID #23-117-24 31 0077. e Indian Mound property on Westedge Blvd. PID #23-117-24 22 0003. Diamond Lane, across the street from Philbrook Park. PID #14-117-24 31 0013 & 0014. 201 I :.-t '9 Z. '9C~ L...q38~.9 'OOZZ "'"' ' I~3IAH/flOS ~' 90 '007 Peter and Jackie Meyer 5748 Sunset Road Mound, MN 55364 (612)472-7449 12-30-95 Dear Mound City Counoil M~nbor~ At our De. oomb~ 17th m~otflag, tho Mound Parks & Opon Spac~ Commission passed a molion to deny tho Publi~ Land P~'mit Application for hazardous tree removal at the Rustic ~ and P~mbrook NaUn~ Consonrafion Aroas. By allowing thc ~ of dead and dying tre~, or snags, we would b~ going aip~st the main intmt of our NCA Program, which is by definition: "city owned and/or controlled lands which am, or could be, e~mfially natural and would consen~ flora and fauna. Suoh areas am to bo ostabli~od in rocognition of tho benefits of pre~ natural opon spac~ for present and futm-o $cnvratiom." By moving doad ~ we are not only changing the natural ~viromn~ w~ ar~ dostr ~oying a habitat component essential to many spo,zios of flora and fauna~ According to tho Minm:sota Depamn~nt of Natural Rosourc~ "Snags am usod by 43 spocios of birds and at le~ast 26 mammal spocim in the Midw~t" (Landscanin? For W'fldlifej ~ 27). In tho May/June 1993 issue of"Nature Comervancy-, J~mif~ Ackmatan writ~ *Tr~s left to rot slowly wcr~ once considered symbols of waste, fire hazards and impedimont~ to travoL ~t was the studios of how wildlife used snags that provided the first glimmer of the importanc~ of woody d~bris,' says forest ecologist Mark Harmon"(pg. g). It is time for us to stop fl~inking of non-green tre~ as worthloss, and to roc~:}8~¢ them for the rar~ and valuablo commodity the~y have bocom¢ in d~'v¢loped are, as such as Mound. We hav~ cx~pie~ with pmnission, some additional ~ for your inter~ and mjoyment. Please call ffyou have any qumions or connnont~, or if you ar~ int~ost~ in other moans of attrac~ wildlife to your backyard. Singly, and Ja~kie Mqt~r oc: Dead Trees (Snags), Fallen Trees and Perches As taken from Landscaping For Wildlife Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Nongame Wildlife Program - Section of Wildlife Pages 27 & 28 To many people, a snag is just firewood waiting to be cut. To many wildlife species, a snag is a bird's version of a fast food restaurant... Snags are used by 43 species of birds and at least 26 mammal species in the Midwest. Snags are used as nesting sites, for perching sites, for territorial establishment, and as a food source. Appendix J shows lists of Midwestern birds and mammals that use snags. The table includes species which have the ability to create cavities - like woodpeckers - and species which use cavities created by other animals, like screech-owls and wood ducks. There are two kinds of snags - hard and soft. A hard snag is a dead or partially dead tree with at least some limbs remaining and fully sound wood (not punky). A soft snag is a standing dead tree in an advanced stage of decomposition, with few, if any, limbs and advanced heart rot (punky). Both kinds are used by wildlife. A snag should be at least six inches in diameter and 15 feet tall. However, the larger the snag, the greater will be its value for Wildlife. Snags are good locations for placing suet feeders. Some people attract woodpeckers to their yards by cutting down a soft snag and setting it up...where it can be watched from the house. Even the shy pileated woodpecker is known to visit backyards where such snags are provided. Perches are another integral habitat_ component. The belted kingfisher and green-backed heron use branches overhanging water as perches from which they can spot fishes...Snags also serve as perches from which flycatchers fly out to catch insects. Snags or tree branch perches can be provided over backyard ponds, on the edge of hayfields or at bird feeders to stimulate additional bird use. Appendix J MIDWESTERN BIRDS WHICH USE SNAGS Create Use Species Cavities Cavities Create Clse Species Cavities Cavities Wood Duck · Yellow-Bellied Sapsucker Golde~eye ' Hairy Woodpecker Bufflehead · Downy Woodpecker Hooded Merganser · Black-Backed Woodpecker Common Merganser · Three-Toed Woodpecker Red-Breasted Merganser ' Great Crested FlyCatcher Turkey Vulture · Tree Swallow Merlin (pigeon hawk) ' Purple Martin American Kestrel · Black-Capped Chickadee (sparrow hawk) Boreal Chickadee · Peregrine Falcon · Tufted Titmouse Barn Owl ' White-Breasted Nuthatch Northern Hawk Owl ' Red-Breasted Nuthatch Eastern Screech-Owl · Brown Creeper (occasionally) Barred Owl · House Wren Long-eared Owl · Winter Wren Northern Saw-Whet Owl · Bewick's Wren Chimney Swift · Carolina Wren Common Flicker · Eastern Bluebird Pileated Woodpecker · European Starling Red-Bellied Woodpecker -' · Prothonotary Warbler Red-Headed Woodpecker · House Sparrow Use Cavities 12 Create Cavities 31 TOTAL Species ........................................... 43 MIDWESTERN MAMMALS WHICH USE SNAGS Importance of Snags To Animals Animals High Medium Low Squirrels Fox Gray Red Northern Flying Southern Flying Bats Little Brown Big Brown Pipistrelle Silver-Haired Red Hoary Others Porcupine Raccoon Opossum Long-Tailed Weasel Ermine Short-Tailed Shrew Masked Shrew Arctic Shrew Least Shrew White-Footed Mouse Pine Marten Fisher Least Chipmunk ~-~._.- Eastern Chipmunk 117 A The acorn woodpecker uses the bough of a dead tree on a Nature Conservancy preserve in California to store nuts. Scientists are beginning to recognize the valuable role dead wood plays in ecosystems. WHEN THE HOUGH BREAKS There is life after death--at least where trees are concerned. In wood- *lancls around The world, including Nature Conservancy preserves in Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York and Oregon, ecologists are rec- ognizing the importance of dead trees to forest life and urging man- agers to let dead wood lie. "A dead tree is a major new resource for the ecosystem, whether as a snag [standing dead trce] or as a downed log," says Jerry Franldin, an ecosystem analyst at the Univcrsity of Washington's C.ollcge of Forest NATURE CONJIRYANC¥ . MA)'/JIJNE Resources and a former member of The Nature Conservancy's board of governors. Dead wood contributes to the vigor of forests by unlocking the nutrients stored in plant material and recycling them to the myriad organisms essential to forest food- chains. Downed logs create organic matter in which seedlings take root. They slow erosion on hillsides by forming a barrier to soils creeping downslopc. By holding big reservoirs of water, thcy act as oases for wildlife when water sources are at a seasonal ebb. Finally, both fallen trees and snags increase thc diversity of forests by offering specialized niches to a profusion of wildlife. According to Nature Conservancy scientists, more than 120 species of birds, from thc diminutive brown creeper to the northern spotted owl. roost, nest or forage in deadwood. So do 140 kinds of mammals, among them the grizzly bear and thc red wolf, as well as 270 species of rep- tiles and amphibians, and more invertebrates than have yet been identified. In fact, the .richness of for- est plant and animal life may be duc in large part to the changing condi- tions and diverse habitats engen- dered by dead trees. Trees left to rot slowly were once considered -symbols of waste, fire hazards and impediments to travel. ~It was the studies of how wildlife used snags that provided the first glimmer of the importance of woody debris," says forest ecologist Mark Harmon. "In the 1960s it was stan- dard practice to remove snags from woodlands, h soon became clear that wild bird populations were suffering as a result." At the Conservancy's Devil's Den Preserve, a 1,650-acre stretch of east- em deciduous forest in southwestern Connecticut, more than a dozen species of birds use snags, among them screech owls and pileated woodpeckers. Ospreys breeding at the Conservancy's Mashomack Preserve in New York have built their nests on snags along the coast, sites that offer the birds good visibili- ty and easy access. Red-tailed hawks, bluebirds and woodpeckers have found homes in the dead trees that pepper the preserve's inland oak and hickory forests. "We even had a hooded mer- ganser nesting in a snag outside my office," says Mashomack preserve director Mike Laspia. A tree killed 15y natural means--- · wind, lightning, fire, insects or dis- ease--can remain upright a~ a snag for centuries, crumbling away bit by bit until only a column of heartwood remains above a heap of lichen- and moss-covered duff. At each stage of its decay it supports a different array of bird species. The red-breasted nuthatch, which frequents the virgin spruce-fir forest at The Nature Conservaney's Norton Pool Reserve in New Hampshire, tends to nest at the top of snags that are less than two decades old. Northern flickers prefer older snags. Brown creepers and several species of bats are known to roost and rear their young under the loose bark sloughing from older, more decayed snags. Vaux's swift, a small migrato- ry bird that breeds in the forests of Washington state, builds a saucer- shaped nest in large hollow snags, using its sticky saliva to glue twigs to the inside wall Cavities in the trunks and~ branches of snags are in great demand for use as roosting and nest- ing sites not only by birds but by rnammals ranging from the northern flying squirrel to bats, raccoons and black bears. A disease-ridden, bird-pecked snag that snaps or a living tree that keels over instantly creates new habitats. Its fatal plunge creates a bonanza of sunlight for understory trees and pioneer species such as yel- low poplar and yellow birch. Windthrown trees yanked up by their roots create microhabitats in the pit where the roots used to be and in the mound of roots. The trunk itself on its journey from tree to long pile of humus offers hiding places, nesting sites and food to a tumuh of organisms. A new-fallen tree draws a flurry of insect activity. The exposed inner bark and sapwood attract weevils, bark beetles, and such wood-boring beetles as the ambrosia and buprestid, all of which lay their eggs in the logs. As these insects tunnel mines and galleries through the broad pasture of wood, they inocu- late it with fungi and bacteria that hasten its decay and open it up for other small invertebrates. Carpenter ants and termites roam the log. So do parasitoid wasps seeking the eggs and larvae of weevils and beeries. No niche lies unused. "Each por- tion .of a fallen tree supports a char- acterisfic group of insects adapted to a specific microhabitat," says Chris Maser, an author and consultant in forest ecology. Roots, trunk, branch- es, twigs and bark each serve as vest- pocket habitats for specialized insects, which, in turn, host a swarm of predators and parasites. In a study of fallen Douglas fir trees of western Washington, ento- mologist Mark Deyrup turned up more than 300 species of insects, some of them never before described. One kind of bark beetle had a subcommunity of 33 other insect species associated with it. The high insect densities draw spiders, salamanders and lizards, as well as woodpeckers and other birds. "With the large array of organ- isms present in the decaying log, it may be more 'alive' than a living bole," says Jerry Franklin. Downed wood generates as much as a third of the organic matter in forest soil. A well-decomposed log provides the perfect matrix for the seedlings of hemlocks, balsam_firs and yellow birches, among other species. Mark Harmon's research has shown that in some environments, such as the Sitka spruce and western hemlock forests that grow in the Conservancy's Ehner Feldenheimer Preserve in Oregon, the seedbeds provided by 'nurse logs' are the pri-' mary sites for tree reproduction. As the roots of seedlings work their way into a'log, they stimulate a change in certain fungi called mycor- rhizae (from the Greek for fungus- root). Mycorrhizae help the tree absorb the nitrogen and phospho- rous critical to tree growth and in return receive some of the tree's ~r- plus carbohydrates, which enable them to reproduce. The fruit of certain mycorrhizae take the form of potatolike truffles, the special passion of mice, voles, squirrels and chipmunks, which in turn are food for carnivores higher up on the food chain. As the small mammals wander the forest, they disperse the truffle spores in their droppings, spreading the fungtm to seedlings in other parts of the forest. So, the life cycle of seedlings are linked to the scamperings of mice; mice to fungi; fungi to seedlings; and seedling to fungi in an ecological ring-around-the-rosy that relies on the decay of wood. It is such tight interdependencies that have changed scientists' think- ing about the role of woody debris in "DEAD WOOD !$ NO WASTED RESOURCE. IT IS NATURE'S REINVESTMENT IN BIOLOGICAL CAPITAL." forest communities and persuaded land stewards to leave snags and fall- en trees in place. "Dead wood is no wasted resource," says Chris Maser. "It is nature's reinvcstment in biolog- ical capital." JE~mvr-g AC~O:R~aN is a freelance writer and editor based in Charlottesville, Virginia. MAY/JUNE 10q.I · NATURI CON$111¥ANCY · ,-'-'md' CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 lanuary 4, 1996 TO: FROM: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: BID FOR MODIYICATIONS AND REFURBISHING DEPARTMENT'S MACK PUMPER, MODEL CF685 TO THE FIRE The City of Mound advertised and took bids for the modification and refurbishment to the above vehicle. Bids were received on December 27, 1995. Only one bid was received, it came from Custom Fire of Osceola, Wisconsin. The bid amount was $60,710. This is approximately $20,000 more than budgeted. Since the bid opening, Steve Erickson, Fire Chief, has contacted several other companies who had indicated an interest in bidding previously. The time of year apparently was one of the reasons given why these other companies did not bid. Steve and I are recommending that we reject this bid and readvertise sometime later this year. If you have any questions, please contact me. ES:Is printed on recycled paper ORDINANCE NO. A SUMMARY ORDINANCE GOVERNING THE CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, OPERATION, REPAIR, MAINTENANCE, REMOVAL AND RELOCATION OF FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT USED FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF TELECOMMUNICATION OR RELATED SERVICES IN THE PUBLIC GROUND OF THE CITY OF MOUND The City of Mound, acting by the City Council, has adopted a long ordinance relating to the construction, installation, operation, repair, maintenance, removal and relocation of equipment used for the transmission of telecommunication materials in the City. The City is authorized to adopt a summary ordinance if approved by an extra majority of the City Council. Minnesota Statutes Sec. 412.191, Subd. 4, provides that the City Council may determine that the publication of the title and a summary of an ordinance can clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance, and the Council may direct that only the title of the ordinance and a summary be published with notice to the public that a full printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours in the office of the City Clerk. A summary of the ordinance adopted by the Council follows, and the Council believes that this summary clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. Section 617:00 is a definition section. Section 617:05 establishes the permit procedure and requires that permits be issued for this type of work. Section 617:10 requires restoring the areas where work is completed and requires the applicant to pay the direct and indirect costs of the work and the City's costs. The City must be notified of company initiated relocations and requires relocation at the company's expense if required by the City, and makes provision if the public ground is vacated. Section 617:15 relates to provisions and regulations if the company defaults. Section 617:20 requires the company t~ indemnify and hold the City harmless and requires the company to defend the City. Section 617:25 indicates where facilities will be located on public ground and provides that the City must be given notice and agree to the location. This section also outlines and regulates emergency work and provides for provisions relating to street improvements and paving for resurfacing, and requires the company to protect facilities and controls prior service connections. Section 617:30 requires companies with facilities on public ground to comply with this ordinance. Section 617:35 indicates that by receiving a permit the company accepts and agrees to comply with the ordinance. Section 617:40 relates to public ground other than right-of- way covered by Minn. Stats. Section 222.37. Section 617:45 allows the City to prepare suitable regulations and schedules. Section 617:50 is a severability clause if one section is found contrary to law. Attest: Mayor City Clerk Adopted by City Council Published in Official Newspaper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 January 4, 1996 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: DISCUSSION ON FLACK VS. CITY OF MOUND As you recall from the December 19, 1995 meeting, the City Attorney met with you in Executive Session to discuss options that the City has as it relates to this case. In his memorandum of December 18, 1995, which is attached (see page 6) he states the City's Options: "1. The City has 90 days after judgement has been entered to appeal the decisions of the Court to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The Court order has not been adopted as of this date but we expect that that will be forthcoming sometime in the next week or ten days, which will start the 90 day period rolling. This particular issue is the major decision that the Council will have to make as of this time. 2. If the City Council does not appeal the decision, the City will have lost its right to issue dock permits on these six properties. I assume that we would not license docks on the balance of the properties, since that would merely add to the confusion and would probably result in litigation by other property owners along Wawonaissa Commons." Since Curt is on vacation, I have not heard as to whether the actual judgement has been entered. John Dean will be present at Tuesday's meeting, I will ask hi~n to check as to whether the actual judgement has been entered. Although, you will have 90 days as stated above, I have put this on the agenda for discussion. The Dock Location Map, which is the next item on the agenda, by ordinance must be approved by January 15th. We have made an administrative decision to hold back sending out the permit application materials until the Council has actually approved the Dock Location Map. In discussion with the city attorney, he recommended that we not send the materials out until the City Council has made a decision as it relates to the other docks on printed on recycled paper the Wawonai~sa Common not directly affected by the lawsuit. You may want to discuss this matter in Executive Session with John Dean, the assistant city attorney, since it is a matter of potential litigation should you appeal the decision to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. If you have any questions, please contact me. ES:ls I J Attorn~ at L~w Mayor and City Councilmembers City of Mound, Minnesota KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Cenm', MIn~apoll~ Minnesota $5402 (612) 337-9300 Facsimile (612) ~7-9310 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL (612) 337-9221 JAMES J. THOMSON, .IL LARRY M. WEITHKnd BONNIE I.,. WILKIN$ JOE Y. YANG DAVID L GRAVEN (1929-1991) BRUCE M. BATTERSON ROBrlT C. CAIL.qON ROBEIT L.. DAV1DSON WELLING'ION H. CURTIS ,4, PF. AISON T. JAY SALMKN Re: Flack, et al. v. City of Mound Dear Councilmembers: I have now had an opportunity to receive the Report of Referee Including Findings of Fact, Suggested Conclusions of Law, Recommended Order and Memorandum Dated June 7, 1995. I have also reviewed the Court's Order dated November 27, 1995, and the attached Memorandum. I have met with Keith Rennerfeld of the Hennepin County Assessor's Office and have provided him with copies of the above described documents. At the meeting on December 12, 1995, the Council asked for a summary of action and raised some specific questions and directed me to prepare such a report for discussion on December 19, 1995. I presume you all have copies of the original report dated June 7, but if copies are necessary please call Ed and he can have them prepared for our session on December 19. JUNE 7 REPORT OF REFEREE Paragraph 10 provides that the dedication in 1906 was private and that the lanes, roads and commons were dedicated to the owners of the lots in the plat and not to the public. COMMENT: We agree. Paragraph 12 states "That at least until 1966 Wawonaissa Common served the owners of lots in Woodland Point both as a recreational area and as a lakeside street_That sometime in the years after 1966 Wawonaissa Common ceased to be used as a lakeside street and became part of the yards maintained by the abutting lo~ owners, including the plaintiffs." COMMENT: We disagree with this finding. One parcel on the lake still has no street access, and we believe the yards have always been maintained by the neighbors as one boulevard. Paragraph 15 states that between 1907 and 1921, six plats were filed in the City of Mound in which commons were dedicated to the public. ""--~--' CAP98017 · ~-'~" ~? MU200-40 [ %l Mayor and C~>uncilrnembers, City of Mound December 18, 1995 Page 2 COMMENT: We agree. Paragraph 16 states that between 1096 and 1908 there were three plats dedicated in the City of Mound in which the commons was only to the owners of the lots in the plat, or a private dedication. COMMENT: We agree. Paragraph 19 states that the City adopted.Ordinance 94 on May 12, 1960, and. has regulated docks and boathouses on both the private and publicly dedicated commons including Wawonaissa. COMMENT: That is when the land was annexed to the City of Mound from the Town of Minnetrista, and we agree. Paragraphs 20, 21, 22, and 23 indicate that in administering Wawonaissa Commons, the City gave priority to lots which adjoin Wawonaissa Commons and did not issue dock licenses to persons who were not Woodland Point residents. Property owners along the commons have obtained permits to make various improvements on the commons. That since 1960 the City of Mound has contributed materials and services to the maintenance of Wawonaissa Commons, including rip rapping and other miscellaneous items. That the plaintiffs took care of routine maintenance, including mowing, raking, etc. COMMENT: In essence we agree with these findings with the exception that the testimony was somewhat limited as to what the City had done since there are no records and basically there was not a clear record of all the things that the City might have been doing on this commons. Paragraph 24 states that the plaintiffs incorporated the land between their property and the lake into their yards and that there had been no signs, posts or markings of any kind on the commons to distinguish it from the rest of their property. COMMENT: We disagree. Kathy Bailey testified that signs had been put up but were torn down by abutting property owners. It also appears that plaintiffs have maintained this property just as property owners do On the public commons and treated it as a boulevard. I believe there are requirements that the dock holders maintain the areas around their docks, and again there was limited testimony on that subject. ge CAP98017 ~U200-40 Paragraph 25 states that the commons is used "almost exclusively" by residents of Woodland Point. There is a further finding that Dennis F-lack and Michael Gardner called the police and informed them that the individuals who were on the commons were non- residents and that this was private property, and the police told them to leave. Mayor and Councilia:)embers, City of Mound December 18, 1995 Page 3 COMMENT: This in essence was the testimony of Mr. Flack and Mr. Gardner, but it is impossible for any City staff to refute any of these items since it would require us to try to prove a negative. In conversing with City staff and the police, we think it highly unlikely that the police ever told anyone this was private property, but we cannot be sure of this fact. Paragraph 26 states "That the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title did not demonstrate an intention, either expressed or implied, to have their segments of Wawonaissa Common appropriated and devoted to public use." COMMENT: This is the key finding in that since there is no argument that the dedication was private in nature, the burden of proof was on the City to show that there had been a common law dedication of the Wawonaissa Common. We introduced evidence and it was stipulated that in 1949 the court found areas of Waurika Common to be public. We also introduced testimony 'from the County Assessor that this property had been marked as City property on its maps and had never been taxed, and that until recently there had been no contest as it related to the City's enforcing its permitting ordinances and to the expenditure of public monies to rip rap and maintain the shoreline. We felt that the Referee could very easily have made a finding that through its usage for at least the 35 years it has been in the City of Mound, that this property had always been under public control and had been treated as public land. The Referee did not agree. 10. Paragraph 27 states "That Wawonalssa Common and Waurika Common are separate commons, not one unified common bearing different names." COMMENT: This' was one of our major arguments to the Judge that there was no evidence to support that finding by the Referee. Waurika Commons was subject to court action 46 years ago and was found to be public, and there ample testimony concerning the swimming beach being used by the public, school district, etc. for many years. If the Court has found that this was one common instead of two commons, they would then have found that there was a common law dedication over 40 years ago, but the Referee did not agree with that argument. 11. In the suggested Conclusions of Law, Paragraph 3.. states in part that segments of Wawonaissa Commons described in Paragraph 1 (the plaintiffs' properties) "were subject to the interests of the lot owners in Woodland Point pursuant to the dedication clause of the plat and that the exact nature of the lot owners' interests cannot be ascertained without joining in an action all of the owners of lots in the plat." COMMENT: In appealing the Referee's findings, we asked the Court to respond to many of the questions which our residents are now raising as to what the exact nature of the CAP98017 .~T200-40 Mayor and Councilmembers, City of Mound December 18, 1995 Page 4 interest of the lot owners who live off the lake. The Court did not answer any of those questions, nor does the Referee's findings. 12. Paragraph 4 of the suggested findings indicates that "The City of Mound did not acquire an easement over the segments of Wawonaissa Commons described in Paragraph 1 (the plaintiffs' property) by common law dedication and has not right, title or interest in said Wawonaissa Commons, except that, as an owner of some of the lots in Woodland Point, it has an interest in Wawonaissa Common together with the other lot owners in said plat as set out in the preceding paragraph." Referee Edblom then wrote a four page memorandum to explain his findings. The most significant relates to the question as to whether there was a common law dedication. Somehow the penalty provisions in the ordinance adopted in 1960 influenced the Referee to in effect indicate that if they had failed to comply with the ordinance they would have been guilty of a crime. He also cited opinions which I had written to the City Manager and City Council in 1967 and again in 1973 explaining the difference between public ownership and private Ownership, and wherein I had advised them that Wawonaissa Commons was subject to a private dedication. He appeared to but an importance upon the fact that there was no line drawn and therefore the common was indistinct from the remainder of the plaintiffs' yard. He said that the City had a burden of proving that the plaintiffs or their predecessors had expressly or impliedly appropriated and dedicated their land to public use. He went on to explain that the way the City had administered its ordinances, it did not act for the general public "but assumed the role of a home owner's association for Woodland Point." In his concluding two paragraphs, the Referee makes a recommendation based on his expertise in the field of real property and what he heard during the testimony, and he then states as follows: ,?AP98017 ~U200-40 "WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THE SUGGESTED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WOULD CONFIRM THAT THE PLAINTIFFS ARE THE FEE OWNERS OF THEIR SEGMENTS OF WAWONAISSA COMMON, THESE SEGMENTS WOULD CONTINUE TO BE SUBJECT TO THE INTERESTS OF THE OWNERS OF ALL OF THE OTHER LOTS IN WOODLAND POINT WHICH WERE'CREATED BY THE DEDICATION OF THE.COMMON TO THEM IN THE PLAT. THE NATURE OF THIS INTEREST, ALMOST ASSUREDLY THAT OF AN EASEMENT, CANNOT BE DEFINED WITHOUT BRINGING AN ACTION IN WHICH ALL OF THE LOT OWNERS AND ALL OF THE ENCUMBRANCERS ARE JOINED AS PARTIES. UNDER THE CURRENT APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF THE DOCK ORDINANCE, THE PLAINTIFFS ARE ASSURED OF A DOCK SITE AS THE OWNERS OF LOTS WHICH ADJOIN WAWONAISSA COMMON. Mayor and Cc;uncirmembers, City of Mound December 18, 1995 Page 5 IRONICALLY, A DECISION BY THIS COURT FOR THE PLAINTIFFS WILL MEAN THEY NO LONGER ARE ASSURED OF A DOCK SITE. ALL LOT OWNERS IN WOODLAND POINT WILL THEN HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS TO USE WAWONAISSA COMMON. THE ONLY BENEFIT TO THE PLAINTIFFS WOULD BE THAT THEY WOULD BE FREE FROM THE CONTROL EXERCISED OVER WAWONAISSA COMMON BY THE CITY." NOVEMBER 27, 1995, COURT ORDER Judge H. Peter Albrecht denied the City's motion to amend the report of the Referee. He also adopted as the findings of the court the Referee's findings. He denied the Plaintiffs' motion against the City for refund of dock fees, and then made a rather strange concluding paragraph which states as follows: "That, until all appeals are exhausted, Defendant City of Mound is temporarily enjoined from collecting dock fees from Plaintiffs and licensing docks on the properties which are subject to this lawsuit." Neither the Plaintiffs' lawyer nor ourselves are sure of what the Judge was trying to say in that paragraph. It may be that he was anticipating an appeal. The Court's memorandum essentially relates to Rule 53.05 (b) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure indicating that a referee's findings of fact cannot be set aside unless clearly erroneous. The cases cited are such that the Judge indicates that a decision should not be set aside unless the decision is so manifestly contrary to the preponderance of the evidence as to conclude that the findings of fact failed to consider all of the evidence. The Court indicated that it was the burden of the City to prove: That the landowner expressly or impliedly intended to have his land appropriated and devoted to the public use, and 2. that there was a public acceptance of the land for that use. It is stated that based on the evidence, the findings of the Refe~'ee were not clearly erroneous, and he therefore denied the motion. He also went on and denied the Plaintiffs' claims for a refund of dock fees. · ..'--~_ ' CAF98017 C_~.- ~.; MU200-40 Mayor and Counciliriembers, City of Mound December 18, 1995 Page 6 CITY'S OPTIONS 1. The City has 90 days after judgment has been entered to appeal the decision of the Court to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The Court order has not been adopted as of this date but we expect that that will be forthcoming sometime in the next week or ten days, which will start the 90 day period roiling. This particular, issue is the major decision that the Council will have to make as of this time. 2. If the City Council does not appeal the decision, the City will have lost its right to issue dock permits on these six properties. I assume that we would not license docks on the balance of the properties, since that would merely add to the confusion and would probably result in litigation by other property owners along Wawonaissa Common. WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE DECISION AND THE QUESTIONS BEING RAISED BY CITIZENS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE? The following are questions which have been submitted to the City Manager by interested residents: a. If the court decision stands, who regulates the common? Answer: As stated above, the City would not be the regulator. All properties in the subdivision would have equal fights unless a court were to issue some other type of order. It would therefore appear that it would behove all of the property owners to get together to determine how the common is to be regulated. b. Can neighbors go down to the common? Answer: Yes. The decision makes it clear that property owners in Woodland Point have not been deprived of any rights as a result of this litigation. Each property owner has what the Referee described as probably an easement over all the common property. c. How many docks can be placed on the common area? Answer: Unknown. Since the common will be one piece of property, it would probably have to go to the LMCD to attempt to obtain a permit for dockage. In a letter transmitted by the attorney for the LMCD this summer, they indicated they are not equipped to determine who might have what rights on the cAPge017 Hu2o0 -40 Mayor and Councilmembers, City of Mound December 1 g, 1995 Page 7 de common area. The City will be precluded except as a property owner from being involved in that decision. Will the City appeal? Answer: That is up to the City Council. What happens if the City does not appeal? Answer: The City will no longer be a regulator or stand in the stead of a homeowner's association. The property owners in the subdivision will have to determine what and how the common will be maintained. Can the plaintiffs order Woodland Point property owners or neighbors of the property to leave the area? Answer: In our opinion the plaintiffs cannot order a property owner of Woodland Point to leave the area, but the public would have no right to use the common. ,TAPa8017 . N~J200-40 he Whose property is it? Answer: The underlying fee owner rests with the abutting owners, and the City did not contest point. We argued that the common was no different from the street in front of their houses, and that the property owner does not have a fight to deny the public the use of those stxeets, water, and other utilities, even though it was privately dedicated. Will the land that is now under the plaintiffs' ownership be taxed? Who will be taxed? Is it all one parcel? How will this be taxed? Answer: I have met with the County Assessor who acts as the City Assessor, and he informs me that the property is one parcel and will be taxed. He does not know exactly how the County will handle this, but it could bet set up several ways: ao They could consider the value of the lakeshore parcel and then try to attribute that to all the property owners in the subdivision, or bo They could treat it as one tax parcel with a value applied to that P.I.D. parcel. The tax statement would then be sent to a homeowner's association or someone who is responsible for the parcel, or if there is no Mayor and Councirmembers, City of Mound December 18, 1995 Page 8 jo such association, they would probably have to send copies of the tax statements to all property owners within Woodland Point. It is his opinion that this is going to be very difficult to calculate and to work out an answer. If it applies only to the abutting property owners, they would add approximately $100 per foot to the value of the abutting properties, but since the entire subdivision is responsible for the tax, that method probably would not work. Therefore, their initial impression is that there would have to'be a property identification number established, a value determined, and a tax applied. Assuming the numbers to be in excess of 1000 feet, it would appear that the value would be in excess of $100,000 and that the tax would be $2400 or more per year. I wish to make it clear that the assessor is unable to give a definite answer at this time, but a tax could run somewhere from $2,000 to $10,000 per year. This is about the most difficult question for the governmental bodies to respond to in this case and will be the most important to the property owners in Woodland Point who will have to pay this increased tax. Is the LMCD going to regulate the common? Answer: To the best of my knowledge, the LMCD will only regulate from the water's edge and if the City is not in control it will have to drop from its application to the LMCD this area as a location for public docks. I cannot comment on what the LMCD ramifications may be. CONCLUSION The City Council will have to make a decision as to whether it wishes to appeal. I am sure that the Council then wants to know how much added expense this may be and what the chances are of success. Unfortunately, these are two questions which I cannot currently answer. We feel that the Judge was sympathetic to the City's position and recognized the questions which were going to be raised by all the property owners, but he did not respond to our request to clarify those issues. If an appeal is to be taken, we would have., to basically study the facts which we have in the testimony .and the stipulation of facts which was entered into by the parties and then determine the areas where we might request the court to overturn the Referee's recommendations. In our appeal, we su:essed that we felt he made a mistake in considering it as one common. We also pointed out to the court that if the City left the area, there would be no central regulating body to take over that responsibility. The chances of all the property owners running to the shore in the spring to extend their docks could result in a lot of disputes within the neighborhood, and the City would not be in a position to be a referee. - M~200-40 Mayor and C~unci'l~aaembers, City of Mound December 18, 1995 Page 9 I shall try to respond to your questions at the meeting on December 19, but I must confess that the decision leaves many unanswerable questions. The most pressing will be how the people will treat the shoreline, how they will try to figure out how to allocate some form of docking priorities, and how they are going to respond to the assessment when they determine how the property will be assessed and taxed. Questions will also arise as to liability for activities on the common, and I again I have no answers. In conclusion, I believe this is a Council decision as to whether you wish to appeal, and if you do wish to appeal, we will put together the best scenario we can to try to convince the Court of Appeals that the Referee made a mistake and that the City does have an easement as a result of common law dedication based on the matter of control in this common for at least the last 46 years. CAP:Ih Respectfully submitted, City Attorney CAPg$OI7 WG200-40 M'iNUTF_~ OF A M'F~ETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMI~qSION NOVEMBER 9, 1.995 ~996 DOCK LOCATION MAP: PUBLIC HEARING Jim Fackler, Parks Director, reviewed the proposed changes to the map as outlined within his memorandum. These changes need to be approved by the Council by January 15, 1996· Fackler noted that the Dock Location Map Attachment was Revised on 11/6/95 and copies were distributed to the Commission. He explained that duplicate numbers were found on the list, and that the list now reflects the correct number of dock sites at 448. Following is a recap of the changes proposed to the map for 1996: DOCK SITE NUMBERS: A listing of all dock site numbers, including Shoreline Type and Land Type is to be made as an attachment to the map. pEMBROKE PARK: The area on the map shown as Pembroke Park will be corrected. BRIGHTON COMMON: As shown on the attached copy of the original plat of Wychwood, the correct name for this area is Brighton Common and no change is proposed. e FISHING PIER: The fishing pier at Centerview Beach will be added to the map. JI ,il Park anW Open Space Commission November 9, I995 WATERSIDE LANE VS. WATER BANK COMMON (DOCK SITES 20130 to 22600 Morton Lane): The original 91at named this area Water Bank Common. Currently, the dock map shows this area as Waterside Common, and the plat map shows this area as Waterside Lane. History indicates that when the street names were changed by the City, the name of this area was also changed· Through discussions with the City Engineer, it could be possible to rename this area back to Water Bank Common, and also to recognize the improved road on the plat map and dock map as Waterside Lane. The city Council would have to approve this change with an ordinance amendment. Pederson commented that this is a unique area where a road is across the common. The road evolved from a path to a gravel road to a paved road. She visited the Registrar's office at Hennepin County and they suggested that this road be described as an easement so that the abutting people will retain their "abutting" status. The Parks Director commented that regardless those residents would still be considered "abutting." He agreed that this area is unique as it is the only area with a road on the common. Tom Menken questioned the total number of dock sites within the City's dock program. The Dock Inspector confirmed that there are 448 dock sites, and this number has not changed for at least the last five years, and it is possible to add or remove dock sites. NORTH PARK (22827 TO 23057): North Park is located just east of Morton Lane and has never been labeled on the map. The dock site numbers/lineal footage will need to be verified by the city Engineer. It was noted that the dock site numbers do not correlate with the list and should be corrected to read "22990 to 23070." LAKE BLVD. (23057 TO 23255): Lake Blvd. is located just east of Apple Lane and has never been labeled on the map. The dock site numbers/lineal footage will need to be verified by the City Engineer. It was noted that the dock site numbers do.not correlate with the list and should be corrected to read "23090 to 23230." o PRIVATE SHORELINE (23057): There is an 85 foot wide parcel of land located between North Park and Lake Blvd. that is private lakeshore. This area is currently shown on the map as a docking area and needs to be corrected. Dock site numbers will need to be adjusted to account for the loss of 85 lineal feet. Park and Open Space Commission Hinutes November 9, 1995 It was noted that the dock site numbers do not correlate with the list and should be corrected to read "(23090)." 9. TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS: ae Following 20830 is 22030, which is incorrect. should also be 20830. 22030 b. 21280A should be 21280. c. 23255 is shown as 23155. There may be other typographical errors, and as they are found they will be corrected. 10. SHORELINE TYPES: The map currently refers to "Shoreline Classifications.,, In order to be consistent with the Use Plan, it should be changed to read "Shoreline Types." 11. CRESCENT PARK: The spelling needs to be corrected "Crescent". Darling requested an explanation of the numbering system. Fackler explained that it is measured on lineal footage. Fackler commented it is his understanding there are about 6 miles of public shoreline. There are no commons docks on Langdon Lake or Dutch Lake. Chair Schmidt opened the public hearing. Tom Menken asked a question regarding dock spacing. He lives on the north side of Harrison Bay between Dove and Eagle abutting commons. His first summer at that residence, 2 years ago, the docks were spaced about 30 feet apart, but last summer the docks were spaced only about 25 feet apart. The Dock Inspector stated that the spacing in that area is 30 feet and those docks were probably not installed on-center. The numbering in that area has stayed the same. McCaffrey explained that each site has 30 feet of area and a site holder may place their dock anywhere within that 30 feet as long as it does not cause a problem for adjacent sites. McCaffrey offered to assist Mr. Menken in the spring to mark the spots. Alex Wilson and Geri Edwards informed the Commission that they reside on the north end of Avocet Lane, Jennings Bay, and they have a little boat launch off Avocet Lane that the neighbors use and snowmobilers use in the winter. They have a-concern with a commons dock that somewhat obstructs their use of the boat launch because it is installed at such an angle. They would like the dock installed at a more appropriate angle. The Dock Inspector agreed to work on this issue next spring. They also expressed a concern about the wetlands disappearing in Jennings Bay cove. The Parks Director explained that the wetlands thrived during the drought, but the reeds do not live with the water depth consistently at a normal-level. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes November 9, 1995 Chair Schmidt closed the public hearing. Ahrens questioned if there is an ordinance requiring people to center their docks within their site? Ahrens suggested that if someone does not want to place their dock on-center, they should get approval from the other abutting dock site holders. Schmidt questioned what the concern is. Fackler stated that they try to work with the owners, and sometimes the LMCD helps mediate between private lakeshore owners and the City. Prior to the LMCD there was not a setback, and our system existed prior to 1968, so we work together. Ahrens stated that she is not suggesting the number of docks be reduced. She would like to see a recommendation that people install their docks on the center of their site. She does not feel that it necessarily has to be in the ordinance, but that it should be a policy. Ahrens elaborated that when one person places their dock off-center it creates a domino affect and eventually somebody down the line will be negatively affected. She would like a statement included on the "Attachment" to the Dock Location Map which lists all the dock site numbers which says that people should put their docks centered on these locations, and if they do not want to center it then they need the Dock Inspectors approval. The Dock Inspector noted that he would not want to advertise that you have to center your dock because people may think that they now have the opportunity to place their docks off-center. Ahrens commented that right now though there is no assurance that people are not doing this. Ahrens referred to her docking area which is suppose to have a limited number of docks because of the sand bar, but if someone wanted they could move their dock on the sand bar. Fackler agreed that there is some movement in her area. Ahrens commented that having docks off-center provides for a very cluttered look and it is unsightly. She would rather see a policy change rather than an ordinance change. The Dock Inspector confirmed that off-setting is rare and there should be no problem. Ahrens commented that she wants the Dock Inspector to enforce the policy. Motion by Ahrens to recommend to the C&ty Council approval of the 1996 Dock Location Map with the changes as outlined within the memorandum from the Parks Director, including the "Attachment to the Dock Location Map" Revised 11/6/95, and recommend that a policy be created that docks must be centered on the dock site locations unless otherwise approved by the Dock Inspector. Motion seconded by Casey. Park and Open Space Commission Hinutes November 9, 1995 It was questioned if an ordinance change would be required. The Parks Director suggested that City Code Section 437:05, Subd. 5 would be a good place for this change. He confirmed there is nothing in the ordinance now requiring people to center their docks at their sites. Darling questioned what would happen if somebody did not agree with the Dock Inspector's decision on the dock placement, and it was noted that an individual would always have the right to appeal to the Council. The Parks Director clarified that the Commission's recommendation will need to be reviewed by the City Council on or before their meeting on January 9th. Ahrens moved to amend her m~tion to recommend the Ordinance be amended t? req~xre that docks must .be centered on the dock sxte locations unless otherwise approved by the Dock Inspector. Casey, seconded the ~ amendment to the motion. Pederson expressed a concern that Water Bank Common is disappearing, and she would like to see it properly labeled on the map. Pederson suggested that the commons area at the east end towards Morton Lane could be listed as Waterside lane, and the commons area to the west of Tonkawood Road should be labled Water Bank Common. Pederson stated that she has deeds which call this property Water Bank Common. The Parks Director clarified that a road is an easement and the street easement for Waterside Lane was never denoted on the plat map. When the street names were changed in the 1960's, the name of the entire Water Bank Common was changed to Waterside Lane. (Commissioner Goode arrived.) Fackler confirmed that there is commons on both sides of the road. Pederson requested the name be changed back to Water Bank Common. The Secretary noted that according to the original plats, Water Bank Common stretched from Breezy Road to Morton Lane, and it was all one common. The Commission noted that some areas of the common are now private, and therefore the common is divided. Ahrens suggested that they name one side Water Bank Common and other side Waterside Lane. Fackler noted that if the common is redesignated, it will clear-up any confusion and it will show on the map the location of the paved portion of the road as an easement. - ahrens moved tea mend the motion to include that the dock map and plat map be modified to properly reflect the improved road easement known as Waterside Lane, and to properly denote Water Bank Common. Casey seconded the motion to amend the motion. Motion carried 6 to 1. Those Ahrens, Casey, Schmidt, Meyer, opposed. in favor were Goode, ~ederson. Darling _ ¢IT¥ OF MOUND -DOCK LOCATION MAP ATTACHMENT Rev. 11/6/95 RE(# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name 1 00010 D 2 00030 D 3 OO050 D 4 00070 0 5 00115 D 6 00125 D 7 00145 D 8 00155 D 9 00195 D 10 00215 D 11 OO235 D 12 00255 D 13 00275 D 14 00295 D 15 O0315 D 16 00335 D 17 00355 D 18 00385 D 19 00490 D.~~- 20 00550 21 00580 D 22 00610 D 23 00640 00~~ 24 00670 ' 25 00700 26 007'50 27 00760 D 28 00790 D 29 00820 D 30 00850 D 31 00880 D 32 00910 Df~ 33 00940 D~' 34 00970 D 35 01000 D 36 01030 D 37 01060 C 38 01090 C 39 01120 C 4O O115O C 41 O1170 42 01200 :~'~ 43 01530 Avocet Lane Avocet Lane Avocet Lane Avocet Lane Bluebird Lane Bluebird Lane Canary Lane Canary Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Do%~ Wawona ssa Common Wawonalssa Wawonalssa Wawonalssa Wawonalssa Wawonalssa Wawonaissa Wawona~ssa Wawona~ssa Wawona]ssa Wawona~ssa Wawonalssa ~awonalssa ~awonalssa ~awonaissa ~awonaissa Wawonalssa Wawona~ssa ~awonalssa Cohen ~aurika Co~non Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common 45 01600 C Waurika Cmn 46 01650 C Waurika comnon 47 01880 D Waurika Common 48 01900 D Waurika Common 49 01920 D Waurika Cmmmn 50 01940 D Waurika Cohen 51 01960 D Waurika Common 52 01980 D Waurika Conmon 53 02000 D Waurika Co~n 54 02020 D gaurika Common 55 02040 D Waurika Common 56 02060 D Waurika Common 57 02080 D Waurika Common 58 02100 D ~aurika Con~n Common Common (off, non Common Common (off, non Common Common Common Common Conm~n Common Common Common Co~non Co~m~on REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name 59 02180 D Waurika Common 60 02200 D Waurika Conmon 61 02220 D Waurika Con~n 62 02250 D Waurfka Common 63 02280 D Waurika Con~on 64 02310 D Waurika Common 65 02340 D Waurika Common 66 02370 D Waurika Cmn 67 02400 D Waurika Common 68 02430 D Waurika Common 69 02460 D Waurika Common 70 02490 D Waurika Common 71 02520 D Waurika Con.on 72 02550 D ~aurika Con. on 7] 02605 D Pebble Beach Conm 74 02635 D Pebble Beach Comm 75 02665 D Pebble Beach Coma 76 02695 D Pebble Beach Comm 77 02720 D Pebble Beach Coach 78 02?50 0 Pebble Beach Comm 79 02780 D Pebble Beach Con~a 80 02810 D Three Pts. Blvd. 81 02840 0 Three Pts. Blvd. 82 02870 D. Three Pts. Blvd. 83 02900 D Three Pts. Blvd. 84 02930 D Three Pts. Blvd. 85 04070 D Beachside (North) 86 04110 D Beachside (North) 87 10020 D Shorewood Lane 88 10050 D Beachside (South) 89 10070 D Beachside (South) 90 10090 D Beachside (South) 91 10220 D Crescent Park 92 10250 D Crescent Park 93 10280 D Crescent Park 94 10310 D Crescent Park 95 10340 D Crescent Park 96 10370 D Crescent Park 97 10400 D Crescent Park 98 10430 0 Crescent Park 99 10460 D Crescent Park 100 10490 D Crescent Park 101 10520 0 Crescent Park 102 10550 D Crescent Park 103 10580 0 Crescent Park 104 106~ D Crescent Park 105 10640 D Crescent Park 106 10670 0 Crescent Park 107 10700 0 Crescent Park 108 12430 D Wren Road 109 12460 D Wiota Common 110 12490 D Niota Common 111 12520 D Niota Common 112 12550 D Wiota Common 113 12580 D Wiota Cmn 114 12610 D Wiota Common 115:4_2640 D Wiota Common 116 -'12670 D Wiota Common Dock Location Map Attachment Rev. 11/6/95 p. 2of4 REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name 117 12700 D Wiota Co~t~n 118 12730 D Wiota Common 119 12760 D Wiota Co~on 120 12790 D Wiota Common 121 12820 D Wiota Common 122 12850 D Wiota Common 123 12880 D Wiota Common 124 12910 D Wiota Co~non 125 12940 P Wiota Coat,on 126 12970 O Wiota Comnon 127 13000 D Wiota Common 128 13030 D Wiota Common 129 13060 O Wiota Common 130 13090 D Wiota Common 131 13120 D 14iota Coeaaon 132 13150 O Wiota Common 133 13180 D Wiota Common 134 13210 O Wiota Coomon 135 13240 D Wiota Common 136 13270 D Wiota Com~n 137 13300 D Wiota Common 138 13330 D Wiota Common 139 13360 O Wiota Co~non 140 13390 D Wiota Conmon 141 13420 D Wiota Co~on 142 13450 D Wiota Common 143 13480 D Wiota Common 144 13510 D Wiota Common 145 13540 D Wiota Common 146 13570 D Wiota Common 147 13600 D Wiota Cce~on 148 13630 D Wiota Con, non 149 13660 D Wiota Co.non 150 13690 D Wiota Conmon 151 13720 D Wiota Con,non 152 13750 D Wiota Common 153 13780 D Wiota Co~on 154 13810 D Wiota Common 155 20050 D Peabody St. 156 20130 D Waterside Lane 157 20160 D Waterside Lane 158 20190 D Waterside Lane 159 20220 D Waterside Lane 160 20250 D Waterside Lane 161 20280 D Waterside Lane 162 20310 D Waterside Lane 163 20340 D Waterside Lane 164 20370 D Waterside Lane 165 20400 O Waterside Lane 166 20430 O Waterside Lane 167 20460 D Waterside Lane 168 20490 O Waterside Lane 169 20520 D Waterside Lane 170 20550 D Waterside Lane 171 20580 D Waterside Lane 172 20610 D Waterside Lane 17'5 20640 D Waterside Lane 174 20670 D Waterside Lane REC# Site_~ Shore_Type Land_Name 175 20700 D Waterside Lane 176 20730 D Waterside Lane 177 20760 O Waterside Lane 178 20790 O Waterside Lane 179 20810 D Waterside Lane 180 20830 O Centerview Lane 181 20860 D Centerview Lane 182 20890 D Centerview Lane 183 20920 D Centerview Lane 184 20950 D Centerview Lane 185' 20980 D Centerview Lane 186 21110 D Centervie~ Lane 187 21140 O Centerview Lane 188 21170 O Centerview Lane 189 21200 D Centerview Lane 190 21230 D Centerview Lane 191 22180 D Waterside Lane 192 22200 D Waterside Lane 193 22220 O Waterside Lane 194 22240 D Waterside Lane 195 22260 D Waterside Lane 196 22330 D Waterside Lane 197 22360 D Waterside Lane 198 22390 D Waterside Lane 199 22420 O Waterside Lane 200 22450 O Waterside Lane 201 22480 D Waterside Lane 202 22510 O Waterside Lane 203 22540 D Waterside Lane 204 22570 D Waterside Lane 205 22600 D Waterside Lane 206 22910 D Morton Lane 207 22990 D North Park 208 23050 D North Park 209 23070 D North Park 210 23090 O Lake Blvd. 211 23110 D Lake Blvd. 212 23130 D Lake Blvd. 213 23150 D Lake Blvd. 214 23190 D Lake Blvd. 215 23210 D Lake Blvd. 216 23230 D Lake Blvd. 217 23275 O Chateau Lane 218 23325 O Arbor Lane 219 30020 D Norwood Lane 220 30030 D Norwood Lane 221 30070 D Cartson Park 222 30090 O Carlson Park 223 30110 O Carlson Park 224 30130 O Carlson Park 225 30150 O Carlson Park 226 30170 D Carlson Park 227 30190 O Carlson Park 228 30210 D Car[son Park 229 30230 D Carlson Park 230 30250 D Inwood Road 231 30270 D In~ood Road 23L~_ 30300 O Avon Drive Dock Location Map Attachment Rev. 11/6/95 p. 3of4 REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name 233 30330 D 234 30350 D 235 30370 D 236 30450 C 237 30510 C 238 3O59O C 239 30670 C 240 30710 C 241 31210 D 242 31240 D 243 31270 D 244 31300 D 245 31330 D 246 31360 D 247 31390 D 248 31420 D 249 31450 D 250 31480 D 251 31510 D 252 31540 D 253 31570 D 254 31600 D 255 31630 D 256 31680 D 257 31710 D 258 31740 D 259 31770 D 260 31800 D 261 31830 D 262 31860 D 263 31890 D 264 31920 D 265 31950 D 266 31980 D 267 32010 D 268 32040 D 269 32070 D 270 32100 D 271 32130 D 272 32160 D 2?3 32190 D 274 32220 D 275 32250 D 2?6 3228O D 277 3231O D 278 32340 D 279 32600 D 280 32670 O 281 32760 D 282 32790 D 283 3282O O 284 32940 D 285 33090 D 286 33150 O 287 33287 O 288 33347 D 289 33407 D 290 33447 C Emerald Drive Emerald Drive Emerald Drive Longford Road Longford Road Longford Road Longford Road Longford Road Kenmore Conmon Kenmore common Ker~nore Common Kenmore Common Kenmore Co~on Kenmore Common Kenmore Con.on Kenmore Common Kenmore Common Kenmore Common Kenmore Common Kenmore Common Kenmore Con.on Kenmore Common Kenmore Common Excelsior Lane Excelsior Lane Excelsior Lane Excelsior Lane Excelsior Lane Excelsior Lane Excelsior Lane Excelsior Lane Excelsior Lane Excelsior Lane Excelsior Lane Excelsior Lane Excelsior Lane Excelsior Lane Excelsior Lane Excelsior Lane Excelsior Lane Excelsior Lane Excelsior Lane Excelsior Lane Excelsior Lane Excelsior Lane Excelsior Lane Ke[[s Road Stratford Lane Stratford Lane Stratford Lane Stratford Lane Stratford Lane Stratford Lane Stratford Lane Stratford Lane Stratford Lane Stratford Lane Stratford Lane REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name 291 33487 C 292 33525 C 293 40510 D 294 40535 D 295 40560 D 296 40585 D 297 40610 O 298 40855 B 299 40885 B 300 40915 B 301 40945 B 302 40965 B 303 40995 B 304 41020 B 305 41050 B 3O6 41O80 B 3O7 41110 C 3O8 41140 C 3O9 41170 C 310 41227 C 311 41272 C 312 41319 C 313 41377 D 314 41437 D 315 41477 D 316 41650 D 317 41750 D 318 41824 D 319 418(>6 D 320 41908 D 321 41956 D 322 42000 D 323 42043 D 324 42086 D 325 42129 D 326 42172 C 327 42227 C 328 42277 ¢ 329 42314 C 330 42351 C 331 42406 C 332 42461 C 333 42511 C 334 42556 C 335 42586 C 336 42626 C 337 4P,~91 B 338 42791 B 339 42821 B 340 42856 B 341 42871 B 342 42901 B 343 42931 B 344 42961 B 345 42990 B 346 43020 B 347 43080 C 348 43120 C Stratford Lane Stratford Lane Avalon Park Ava[on Park Avaton Park Avalon Park Ava[on Park Devon Common Devon Common Devon Conmon Devon Conmon Devon Common Devon Coflm~n Devon Common Devon Common Devon Common Devon Common Devon Common Devon Common Devon Conmm=n Devon Common Devon Co~on Devon Common Devon Conmon Devon Co,mot Devon Commor Devon Con,nor Devon Commor Devon Conmor Devon Co.nor Devon Cone]or Devon Common Devon Commor Devon Commor Devon Commo Devon ¢ommor Devon Commor Devon Common Devon Common Devon Co~n Devon Common Devon Common Devon Co~n Devon Common Devon Common Devon Cmlnon Devon Common Devon Common Devon Common Devon Con,non Devon Common Devon Common Devon Common Devon Common Devon Common Devon Common Devon Common Devon Common Dock Location Map Attachment Rev. 11/6/95 p. 4of4 REC# Site_~ Shore_Type Land_Name 349 43180 C 350 43235 C 351 43265 B 352 43305 B 353 43335 B 354 43360 B 355 43390 B 356 43420 B 357 43450 C 358 43520 C 359 43575 C 360 43647 C 361 43727 C 362 43770 C 363 43800 C 364 43840 C 365 43882 C 366 43942 C 367 44002 C 368 44097 C 369 44160 C 37O 44193 C 371 44243 C 372 44408 C 373 50220 D 374 50240 D 375 50260 D 376 50400 D 377 50430 D 378 50460 D 379 50490 D 380 50520 D 381 50550 O 382 50580 D 383 50610 C 384 50640 D 385 50670 D 386 50700 D 38? 5O73O D 388 50760 D 389 50790 D 390 50820 D 391 50850 D 392 50880 D 393 50910 C 394 50940 C 395 50970 C 396 51000 C 397 51030 C 398 51105 C 399 51135 C 4OO 51195 C 401 51315 C 402 51375 c 4O3 51435 c 404 51495 C 405 51525 C 406 51555 C Devon Coniston Devon Con~n Devon Common Devon Co~on Devon Common Devon Common Devon Co~mon Devon Common Devon Co~n Devon Devon Con,non Devon Con,on Devon Common Devon common Devon Common Devon Common Devon Come,on Devon co~mon Devon Common Devon Devon tone, on Devon Con~on Devon Cone~n Devon Co~mon Waterbury Road Waterbury Road Waterbury Road Brighton BLvd. Brighton BLvd. Brighton BLvd. Brighton BLvd. Brighton BLvd. Brighton BLvd. Brighton BLvd. Brighton BLvd. Brighton BLvd. Brighton BLvd. Brighton BLvd. Brighton BLvd. Brighton BLvd. Brighton Common Brighton common Brighton Conmon Brighton Cone~n Brighton Brighton Cona~n Brighton Co~non Brighton common Brighton Coat,on Brighton Conmon Brighton Brighton common Brighton Common Brighton Brighton Comaon Brighton Brighton common Brighton Common REC# Site_~ Shore_Type Land_Name 407 51675 C 408 51705 C 409 51735 C 410 51795 C 411 51850 C 412 51885 C 413 54970 O 414 55000 O 415 55030 D 416 55060 D 417 55090 D 418 55120 D 419 55150 D 420 55180 D 421 60640 D 422 60685 O 423 60725 O 424 60745 D 425 6O765 D 426 60785 D 427 6O8O5 D 428 6O825 0 429 60845 O 430 60865 D 431 60885 D 432 60905 O 433 60925 0 434 60945 D 435 60965 D 436 60985 D 437 61010 D 438 61030 D 439 61050 D 440 61070 D 441 61090 D 442 61110 D 443 61130 D 444 61150 D 445 61190 D 446 61215 D 447 61240 D 448 61265 O Brighton Co~n Brighton Brighton Co~on Brighton Common Brighton Con~on Brighton tone,on Lost Lake Park Lost Lake Park Lost Lake Park Lost Lake Park Lost Lake Park Lost Lake Park Lost Lake Park Lost Lake Park IdetwoodRoad Ideiwood Road Twin Park Twin Park Twin Park Twin Park Twin Park HighLand Park HighLand Park HighLand Park HighLand Park HighLand Park HighLand Park HighLand Park HighLand Park Ridgewood Park Ridgewood Park Ridgewood Park Ridgewood Park Ridgewood Park Ridgewood Park Ridgewood Park Ridgewood Park Ridgewood Park Lagoon Park Lagoon Park Lagoon Park Lagoon Park CITY OF MOUND Memorandum 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: November 2, 1995 Park and Open Space Commissior~ ~,,, ii~n9~al~l~r~ ~r~l i roel~tl~,l~ City Code requires that the Dock Location Map be reviewed annually by the Park Commission so recommended changes can be referred to, and considered by the City Council by January 15. Following is a recap of the changes to the map for 1996: DOCK SITE NUMBERS: A listing of all dock site numbers, including Shoreline Type and Land Type is to be made as an attachment to the map. ,PEMBROKE PARK: The area on the map shown as Pembroke Park will be corrected. BRIGHTON COMMON: As shown on the attached copy of the original plat of Wychwood, the correct name for this area is Brighton Common and no change is proposed. FISHING PIER: The fishing pier at Centerview Beach will be added to the map. WATERSIDE LANE VS. WATER BANK COMMON (DOCK SITES 20000 t~', 22827? Morton Lane)' The original plat named this area Water Bank Common· Currently, the dock map shows this area as Waterside Common, and the plat map shows this area as Waterside Lane (note attached copies)· History indicates that when the street names were changed by the City, the name of this area was also changed. Through discussions with the City Engineer, it could be possible to rename this area back to Water Bank Common, and also to recognize the improved road on the plat map and dock map as Waterside Lane. The City Council would have to approve this change with an ordinance a~endment. printed on recycled paper Memo - Dock Lo'cation Map 1996 November 2, 1995 Page 2 e 10. 11. NORTH PARK (22827 TO 23057): North Park is located just east of Morton Lane and has never been iabled on the map. The dock site numbers/lineal footage will need to be verified by the City Engineer. LAKE BLVD. (23057 TO 23255): Lake Blvd. is located just east of Apple Lane and has never been labled on the map. The dock site numbers/lineal footage will need to be verified by the City Engineer. PRIVATE SHORELINE (23057): There is an 85 foot wide parcel of land located between North Park and Lake Blvd. that is private lakeshore. This area is currently shown on the map as a docking area and needs to be corrected. Dock site numbers will need to be adjusted to account for the loss of 85 lineal feet. TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS: a. Following 20830 is 22030, which is incorrect. 20830. 22030 should also be b. 212804 should be 21280. c. 23255 is shown as as 23355. There may be other typographical errors, and as they are found they will be corrected. SHORELINE TYPES: The map currently refers to "Shoreline Classifications." In order to be consistent with the Use Plan, it should be changed to "Shoreline Types." CRESCENT PARK: The spelling needs to be corrected "Crescent". pJ CC: John Cameron, City Engineer CITY OF MOUND - DOCK 1996 JI J LOCATION MAP RE(# S~te_~ Shore_Type .Land_Name 1 00010 D 2 00030 D 3 00050 D 4 00070 D 5 00070 D 6 00115 D 7 00125 D 8 00145 D 9 00155 D 10 00195 D 11 00215 D 12 00?..35 D 13 O0255 D 14 00275 D 15 00295 D 16 00315 D 17 OO335 D 18 00355 D 19 00385 D 20 00490 D 21 OO550 D 22 00580 D ?.3 00610 D 24 00640 D 25 00670 D 26 00700 D 27 00730 O 28 00760 O 29 00790 D 30 00820 O 31 00850 D 32 00880 D 33 00910 D 34 00940 O 35 00970 D 36 010O0 0 37 01030 D 38 01060 C 39 01090 C 40 01120 C 41 01150 C 42 01170 C 43 01200 C ~ 01530 C 45 01530 C ~6 01600 C 47 01650 C ~8 01880 O 49 01900 O 50 01920 D 51 01940 D 52 01960 D 53 01980 D 54 02000 D 55 02020 D 56 02040 D 57 02060 O 58 02080 O Avocet Lane Avocet Lane Avocet Lane Avocet Lane Avocet Lane Bluebird Lane Bluebird Lane Canary Lane Canary Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Oove Lane Oove Lane Oove Lane Oove Lane Oove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Oove Lane gawonalssa Co~on gawonaissa Common ~awonalssa Co~on ~a~onaissa Co~on ~a~ona~ssa Common Wawonaissa Common Wawonalssa Common ga~ona~ssa Cone~n ~a~ona~ssa Coeaaon ~a~onaissa Con~on ~awonalssa Conmon WaNonalssa Conltlon Wa~onalssa Conlnon Wawonalssa Common ~awonaissa Cmlmon Wawonalssa Cofflnon Wawonalssa Coll~n WaNonalssa COfllmon Wawona~ssa Common gaurika Common Waurika Common ~aurika (Damon ~aurika Common Waurika Comnon ~aurika Cmmon gaurika Comnon ~aurika Comnon ~aurika Common ~aurika Common ~aurika Cmmon gaurika Common Waurika Comnon ~aurika Comnon ~aurika Coamon ~aurika Cm~on ~aurika Conmon Waurika Common gaurika Com~n Waurika Con.on RE(# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name 59 02100 O gaurika Co=on 60 02180 D gaurika Coaeon 61 02200 D Waurika Coe~on 62 02220 0 gaurika Common 63 02250 D gaurika Co~non 64 02280 0 gaurika Cm~on 65 02310 D gaurika Ceaeon 66 02340 D ~aurika Comnon 67 02370 D ~aurika (melon 68 02400 D ~aurika Coenmon 69 02430 O gaurika Coranon 70 02460 D gaurika Cm~on 71 02490 O ~aurika Cmmon 72 02520 O ~aurika Cm~on 73 02550 O Waurika Cmmon 74 02605 D PebbLe Beech Comm 75 02635 D PebbLe Beach Coma 76 02665 O PebbLe Beach Co~ 77 02695 0 Pebble Beach Cone 78 02720 D Pebble Beach Comm 79 02750 D Pebble Beach Co~ 80 02780 0 Pebble Beach Comm 81 02810 0 Three Pts. Blvd. 82 028~0 0 Three Pts. Blvd. 83 02870 0 Three Pts. Blvd. 84 02900 0 Three Pts. BLvd. 85 02930 0 Three Pts. Blvd. 86 04070 D Beachside (North) 87 04110 0 Beachs~de (North) 88 10020 0 Shorewood Lane 89 10050 0 Beachside (South) 90 10070 O Beachside (South) 91 10090 0 BeachsJde (South) 92 10220 D Crescent Park 93 10250 D Crescent Park 94 10280 0 Crescent Park 95 10310 0 Crescent Park 96 10340 D Crescent Park 97 10370 O Crescent Park 98 10400 O Crescent Park 99 10430 D Crescent Park 100 10460 0 Crescent Park 101 10490 O Crescent Park 102 10520 0 Crescent Park 103 10550 0 Crescent Park 10~ 10580 D Crescent Park 105 10610 0 Crescent Park 106 10640 D Crescent Park 107 10670--D Crescent Park 108 10700 D Crescent Park 109 12430 0 Wren Road 110 12460 D ~iota Common 111 12490 D Wiote Comnon 112 12520 D giota Common 113 12550 O ~iota Common 114 12580 O ~iota Common 115 12610 D ~iota Cmmon 116 12640 D Wiota Common REC# Site_~ Shore_Type' Land_Name 117 12670 D Wiota Cofm~on 118 12700 D Wiota Common 119 12730 D Wiota Coneon 120 12760 D Wiota 121 12790 D Wiota Cm~on 122 12820 D Wiota Comaon 17.3 12850 D Wiota Common 12/* 12880 0 Wiota Con. on 17.5 12910 D Wiote Conmon 126 129/.0 D Wiota Common 127 12970 D giota Coamon 128 13000 D Wiota Common 129 13030 D Wiota 130 13060 D Wiota Comnon 131 13090 D Wiota Common 132 13120 D Wiota Cm~on 133 13150 D Wiota Common 134 13180 D giota Common 135 13210 D giota Common 136 132/.0 D Wiota Co~mon 137 13270 D Wiota Conmon 138 13300 D Wiota Common 139 13330 D Wiota Common 140 13360 D Wiota Common 141 13390 D Wiota Common 1/.2 13/,20 D Wiota Common 1/,3 13450 D Wiota Comm3n 1~4 13/,80 D Wiota Ceemon 145 13510 D Wiota Coamon 1/.6 135&0 D Wiota Con.on 1/.7 13570 D giota Cm~non 1&8 13600 D Wiota Comaon 149 13630 D Wiota Conmon 150 13660 D Wiota Conr~on 151 13690 D Wiota Common 152 13720 D Wiota Common 153 13750 D Wiota 154 13780 D Wiota Con.on 155 13810 D Wiota Comnon 156 20050 D Peabody St. 157 20130 D Waterside Lane 158 20160 D Waterside Lane 159 20190 D Waterside Lane 160 20220 D Waterside Lane 161 20250 D Waterside Lane 162 20280 D Waterside Lane 163 20310 D Waterside Lane 16~ 20340 D Waterside Lane 165 20370 D Waterside Lane 166 20400 D Waterside Lane 167 20~30 D Waterside Lane 168 20~60 D Waterside Lane 169 204,90 D Waterside Lane 170 20520 D Waterside Lane 171 20550 D Waterside Lane 172 20580 D Waterside Lane 173 20610 D Waterside Lane 17/* 206~0 D Waterside Lane REC# Site_~ Shore_Type Land_Name 175 20670 D Waterside Lane 176 20700 D Waterside Lane 177 20730 D Waterside Lane 178 20760 D Waterside Lane 179 20790 D Waterside Lane 180 20810 D Waterside Lane 181 20810 D Waterside Lane 182 20830 D Centervieu Lane 183 20860 D Centervieu Lane 18/, 20890 D Centervie# Lane 185 20920 D Centerview Lane 186 20950 D Centervie~ Lane 187 20980 0 Centervieu Lane 188 21110 0 Centervieu Lane 189 211/.0 D Centervieu Lane 190 21170 D Centervie~ Lane 191 21200 D Centervieu Lane 192 21230 D Centervle~ Lane 193 22180 D Waterside Lane 19/* 22200 D Waterside Lane 195 22220 D Waterside Lane 196 222/*0 D Waterside Lane 197 22260 0 Waterside Lane 198 22330 0 Waterside Lane 199 22360 D Waterside Lane 200 22390 D Waterside Lane 201 22/*20 0 Waterside Lane 202 22450 D Waterside Lane 203 22/*80 0 Waterside Lane 20~ 22510 0 Waterside Lane 205 225/*0 0 Waterside Lane 206 22570 D Waterside Lane 207 22600 0 Waterside Lane 208 22910 O Morton Lane 209 22990 0 North Park 210 23050 0 North Park 211 23070 0 North Park 212 23090 0 Lake Blvd. 213 23110 0 Lake BLvd. 21/* 23130 D Lake Btvd. 215 23150 0 Lake BLvd. 216 23190 0 Lake Btvd. 217 23210 D Lake BLvd. 218 23230 0 Lake Btvd. 219 23275 D Chateau Lane 220 23325 D Arbor Lane 221 30020 D Norwood Lane 222 30030 D Norwood Lane 223 30070 D Car[son Park 22/* 30090 0 Car[son Park 225 30110 D Car[son Park 226 30130 D CarLson Park 227 30150 D CarLson Park 228 30170 D Car[son Park 22~ 30190 D Car[son Park 230 30210 D Cartson Park 231 30230 D Car[son Park 232 30250 D ]nwood Road 'RECf/ Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name .......... ...... 234 30300 D Avon Drive 235 30330 D Emera(d Drive 236 30350 D Emerald Drive 237 30370 D Emera(d Drive 238 3o&5o c Longford Road 239 30510 C Longford Road 240 30590 ¢ Longford Road 241 30670 C Longford Road 242 30710 C Longford Road 243 31210 D Kenmore Common 244 31240 D Kem~re Coamon 245 31270 D Kenmore Common 246 31300 D Kenmore Common 247 31330 D Kenmore Common 246 31360 D Kenmore Coamon 249 31390 D Kenmore Common 250 31420 D Kenmore Co~non 251 31450 D Kenmore Common 252 31480 D Kenmore Common 253 31510 D Kemmre Comnon 254 31540 D Kenmore Common 255 31570 D Kenmore Common 256 31600 D Kenmore Cocoon 257 31630 D Kenmore Cmmon 258 31680 D Excelsior Lane 259 31710 D Exce(sior Lane 260 31740 D Exce(sior Lane 261 31770 D Exce(sior Lane 262 31800 D Excelsior Lane 263 318~0 0 Exce(sior Lane 264 31860 D Exce(sior Lane 265 31890 D Exce(sior Lane 266 31920 D Exce(sior Lane 267 31950 D Exce(sior Lane 268 31980 D Excelsior Lane 269 32010 D Exce(sior Lane 270 32040 D Exce(sJor Lane 271 32070 D Exce(sior Lane 272 32100 D Exce(sior Lane 2?'5 32130 D Exce(sior Lane 274 32160 D Exce(sior Lane 275 32190 D Exce(sior Lane 276 32220 D Exce(sJor Lane 277 32250 D Exce(sior Lane 278 32280 D Exce(sJor Lane 279 32310 D Excelsior Lane 280 32340 D Excelsior Lane 281 32600 D Ke((s Road 282 32670 D Stratford Lane 283 32760 D Stratford Lane 284 32790 D Stratford Lane 285 32820 D Stratford Lane 286 32940 D Stratford Lane 287 33090 D Stratford Lane 288 33150 D Stratford Lane 289 33287 D Stratford Lane 290 33347 D Stratford Lane REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_#ame 291 33407 D Stratford Lane 292 33447 C Stratford Lane 293 33487 C Stratford Lane 294 33525 C Stratford Lane 295 40510 D Ava(on Park 296 40535 D Ava[on Park 297 40560 0 Ava[on Park 298 40585 0 Ava(on Park 299 40610 0 Ava(on Park 300 40855 B Oevon Con,non 301 40885 B Oevon Common 302 40915 B Devon Co~on 303 40945 B Oevon Con.on 304 40965 B Oevon Common 305 40995 B Oevon Common 306 41020 B Devon Con, non 307 41050 B Oevon Coemon 308 41080 B Oevon 309 41110 C Devon Common 310 41140 C Devon Cmmon 311 41170 C Devon Conmon 312 41227 C Devon Comnon 313 41272 C Devon Common 314 41319 C Devon Common 315 41377 O Devon Common 316 41437 D Devon Comnon 317 41477 D Devon Conrnon 318 41650 0 Devon Con,non 319 41750 0 Devon Common 320 41824 0 Oevon Con,non 321 41866 D Devon Common 322 41908 D Devon Comnon 323 41956 D Devon Common 324 42000 D Devon Comnon 325 42043 D Devon Con,non 326 42086 D Devon Common 327 42129 D Devon Comnon 328 42172 C Devon 329 42227 C Devon Camion 330 42277 C Devon Cormmn 331 42314 C Devon Common 332 42351 C Oev~ Con.on 333 42406 C Devon Co~on 334 42461 C Devon Com~n 335 42511 C Devon Comaon 336 42556 C Devon Common 337 42586 C Devon Co~non 338 42626 C Devon Comaon 339 42691 --B Devon Comnon 340 42791 B Devon Common 341 42821 B Devon Common 342 42856 B Devon Co~on 343 42871 B Devon Common 344 42901 B Devon Colmton 345 42931 B Devon Cofllgon 346 42961 B Devon 347 42990 B Devon Comnon 348 43020 B Devon Comnon REC# Site_~ Shore_Type Land_Name 349 43080 C Devon Common 350 &3120 C Devon Co~on 351 43180 C Devon Conm~on 352 43?.35 C Devon Comnon 353 43265 ii Devon Cmmnon 35~ ~3305 B Devon C~n 355 43335 B Dev~ C~n 356 43360 B Devon C~n 357 433~ B Dev~ C~n 358 43420 B Devon C~n 359 4~50 C Oev~ C~ 3~ ~3520 C Devon C~n ~1 ~35~ C Dev~ C~ ~2 43~7 C Devon C~n 3~ 43~7 C Devon C~n ~ 43~0 C Devon C~n ~5 &3800 C Devon C~n 3~ 43~0 C Devon C~n ~7 43~2 C Devon C~n 3~ &39~2 C Devon C~n 369 ~002 C Devon C~ 3~ ~097 C Dev~ C~n 371 44160 C Devon C~n 3~ 44193 C Devon C~n 3~ ~243 C Dev~ C~n 374 ~408 C Devon C~n 3~ 50220 D ~ate~y Road 376 502~0 D Uater~ry Road 3~ 50260 D ~ater~y Road 3~ 50~00 D B~ight~ Blvd. 3~ 5~30 D Brighton B[~. 380 50460 D B~ighton Btvd. 381 5~0 0 BrJght~ B[~. ~2 50520 D Brighton Btvd. 3~ 50550 D B~ighton Btvd. 3~ 50580 D Brighton Btvd. 385 50610 C Brighton Btvd. 3~ 50~0 D B~ight~ B[~. 387 50670 D B~ight~ Btvd. ~ 50~0 D Brighton 389 50~0 D B~ight~ Btvd. 390 507~ D Brighton B[~. 3~1 50~0 D B~ighton C~n 392 50820 D Bright~ C~n 393 5~50 D Bright~ C~n 3~4 50~0 D B~ighton C~ 3~ 50910 C BrJght~ C~n 3~ 50940 C B~ight~ C~ 397 509~ C Brighton C~n 398 51000 C B~ight~ C~ 3~ 51030 C B~Jghton C~n 400 51105 C B~ight~ C~n 401 51135 C Bright~ C~n 402 511~ C Brighton C~n 403 51315 C Brighton C~n ~ 513~ C Brighton C~n ~05 51435 C Bright~ C~n &~ 51495 C Brighton C~n REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Hame 407 51525 C Brighton Comaon 408 51555 C Brighton Co~r~n 409 51675 C Brighton Common 410 51705 C Brighton Comnon 411 51735 C Brighton Comaon 412 51795 C Brighton Coamon 413 51850 C BrightonCommon 414 51885 C Brighton Common 415 54970 D Lost Lake Park 416 55000 D Lost Lake Park 417 55030 D Lost Lake Park 418 55060 D Lost Lake Park 419 55090 0 Lost Lake Park 420 55120 O Lost Lake Park 421 55150 D Lost Lake Park 422 55180 D Lost Lake Park 423 606~0 D ]detwoodRoad &2& 60685 0 Ida[wood Road 425 60725 D Twin Park 426 60745 0 Twin Park 427 60765 O Twin Park 428 60785 0 Twin Park 429 60805 0 Twin Park 430 60825 0 High[and Park 431 608~5 O High[and Park 432 60865 D HighLand Park 433 60885 0 HighLand Park 434 60905 0 Hightand Park 435 60925 0 HighLand Park 436 60945 0 HighLand Park 437 60965 D HighLand Park 438 60985 0 Ridgewood Park 439 61010 D Ridgewood Park 440 61030 O Ridgewood Park 441 61050 0 Ridgewood Park 442 61070 0 Ridgewood Park /~3 61090 D Ridgewood Park 444 61110 0 Ridgewood Park ~5 61130 D Ridgewood Park l~6 61150 O Ridgewood Park /~7 61190 0 Lagoon Park /~8 61215 0 Lagoon Park 449 61240 0 Lagoon Park 450 61265 0 Lagoon Park KILD~E ROAD II I L, SUFFOL)~ I t BRUJ~$WICK U ~i F:=O:''~ -- ' ROAD I L ----- L MANCHE! CUMB ROAD / ROAiNOKE DR1 EA qOAD ~O&O ;60 · :?. _. : ,* e~ 13-117-24 (HARRISONS 2-C -' /63 BALSAM ROAD 1,. LYNWOC~D L _l hi Z Z LIJ I -'J-- AID M&¥wOOO [ZZZ~ r--1 CITY HALL ROAD ELOAO Il I II ~GE ROAD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 O! 0 Class A: Class B: Class C: 1 Class D: Class E: Parks Shoreline Shoreline that is traversible only on top: need stairway to shoreline, accesSible by public fight-of-way. Shoreline traversible along the water's edge: access points available to traversible shore- line. Shoreline with no traversible space: stairs needed to shoreline, not accessible by pub- lic fight-of-way (abutting property owners only). '~ Shoreline that is traversible on the.top, hnd traversible along the water's edge: acces- sible by public fight-of-way. Shoreline such as wetlands, wildlife area, beaches and boat landings. No Docks. 04OO0 )04, W$ CITY OF MOUND Memorandum 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: October 24, 1995 The Laker (Faxed) Peggy James, Secretary Publish News Release Please publish the following news release in "The Laker" on October 30, 1995 and November 6, 1995. MOUND PARK COMMISSION REVIEWS 1996 DOCK LOCATION MAP On Thursday, November 9, 1995, the Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission will hold a public hearing on the approval of the 1996 Dock Location Map. No specific changes are being proposed for 1996, other than minor format changes. City Code requires that the Dock Location Map be reviewed annually by the Park Commission so recommended changes can be referred to, and considered by the City Council by January 15. This map shows approved locations of private docks that may be constructed on or abutting public shorelands under the control of the City. The meeting will commence at 7:30 p.m. and will be held in the Council' Chambers at Mound City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound Minnesota. All interested residents who attend the meetlng will be given the opportunity to be heard. If you have any questions regarding the hearing, you may call City Hall at 472-0600. cc: Ed Shukle, City Manager Jim Fackler, Parks Director prJnted on recycled paper MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 1995 DOCK LOC~TION NAP Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey, explained to the Commission that no changes are being proposed to the Dock Location Map and that the number of dock sites is proposed to remain at 448. Ahrens requested that the map show each dock site number instead of just a range of numbers. The Parks Director agreed that this could be done, and also suggested that the Type of Common for each dock site also be included. son recalled that a task force member had mentions9 an.e~o~ Pedal .... ~- ~ Devon area. The Parks Director c~nf~rm~ ~n~ on ~ne m~p ~.~,~ ....... ~,.,~ D~ke Park on £an~ ~a~ ~ the error is ~n~= un~ m=p =,,~-. ..... ~h4~ an be corrected. actually privately owned and confirmed that .... c Pederson requested that WaterbankCommon be correctly labeled, she noted that the map currently shows this area as Waterside Common. She also suggested that the Centerview Fishing Pier be added to the map. Byrnes requested that Wychwood Commons also be correctly labeled on the map. The Parks Director indicated that he will check the original plat on this issue. The Park Commission will hold a public hearing on November 9, 1995. TO: FROM: RE: Ed Shuckle City Manager and Mayor Bob Polston The FOUR Abutting W~t~erBank Property Owners' The proposal to officially plat the 18ne that dissects the commons between our property and the lake DATE: 11-13-95 We want to maintain the past and current status of the above described lal~e, Waterside Lane, as unplatted. This lane was not on the original plat; nor on any.plat thereafter. The lane has ne,vel~ b&en recognized on ANY bf our property surveys. There is a REASON why thi~ lane has never been oJficiaily platted. That REASON is to maintain our abutting lakeshore status. In the past 5 decades that has always been the status. Prior to 1944 it was a short-cut path of sorts. We are a unique commons. Legally on paper our abutting status is recognized. Visually, there is a black-topped lane running down the middle of the Commons. Again, there-is a valid Reason why over all these years the lane, Waterside Lane, has never offici~ly platted. Question. Would the future city staff recognize our properties as abutting lakeshore commons or just property that abuts commons parallel to Waterside Lane? Please do not hinder our property v~alue or our past agreement with the city by platting Waterside Lane. Thank you, Royal Moffat woo Dick Peterson R~h Peterso~ 5429 S~u~'~d John Olson Michelle Olson 2~0 Watersid~ne LeeAnn Peders~ 2050 ~atersi~e Lane' Soo~ )~W~ SSWODDW WU/.~:O~ _ SE:, 9'i; ^OI, J. ,/ ,..J CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 January 5, 1996 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGEK~, SUBJECT: CITY OF MOUND DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY UNDER OMNIBUS TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE TESTING ACT In 1991, the United States Congress expressed concern with the abuse of alcohol and drugs in the transportation industry. By enacting the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act, the impetus for congressional action was provided by a series of high profile transportation fatalities together with statistics and studies indicating an unacceptable level of needless transportation deaths. For example, Congress cited a one year study by the National Transportation Board (NTSB) focusing on tractor-trailer fatalities in eight states which found that 33 % of the fatality injured drivers tested positive for alcohol or drugs. Another NTSB study examined 189 tractor- trailer fatalities and found that 26 were attributed to alcohol or drug use. The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act directed the Secretary of Transportation to implement regulations requiring that transportation workers performing safety sensitive functions, submit to pre-employment, post accident, random and reasonable suspicion alcohol and drug testing. On February 15, 1994, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published its final rule implementing the act. The scope of the rule is broad covering 6.6 million commercial drivers license (CDL) holders and encompassing a myriad of entities previously not subject to FHWA rules. As stated above, federal regulations mandating this program for all public entities were published February 15, 1994 in the Federal Register. The regulations contain numerous changes which supersede state law that allows optional drug and alcohol testing in the work place. These rules require implementation on January 1, 1995 for large employers (50 or more safety sensitive drivers) and January 1, 1996 for ail other employers. With few exceptions, drivers required to have a CDL are subject to the controlled substance and alcohol testing rules. A CDL is required for drivers operating a vehicle with a manufacturer's printed on recycled paper Memo to Mayor and Council - Drug & Alcohol Policy page 2 gross weight rating in excess of 26,000 pounds, for drivers operating a vehicle designated to carry 16 or more passengers (including the driver) or drivers who operate a vehicle of any size if the vehicle is used in the transportation of a placardable amount of hazardous material. Employers must provide information on drug and alcohol misuse, the employers policy, the testing requirements and how and where the employees can get help. All supervisors of safety sensitive employees must attend at least one hour of training on the signs and symptoms of drug abuse and one hour of training on alcohol misuse symptoms and indicators used in making determinations for reasonable testing. Public entities are required to use a federally certified lab such as Medtox for conducting and drug. specimen analysis. The new requirements for record keeping and extensive and significant dgeumentation is required throughout the testing process. / /; In order for the City of Mound to comply with the Federal Act, we have enrolled the City of / Mound in the Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC) and the Minnesota Counties Insurance / i Trust (M.C~.program, which is administered by Medtox Laboratories, a prem?_£ederally ",, cej, tifi~"iab. The total cost involves $46 per drug test. Included within the $46'" ~s a $23 per ~ab test, $20 collection site fee and $3 for a medical review officer (MRO) review. We also pay a $250 annual fee for the number of employees to be tested. Also included in the program are ~d6m dmg/almh°1 testing, edumfion- and training to meet requirements of the regulations, a model alcohol and drug testing policy, an employee information record keeping and customized statistical reports, blind specimen monitoring, updates on federal regulations and customer service available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There are training sessions that employees will be attending. I am working with the City of Orono to set up a joint training session for employees and supervisors to be held over the next several weeks. The purpose of the sessions will be to meet the training requirements as specified by the law and to provide general information on the regulations and the AMC/MCIT/Medtox program. Other training is available through AMC/MCIT. As part of the federal law, the City must establish a drug and alcohol policy to comply with this federal act. Attached is the model policy that the AMC/MCIT has developed. I have modified it to fit the City of Mound's application. The policy requires City Council approval. Also attached is a resolution for your use in approving the proposed policy. It should be noted that the federal law applies to employees who are driving vehiclgs with a gross weight rating in an excess of 26,000 pounds. This affects our Public Works Department and certain employees within our Parks Department. The total number of employees that will be tested through this program is eleven. If you have any questions with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. ES:Is RESOLUTION APPROVING CITY OF MOUND EMPLOYEE DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY UNDER THE OMNIBUS TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE TESTING ACT WHEREAS, in 1991, the United States Congress expressed concern with the abuse of alcohol and drugs in the transportation industry by enacting the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act, and; WHEREAS, the impetus for Congressional action was provided by a series of high profile transportation fatalities together with statistics and studies indicating an unacceptable level of transportation deaths, and; WHEREAS, Congress cited a one year study by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) focusing on tractor-trailer fatalities in eight states which found that 33 % of the fatally injured drivers tested positive for alcohol or drugs, and; WHEREAS, NTSB conducted another study which examined 189 tractor-trailer fatalities and found that 26 were attributable to drug and alcohol use, and; WHEREAS, Secretary of Transportation performing safety sensitive reasonable suspicion alcohol the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act directed the to implement regulations requiring that transportation workers functions submit to pre-employment, post accident, random and and drug testing, and; WHEREAS, (FHWA) published its final public entities, and; on February 15, 1994, the Federal Highway Administration rule implementing the Act, which mandated this program for all WHEREAS, the regulations contain numerous changes which supersede state law that allows optional drug and alcohol testing in the work place, and; WHEREAS, these rules require implementation on January 1, 1995 for large employers (50 or more safety sensitive drivers) and January 1, 1996 for all other employers, and; WHEREAS, drivers required to have a commercial drivers license (CDL) are subject to the controlled substance and alcohol testing rules,.and; WHEREAS, a CDL is required for drivers operating a vehicle with a manufacturer's gross weight rating in an excess of 26,000 pounds, for drivers who operate a vehicle designed to carry 16 or more passengers (including the driver) or drivers who operate a vehicle of any size if the vehicle is used in the transportation of a placardable amount of hazardous material, and; ' WHEREAS, employers must provide information on drug and alcohol misuse, the employers policy, the testing requirements and how and where employees can get help, and; WHEREAS, all supervisors of safety sensitive employees must attend at least one hour of training on the signs and symptoms of drug abuse and one hour of training on alcohol misuse symptoms and indicators used in making determinations for reasonable suspicion testing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, that it hereby approves the attached City of Mound Employee Drug and Alcohol Policy under the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act. Councilmember The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Manager CITY OF MOUND TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY UNDER THE OMNIBUS TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE TESTING ACT The abuse of drugs and alcohol is a nationwide problem which affects persons of every age, race and gender. The City of Mound (hereinafter referred to as "Employer") recognizes that work performance and safety problems are created when employees use or abuse illegal drugs and/or alcohol. The Employer wishes to provide a safe workplace for its employees and to maintain a drug and alcohol free workplace. The Employer has established the following policy on drugs and alcohol with drug and alcohol testing provisions mandated by the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991. POLICY All employees of the City of Mound are strictly prohibited from using, possessing, selling, transferring, or being under the influence of drugs or alcohol while working or performing job duties or while on the Employer's premises or while operating the Employer's vehicles, machinery or equipment. No employee shall perform safety-sensitive functions within four hours after using alcohol. "Drugs" are defined as any controlled substance. Any employee found to be in violation of this policy is subject to discipline up to and including termination of employment. COVERAGE The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act requires that all employees whose job duties include operating a commercial motor vehicle and who are required to hold a commercial driver's license shall be subject to drug and alcohol testing. "Commercial Motor Vehicle" (CMV) means a motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles used to transport passengers or property if the motor vehicle meets any one of the following criteria: Ao Has a gross combination rating of 26,001 or more pounds inclusive of a towed unit with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds; or B. Has a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,001 or more pounds; or C. Designed to transport 16 or more passengers including the driver; or Is of any size and is used in the transportation o.f materials found to be hazardous for the purposes of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and which require the motor vehicle to be placarded. All applicants, including persons currently employed by the Employer, that apply for a position where job duties include operating commercial motor vehicles will be required to take a drug test if a job offer is made. Page 2 DEFINITIONS Accident means an occurrence involving a CMV operating on a public road which results in: a) b) c) A fatality; or Bodily injury to a person who, as a result of the injury, immediately receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident; or One or more motor vehicles incurring disabling damage as a result of the a~ident, requiring the vehicle to be transported away from the scene by a tow track or other vehicle. Alcohol means *.he intoxicating agent in beverage alcohol, ethyl alcohol or other Iow molecular weight alcohol including methyl or isopropyl alcohol. Breath Alcohol Technician (BAT) means an individual who instructs and assists individuals in the alcohol testing process and operates an EBT. Confirmation (or confirmatory) test. In drug testing, a second analytical procedure to identify the presence of a specific drug or metabolite that is indc'l>endent of the screening test and that uses a different technique and cherc, ical principle from that of the screening test in order to ensure reliability and accuracy. (Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) is the only authorized confirmation method for cocaine, marijuana, opiates, amphetamines, and phencyclidine.) In alcohol testing, a second test, following a screening test with a result of 0.02 or greatcr, that provides quantitative data of alcohol concentration. Controlled substance has the meaning assigned by 21 U.S.C. 802 and includes all substances listed on Scheduled 1-5 as they may be revised from.time to time (21 C.F.R. Part 1308). DHHS. The Deparunent of Health and Human Services or any designee of the secretary, Dcpa~i,,ent of Health and Human Services. Drug means any substance (other than alcohol) that is a controlled substance as defined in this section and 49 C.F.R. Pan 40. Evidential breath testing device (EBT) means an EBT approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Ill-ISA) for the evidential lestinf, of breath. FWHA. The Federal Highway Administration. Medical Review Officer (lV[RO) means a licensed physician responsible for receiving laboratory results generated by an employer's drug testing program who has knowledge of substar, c~ abuse disorders ara has appropriate medical training to interpret and evaluate an individual's confirmed positive test result together with his or her medical history and any other relevant biomedical information. /77' Page 3 12. 13. 14. Random selection means a mechanism for seleaion of employees for testing where each employee has an equal chance of being tested each time selections are made. Reasonable suspicion means that the Employer believes thc appearance, behavior, s _peec__h or body odors of an employee are indicative of the use of a controlled substance or alcohol based on the observation of at least one (1) supervisor or official who has received trn!ni~g in the identification of behaviors indicative of drug and alcohol use. Refuse to submit (to an alcohol or controlled substance tes0 means that an employee: a) Fails to provide adequate breath for t~ting without a valid medical explanation after he or she has received notic~ of the requirement for breath testing; b) Fails to provide adequate urine for controlled substances testing without a valid medical explanation after he or she has received notice of the requirement for urine testing; or c) Engages in conduct that clearly obstmas the testing process. Safety-sensitive function means all time from the time a driver begins w work or is required to be in readiness to work until the time hdsbe is relieved from work and all respons~ility for performing work and includes the following: O) All time at a carder or shipper plant, terminal, facility, or other property, or on any public property, waiting to be dispatched, unless the driver bas been relieved fi'om duty by the motor carrier; (2) All time inspecting equipment as requh'ed by the Federal Motor Cartier Safeq~ Regulations, or otherwise inspecting, servicing, or conditioning a CMV at any time; (3) All time spent at the driving controls of a CMV; All time, other than driving time, in or upon any CMV except time spent resting in a sleeper berth; All time loading or unloading a vehicle, supervising, or assisting in the loading or unloading, attending a vehicle being loaded or unloaded, remaining in readiness to operate the vehicle, or in giving or receivhg receipts for shipments loaded or unloaded; - (6) All time spent pedorming the driver requirements on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations relating to accidents; All time repairing, obtaining assistance, or remaining in attendance upon a disabled vehicle; Page 4 15. Substance Abuse Professional (SAP) means a licensed physician or a licensed or certified psychologist, social worker, employee assistance professional, or addiction counselor (certified by the National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors Certification Commission) with knowledge of and clinical experience in the diagnosis and treatment of alcohol and controlled substances-related disorders. CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTS SHALL BE REQUIRED OR REQUESTED DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS. All job applicants, including persons currently employed by the Employer, applying for a job where duties include operating the Employer CMV's are required to undergo testing for drugs if a job offer is made. The job offer is contingent upon a negative drug test report and the applicant's written agreement authorizing former employers to release to the Employer all information on the applicant's alcohol tests with a concentration result of 0.04 or greater, positive controlled substances test results, and refusals to be tested, within the preceding two years. RELEASE OF INFORMATION BY PREvIOUS EMPLOYERS FOR PRE-EMPLOYMF~NT The City may require an individual subject to this regulation to provide written consent to allow release of information from the person's employers over the previous two years for the following information: alcohol tests of 0.04 or greater confirmed positive controlled substance tests refusals to be tested This information is to be obtained and reviewed prior to a person performing safety-sensitive functions, if feasible, or, if not immediately feasible, must be done within 14 days after the first time a person performs safety-sensitive functions. If a person ceases performing safety-sensitive functions within this time frame, the information is still required. The information may be obtained by personal interview, telephone, letter or any other method that assures confidentiality. If a previous employer is prohibited from releasing this information because of an agreement or settlement with the person, the attempt to obtain such information shall be documented. The current employer may not allow a person to perform safety-sensitive functions if the information indicates an alcohol test of 0.04 or greater, con~'med positive controlled substance test, or refusal to be tested, without also obtaining information on subsequent substance abuse professional evaluation(s), recommendation(s), and compliance. Failure to sign such a release shall result in rejection of the application for employment. Page 4A REASONABLE SUSPICION. A drug test shall be required if the Employer has a reasonable suspicion that an employee has violated the provisions of this policy regarding alcohol or controlled substances. Reasonable suspicion alcohol tests should be administered as soon as practicable. If the test is not administered within 2 hours, the reason shall be documented. If the alcohol test is not administered within 8 hours all attempts to conduct the test shall cease and the reasons shall be documented. Notwithstanding the absence of a reasonable suspicion alcohol test, the employee shall not be permitted to perform or continue to perform safety- sensitive functions until twenty-four hours have elapsed following the determination of reasonable suspicion. POST-ACCIDENT. A post-accident alcohol and drug test is required if an employee operating a CMV is involved in an accident, as defined in this policy, that results in: 1. The death of a person or persons regardless of the amount of vehicle or property damage; o_.r 2. The employee receives a citation for a moving traffic violation arising from the accident. The employee must provide an alcohol test sample as soon as practicable after the occurrence of the accident. If the employee does not receive the test within 2 hours of the accident, the reasons shall be documented. After 8 hours, all attempts to conduct the alcohol test shall cease and the reasons shall be documented. The employee must provide a urine sample for controlled substances testing as soon as practicable after the accident. After 32 hours, all attempts to conduct the test shall cease and the reasons shall be documented. An employee subject to post- accident testing must remain available or the employee shall be considered to have refused to submit to testing. The employee is prohibited from using alcohol for 8 hours following the accident or until the employee has undergone a post accident alcohol test, whichever comes first. Page 5 RETURN-TO-DUTY TESTING. An employee found to have violated this policy shall not return to work until after undergoing return-to-duty tests indicating an alcohol concentration of less than 0.02 and a verified negative result for controlled substances. FOLLOW-UP TESTING. Following a determination by a SAP that an employee is in need of assistance in resolving problcrns with alcohol abuse and/or controlled substances usc, an employee shall be subject to unannounced follow-up alcohol and/or controlled substances testing as directed by thc SAP. Follow-up testing shall not exceed 60 months from the date of the employee's return to duty. RANDOM TESTLNG. The Employer will randomly select employees subjca to this policy for unannounced alcohol and controlled substances testing using a computer based random numMr generator that is matched with an employee's identifying number. Alcohol testing shall be performed just before, during or after an employee's performance of safety-sensitive duties. Employees selected for testing must proceed immediately to the re.sting site; provided, however, that if an employee is performing a safety-sensitive function at the time of notification, the employee shall cease performing thc safety-sensitive function and proceed to the testing site as soon as possible. FWHA roles require the Employer to conduct random controlled substances testing on 50 % of the average number of employees and random alcohol testing on 2~ % of the average number of employees. Employees may be selected for more than one test per year. Tests shall be spread rcasombly throughout the year. DRUG ANDALCOHOLTESTING Controlled substances testing is conducted by analyzing an employee's urine specimen. Split urine samples will be collected according to FHWA regulations. The employee will provide a urine sample at a designated collection site. Thc collection site person shall pour thc urine specimen into two bottles labeled "primary* and "split", seal thc specimem, complete a chain of custody document and prepare the bottles for shipment to thc testing laboratory for analysis. If the employee is unable to provide the appropriate quantity of urine, the collection site person shall instruct the employee to drink not more than 24 ounces of fluids and, after a period of no more than two hours, again attempt to provide a complete sample. If thc employee is still unable to provide a complete sample, the testing shall be discontinued and thc Employer notified. The MRO shall refer thc employee for a medical evaluation to determine if the employee's inability to provide a specimen is genuine or constitutes a refusal to test. For pre..cmployment testing, the Employer may elect to not have the referral made and revoke thc employment offer. Drug test results are reported directly to the MRO by thc testing.laboratory. The MRO reports thc results to thc Employer designated contact person. If thc results arc negative, the Employer is informed and no further action is necessary. If the test result is confirmed positive, thc IVIRO shall give thc employee an opportunity to discuss the test result. Thc IVIRO must review any medical records supplied by an employee to determine if a confirmed positive test is the result of the e~ployee having taken legally prescribed medication. The lVlRO shall notify catch employee '.hat the employee has 72 hours in which to request a test of thc split specimen at the cmployee*s expense. The MRO will contact thc employee directly, on a confidential basis, to determine whether the person wishes to discuss thc positive test result. Page The MRO will review thc confirmed positive test result to determine whether there is an acceptable medical reason for the positive result. The MRO shall verify and report a positive test result to the · Employer when there is no legitimate medical reason for a positive test result as rcceivcd from the testing laboratory. If after making reasonable efforts and documenting these effom, the MRO is unable to reach the employee directly, the MRO must contact the designated Employer contact person, who shall direct the employee to contact the MRO. If the Employer contact person is unable to contact the employee, the employee will be placed on suspension. The MRO may verify a test positive without having communicated directly with thc employee about thc test results under the following circumstances: I. The employee expressly declines the opportunity to discuss the test results. 2. The employee has not contacted the MRO within five days of being instructed to do so by the Employer. The FWHA alcohol test rules require breath testing administered by a BAT using an EBT. Two breath tests are required to determine if a person has a prohibited alcohol concentration. Any result less than 0.02 alcohol concentration is considered a 'negative" test. If the alcohol concentration is 0.02 or greater, a second confirmation test must be conducted. If an employee attemptt and fails to provide an adequate amount of breath, the Employer will direct the employee to obtain written evaluation from a licensed physician to determine if the employee's inability to provide a specimen is genuine or constitutes a refusal to test. Alcohol test res'fits are reported directly to the designated Employer contact person. LICENSED TESTING LABORATORY The testing laboratory shall be Medtox Laboratories, Inc., 402 West County Road D., St. Paul, Minnesota 55112, 800-832-3244, 612-636-7466, which is a lab certified to perform controlled substance testing according to DHHS regulations. PROHIBITED DRUG AND ALCOHOL RELATED CONDUCT The following alcohol and controlled substance-related activities are prohibited by the FWHA's drug and alcohol rules for drivers of CMVs: 1. Reporting for duty or remaining on duty to perform safety-sensitive functions while having an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or gre~¢r; 2. Being on duty or operating a CMV while the employee possesses alcohol, unless the alcohol is manifested and transported as a part of a shipment. This includes the poss-.ssion of medicines containing alcohol (prescril~tion or over-the-counter), unless the packaging seal is unbroken; 3. Using alcohol while performing safety-sensitive functions; Page 7 Performing safety-sensitive functions within four hours after using alcohol; When required to take a post-accident test, using alcohol within eight hours following the accident or prior to undergoing a post-accident alcohol test, whichever comes first; Refusing to submit to an alcohol or controlled substance test required by post- accident, random, reasonable suspicion, or follow-up testing requirements; Reporting for duty or remaining on duty, requiring the performance of safety-sensitive functions, when the driver uses any controlled substance, except when instructed by a physician who has advised the driver that the substance does not adversely affect the driver's ability to safely operate a CMV; Reporting for duty, remaining on duty or performing a safety-sensitive function, if the driver tests positive for controlled substances. CONSEQUENCES TO EM~~ ENGAGING IN PROHIBITED CONDUCT Employees who have engaged in proh:'bited conduct are subje~ to the following consequences pursuant to FHWA rules: 1. Employees shall not be permitted to perform safety-sensitive functions; Employees shall be advised by the Employer of the resources available to them in evaluating and resolving problems associated with misuse of alcohol or use of controlled substances; Employees shall be evaluated by a substance abuse professional who shall determine what assistance, if any, the employee needs in resolving problems associated with alcohol misuse and/or controlled substance use; Before an employee returns to duty requiring performance of a safety-sensitive function, he/she shall undergo a return-to-duty test with a result indicating a breath alcohol level of less than 0.02 if the conduct involved alcohol, or a controlled substance test with a verified negative result if the conduct involved controlled substance use; In addition, each employee identified as needing ;ssistance in resolving problems associated with alcohol or controlled substances shall be evaluated by a substance abuse professional to determine that the employee has followed the rehabilitation program prescribed; The employee shall also be subject to unannounced follow-up alcohol and controlled substance testing. Page ~ OTHER Al,COBOL RELATED CONDUCT FWHA roles require that in ~he event of an alcohol test result over 0.02 but less than 0.04, an employee shall not be permitted to perform safety-sensitive functions for not less than 24 hours. REFUSAL TO UNDERGO TESTING AND CONSEQUENCF-~ OF REFUSAL *tll applicants and employees have the right to refuse to undergo drug and alcohol testing. If m individual refuses to undergo drug and alcohol testing required by this policy, no such test shall be given. An applicant who refuses to take a drug and alcohol test shall be. disqualified from further . onsideration for the conditionally offered position. An employee refusing to take a drug and alcohol test required by this policy shall not be permitted to perform safety-sensitive functions and will be considered imubordinate and will be subject to disciplinary action including possible dismissal. EMPLOYEE/APPLICANT RIGHTS All applicants and employees subject to the drag testing provisions of this policy have the fight to request, at employee or applicant expense, a retest of the split urine sample within 72 hours of receiving notice of a confirmed positive test result. If the employee requests an analysis of the split specimen within seventy-two (72) hours of having been informed of a verified positive test, the MRO shall direct, in writing, the laboratory to provide the split specimen to another DHHS-ccrtified laboratory for analysis. It' an employee has not contacted the lvIRO within seventy-two (72) hours, the employee may present to the MRO information documenting that serious illness, injury., inability to contact the MRO, lack of actual notice of the verified positive test, or other circumstances unavoidably prevented the employee from timely ranking contact. If the MRO concludes that there is a legitimate explanation for the employee's failure to contact within seventy-two (72) hours, the MRO shall direct the analysis of the split specimen. If the confuming retest is negative, no adverse action will be h~ken against the employee and an applicant will be considered for emplo)unent. The employer will not discharge an employee that, for the first rune, receives a verified positive drug or alcohol test result unless: the employee refuses to meet with a substance abuse professional for the purpose of aa evaluation for alcohol/controlled substance use/abu.=e and recommendations for an educational, counseling or treatment program; or Page 9 the employee fails to enter the recommended program, or fails to successfully complete the program; or the employee fails a re. mm-to-duty alcohol and controlled substance test at tbe succe~_sful completion of the recommended program or subsequent unannounced follow-up alcohol and controlled substance testing. DISCIPLINE Any person fo~md to be in violation of this policy is subject to discipline up to and including discharge. Disciplinary actions taken pursuant to this policy are ap .l~.alable pursuant to the procedures established in the Employer's personnel policy and roles or any applicable collective bargaining agreement, but not both. Nothing in this policy limits or restricts the right of the Employer to discipline or discharge an employee for conduct which violates the Employer's policies or rules provided the employee is not tested for controlled substances or alcohol. CONHDENTIALITY OF TEST RESULTS All alcohol/controlled substances test results and required records are considered confidential information. Any information concerning an individual's test results and records shall not be released without the written permission of the individual except as provided for by regulation or law. ALCOHOL AND CONTROI.T.k'~B SUBSTANCES CONTACT PERSON The Employer designated contact person will coordinate the implementation, direction, and administration of the Employer's alcohol and controlled substances policy. The contact person is the principal contact for the colleaion site, the testing lab, the MRO, the BAT and the person tested. Employee questions concerning this policy should be directed to the contact person. The designated contact person is: Position: C~'.-/~, Phone: (o ('L- "-~"~ U -- C~,% Page 10 POLICY MODIFICATION The Employer retains the right to modify this policy to conform to changes in regulation or law. I have received a copy of the Transportation Employee Drug and Alcohol Policy and have been provided information on the following: 1. The person designated by the employer to answer questions about these materials; 2. Who is subject to alcohol misuse and controlled substance requirements; 3. Explanation of a safety-sensitive function; 4. What driver conduct is prohibited; 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Il. Signature: Circumstances for drug and/or a!cohol testing; Procedures used to test for the presence of drugs and/or alcohol; The requirement that employees submit to controlled mbstance and alcohol testing; ,Mn explanation of what constitutes a refusal to submit to testing; The consequences for drivers violating the prohibitions of this rule, including the immediate removal of the driver from sitfety-semitive functions; The consequences for drivers found to have an alcohol concentration level of 0.02 or greater, but less than 0.04; taxi Information concerning the effects of alcohol and controlled substances use on an individual's health, work, and personal life. Signs and symptoms of an alcohol or controlled substances problem and available methods of intervening when an alcohol or a controlled substances problem is suspected, iucluding confrontation, referral to an employee assistance program, and/or referral to management. Date: Please print name: 1070/l/policy2/blb EFFECTS OF DRUGS performance Indicators of Substance Abuse The first indicators of drug use are usually changes in general performance and behavior, such as deterioration in productivity, quality of work, and attitude. However, thcs:, indicators may erroneously point to substance abuse because they are similar to the effect~ of :~on4rug related problems such as job stress, overwork, fatigue, or emotional problems. Moreover, non4rug related problems may be compounded by drug use. Thus, it is critical that drivers and supervisors be trained to recognize the various signs and symptoms as well az their limitations as indicators of drug use. General Indicators The following are general indicators of sub,ante abuse: Absenteeism: Tardiness or excessive use of sick leave may be observed. Drug and alcohol affected employees are absent an average of two or three times more than the non-drug using employee. Staff Turnover: Chemically dependent people have disorg~n~Ted lives. Many quit rather than face detection. Others transfer or are ~tred for poor and unsafe performance. Lo~ver Pro~fuctivity: Studies have shown drug and alcohol affected employees perform at about two-thirds of their actual work potential. Thus, any change in productivity not attributable to other factors may be suspect. Equipment breakdoum: Substance-abusing employees often do not adequately m=;ntaln their vehicles, because they either lose interest in their jobs, or look forward to having their equipment declared out of service ~ a means.of avoiai-g work. Poor ,a,vrk quality: Shoddy work, rework, and material waste may be evident. In drivers, decreased mental ~nd physical agility and concentration caused by substance abuse could result in greater numbers of FMCSRs violations, general traffic violations, increased cargo damage or passenger complaints, missed schedules, incomplete or lost shipments, and more traffic accidents (both non-reportable and reportable). Poor morale: Chronic drug abuse often creates wide mood swings, mxiety, depression, and anger. Non-drug using employees often see drug abusers as poor team workers and s~fety h~.ards. Increased accidents and near misses: Impaired employees ~re 3.6 times more likely to be involved in an accident. Even small quantities of drugs in the system, as well as the hangover effect, can cause a deterioration of ~lertness, clear-mlndedness, and reac~'.'on time. Theft of equipment and materials: Drugs are expensive. Cocaine costs up to $135 a gram. One ounce of high potency m~rijuana costs $85 to $125. Coincirl;ng with the drug abusers' need for money is the distortion cf their wlue systems and judgment caused by the drug. These changes erode their loyalty and dedication to their employers. Observing these indicators may be complicated because drug and alcohol-abusing employees often develop survival skills to m~ke recognition more difficult. Initially, these performance indicators are best addressed through the routine performance monitoring and correction processes. Typically, a supervisor may confront an employee reg~ding job performance. This confrontation is based on objective, documented information related to performance deterioration, not the specific signs of substance abuse. Spedfic (Physical) Evidence of Use · Signs and symptoms pointing directly to serious substance abuse include the following: para£bernalla: Needles, balloons, aluminum foil wrappers, cocaine sniffing tools, marijuana smoking pipes and holders, and drug comalners obviously not used for legitimate purposes. Presence of drugs: Plastic sandwich bags of marijuana, sm~11 containers of tablets or capsules, vials or envelopes of powder, or empty beer, wine and liquor bottles. General Physical and Mental Effects of Drug Use The physical and mental effects of substance abuse occur not only during intoxication (from under I hour to 24 hours after intake), but also show up in residual hangovers, fatigue rebounds, a_nd mental impairment. Other physical and mental effec~ may include: · Slow reactions · Poor coordination · Fatigue · Delayed decision making · Erratic iucl§ment quality · Confusion · Letrnlng difficulty' · Poor memory · Loss of concentration · Depression or anxiety · Difficulty in sorting out priority t~sks from non-essential a~ivlty · Neurotic or psychotic behavior · l~cfusal to accept aut!iority Bel~vioral Signs of Substance Abuse General performance or behavior problems with an employee may indkate the involvement of drug or akohol use. Example~ of such behavior include: · A redden change, usually for the worse, in attitude, work performance or behavior · A ~lac~ada~slcal' or '~I don't care' a~tude (often an indication of m~xijuana use) · Deteriorating or erratic performance · I-L~gover symptoms · Drug culture iargon · Secre~ve behavior (e.g., inapproprlale whispering, we~4ng sungl~es indoors) · Wanting to be alone, avoiding 'str~ght' (non- substance abusing) workers · Forgetfulness, indecision, and erratic judgment · Impulsive and temperamental behavior · Changes in personal appearznce and hygiene · Jitters, hand tremors, hyperexcitability · C~relessness · Sleeping on the job F_ach symptom, by itself, may point to problems other than chug abuse. But, when a pattern begins to develo , the supervisor or manager needs to be alert and act quickly. When fueled by drug or alcohol abuse, P "' - ' ......:-m hi~her ooerating costs, serious productlon problems, and a these behaviors can lea~ to greater aDsent~x~ s ~-- r - definite increase in accidents and health care costs. Physical Symptoms of Substance Abuse Observable physical signs and symptoms usually are not apparent until the employee' s abuse of drugs or alcohol has reached an advanced level. At advanced sugee of drug use, the employee is less able to disguise the physical indicators, and often becomes careless because of ~t clouded mental state. Specific signs include:. · Blood spots on shirt sleeves (indicating intravenous needle use) · Bloo~hot or watery eyes (usually caused by m~i,~na use) · Changes in speech (e.g., slowed, slurred or incoherent) · Hnnd tremors · Intoxicated behavior (e.g., swaying, staggering) · Odor of alcohol on breath · Odor of marliuana smoke · Actual on-the-iob, out.in-the-open drug use · Poor coordination · Racing hetrt, irreguhr rh,/tkms (cocaine and amphetamines often cause the heart to react unpredictably) · R. rmy nose or sores around nostrils (,caused by chronic snortir-.g of coca[ne) · Slow re~aions · Unsteady ~;t · Very large or small pupils (n~rco:ics and depressants will cause the pupils to constrict; cocaine and amphetamines will cause the pupils to dilate) Common Job Sites Where Drugs Are Used Drug users tend to frequent certain job sites which either allow for the privacy necessary to prevent detection or the anonymity which may be provided by the cover of a crowded are~. Some common re'cas include: · Lunchroom and lounge areas · Equipment or storage rooms · Parking lots, cars, and other vehicles · Restrooms · Remote areas of the worksite Characteristics of the Five Controlled Substances Marljuani (Cannabinoid) Description Generic/Chemical Names: Dronabinal, Marinol, Nabilone Common $treet Names: Pot, dope, grass, hemp, weed, hooch, herb, hash, joint, Ac.~pulco Gold, reefer, sinsemilh, Thai Sticks Distinguishing C~r~cteristic~: Like tobacco, mzrliuzna consists of driP, chopp~ l~v~ ~e ~reen to G~ht t~ in ~]or. The se~ ~e ov~ with one sG~y po~t~ end. M~ju~a h~ a di~ly pungent ~oma r~embling a ~mb~auon o{ ~e~ ~a ~d ~ce~. ~ prevflent, h~hish ~ a ~mpr~, somet~ t~-~e ~~ r~g ~lor from pge ye~ow to black. It ~ um~y ~ld ~ sm~l ch~ wrappM ~ g~um foil. Parapb~al~: Ci~e~e papers, roach ~p holders, ~d sm~ pi~ made of bone, or gl~ ~e wmmonly found. Smo~g %one' 0~g~ore pip~ for ~g lgge volumes of smoke) ~ e~ily ~e made from so~ ~ ~s ~d toil~ paper ro~. Metbo~ o~Intake: M~iju~a ~ um~y ~h~M ~ d~ene or pipe smoke. Oc~ion~y, is add~ to b~g ~gr~ients (e.g., brownie) ~d in~t~. Tetr~y&o~ab~ol ~, the a~ive che~ det~ed in ur~alysls, is released By expomre to heat. ~ration o~ Single ~se E~e~: The mo= ob~ous e~ ~e felt for 4 to 6 hours. Pre~~ nudi~ m~ ~at perform~ce ~p~rm~t 1~ longer. ~e a=ive che~, ~C, ~or~ ~ body {at ~d ~ slowly me~bo~ ov~ time. Detection Time: T~c~ of m~ju~a w~ remain ~ the urge of ~ o~iona~ uaer for up to one week, ~g, ~ the ~e o{ a c~onic user, for 3 to 4 wee~. D~~ ~l: E~den~ ~t~ moderate.p~cholo~ dep~den~. Sisns and Symptoms E~idence of Presence of Mari]uan~t: Plastic bags (commonly used to sell mariiuana); smoking papers; roach cllp holder; small pipes of bone, brass, or Oas.s; distinctive odor. Pb dc. al 5yrnptonu: Reddened eyes (ofxen masked by eye drops); stained fmgertlps {rom sore throat; accelerated heart beat; siowea speech; lrnpaireo motor wv,,~,, ,,, , perception; increased appetite. Beb,z~ioral Symptoms: Impaired memory; time-space distortionr, feeling of euphoria; p~nlc reactions; paranoia; 'I don' t c~re' attitude; fa]se sense o{ power. Effects of Marijuana Use on the Individual Gcmeral tlealtb Effects: Smoking marijuana irritates the lungs. Chronic smoking causes emphysema-like conditions. · One cigarette ~oint) of marijuana contains an amount of cancer-causing substance equivalent to that of one half to one pack of tobacco cigarettes. · One joint causes the heart to race and be overworked. People with undiagnosed h~art conditions are at risk. · Marijuana is commonly contaminated with the fungus Aspergillis, which can cause serious respiratory tract and sinus infections. · Because marijuana smoking lowers the body' s immune system response, it raises users' susceptibility to infection. · Chronic marijuana smoking causes changes in br~;n cells and brain waves. In essence, the brain is less healthy and does not work as effidendy or effectively. Does long-term brain damage occur? More research is required, but the probable answer is yes. · Combining alcohol or other depressant drugs and marijuana can produce a multiplier effect, aggravating the impairing effects of both the depressant and marijuana. Reproductive Health Effects: · The active chemical, THC, and 60 other chemicals in marijuana tend to concentrate in the ovaries and testes. · Chronic smoking of marijuana in males causes a decrease in the male sex hormone, testosterone, and an increase in the female sex hormone, estrogen. The result is a decrease in sperm count, which can lead to temporary sterility. Occasionally, the onset of female sex characteristics including breast development occurs in heavy users. · Chronic smoking of marijuana in females caus? a decrease in f~,tility and an increase in testosterone. · Pregnant women who are chronic marijuana smokers have a higher than normal incidence of stillborn births, early termination of pregnancies, and infant mortality rate during the first few days of life. · In test animals, THC causes birth defects, including malformations of the brain, spinal cord, forelimbs, liver, and water on the brain and spine. Offspring of test animals who were exposed to marijuana have fewer chromosomes than normal, which causes gross birth defects or death of the fetus. Pediatricians and surgeons believe that th: usc of marijuana by either or both parents, especially during pregnancy, leads to specific birth defects of the infant' s feet and hands. · One of the most common effects of prenatal cannabinoid exposure is underweight newborn babies. · Fetal exposure may decrease visual functioning and cause other ophthalmic problems. Effects on Mental Performance: Regular use can cause the following effects: · Delayed decision making · Diminished concentration · Impaired short-term memory · Impaired signal detection (ability to detect a brief flash of light), a risk for users who are operating machinery or vehicles · Impaired tracking (the ability to follow moving objects with the eyes) and visual distance measurements · Erratic cognitive function · Distortions in time estimation · Long-term negative effects on mental function known as 'acute brain syndrome', which is characterized by disorders in memory, cognitive function, sleep patterns, and physical condition. Effects on Driver performance: The mental impairments resulting from the use of marijuana produce reactions that can lead to unsafe and erratic driving behavior. Disto~ons in visual perceptions, impaired signal detection, and altered reality can make driving a vehicle very dangerous. Overdose £ffecu: Aglgr~ive urges Amdety · Coniuion · Hallucinations · Heavy sedation · Immobility · Mental Dependency Panic · Paranoid reaction Unpleasant distortions in body' image W~tbdraw~l $~ndrome: · Sleep disturbance · Hyperactivity · Decreased appetite Irritability Ga.m-ointestin,xl distress Salivation, s~cating, and tremors Cocaine Descrij~tion Generic./Cbemic~l Names: Coc~ne Hydrochlorlde or Cocaine Base Common Street Names: Coke, Crack, snow, blow, flake, 'C', toot, rock, base, nose candy, anon, white horse Disu'nguisbing Cbarac~effs~ics: Cocaine is an alkaloid (organic base) derived from the coca plant. In its more common form, cocaine hydrochloride or 'snorting coke' is a white to creamy grantdaz or lumpy powder chopped ~me before use. Cocaine base, rock, or crack is a ~e rock about the size of a small pebble- Paraphernalia: Cocaine Hydrochloride--single-edged razor blade; a small mirror or piece of smooth metal; a half straw or metal tube; and a small screw cap or vlal or folded paper packet containing the cocaine (used for snortln~); needles, tourniquets (used for injectln~. Cocaine Base==a "cr~ck pipe" (small glass smoking device for vaporizing the crack crystal); a lighter, alcohol lamp or small butane torch for heating the substance. Me~bod oflng~: Cocaine Hydroclgorlde is snorted into the nose, rubbed on the ~trns, or injected into the veins. ~__ l,,e Base is heated in a glass pipe and the vapor ~inhaled. Duratfon of Single Dose F.~ec~ 1 to 2 hours. Dotection Time: Up to 2 to 3 days after last use. Dependency Lg~l: Eesearch indicates possible physical dependence. Althongh t~ere is insuf~clent evidence for humans, animal studies indicate 'reverse tolerance', in which certain behavioral effects become su'onger with repeated use of cocaine. Psycholo~cal dependence on cocaine is known to be high. Signs and Syrn£toms £~idence of Presence of Cocaine: Small folded envelop~, plastic ba~, or ~als used to ~tore cocaine; razor blades; cut-off drivld-g straws or rolled bills for snorting; small spoons; heating apparatus. Plrysical Symptoms: Dilated pupils; ru,ny or irritated nose; profuse sweating; dry mouth; tremon; needle tracks; loss of appetite; hyperexciubility; resdessne~; high blood pressure; heart palpitations; inSOmnia; talkativeness; formication (sensation of bug crawling on skin). Behavioral Symptoms: Increased physical activity; depression; isolation and secretive behavior; unusual defensiveness; frequent absences; wide mood swings; difficulty in concentration; paranoia; h'.21uciaatioas; coafi~slon; false sense of power and control. Effects o~ Cocaine Use on ~e [ndi:,idual Pbydcal Heal~ Effects: · Research suggests that regular cocaine use may upset the chemical balance of the brain. As a result. it may speed up the aging process by causing irreparable damage to critical nerve cells. The onset of nervous system illnesses such as Parklnson' s disexse could also occur. Cocaine use causes the hem't to beat faster and harder and rapidly increases blood pressure. In addition, cocaine causes spasrus of blood vessels in the br~ and heart. Both effects lead to ruptured vessels causing strokes and heart attacks. · Strong psychological dependency can occur with one 'hit' of crack. Usually, mental dependency occurs within days of using crack, or within several months of snorting coke. Coc~e causes the strongest mental dependency of any known chug. . Treatment success rates are lower than those of other chemical dependencies. · Cocaine is extremely dangerous when taken with depressant drugs. Death due to overdose is r~pid. The fatal effects of an overdose ~re not nsmlly reversible by medical intervention. The number of cocaine overdose deaths ia the U.S. has tripled in the last four years. Effects on Mental Performance: · Paranoia and hallucinations · Hyperexcitability and overreaction to stimulus · Difficulty in concentration Wide mood swia~s ~ithdrawal lea& to depression :.ad disorientation £ffe¢u on Dn'v~r l~a'form:mce: Cocaine usugly results in an artificial sense of pover and control which leads to a sense of invincibility. Lapses in attention and the ignoring of warning signals brought on bi' coczine u~ greatly iacrease potential for ~_~idents. Pzranoh, hallucinations and extreme mood swings m~e for erratic and unpredictable reactions while driving. The high cm't of cocaine frequently leads to workplace theft and/or dealings' Forgetfulness, alnenteeism, tardiness, and missed asslgnmenU can translate into lost business. · Agitation · Convulsions · Increase in body tempe~mre * Death · H~llucinations · Apathy · Depression · Long periods of sleep · D~sorientation Generic/CbtnnicalNan:a: Natural and Natm-al Derivatives indu~: opic; mo~e; ~eine; ~d he~ (~th~O. Syntheti= ind': me~e ~m~o~; o~mo~hone ~o~h~); ~d o~one ~er~). Com~n S~t Ndm~: Hon~ ~finguisblng ~r~d~: ~e of ~e ~ of core.un& ~d fo~ o~mt~ ~ mo~ ~t m de~ly d~ ~ te~s of fo~, ~lor, ~or ~d other physi~ ~e~i~. ~i~ ~d ~u defi~fiv~ ~ ~ge ~m ~k brown ch~ to w~te may ~ in ~wder, p~l or llq~d fo~. ~ara~b~al~: Ne~; ~ge ~; ey~op~n; ~nt s~; ~e ~ps; ~d mb~r tubing {~ed in ~e prep~tion for md ~je~on of Method of Intake.: Ophtt~ may' be taken in pill form, smoked, or iniected, depending upon the type of narcotic used. , Duration of Single Dose Effect: 3 to 6 hourt Detect'on Time: Usually, up to 2 day~. Dependdncy/.~ve/: Both physical and l~/cholo~ical depeodenc~ on opiate, are known to be high. Dependence on codeine i~ moderate. Signs and Symptoms Evidence ofPrt~ence of Drug~: In addition to the paraphernalia enumerated above, the following items .-nay be pr~ent: foil, glassine envelope*, or paper 'bindle~' (packet, for holding dmg~); balloon~ or prophylactic~ used to hold heroin; bloody tissue~ used to wipe the tN~e site; and a pile of burned matche~ reed to heat the drug prior to injee..ion. Physical Symptoms: Constricted pupils; ~,eatinga nausea and vomiting; diarrhea; needle marks or "tracks"; wearing long sleeves to cover 'tracks'; lo~ of appetite; slurred speech; slowed reflexe~; depressed brea~bing and heartbeat; and drowsiness and fatigue. BebatSoral Symptoms: Mood swing~, impaired coordination; depression and apathy; stupor;, and euphoria. Effect of Opiate Use on the Individual Pbyrical Health Effects: · Intravenous ~ needle usen have a high risk for contracting hepatitis and AIDS due to sharing of neec~e~. · Bemuse opiate* increase tolerance to pain, individuals may underestimate the extent of injuries, leading to failure to seek medical attention after an accident. · Because the effects of oplate~ are multiplied when used in combination with other depre~ant drul~ and alcohol, overdoses are moze likely. Effects on Mental Performance: · Depre~slon and apathy · Wide mood swing~ · Slowed movement and reflexe~ 11 Ia addition, the functioning. high physical and psychological dependence levd of opiates compounds the impaired El]em on Dn'ver Performance: The apathy caused by opiates can translate into an 'I don' t really care' attitude toward performance. The physical effects as well as the depression, fatigue, and slowed reflexes impede the reaction time of the driver, raising the potential for accidents. Although opiates have a legitimate medical use in alleviating pain, workplace use may cause impairment of physical and mental functions. Overdose · Slow and shallow breathing · Coma · Clammy skin · Possible death · Convulsions g:~thdrawal $~ndrome: · Watery eyes · Tremors · Runny nose · Panic · Yawning · Cramps · Loss of appetite · Nausea · Irritability · Chills and sweating Genedc/CbemicalNames: ~dude Amphetamine md Met~phetnm~ne. Tnde Nm~ Nd~e: D~o~ Dmz, F~ V~o~in, D~nm Common ~ Na~: Up~; s~ ~; d~; ~; Bla~ ~auti~; C~ T~; w~te cr~; mollie; Bm; ~-~ meth.. ~s~ng~sbing Cbarac~d~: ~ the~ p~ fo~, ~ph~n~ ~e y~o~h ~. ~ ~ m~a~ed ~ a v~e~ of fora ~du~ng pal, ~p~e, table, ~wd~ ~d liq~d. ~phe~ine ~s~d~ ~ sold in co~tedeit op~ or ~ a w~, flag double s~red 'mi~ ben~". Meth~phetnm;ne b ohen sold ~ a crecy white, g~ ~wder or in I~ wnpped ~ ~inum for or s~able pl~c ~. Parapb~a~: Ne~, ~ng~, ~d mb~r ~ for to~queu, ~ for ~jmion me~ Me~o~ of In~ke: ~e m~ co~on for~ of ~pheta~n~ are p~, ubleu or ~ w~ ~ ing~ The l~s f~uent fo~, liq~d md ~wder, ~ ~je~ or snon~ Duration of Single Do;e F.0'ect: 2 to 4 hours. Detection Time:. 1 to 2 days after use. Dependency Level: Psychological dependence on amphetamines is kno~'n to be high. Physical dependence is possible. Signs and Symptoms: E~idence of Presence of Amphetamines: Most ftequendy-gills, capsules, or tablets; envelopes, bags, vials for storing the drug; Less frequently--syringes, needles, tourniquets. · I $ m toms: Dilated pupils; sweating; increased blood pressure; palpitations; rapid heartbeat; Plrystctt Y. £ .... r,-,,~. 1~ adaches: blurred vision; insomnia; high fever (dependla§ upon dizziness; decreased appex~te; dry -,~ .... _e . the kvel of the dose). Behavioral Symptoms: Confusion; panic; talkativeness; hallucinations; restlessness; anxiety; mooclln~s; false sense of conildence and power, 'amphetamine psychosis' which might result from extended use (se.' Malth effects). £.~ects of Am£bet.nmine Use on the Individual Physical Health EffecU: · Regular use produces strong psychological dependence and increasing tolerance to the Eru§. · High doses may cause toxic psychosis resembling schizophrenia. The users may see, 1-_.~:r, and feel things that do not exist (hallucinations), have irrational thoughts or beliefs (deluslon-¢), and feel as through people are out to get them (paranoia). · The euphoria increases impulsive and risk taking behavior, such as bizarre and violent acts. · Intoxication may induce a heard'attack or stroke due to spiking of blood pressure. · Chronic use may cause heart and brain d~mage due to severe conm-lctlon of capillary blood vessels. · Long-term heavy use can lead to malnutrition, skin disorders, ulcers, and various diseases that come from vitamin deficiencies. · Lack of sleep, weight loss, and depression also result from regular use. o m int ,e ously serious or , Users wh 1~.. ? . · .,.al ..... l,m,nr or contammateo seli-prepareo solutions. heart disease, kidney a, mage) from non-, ....... £ffects on Mental Performance: · Anxiety, restlessness · Moodines~ · False sense of power Large doses over long periods of time taut result in: · Hallucinations · Delusions · Paranoia · Br~n damage Effects on Dn'~er Performance: Amphetamines came a false sense of alertness and potential hallucinatiom, which can result in r;,ky driving behavior and increased accidents. Drivers who fail to get sufficient rest may use the drug to increase alertness. However, although low doses of amphetamines will cause a short-term improvement in mental and physical functioning, greater use impairs functioning. The hangover e~ect of amphetamines is characterized by physical fatigue and depression, wMch make operation of equipment or vehicles dangerous. · Agitation · Convu4ions · Increase in body temperature · Dea~ · Hallucina6ous Ilritbdrawal Syndrome: · Apathy * Depression · Long-term periods of sleep · Disorientation · Irritability Ph~ncyclldine (PCP) Generic/Cbemlc~l Nanm: pbencyclkilne Common Street Name: angel du~; peace pills; hog; ki~er weed; supergr~; embalming fluic[; rocket fuel. Distinguishing Characteristics: PCP is commonly sold as a creamy, granul~r powder, h is either bm~n or white and often pack~ged in one-inch scluare aluminum foil or folded peper vackeu. Oc _~ionally: it is sold in capsule, ta..blet or liquid form. It is'sometimes combined with prooine,; local anesthetic, and sold as imitation cocmne. para£bernalia: foil or paper packcu; s~amps (off which PCP is licked); neec~es; ryringes, and toun~quets (for ir. iec~ion); leafy her~ (for smoking). Method of Intake: In pill, capsule or r~blet form PCP may be ingested. It is commonly iniec~ed as 'angel dust'. It may be smoked or snorted when applied to lea~y materials or combined with mariiuana or tobscco. Duration of Single Dose Effect: Days. Detection ~me: Up to S &ys. Dependency LeveL' ?rychological dependence on PCP is known to be high. Physical dependence is BnknowB- Signs and Sy,n£tonu Evidence of Presence of PCP: Packe~s; stamps; iniection paraphernalia; herbs. · · tin u ils; blurred vision; nystagmus Oerky eye movement); drooling; sical S m torru. Dilated o.r tloa~ g p ~ ......... :- ,.l~,xin : &ow~ine~; impaired physical -~,~de fizidiw; pro~tse sweaun~; aecre~sea ~ · ty ~,:_p_~_. ..... :o-' r~-id heartbeat. Behavioral $)~mptom~: Anxiety; panicJfem'/terro~ aggr~sstve~wolcnt bchav~or; distorted percepuon, severe confusion and agitation; disorganlzation; mood s-wings; poor perception of time and distance; poor iudgment; auditory hallucinations- F..ffecu of PCP U~e on ~e Individual There are four phases to PCP abuse. The first phase is acute toxicity, h cam l~x up to three days and caa include comlntiveness, cautonia, convulsions, and coma. D~onions of size, shape, and distance perceptions are commoa. The second phase, which does not always follov the first, is a toxic psychosis. Users may experience visual and auditory delusions, paranoia and a~itatlon. The third phs.se is · drug. induced schizophrenia that may l~t · month or longer. The fourth phase is PCP induced depression. Suicidal tendencies and mentg dysfunction can last for months. l'byslc,~l ltettltb £ff~u: Potential for overdose emergencies and other accidents is high due to the combination of :he extreme mental effects and the anesthetic effect on the body. · Because the effeczs of PCP are aggravated by other depressant drugs such as alcohol, the likelihood of aa overdose reaction is high. · PCP-induced hallucination~ may be mlsdiagnosed as LSD induced. The standard treatment for LSD- induced hallucinations is Thoraziae, which when administered with PCP ~ be fatal. Effects on Mental Performance: · Irrevers~le memory loss · Person~llty changes · Thought disorders · Hallucinations Effem on Driver Performance: The distortions in perception, and potential visual and auditory delusions make driver performance unpredic~ble and dangerous. PCP use can c~use drowsiness, convulsions, paranoh, agitation, or coma, all obviously dangerous to driving. O , rdose £ffe : · Longer, more intense 'trip' episodes · Psychosis · Possible death W/itbdrawal Syndrome: · None reported. 16 EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL ~cause of its widespread acceptance as a sod~ and legal drug, alcohol has the distinction of being the most frequently abused drug in America. Psychological £ffem: · Can be psychologically addicting; · Euphoria, tranquility, and inappropriate emotional response; · Altered perception; · Increases in confidence, but decreases in judgement; Reduced inhibitions which can lead to aggressive behavior; Emotional instability and hanges in personality; Chronic use can cause mental depression. Physical Effects: · Inhibits coordination; · · Drowsy, trance-like state; · Stumbling and staggering gate; Slowed speech and body movements. Because alcohol depresses the central nervous system, high doses may be lethal as a result of the person simply ceasing to breathe. The mor~ co,~mon 'hangover' increases absenteeism and decreases productivity. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 January 4, 1996 TO: FROM: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER ~'')' SUBJECT: LABOR CONTRACT - CITY OF MOUND VS. TEAMSTERS LOCAL//320 - PUBLIC WORKS I have been negotiating with Teamsters Local//320 for a new labor contract for the years 1996 and 1997. The current contract expired December 31, 1995. Negotiations involved the discussion of many issues presented by the union and the City. The tentative agreement, however, can be summarized as follows: ~1~. ~, 1996 Wages - 3% increase; 1997 Wages - 3% increase. 2. ~ Health Insurance - 1996 remain the same as 1995 (family coverage contribution $375 per 1\ month); 1997 (family coverage contribution $380 per month). 3. ]" Language reflecting that employees shall be able to review all insurance policies before the employer incorporates any policy. 'ff believe that the tentative agreement is reasonable. The union has approved it and is now subject to your approval. I am recommending that you approve the labor agreement as summarized with the above changes. All other provisions within the 1-1-94 through 12-31-95 agreement are to remain in effect. If you have any questions regarding this issue, please contact me. ES:Is printed on recycled paper OLUTION g96;. ~__ a _SOLVnO THE CITY OF MOUND AND TEAMSTER'S LOCAL//320, MAINTENANCE PERSONS AND UNIT SUPERVISORS FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1996 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1997 WHEREAS, the City of Mound has a labor agreement with Teamster's Local //320 for Maintenance Persons and Unit Supervisors, and; WHEREAS, the current agreement is for the years 1994 and 1995, and; WHEREAS, the current agreement expired December 31, 1995, and; WHEREAS, the City has conducted labor negotiations with Teamster's Local #320 and has reached a tentative agreement for a new contract beginning January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1997, and; WHEREAS, the City Manager is recommending approval of the labor agreement, which is essentially the same agreement currently in effect with three changes as outlined in the attached memorandum relating to wages, health insurance and review of insurance policies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, that the City Council hereby approves a labor agreement between the City of Mound and Minnesota Teamster's Public and Law Enforcement Employees Union Local #320 for Maintenance Persons and Unit Supervisors effective January 1 1996 through December 31, 1997. ' The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Manager BILLS. January 09, 1996 BATCH 5122 BATCH 5123 TOTAL BILLS $176,722.40 135,276.59 $311,998.99 c c: c o c o o o o o o o o o o o o ~ 4~ '~c~'~£') ~- '.:'~ ~, C; C g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) C ~ 0 O. O 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ;D 0 t ;' / '~ ~2 ' '~ ~ ) ~ ;: ~ ~'" ' Z'" · ::~.~ .::~):~, , ~ c) :.~ ~,~:x:' .~ :.~~~:" ~ ~; r~%~,:'~':;: ~ '~:~,: ~j~~ !.::.:~ ]::] . - -~,,J::'~ ~ ~ -<?~r~ C C ~' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :D 9 C' 6; 0 0 0 0 0 0 ® 0 ::"~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 :D 0 0 C ~ iD 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C: ~, Q 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,D .1 II ,ti Z CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 TO: FROM: DATE: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR STORE MANAGER JANUARY 2, 1996 RE: DECEMBER 1995 MONTHLY REPORT The dust has settled. As usual the hordes attempted to buy the store out. They came close. However, we had a sufficient amount of merchandise plus just enough help to keep stocking the shelves. As I write this report to you I am relaxing at my desk, drinking a cup of coffee, and there is no one to interrupt me. I feel as if I'm actually on vacation. Over the last two weeks of December I put in 113 hours, not including the paid holiday for Christmas. As I had hoped, we matched last year's sales for December. Actually we did about an extra $800. So for the year we were up approximately $41,000 over last year. That translates into a 3% increase which is what the cost of goods were up this year. The Saturday before Christmas Eve was the biggest day for sales in the history of the Mound Liquor Store. Gross sales topped the $20,000 mark for the first time ever. The Saturday before New Year's Eve was also good with gross sales at $18,500. JK:kb printed on recycled paper MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT MOUND, MINNESOTA FOR MONTH OF 13]~mk'~ l qQ5 FIRE FIGHTERS DRILLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE 12/n I2/~8 ~ ictm mms 1 JEFF ANDERSEN X X 2 19.00 0 59 6.Cf) 354.00 2 GREG ANDERSON ~ X 1 9.50 1 67 6.OO 402.00 3 PAUL BABB X X 2 19.00 6 59 6.00 354.00 4 DAVID BOYD X X 2 19.00 3~ 33 6.00 198.00 5 SCOTT BRYCE X X 2 19.00 3 52 6.00 312.00 6 DAVID CARLSON X X 2 19.00 3 44 6.O0 264.00 7 JIM CASEY //~. X 1 9.50 1 46 6.00 276.00 8 STEVE COLLINS X X 2 19.00 1% 42 6.00 9 BOB CRAWFORD X X 2 19.00: 2% 53 6.00 318.00 10 RANDY ENGEI/IART X X 2 19.00! 3 41 6.00 246.00 "11 STEVE ERICKSON X X 2 19.00 0 48 6.~O 312.00 12 DAN GRADY X X 2 19.00 0 56 6.00 336.00 13 KEVIN GRADY X X 2 19.00 3 61 6.00 366.00 14 CRAIG HENDERSON X X 2 19.00 0 62 6.25 387.50 15 PAUL H~NRY X X 2 19.00 1% 37 6.00 ~-~2.00 16 ROGER KRYCK . X X 2 19.00 2% 57 6.00 342.00 17 JOHN LARSON X X 2 19.00 2½ 51 6.00 306.00 18' JASON MA~ X X 2 19.00 2 45 6.00 270.00 19 JOHN NAFUS X X ~ 19 nO 2 48 6.00 288.00 20 JAMES NELSON X X ~ 19 nfl 1% 46 6.00 276.00 21 BRET NICCUM X X ?. 19_ nfl 0 37 6.00 222.00 22 GREG PALM X ~ 2 19_nfl 6 55 6.00 330.00 23 MIKE PALM X × 2 19_OO 3 57 6.00 342.00 24 TIM PAI2q X X 2 19.O0 6 ~R 6.00 25 GREG PEDERSON X X 2 19.00 2 46 6.00 26 CHRIS POUNDER X X 2 19.00 2~ 58 6.00 27 TONY RA~TSSF~N X X 2 19.00 2 47 6.00 ?R?. nfl 28 RICHARD ROGERS X X 2 19.00 6 53 6.00 ~18.OO 29 MIKE SAVAGE X X 2 19.00 12~ 47 6.00 30 KEVIN $IPpI~T. X X 2 19.00 3 55 6.00 330.00 31 RON STALLMAN X X 2 19.00 6 33 6.00 198.00 32 BRUCE SVOBODA X X 2 19.00 9~. 68 6.00 408.00 33 ED VANEC~X X X '2 ' ~9.00 3 52 6.OO 34 ~aC~ wru~a~s x x 2 ~9.00 n ~9 6.OO 29~.00 _ 35 ZIM WILLIAMS ('~E ~ X 1 9.50 2 ' 37 6.CD 222.00 36 DENNIS WOYICKE X X 2 19.00 6% 62 6.CD 372.00 37 I 33 35 69 IEmil. S 82% 90 172½ 655.50 130% 1821 ~ 10,965.50 172% ]~wl.~ 655.50 .;, 130½ Ma~INZ 1,167.OO MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT ,him OF DECEMB]~t 1995 MON~{ ~ TO DATE TO DATE ,. OF CALLS 79 53 758 632 )UND. FIRE 10. 14 170 133 ~ERO~%~Y 21 19 243 '255 2NNETONKA BEACH FIRE 2 2 19' 22 ]~vIERGENCY 0 0 · 5 3 [NNETRISTA FIRE 1} 3 62 23 I~R~ } 0 37 45 RONO ?IRE 7 7 62 41 MMERGENCY 7 ~ 33 26 ,MOREWOOD FIRE Z O ~ 0 ' ]iMERGE~Y 0 0 2 5 pRING PARK FIRE 4' 2 43 37 m.~-'ZGmlCY § 4 67 35 UTUAL AID-" .FIRE O O 9 K~ERGENCf 0 0 9 OTAL FIRE CALLS 40 ?.R ~ OTAL EMERGENCY CALLS 99 79 9~ 973 ~CI~ ? I 7 II ~ID~ ,12 3 7~ r~ OF H~ ~I~ ~G& ~9 4774 2891 - MOUND ~G~ ?Q~ AR5 ATA~ 4966 ~, 6&9 7~ 8977 7857 FIR~ fir ~ 392 370 - MTKA B~ACH ~~ O O 9] 44 EI~ 326 53 1330 373 - M'TRISTA ~.~ 113 0 690 ~ 439 53 2~0 1174 FI~ 151 195 15~ 862 - ORONO ~~ 168 39 752 ~ 329 Z~ ~6 1305 ~ 118 0 310 0 - SHOREWOOD ~~. 0 0 ~ 94 ~ 118 0 354 94 F~ 90 , 32 914 - Sp. PARK ~~ 132 77 ~26 746 . ~ 222 1~ ~0 1553 F~ 0 0 131 - ~ ~D ~G~ 0 0 74 36 ~ 0 0 ~5 ,, 2~6 TOTAL DRILL 'HOURS 17~ 147~ ,, 1897% TOTAL FIRE HOURS 1~ 619 R~7q 99~ T~AL EMERGENCY HOURS 812 ]]1 77~1. I{~UA.% AID .RECEIVED 2 0 7 ~ 4 ...... I.i~Uk~ AID ~ZVgN 0 0 6 7 MC NC~. MO MI MI SH{ St TC C ] CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 January 5, 1996 TO: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER FROM: GREG SKINNER, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SUBJECT: DECEMBER MONTHLY REPORT We had a budget meeting on the 6th and everything went well. I really liked the new way that we do this. The Council asks questions regarding our Budget instead of going through it line item by line item. Thanks to the Manager for all the help and the Council for approving the Budget. We moved about three-quarters of the compost out of the Lions Park to Lost Lake and the chipper came second week of December and chipped up the brush and the lumber. Much of the compost from Minnetrista was already decomposed and did not need to be chipped up. We are still trying to find a spot for the compost. We talked with the people who are doing the grinding. If we find a place, they will haul and remove everything out of Lost Lake for nothing to this new site. But as of yet we have not found a another site to store the compost. On December 8th, we had a storm come flying in here with quite a bit of snow. We plowed on the 8th, actually we plowed on the 8th, 9th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th. We also did the sidewalks downtown on the 9th. On the 12th we mixed 200 tons of sand, on the 14th 200 tons sand and on the 15th we also mixed 200 ton of sand. We got freezing rain that came in with that storm afterwards. It was pretty tough to move this stuff. We moved the snow on the 15th, 18th, 19th and 21st and actually up until last week. We've been still working on the sidewalks trying to get things cleared out of there. Our trackless snovvthrower had a real tough time moving that stuff when it gets really iced up like that. But we've got them all cleared now hopefully we won't have another storm like that for awhile. It kind of took its toll on some of our equipment. In the snovvthrower itself, a couple of driveshafts were broken. Three of the four- wheelers broke. Trucks had broken knuckles that needed repair. One of the dump printed on recycled paper trucks had to have its injectors redone. This storm was not costly, but there was a lot of wear and tear on the equipment. Everything is back up and running now. The storm took up the whole month of December for the street department. Water There were four watermain breaks. There was some damage to a basement on Edgewater from one break. The reports have been turned into the insurance company. Damage to the house was minimal. Our concern is the garage where the water washed around the foundation of the garage. There is not much we can do about it right now. We will check again when the frost goes out, if it starts to settle, and if there is any damage to the foundation. We counted cars on Shoreline Drive, by Moy's. Evidently, there is some possible grant monies available for a by-pass. The water department helped out the street department with the plowing and the snow removal. The sewer department also helped in the snow removal. GS:ls CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~VOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 4, 1996 City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff Jori Sutherland, Building Official ~ ~ DECEMBER 1995 MONTHLY REPORT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY There were 13 building permits issued in December for a construction value of $128,129. This brings year-to-date value to $8,214,582. This value is down 20% from last year. We did however build 12 more homes in 1995 than in 1994. Ten of those were in the Pelican Point subdivision. We issued 26 plumbing, mechanical and miscellaneous permits this month. A total of 762 permits for issued in 1995. PLANNING & ZONING There were three zoning cases processed this month by the Planning Commission and Council. In addition, the Planning Commission is working on the streamlining of variances. The Council approved a telecommunications ordinance and continued its discussion of a potential public improvement of Kildare Road. COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER (CS0) ACTIVITY The CSO's total contacts were 194 this month, with 11 being of a zoning related issue. Two warning tags and zero citations were issued. Additional information is in the Police Department Report. - JS:pj printed on 'recycled paper city of Mound BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT Month: December Year:_.lA~ THIS MONTH YEAR TO DATE NEW CONSTRUCTION SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 1 1 81 SINGLE FAMILY A'FrACHED (CONDOS) 10 2,942, ['}fin TWO FAMILY / DUPLEX MULTIPLE FAMILY (3 OR MORE UNITS) TRANSIENT HSG. (HOTELS / MOTELS} BUBTOTAL 1 1 81,249 34 5,593,402 NON-RESIDENTIAL .Il.PERMITs I I VALUATION II .PERMITS I VALUATION ~EW CONSTRUCTION COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) 1 50 ~ 000 OFFICE ~ PROFESS,ONAL INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC / SCHOOLS · : 1 50,000 SUBTOTAL DDITIONS/ALTERATIONS .... ADDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING 31 722.02 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 12 ~31,197 DECKS 2 6,580 57 159,505 SWIMMING POOLS 1 ltl, 000 .,' REMODEL' MlSC RESIDENTIAL 10 40,300 229 968, t423 REMODEL' MULTIPLE DWELLINGS 6 93, 100 SUBTOTAl. 12 46,880 336 2,088,249 ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS COMMERCIAL IRETAIL/RESTAURANT} 11 107 ~ 830 1 15,000 omcE/ PRO.ESS~OUAL ~NDUSTRIAL /4 143,801 PUBUC / SCHOOLS 2 216 ~ 300 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 18 /482,931 SUBTOTAL DEMO.TIONS II 'PERMITS I 'UN)TS I VALUATION II 'PERMITS I VALUATION RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 1 TOTAL DEMOLITIONS 6 # PERMITS # UNITS VALUATION # UNITS VALUATION ~ PERMITS :~q 8,2Iq,582 TOTAL 13 1 128,129 "~395 PERMIT COUNT I THIS MONTH I T~AR-T°-DATE FENCE5 & RETAINING WALLS 0 S~G.S 1 8 PLUMBrNG 11 125 MEC..'.N,CAL 8 127 S&W, STREET EXCAV., FIRE, ETC. 5 61 I ~9 I 768 0 '0 ._~ ._~ ._ CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-O6OO FAX (612) 472-0620 January 4., 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTOR DECEMBER MONTHLY REPORT Parks The weather cooperated with us during the end of December that the flooding of the ice rinks at Three Points, Philbrook and Highland Parks were ready for the skaters during their Christmas vacation. Pine trees were placed in the downtown planters to enhance the beauty of the season. No Snowmobiling signs were not posted in the Parks (but will be considered for the future). Docks The mailing of the renewal applications for 1996 has been prepared and placed on hold until the dock location map has been approved by the City Council. The waiting list sign-up for new dock applicants is ready for the January 2nd rush. Are we? We have received many calls questioning the procedure for this. Cemetery There was only one burial in December. The plat maps of Union Cemetery have been updated for 1995. JF:kb printed on r~cycled paper 01/04/199G 10:31 612--4724435 TOM REESE PAGE 01 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 * WAYZATA. MINNESOTA $~391 · TELEPHONE 812/473-?033 BOARD MEMBERS William A. Johnstone Chair, Mlnne~onka Douglas E, Vice Chair, Spring Park Joseph Zwak Secrmary, Greenwood Robert Rascop Treasurer. Shorewood Mike Bloom Minnetonka E3each Al~erl (Bert) Foster Deal=haven James N. Grathwol Excelsior Dunce Markus Wayzata R~s McGlasson Tonka ~y Craig Moiler Victoria Eugene Partyka Minnetrists Tom ReeSe Mound Herb J. Suerth Woodland Orono TO: MOUND CITY COUNCIL DATE: JANUARY 4, 1996 FROM: TOM REESE, LMCD REPRESENTATIVE SUBJECT: DECEMBER REPORT- LMCD 1,0 General Items, 1.1 The District looked into moving its offices to the Freshwater Foundation building in Navarre to join the Watershed and the Foundation there. Our lease at the Norwest Bank runs until October. The present bank rates are better than the Foundation's. The bank is promising an increase with a new lease, so we will look at the issue again in October. 1.2 The City of Minnetonka is undertaking an initiative toward goose control. We are joining as a participant. Living as I do, so close to Mound Park beach and observing the prevalence of the species, we certainly need some kind of control. 2.0 Exotic Species Task Force. 2.1 A meeting of those l~rsons planning upon sponsoring fishing contests in 1996 to discuss boat cleaning is planned. Additionally, we are .planning a meeting with marina owners and others who might be interested in setting up boat washing stations around the lake. 2.2 The cities are being asked to appoint an representative to serve on a phosporus control task force. The goal is, working with the Watershed District, for a uniform method of control of the use of phosporus in fertilizers in the watershed that feeds the lake. This is presently being ,done .in some. of ou, r cities and in other.jurisdictions. Samples of ordinances nave oeen oo[ainea. ' 3.0 Water Struct~re~ 3.1 The City of Excelsior and the Excelsior Park Pavilion are requesting extensive changes ill their dock structures to better accommodate the steamer Minnehaha and the charter boats that dock there. It appears that new multiple dock licenses and variance requests will bc required. An F. AW is being prepared. 4.0 Lake Use. 4. I A further meeting with the Sheriff was held and concluded with an agreement on the manner of working together. This is the new sheriffs first year with the old agreement. He had several excellent questions which received answers. 60% R~'ycl~ Con,em 30% Prat Consume,' 0~/04/~99~ ~0:31 B12--4724435 4I TOM REESE PAGE 02 $.0 Mou~d Specil~c ltem~ S. 1 A position letter was sent out to d~e $e~horsg owncrs' group Tom RCese Mound Repr~nmfive - LMCD fc: Doug Babcock Alan Willcutt !City of Mound 01/04/96 Monthly Report Utilities Month of: December 1995 Utility-96 Residential Commercial Total No. of Customers: Water Sewer Water Used: (in 1,000 gallons). Billing: Water Sewer Recycle Total 1,066 1 ,O69 15,874 $24,512 $45,937 $4,962 $75,411 122 122 3,541 $4,760 $12,737 $1o5 $17,602 1,188 1,191 19,415 $29,272 $58,674 $5,O67 $93,013 Payments: Water Sewer Recycle Total $21,149 $35,972 $4,018 $61,139 $,4,808 $12,058 $90 $16,956 $25,957 $48, O3O $4,108 $78,095 TO:. FROM: RE: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR DECEMBER FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT Investment activity Bou~: Money Market First Bank Money Market Smith Barney Money Market Norwest Money Market 4M CP Norwest CP Smith Barney CP First Bank CP First Bank CP Dain Bosworth Matured: 5.56% 5.84% 5.91% 6.08% 5.77% CP First Bank 5.75% CP Norwest 5.63% Money Market Norwest Money Market First Bank 163,663 0 90,000 30,808 190,221 250,356 246,646 425,259 424,764 (246,771) (399,575) (9o,ooo) (90,000) During the month of December we prepared for the closing of the year in the Finance Department. Changes were implemented in the Payroll System to conform to the regulations from the IRS. W-2's were printed and will be distributed in early January. The new rates for water and sewer, as approved by the council, are now in place and a 5% overall increase will be reflected startt'ng with the next billing. The 1996 city budget was approved by the council on December 12. The levy was certified to the county, the truth in taxation report was filed with the State Department of Revenue, and a summary report will be submitted to the Office of the State Auditor. The same summary was published in the Laker on January 1, 1996. It is again that time of the year when we finalize the year's activity, summarize and analyze the numbers and prepare:~or the audit. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 1995 Present were: Chair Carolyn Schmidt, Vice Chair Tom Casey, Commissioners Peter Meyer, Janis Geffre, Bill Darling, and Rita Pederson, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Parks Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioner Byrnes was absent and excused. Commissioner Goode was absent. The following persons were also in attendance: Katherine Ziemke and Tom Latcham. MINUTES The Minutes of the November 9, 1995 meeting were presented for approval. Darling noted that he should not be listed as being present. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Casey to approve the Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of November 9, 1995 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES Darling requested that they discuss attendance rules briefly at the end of the meeting, and Geffre requested they discuss the calendar. Both these items were added to the agenda. PUBLIC LAND PERMITS - BATCH #7 41830 42002 42167 42227 42277 42314 42351 Mark Smith and Gina Anderson John Gabos Tom Latcham Darlene Depta/Mildred Pierce Carl Alexander Stephanie Coon Michael Henry 4665 Island View Drive 4687 Island View Drive 4711 Island View Drive 4717 Island View Drive 4725 Island View Drive 4729 Island View Drive 4737 Island View Drive City staff is in the process of updating permits for encroachments on public lands as directed by the City Council. Special permits are required for private encroachments located on public lands as specified in City Code Section 320. Staff recommended approval of a 5 year permit for Batch #7, subject to the conditions listed. All conditions of approval must be completed within one (1) year of approval by City Council or the dock license will be withheld until completion. Permits must be renewed with change in dock license holder. The Parks Director reported that #41830 Mark Smith/Gina Anderson, 4665 Island View Drive, and #42314 Stephanie Coon, 4729 Island View Drive, have been withdrawn from the agenda at the applicant's request. Park and Open Space Commission H/nutes December 14, 1995- Batch #7 Public Land Permits Park and Open Space Commission 12/14/95 City Council 1/9/96 DEVON COMMON, CLASS D 42002 4687 ISLAND VIEW DR - WALKWAY ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. JOHN GABOS - STAIRWAY - LAWN SPRINKLER PIPE DEVON COMMON, CLASS C 42167 4711 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY REMOVE PUMP HOUSE (POOR CONDITION). TOM LATCHAM - RETAINING WALL - PUMP HOUSE ALLOW ONE (1) ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLE AND ONE (1) - ELECTRIC LIGHT, BALANCE SHOULD BE REMOVED. LIGHT SHALL MEET - LAWN SPRINKLER CITY GUIDELINES AND LMCD STANDARDS. CERTIFICATION PIPE OF ELECTRICAL MUST BE PROVIDED.~ 42227 4717 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY REFER TO CITY ATTORNEY FOR SEPARATE LEGAL REVIEW AS i ) GUEST HOUSE NOTED IN FLOW CHART. MILDRED PIERCE, CIO DARLENE DEPTA - RETAINING WALL - PLUMBING - ELECTRIC 42277 4725 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY STAIRWAY IS IN POOR CONDITION AND SHOULD BE CARL ALEXANDER - RETAINING WALLS REPLACED. - PUMP HOUSE - ELECTRIC RETAINING WALLS ARE OKAY. REMOVE EXISTING ELECTRICAL AND ALLOW NEW LIGHT AND RECEPTACLE TO BE INSTALLED PER PLAN AND ACCORDING TO ELECTRICAL CODE. PUMP HOUSE MAY BE MAINTAINED AS A LOCK BOX AS ALLOWED BY THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE, AND ALSO MAY BE UTILIZED AS A STAIR LANDING. NEW DOOR MAY BE INSTALLED, BUT ELECTRICAL MUST BE REMOVED. 42351 4737 ISLAND VIEW DR - STAIRWAY ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. MICHAEL HENRY - RETAINING WALLS All electrical work on public property is required by State law to be installed by a qualified licensed electrical contractor and inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector. The City Council must first approve of the proposed installation. A scaled site plan must be submitted showing in detail the location of all electrical services on the public land. All power supply to the abutting property must be properly disconnected until such work is approved by the City Council. The applicant must verify disconnection with staff. Park and Open Space Commission H/nu~es December 14, 1995. #42002, John Gab0s, 4687 I~land View Drive, Ahrens questioned if the walkway and stairway are actually located on the public lands. The Parks Director noted that staff believes the last couple of steps and a landing are located on Devon Common. Ahrens commented that she would hate to give a permit if we do not know for sure if they are on the commons or not. She would like this verified before they issue a permit. Ahrens questioned staff who they had made contact with from this Batch. Fackler noted that the Building Official, Jon Sutherland, has tried to contact all the property owners by phone, but he was not successful in talking with everyone. Fackler confirmed that each person received a copy of the staff report twice, once ten days before the meeting, and then another was mailed with the agenda on Monday before the meeting. Ahrens feels that everyone should be contacted, or they should not review the packet. She suggested that the staff report should state that they have the opportunity to call if they have any questions. Ahrens recalled that the Council decided that if anyone who is not in agreement with staff recommendation, they can be put on hold until the task force recommendation is complete. Meyer questioned staff's process. Fackler reviewed that the Building Official visits the site with the Dock Inspector. The adjacent site owner is first mailed a copy of the staff report ten days prior to the meeting, then it is mailed again with the Park & Open Space agenda on the Monday prior to the Thursday meeting, and then they are notified again before it goes to the City Council. Fackler emphasized that staff is following the process as outlined in the procedure manual which was approved by the Council. Ahrens noted that the staff report does not offer an invitation to come to the meeting. Darling stated that if someone had a question, they would call. Casey noted that the Commission gives a recommendation only, then they can appeal at the Council. It was suggested that a statement could be added which implies that if they are in disagreement with the staff report, to please come to the Park Commission meeting or call us. Casey does not feel this should hold up their recommendation. Pederson noted that it was her first time looking at the staff report and thought it looked like a decision has already been made and there is no invitation to come to a meeting. Casey suggested they move ahead and make some recommendations. Ahrens questioned if there has been any precedence set for phone outlets. Fackler confirmed that it is not staff's recommendation to require removal of the telephone wire from the common and that the wire can be disconnected at each end. Casey confirmed that the lawn sprinkler pipe is totally under' ground. MOTION by Darling to approve the Public Land Permit for Dock Site #42002, John Gabos, as recommended by Staff. Seconded by Casey. Ahrens recommended it be reviewed if the stairway and walkway is actually on the commons. Casey stated that if they are not on the commons then it is not an issue. Park and OBen Space C. ommission H/nu=es December 14, 1995. Motion carried 6-1. Those in favor were: Darling, Casey, $chmidt, Meyer, Geffre, and Pederson. Ahrens abstained. #42167, Tom Lal;cham, 471 I Island View Drive The Commission asked Mr. Latcham if he was comfortable with staff's recommendation. Mr. Latcham commented that he did not build the pump house, it was there when he purchased the property. He feels the City should remove it since it is not on his property. Latcham confirmed that the existing light does not have a shield and there is no record of a certification of electrical inspection. Casey questioned if there is a security or safety issue to determine if the light is needed? Fackler stated that they have allowed other lights in similar situations. Casey questioned if the light could be relocated on private land and still serve the same purpose? Latcham stated that he has had his boat broken into a few times, and noted that the commons is pretty wide in front of his house. Fackler noted that if the light is up on the hill it would shine too much into the lake, rather than on the dock and boat. Ahrens stated that she would like to see how an electrical inspection turned out and questioned if the process is working? Darling confirmed with Mr. Latcham that the pump house was existing when he purchased the property and that he has never used it. MOTION by Darling, seconded by Meyer to recommend that the pump house at Dock Site #42167, Tom Latcham, be removed at the City's expense, and that the electrical be approved as recommended by staff. Ahrens raised a concern that the motion is setting a precedence to allow people to decide what they are going to be responsible for and what they are not. Darling noted that Mr. Latcham does not want the pump house, but he wants the light. Casey commented that he does not know if the light should be allowed, even though the applicant wants it, and stressed that they should be consistent with their light policy in that they need a safety or security reason? Darling suggested they split the pump house and light into two motions. The seconder, Meyer, agreed. MOTION by Darling, seconded by Meyer to recommend that the pump house at Dock Site #42167,Tom Latcham, be removed at the City's expense. Motion carried 6-1. Those in favor were: Darling, Casey, Schmidt, Meyer, Geffre, and Pederson. Ahrens abstained. Ahrens commented that they could light up their dock from private property, but the light intensity would be more, and it would be worse on private property. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes December 14, I995 MOTION by Dading, seconded by Meyer to recommend that the electrical be approved as recommended by staff for Dock Site #42167, Tom Latcham. Motion carried 6-1. Those in favor were: Darling, Casey, Schmidt, Meyer, Geffre, and Pederson. Ahrens abstained. The LMCD's regulations for lights on the shoreline interfering with navigation was discussed. It was noted that the LMCD has no jurisdiction on private property. Motion carried 5-1-1. Those in favor were: Darling, Schmidt, Meyer, Geffre, and Pederson. Casey was opposed, and Ahrens abstained. Mr. Latcham was informed that his permit will be reviewed by the City Council on January 9, 1996. #42227, Mildred Pierce, 4717 Island View Driv~ MOTION by Casey, seconded by Geffre, to refer this permit to the city attorney for separate legal review, as recommended by staff. Ahrens questioned why this property is this different than Coon's playhouse. The Parks Director noted that this structure had a building permit issued in 1960 from the City of Island Park. Motion carried 6-1. Those in favor were: Darling, Casey, Schmidt, Meyer, Geffre, and Pederson. Ahrens abstained. #42277, Carl Alexander, 4725 Island View Drive Fackler noted that the Building Official has talked with Mr. Alexander. He reviewed that the encroachments include a stairway which is in poor condition and should be replaced, retaining walls that are in okay condition, and electrical which should be removed. Staff recommended that a new light and receptacle should be allowed to be installed according to the electrical code. The applicant has requested the pump house be allowed to be altered to meet the regulations of a lock box as allowed by the Shoreland Management Ordinance by reducing the size and changing the doors, staff would recommend that a lock box be approved. Ahrens asked if the same option was offered to Latcham to allow his pump house to remain as a lock box. Casey asked why minimum standards as permitted on private lands should apply to public lands. It was suggested that each item be addressed separately. MOTION by Casey, seconded by Darling to recommel)d approval of a permit to allow the existing stairway to be replaced, as recommended by staff. Motion carried 6-1. Those in favor were: Dading, Casey, Schmidt, Meyer, Geffre, and Pederson. Ahrens abstained. Darling confirmed that the retaining walls are needed to retain the hillside. Park and Open Space Commission H/nutes December 14, 1995 MOTION by Darling, seconded by Geffre to recommend approval of a permit for the retaining walls as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. Geffre questioned why the existing electrical needs to be removed. It was noted that a plan was to be submitted by Mr. Alexander, but staff did not receive one. Darling suggested that they need to see a plan before they can approve a new light. MOTION by Casey, seconded by Geffre, to recommend denial of a new light. Darling suggested they table this issue until a plan is received in order to determine if a security issue does exist. Casey commented that he would probably still object. Darling questioned staff's opinion. Fackler suggested that they allow the outlet to be replaced, and that a light would be better down by the docking area on this property due to the topography. It was noted that the depth of the commons on this property is about 29 feet, versus 45 feet at Latcham's. Motion failed 2-2-3. Those in favor were: Casey and Meyer. Ahrens and Pederson were opposed, and Geffre, Schmidt and Darling abstained. MOTION by Darling, seconded by Casey, to recommend denial of new light and receptacle until a plan is submitted that identifies the safety and security issues, and to recommend that the existing electrical be removed. Motion carried 5 to 2. Those in favor were: Darling, Casey, Schmidt, Meyer and Geffre. Ahrens and Pederson opposed. Casey questioned how many lock boxes will be allowed on the commons? He is concerned about setting a precedence. Darling questioned, if the pump house is converted into a landing, would it negatively impact the shoreline? Ahrens questioned how similar this pump house is to Jim Kuehn's. Fackler commented that Mr. Kuehn did not claim ownership of the pump house, it was a wood structure that was rotting, and maintenance would have been extreme in order to restore it. Ahrens confirmed that this pump house is structurally sound. It was suggested that since this pump house is part of the stairway, it would be more of a mess if it was removed MOTION by Darling, seconded by Meyer, to recommend approval of the pump house to be maintained as a lock box, as recommended by Staff. Motion carried 4-2-1. Those in favor were: Darling, Meyer, Schmidt, and Pederson. Casey and Geffre opposed, and Ahrens abstained. Ahrens referred back to Latcham's pump house. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Pederson, to recommend that Latcham's pump house be removed with general fund money rather than dock fund money. Park and Open Space Commission H/nutes December I4, 1995 Darling asked for an explanation of the implications. Ahrens stated that it is the City's intention to clean the commons off for use by the general public, so the general public should pay for it. Ahrens stated that survey done by the task force shows that nobody cares about these encroachments and so everybody should pay to remove the structures. What the dock fund pays for was discussed. Ahrens noted that dock fund money pays for rip rap, even though she does not agree with it. MOTION carried 5-1-1. Those in favor were: Ahrene, Pederson, Casey, Schmidt, and Meyer. Geffre was opposed, and Darling abstained. Geffre stated that she opposed because she saw in the Commons Task Force minutes that the commons if financially supported by dock fees. #42351, Michael Henry, 4737 Island View Drive MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Dading, to recommend approval of the permit for 842351, Michael Henry, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVAL AND TREE TRIMMING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY The Parks Director reported that these tree removals are being provided for your information, using the public lands permit process. Each area was reviewed separately. 1. East Crescent. Fackler explained that a willow tree located on Crescent Park, at the east end, was damaged by a storm and is now in a hazardous condition. Ahrens questioned where the money would be coming from for this removal. Fackler indicated that the dock fund would pay for this removal. MOTION by Meyer to recommend removal of the Willow tree as recommended by staff, upon the condition that another Willow tree (3-4 inches in diameter) will be replanted in the same location. Casey seconded the motion. The type of tree to be planted was discussed. Ahrens noted that Willow trees are messy. MOTION carried 6 to 1. Those in favor were: Darling, Casey, Schmidt, Meyer, Geffre, and Pederson. Ahrens abstained. 2. Rustic Place (NCA) Fackler stated that the proposal is to remove hazardous tree~ and dead limbs, and do some minor trimming along the pathway. Fackler noted that when you invite people into an NCA and provide for a walking path it needs to be safe. Fackler stated that the general fund would be used for this work. Meyer noted that a dead standing tree creates a habitat for birds. MOTION by Darling, seconded by Geffre to recommend approval of the tree removal as a safety precaution, but when the trees are dropped, the tree and stump remain. Park and Open Space Commission Binutes December i4, 1995. Casey reiterated that dead standing trees create habitats for birds. Darling expressed a concern that if there is a risk to public safety, then it needs to be taken care of. Fackler confirmed that in public areas where you are inviting the general public into it, he would always recommend removal of any potential hazard, because he does not want to be responsible for any iniuries. Casey commented that sometimes you have to assume a risk. Meyer stated that the purpose of an NCA is to preserve the flora and fauna, and dead, hardwood trees will stand for many years. Darling referred to the City's mission statement, "The City of Mound...fostering a safe, attractive a flourishing community." Motion failed, 3-4. Those in favor were: Darling, Schmidt, and Geffre. Those opposed were: Casey, Ahrens, Meyer and Pederson. MOTION by Ahrens to recommend that this proposed tree trimming be removed from the list. Meyer seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 to 2. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Meyer, Casey, Schmidt, and Pederson. Darling and Geffre opposed. 3. Street Easement Adjacent to 2549 Emerald Drive Fackler noted that this work would be paid for by the general fund, and explained that a complaint was received from a resident that the there were dead branches on a Cottonwood tree located on the public land next to his house. Ahrens questioned who will determine if the tree will need to come down. Fackler indicated that the trimmer will assess the condition of the tree while trimming and if poor conditions are found, he can bring it back to the park commission before total removal. MOTION by Casey, seconded by Meyer to recommend approval of trimming the Cottonwood tree located on the street easement adjacent to 2549 Emerald Drive. Ahrens commented that she does not want to be taken advantage of by the tree trimmer, because they can recommend that the tree needs to be removed just to get paid more money. Meyer feels that Fackler can make the determination if the tree should come down. The liability of property owners who have hazardous trees that encroach onto other peoples property was discussed. MOTION carried 6 to 1. Those in favor were: DarlingTCasey, Schmidt, Meyer, Geffre, and Pederson. Ahrens abstained. 1. Diamond Lane (NCA) Fackler reported that this NCA has been overtaken by brush and dead trees, and it is his opinion that in its current condition, it is not an NCA. He noted that the money for this work would come out of the general fund. Park and Open Space Commission Hinutes December 14, I995 It was suggested that not all NCA's need to have walking paths. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Casey to recommend that the brush and trees remain as is at the Diamond Lane NCA, but that the unnatural intrusions be removed. It was noted that Rustic Place had established wall(ways, but the Diamond Lane NCA is used for storm water run-off. Meyer would like to see items removed like cement blocks, etc. Fackler questioned the intent of the NCA's, and commented that it was his understanding that the Park Commission wanted walking paths. Meyer stated that they do not want to change the use of these areas. Darling agreed with Fackler that the Park Commission has discussed pathways and if we are inviting people into these NCA's, then it should be made safe, or maybe it should not be an NCA. MOTION carried 6 to 1. Those in favor were: Ahrens, Casey, Meyer, Schmidt, Darling, and Pederson. Geffre opposed. The City Council will review these permits at their meeting on January 9, 1995. 1996 DOCK APPLICATION FORM,~ The Parks Director reviewed the revised forms and indicated that the Council had requested that the forms be simplified, as indicated in the City Council Minutes of November 14, 1995. Casey noted that the letter refers to a "minimum" late fee, and questioned what is the maximum. Ahrens stated that it is the intention that everyone pay a late fee if you are renewing your dock site and you miss the due date, whether you ar~ an abutter or nonabutter. It was suggested that in the "Letter to the Applicant", #2.a., it could be modified to read, "All 1996 Dock License Application renewal~ must be received by February 29, 1996 .... " Casey commented that he would agree that #2.c. is redundant with #2.a., and maybe this should be deleted. The Parks Director clarified when late fees are charged. Non-abutters are charged a late fee if their application is received after the due date, however, if their application is not received before April 1, they forfeit their dock site. He explained that in the past they had problems collecting dock license fees from some abutters because the late fee was a minimal charge of $5.00, so the late fee charge was raised to $20.00. If an abutter does not submit their application by April 1, their dock site could become available, to a nonabutter, but only if it is an accessible site, and only for the remainder of the current boating season. Ahrens stated that she does not feel the changes made to the dock forms accurately reflect what happened at the City Council meeting, and feels that the forms still need to be fixed. Geffre suggested that at the form include a statement to let people know that City Ordinance Section 437 is available for viewing at City Hall. Park and Open Space Commission Hinutes December I4, 1995 The Commission had no other comments or changes. ATTENDANCE QUESTION Darling questioned the policy about attendance and stated that he may need to take a leave of absence for 3 to 6 months. The secretary suggested that he write a letter to the Park Commission requesting a leave of absence, then they can vote on it. It was noted that Mo Mueller was granted a leave, and also a Planning Commissioner was granted a leave. 1996 CALENDAR Geffre recommended that the Park Commission not be asked to review public land permits when the ground is covered with snow as it is difficult to view the sites. Fackler confirmed that they can try to do batches when the weather is conducive to viewing the sites. City Council Represenl;ative's Reoort Ahrens asked if there were any questions. Casey asked the status on the stairway issue. Ahrens stated that there has been no new information. Darling asked if the Council has discussed the planting policy. Ahrens stated that they have not, and she does not think it is on their priority list. Parks Director Reoort Jim Fackler reported that the 1996 Budget has been approved by the Council and noted that the $1,500 for skating rinks was deleted and the $15,000 for the Swenson Park play structure was deleted from the budget. Dock Inspector's Reoort. Tom McCaffrey was not present. Fackler reported that they are waiting for the dock application forms to be approved so they may get them ready for mailing at the end of the month. MOTION made by Dading, seconded by Geffre to adjourn the Park and Open Space Commission Meeting at 10:16 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTES; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - DECEMBER 21, 1995 The meeting was called to order at 7 AM. Members present: Paul Meisel, Mark Brewer, Councilmember Liz Jensen, Jerry Pietrowski, Jerry Longpre and Stan Drahos. Absent and excused: Dave Willette and Ex-officio non-voting member Sharon Cook. Also present: Gary Christensen and Gene Hostetler of the Lost Lake Public Relations Task Force, Economic Development Coordinator Bruce Chamberlain, Finance Director Gino Businaro, City Manager Ed Shukle. Upon motion by Longpre, seconded by Drahos and carried unanimously the Minutes of the November 16, 1995 meeting were approved. Lost Lake Improvement; Pr0jecl; Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator, updated the EDC on the Lost Lake Improvement Project. He discussed the potential compost material that would be removed from the Lost Lake Channel under the Dredge project. Locations for hauling this material were discussed. City Manager Ed Shukle indicated that perhaps the material could be taken to a permanent compost site that is going to be developed between the City of Minnetrista and the City of Mound. Other thoughts were local area farmers who may be interested in taking the material for their farm fields. Auditor's Road Improvement Proiect Ed Shukle, City Manager updated the EDC on the Auditor's Road Improvement Project. He indicated that discussions are ongoing with property owners along the realigned roadway. He also indicated that the City Council approved the Permanent Easement Agreement with Glass Plus. Lost Lake Task Force Gary Christensen and Gene Hostetler were present from the Lost Lake Task Force regarding beginning a public relations program for the Lost Lake Improvement Project. Discussed was the expansion of the Farmer's Market. It was the suggestion of the EDC that a meeting be held with a representative of the Minneapolis Farmer's Market who is from the Minnesota Grower's Association. Paul Meisel, EDC, along with Gary Christensen, Bruce Chamberlain and Ed Shukle will meet with this representative early next month. Also discussed with regard to the public relations program was a smaller version of the Streetcar Boats. It was indicated by Gene Hostetler that there is a boat located in Excelsior owned by Fred Bruntjen. Mr. Hostetler has discussed the city's possible use of this boat to shuttle people from Cook's Bay into downtown Mound via Lost Lake Channel. It was suggested that a meeting be held with Mr. Bruntjen with Paul Meisel, Gary Christensen, Gene Hostetler, Bruc~ Chamberlain and Ed Shukle. This will be done in early January. Also discussed was "Buy a Brick" program. Stan Drahos agreed to chair this aspect of the public relations program. Gary suggested that we should have an ongoing public relation/promotion program. The newsletter, the newspaper and other meand should be used to let people know what is going on. Stan will contact Lorrie Ham of The Laker to invite her to our next meeting. Jerry Pietrowski will work with Sharon McMenamy Cook on the Kiosk. Minutes - Econohnic Development Commission - December 21, 1995 Page 2 ISTEA Applications Bruce Chamberlain reviewed the applications for ISTEA funds for a future relocation of Hennepin County Road 15 and a Greenway/Streetscape/Transit project along Auditor's Road and the Lost Lake site. He explained that Hennepin County contacted the City of Mound with regard to placing an application for ISTEA funds to relocate County Road 15 as early as 1999. The City has been working with Hennepin County to provide information to supplement the application. The application was approved for support by the Mound City Council at its December 19th meeting and will be submitted to ISTEA for funding by Hennepin County. In addition, the City of Mound is submitting its own application for Transportation Enhancements (Greenway/Streetscape/-rransit Project),related to the Auditor's Road realignment. An earlier application had been submitted for a Greenway which would run from County Road 110 easterly to the Lost Lake site via Auditor's Road. This application is now being expanded to include streetscape amenities and a new transit station or park and ride facility on the Lost Lake site. The Mound City Council approved a resolution of support for this project as well at its December 19th meeting and it will be submitted to ISTEA for funding. This project will be at the earliest, started in the year 2000, assuming that the City of Mound would receive funds for it. Under the relocation of Hennepin County Road 15, the City of Mound and Hennepin County would be responsible for a local share of costs under the Transportation Enhancements Application that is being submitted by the City. Twenty percent of the eligible costs would have to be paid for by the City of Mound. Central Business District Parking Program (CBD) Ed Shukle gave an update on this item. He indicated that a meeting had been held recently with representatives of the business community that are owners of property in the CBD. The focus of the meeting dealt with the owners wanting to continue with the maintenance program as it is currently. It also discussed the calculations of the assessments, It was pointed out that one of the owners in the CBD believes that the City is not calculating the assessment properly, A subcommittee was established to continue to study the matter. More information will be available at a later date. Westonka Community Center Ed Shukle provided an update on this item. He indicated that a meeting was held recently with representatives of the cities of Mound, Spring Park, Minnetrista and the school district. The meeting focused on the possibility of demolishing the existing Westonka Community Center and building a new facility that would be recreationally oriented. The task force on the community center had recommended that the community center not be rehabilitated and renovated with the money that had been allocated through the school district levy in 1993. Rather, the task force recommended the facility be totally demolished and a new facility be built. Questions from that meeting focused on the financing of the facility. The City Manager explained that more research is being done with regard to possible forms of financing Minutes - Economic Development Commission - December 21, 1995 Page 3 as well as other issues relating to operating such a facility, etc. More information will be available at a later date. There was no other business. It was noted that the next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 18, 1996, 7 AM, Mound City Hall. Bruce Chamberlain is scheduled to bring the rolls. Upon motion by Brewer, seconded by Pietrowski, and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 AM. City Manager ES:Is League of Minnesota Cities leadership Institute presents the.. · Conference f. r Newly Elected Officials Grand Rapids St. Louis Park North Mankato January 26-27 . February 2-3 February 9-10 · ~uuYnoHsl You have taken on a ve~ implant res~nsibili~o make d~isions that will ~ve a significant im~ on the bture of ~ur ci~. ~en you take office in Janua~, your consti~ents will J~k to you br ~dership. They'll ex~ you to kqo~ what to do, not r~lizing how much there is to ~m. T~ ~t ~void ~e wost~ time and fmstrotion of J~rning ~V trioJ ond error. ~end pr~ram that is s~i~ical~ tailor~ to your new duti~. You ~ gain a f~ndation and know how to get ~ture qu~tions answer~. Wm smum Arm, m? · You g.,iouu~t · Newly elected mayors and councilmembers · Those appointed to fill vacancies during the post year · Officials e~ected in 1994 who were not able to attend this conference last year. We am pleased to announce that Cad Neu is back as a lectured a~ ~ a cly~mic speaker m~ke~ him much sought-after trainer around the country. Special features · Ex6erienced presenters with extensive 'h~nds'on' know~edge of city government · Special participant notebook with ses- sion handouts and reference materials · 10 hours of credit toward the Leader- ship Institute Certificate of Recognition · Opportunity to meet other elected officials from your port of the state Program Schedule FBI)AY 1 iO0 pm. 1:05 1:30 3:45 5:45 7:00 8:30 SATURDAY 7:30 a.m. 8:00 8:05 10:45 9:30 1:00 p.m. 2:15 4:00 Registration Weicome 'mE Jru~mm I~mu~ FOJ Et~Z~Z~ W~'~T'mE job ~Nvo~ws: THE ~ ~E * Your I~dership role: Making a difference in your ci~ hiev na aood governance and g~d public poli~ * A~-m,~-~ ~oles and responsibilities w~thln the councd e goaJ~riven leadership Carl Neu, Former Councilmem~r and Council President, Lakew~, Colorado; Principal, Neu and Company Desyl Peterson, Ci~ A~orney, Minnetonka Dinner Featuring veteran elected officials~ A different panel in each conference location Op~uniN to meet newly e~ected colleagues from your pod of the state Coffee and roils e Counci~ effectiveness . Working with staff W~ ~ g~ ~u~,_ -~ ,~ ........ f councii and start in your e ~eNie~structure/ro~es aha ~mcuiar form of ci~ government L~gue staff . Sugflestions for success, pitfalls to avoid ~]ected and staff teams eaturing sDecia~ o~n meeting~ vi~eo ~m~ y ..... ~:~, ~orne~ for Inver Grove Heigfl~, Sunfish Lake; ~istant Ci~ A~orn~ rot oou,, ~ ...... Lunch Timothy Kuntz ~ c~ ~ay's communities: Change is coming ~ The climate in t . Implications for us as e~ected officials . What's working, What isn't Carl Neu Adjourn J~RT~ NO~: A "REFRESHER" CONFERENCE IS P~NNED IN ~RCH ~R E~D OFFICIOS WHO HA~ BEEN WOU~ U~ TO P~TICIPAt~IN THE CER~FICA~ PR~. MINNESOTA CITIES I DECEMBER 1995 1/8/96 Woodland PQinl; Ae Prior to Judge's ruling: Wawonaissa .. abutting 10 "nonabutting 9 total sites 19 Waurika abutting 16 nonabutting 19 total sites 35 After Judge's ruling: Wawonaissa abutting 7 nonabutting 6 total sites 13 Waurika abutting 13 nonabutting 19 total sites 32 Dreamwood Wiota Brighton Common abutting 15 nonabutting :31 total sites 46 abutting 17 nonabutting 7 total sites 24 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED Attorneys at Law _ _ ROBERT A. Al,SoP RONALD H. BATTY STtiml~q J. BUBUL Jo.~ · DANieL J. DAVID J. KKNNKDY CHARL~ L. JOHN M. LEFEVR~ JR. ROBERT J. LINDALL ROBERT C. JAM~q M. ST~OM~N COR~INE H~INE THOM~N ~ayor uM City Counci~cm~s City of ~oun& 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota (612) 337.9300 Facsimile (612) 337-9310 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL (612) 337-9221 Re: Flack, et al. v. City of Mound JAMEX J. THOMSON, J~ LARRY M. I~ONNlZ L. JOE Y. YANG DAVID L. GRAV]~M (19~9-1991) OF COUNSEL BRUCE M. BATTgRSON ROBERT C. CARLSON ROBERT L. DAVIDSON WELLINGTON H. LAW CURTIS A. PKARSON T. JAY SALMON Dear Councilmembers: I have now had an opportunity to receive the Report of Referee Including Findings of Fact, Suggested Conclusions of Law, Recommended Order and Memorandum Dated June 7, 1995. I have also reviewed the Court's Order dated November 27, 1995, and the attached Memorandum. I have met with Keith Rennerfeld of the Hennepin County Assessor's Office and have provided him with copies of the above described documents. At the meeting on December 12, 1995, the Council asked for a summary of action and raised some specific questions and directed me to prepare such a report for discussion on December 19, 1995. I presume you all have copies of the original report dated June 7, but if copies are necessary please call Ed and he can have them prepared for our session on December 19. JUNE 7 REPORT OF REFEREE Paragraph 10 provides that the dedication in 1906 was private and that the lanes, roads and commons were dedicated to the owners of the lots in the plat and not to the public. COMMENT: We agree. Paragraph 12 states "That at least until 1966 Wawonaissa Common served the owners of lots in Woodland Point both as a recreational area and as a lakeside street...That sometime in the years after 1966 Wawonaissa Common ceased to be used as a lakeside street and became part of the yards maintained by the abutting lot owners, including the plaintiffs." COMMENT: We disagree with this finding. One parcel on the lake still has no street access, and we believe the yards have always been maintained by the neighbors as one boulevard. Paragraph 15 states that between 1907 and 1921, six plats were filed in the City of Mound in which commons were dedicated to the public. CAP98017 MU200 -40 Mayor and Councilmembers, City of Mound December 18, 1995 Page 2 o COMMENT: We agree. Paragraph 16 states that between 1096 and 1908 there were three plats dedicated in the City of Mound in which the commons was only to the owners of the lots in the plat, or a private dedication. COMMENT: We agree. Paragraph 19 states that the City adopted .Ordinance 94 on May 12, 1960, and. has regulated docks and boathouses on both the private and publicly dedicated commons including Wawonaissa. COMMENT: That is when the land was annexed to the City of Mound from the Town of Minnetrista, and we agree. Paragraphs 20, 21, 22, and 23 indicate that in administering Wawonaissa Commons, the City gave priority to lots which adjoin Wawonaissa Commons and did not issue dock licenses to persons who were not Woodland Point residents. Property owners along the commons have obtained permits to make various improvements on the commons. That since 1960 the City of Mound has contributed materials and services to the maintenance of Wawonaissa Commons, including rip rapping and other miscellaneous items. That the plaintiffs took care of routine maintenance, including mowing, raking, etc. COMMENT: In essence we agree with these findings with the exception that the testimony was somewhat limited as to what the City had done since there are no records and basically there was not a clear record of all the things that the City might have been doing on this commons. Paragraph 24 states that the plaintiffs incorporated the land between their property and the lake into their yards and that there had been no signs, posts or markings of any kind on the commons to distinguish it from the rest of their property. COMMENT: We disagree. Kathy Bailey testified that signs had been put up but were torn down by abutting property owners. It also appears that plaintiffs have maintained this property just as property owners do On the public commons and treated it as a boulevard. I believe there are requirements that the dock holders maintain the areas around their docks, and again there was limited testimony on that subject. o Paragraph 25 states that the commons is used "almost exclusively" by residents of Woodland Point. There is a further finding that Dennis Flack and Michael Gardner called the police and informed them that the individuals who were on the commons were non- residents and that this was private property, and the police told them to leave. CAP') 8017 MU200-40 Mayor and Councili'fiembers, City of Mound December 18, 1995 Page 3 o 10. 11. COMMENT: This in essence was the testimony of Mr. Flack and Mr. Gardner, but it is impossible for any City staff to refute any of these items since it would require us to try to prove a negative. In conversing with City staff and the police, we think it highly unlikely that the police ever told anyone this was private property, but we cannot be sure of this fact. Paragraph 26 states "That the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title did not demonstrate an intention, either expressed or implied, to have their segments of Wawonaissa Common appropriated and devoted to public use." COMMENT: This is the key finding in that since there is no argument that the dedication was private in nature, the burden of proof was on the City to show that there had been a common law dedication of the Wawonaissa Common. We introduced evidence and it was stipulated that in 1949 the court found areas of Waurika Common to be public. We also introduced testimony 'from the County Assessor that this property had been marked as City property on its maps and had never been taxed, and that until recently there had been no contest as it related to the City's enforcing its permitting ordinances and to the expenditure of public monies to rip rap and maintain the shoreline. We felt that the Referee could very easily have made a finding that through its usage for at least the 35 years it has been in the City of Mound, that this property had always been under public control and had been treated as public land. The Referee did not agree. Paragraph 27 states "That Wawonaissa Common and Waurika Common are separate commons, not one unified common bearing different names." COMMENT: This was one of our major arguments to the Judge that there was no evidence to support that finding by the Referee. Waurika Commons was subject to court action 46 years ago and was found to be public, and there ample testimony concerning the swimming beach being used by the public, school district, etc. for many years. If the Court has found that this was one common instead of two commons, they would then have found that there was a common law dedication over 40 years ago, but the Referee did not agree with that argument. In the suggested Conclusions of Law, Paragraph 3 states in part that segments of Wawonaissa Commons described in Paragraph 1 (the plaintiffs' properties) "were subject to the interests of the lot owners in Woodland Point pursuant to the dedication clause of the plat and that the exact nature of the lot owners' interests cannot be ascertained without joining in an action all of the owners of lots in the plat." COMMENT: In appealing the Referee's findings, we asked the Court to respond to many of the questions which our residents are now raising as to what the exact nature of the CAPOS£)].7 Mayor and Councilmembers, City of Mound December 18, 1995 Page 4 interest of the lot owners who live off the lake. The Court did not answer any of those questions, nor does the Referee's findings. 12. Paragraph 4 of the suggested findings indicates that "The City of Mound did not acquire an easement over the segments of Wawonaissa Commons described in Paragraph 1 (the plaintiffs' property) by common law dedication and has not right, title or interest in said Wawonaissa Commons, except that, as an owner of some of the lots in Woodland Point, it has an interest in Wawonaissa Common together with the other lot owners in said plat as set out in the preceding paragraph." Referee Edblom then wrote a four page memorandum to explain his findings. The most significant relates to the question as to whether there was a common law dedication. Somehow the penalty provisions in the ordinance adopted in 1960 influenced the Referee to in effect indicate that if they had failed to comply with the ordinance they would have been guilty of a crime. He also cited opinions which I had written to the City Manager and City Council in 1967 and again in 1973 explaining the difference between pubtic ownership and private ownership, and wherein I had advised them that Wawonaissa Commons was subject to a private dedication. He appeared to but an importance upon the fact that there was no line drawn and therefore the common was indistinct from the remainder of the plaintiffs' yard. He said that the City had a burden of proving that the plaintiffs or their predecessors had expressly or impliedly appropriated and dedicated their land to public use. He went on to explain that the way the City had administered its ordinances, it did not act for the general public "but assumed the role of a home owner's association for Woodland Point." In his concluding two paragraphs, the Referee makes a recommendation based on his expertise in the field of real property and what he heard during the testimony, and he then states as follows: "WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THE SUGGESTED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WOULD CONFIRM THAT THE PLAINTIFFS ARE THE FEE OWNERS OF THEIR SEGMENTS OF WAWONAISSA COMMON, THESE SEGMENTS WOULD CONTINUE TO BE SUBJECT TO THE INTERESTS OF THE OWNERS OF ALL OF THE OTHER LOTS IN WOODLAND POINT WHICH WERE CREATED BY THE DEDICATION OF THE COMMON TO THEM IN THE PLAT. THE NATURE OF THIS INTEREST, ALMOST ASSUREDLY THAT OF AN EASEMENT, CANNOT BE DEFINED WITHOUT BRINGING AN ACTION IN WHICH ALL OF THE LOT OWNERS AND ALL OF THE ENCUMBRANCERS ARE JOINED AS PARTIES. UNDER THE CURRENT APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF THE DOCK ORDINANCE, THE PLAINTIFFS ARE ASSURED OF A DOCK SITE AS THE OWNERS OF LOTS WHICH ADJOIN WAWONAISSA COMMON. MU200 -40 Mayor and Council'members, City of Mound December 18, 1995 Page 5 IRONICALLY, A DECISION BY THIS COURT FOR THE PLAINTIFFS WILL MEAN THEY NO LONGER ARE ASSURED OF A DOCK SITE. ALL LOT OWNERS IN WOODLAND POINT WILL THEN HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS TO USE WAWONAISSA COMMON. THE ONLY BENEFIT TO THE PLAINTIFFS WOULD BE THAT THEY WOULD BE FREE FROM THE CONTROL EXERCISED OVER WAWONAISSA COMMON BY THE CITY." NOVEMBER 27, 1995, COURT ORDER Judge H. Peter Albrecht denied the City's motion to amend the report of the Referee. He also adopted as the findings of the court the Referee's findings. He denied the Plaintiffs' motion against the City for refund of dock fees, and then made a rather strange concluding paragraph which states as follows: "That, until all appeals are exhausted, Defendant City of Mound is temporarily enjoined from collecting dock fees from Plaintiffs and licensing docks on the properties which are subject to this lawsuit." Neither the Plaintiffs' lawyer nor ourselves are sure of what the Judge was trying to say in that paragraph. It may be that he was anticipating an appeal. The Court's memorandum essentially relates to Rule 53.05 (b) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure indicating that a referee's findings of fact cannot be set aside unless clearly erroneous. The cases cited are such that the Judge indicates that a decision should not be set aside unless the decision is so manifestly contrary to the preponderance of the evidence as to conclude that the findings of fact failed to consider all of the evidence. The Court indicated that it was the burden of the City to prove: That the landowner expressly or impliedly intended to have his land appropriated and devoted to the public use, and 2. that there was a public acceptance of the land for that use. It is stated that based on the evidence, the findings of the Referee were not clearly erroneous, and he therefore denied the motion. He also went on and denied the Plaintiffs' claims for a refund of dock fees. CAF98017 ~,,20o-4o t ell Mayor and Council~nembers, City of Mound December 18, 1995 Page 6 CITY'S OPTIONS 1. The City has 90 days after judgment has been entered to appeal the decision of the Court to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The Court order has not been adopted as of this date but we expect that that will be forthcoming sometime in the next week or ten days, which will start the 90 day period rolling. This particular.issue is the major decision that the Council will have to make as of this time. 2. If the City Council does not appeal the decision, the City will have lost its right to issue dock permits on these six properties. I assume that we would not license docks on the balance of the properties, since that would merely add to the confusion and would probably result in litigation by other property owners along Wawonaissa Common. WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE DECISION AND THE QUESTIONS BEING RAISED BY CITIZENS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE? The following are questions which have been submitted to the City Manager by interested residents: a. If the court decision stands, who regulates the common'? Answer: As stated above, the City would not be the regulator. All properties in the subdivision would have equal rights unless a court were to issue some other type of order. It would therefore appear that it would behove all of the property owners to get together to determine how the common is to be regulated. b. Can neighbors go down to the common? Answer: Yes. The decision makes it clear that property owners in Woodland Point have not been deprived of any rights as a result of this litigation. Each property owner has what the Referee described as probably an easement over all the common property. c. How many docks can be placed on the common area? Answer: Unknown. Since the common will be one piece of property, it would probably have to go to the LMCD to attempt to obtain a permit for dockage. In a letter transmitted by the attorney for the LMCD this summer, they indicated they are not equipped to determine who might have what rights on the CAP98017 MU200 -4(3 Mayor and Councif~aembers, City of Mound December 18, 1995 Page 7 fo common area. The City will be precluded except as a property owner from being involved in that decision. Will the City appeal? Answer: That is up to the City Council. What happens if the City does not appeal? Answer: The City will no longer be a regulator or stand in the stead of a homeowner's association. The property owners in the subdivision will have to determine what and how the common will be maintained. Can the plaintiffs order Woodland Point property owners or neighbors of the property to leave the area? Answer: In our opinion the plaintiffs cannot order a property owner of Woodland Point to leave the area, but the public would have no right to use the common. ho Whose property is it? Answer: The underlying fee owner rests with the abutting owners, and the City did not contest point. We argued that the common was no different from the street in front of their houses, and that the property owner does not have a right to deny the public the use of those streets, water, and other utilities, even though it was privately dedicated. Will the land that is now under the plaintiffs' ownership be taxed? Who will be taxed? Is it all one parcel? How will this be taxed? Answer: I have met with the County Assessor who acts as the City Assessor, and he informs me that the property is one parcel and will be taxed. He does not know exactly how the County will handle this, but it could bet set up several ways: ao They could consider the value of the lakeshore parcel and then try to attribute that to all the property owners in the subdivision, or bo They could treat it as one tax parcel with a value applied to that P.I.D. parcel. The tax statement would then be sent to a homeowner's association or someone who is responsible for the parcel, or if there is no I ,il Mayor and Council-members, City of Mound December 18, 1995 Page 8 jo such association, they would probably have to send copies of the tax statements to all property owners within Woodland Point. It is his opinion that this is going to be very difficult to calculate and to work out an answer. If it applies only to the abutting property owners, they would add approximately $100 per foot to the value of the abutting properties, but since the entire subdivision is responsible for the tax, that method probably would not work. Therefore, their initial impression is that there would have to be a property identification number established, a value determined, and a tax applied. Assuming the numbers to be in excess of 1000 feet, it would appear that the value would be in excess of $100,000 and that the tax would be $2400 or more per year. I wish to make it clear that the assessor is unable to give a definite answer at this time, but a tax could run somewhere from $2,000 to $10,000 per year. This is about the most difficult question for the governmental bodies to respond to in this case and will be the most important to the property owners in Woodland Point who will have to pay this increased tax. Is the LMCD going to regulate the common? Answer: To the best of my knowledge, the LMCD will only regulate from the water's edge and if the City is not in control it will have to drop from its application to the LMCD this area as a location for public docks. I cannot comment on what the LMCD ramifications may be. CONCLUSION The City Council will have to make a decision as to whether it wishes to appeal. I am sure that the Council then wants to know how much added expense this may be and what the chances are of success. Unfortunately, these are two questions which I cannot currently answer. We feel that the Judge was sympathetic to the City's position and recognized the questions which were going to be raised by all the property owners, but he did not respond to our request to clarify those issues. If an appeal is to be taken, we would have to basically study the facts which we have in the testimony .and the stipulation of facts which was entered into by the parties and then determine the areas where we might request the court to overturn the Referee's recommendations. In our appeal, we stressed that we felt he made a mistake in considering it as one common. We also pointed out to the court that if the City left the area, there would be no central regulating body to take over that responsibility. The chances of all the property owners running to the shore in the spring to extend their docks could result in a lot of disputes within the neighborhood, and the City would not be in a position to be a referee. Mtn200-40 Mayor and Counci-lmembers, City of Mound December 18, 1995 Page 9 I shall try to respond to your questions at the meeting on December 19, but I must confess that the decision leaves many unanswerable questions. The most pressing will be how the people will treat the shoreline, how they will try to figure out how to allocate some form of docking priorities, and how they are going to respond to the assessment when they determine how the property will be assessed and taxed. Questions will also arise as to liability for activities on the common, and I again I have no answers. In conclusion, I believe this is a Council decision as to whether you wish to appeal, and if you do wish to appeal, we will put together the best scenario we can to try to convince the Court of Appeals that the Referee made a mistake and that the City does have an easement as a result of common law dedication based on the matter of control in this common for at least the last 46 years. CAP:Ih Respectfully submitted, Pearson City Attorney CAPqSO17 ., 2oo-4o / q:5 Z t= 0 0 oo E 0 0 0 $ 0 X .~o_ O0 0 00'- C~ · .. , ,iii J ,ill 0 4~ I,l,I Z U.I LIJ 0 c- O C 0 0 >' "9'° ~ § .'" ~ ,',:, .__. :-8o ~ '- & ,...> rt... C I.U C A ~ .p.,m 0 m ~x 0 Or' O~ 0 ~ 0 0 LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-0621 Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle Chief Len Harrell Monthly Report for December 1995 The police department responded to 854 calls for service during the month of December. There were 28 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 1 robbery, 6 burglaries, 19 larcenies, and 2 vehicle thefts. There were 57 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 4 child abuse/neglect, 6 damage to property, 3 liquor law violations, 4 DUI's, 3 simple assaults, 11 domestics (3 with an assault), 3 harassments, 9 juvenile status offenses, and I4 other offenses. The patrol division issued 89 adult citations and 1 juvenile citation. Parking violations accounted for an additional 52 tickets. Warnings were issued to 136 individuals for a variety of violations. There was 1 juvenile arrested for a felony. There were 30 adults and 10 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were an additional 4 warrant arrests. The department assisted in 15 vehicle accidents, 2 with injuries. There were 40 medical emergencies and 52 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 23 occasions in December and requested assistance 11 times. Property valued at $15,264 was stolen and $1,718 was recovered in December. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - DECEMBER 1995 INVESTIGATIONS We are curremly operating with only one investigator, Officer Troy Denneson. In December, Inv. Denneson worked on four child protection cases, accounting for 12.5 hours of his time. Other cases investigated include the bank robbery (which has been turned over to the FBI), arson, burglary, assault, stalking, damage to property, narcotics, theft, driving after cancellation, littering, and an adult protection matter. Formal complaints were issued for assault, violation of a restraining order, child endangerment, and no insurance. Personnel/Staffing The department used approximately 46 hours of overtime during the month of December. Officers used 35 hours of comp-time, 133 hours of vacation, 58 hours of sick time, and 22 holidays. Officers earned 43 hours of comp- time. Sgt. Steve Grand has been spending a fair amount of time at the Sout~xi~est Metro Drug Task Force in preparation for becoming the coordinator for the next two years. Todd Truax has been promoted to sergeant, after a testing process, and will serve in Grand's absence. The Task Force will be reimbursing us for Sgt. Grand. Todd Truax continued his attendance at the Wilson Supervisory Leadership course in December. The Mound Police December. Reserves donated 168 hours during the month of MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - DECEMBER 1995 VI. Community Service Officers Officers Maki a~d Paschke addressed 36 animal complaints, 26 ordinance violations, and 130 miscellaneous calls for service. Three citations were issued in December. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT DECEMBER 1995 O~'~'~,NSEZ ~ EXCEPT- ~ BY A~.~TED REPOI~TED %~,'FOUND~-~ ~ ~ST ADULT PART I CRIMES Homicide Criminal Sexual Conduct Robbery Aggravated Assault Burglary Larceny Vehicle Theft Arson '.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 19 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TO~A~ PART II CRIMES 28 2 1 0 0 I Child Abuse/Neglect 4 0 1 1 1 Forgery/NSF Checks 0 0 0 0 0 Criminal Damage to Property 6 0 2 0 0 Weapons 0 0 0 0 0 Narcotic Laws 0 0 0 0 0 Liquor Laws 3 0 0 3 4 DWI 4 0 0 4 4 Simple Assault 3 0 1 1 0 Domestic Assault 3 0 3 0 2 Domestic (No Assault) 8 0 0 0 0 Harassment 3 0 0 0 0 Juvenile Status Offenses 9 0 3 4 0 Public Peace 1 0 0 1 1 Trespassing 1 0 1 0 0 All Other Offenses 12 0 0 5 18 TOTA~ 57 0 11 19 30 10 PART II & PART IV Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Medicals Animal Complaints Mutual Aid Other General Investigations TO~A~ 2 13 0 40 52 23 609 739 HCCP Inspections 4 26 TOTAL 854 2 12 19 30 11 MOUND POLICE DEPAi~TMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT DECEMBER 1995 GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY Hazardous Citations 30 Non-Hazardous Citations 43 Hazardous Warnings 31 Non-Hazardous Warnings 58 Verbal Warnings 72 Parking Citations 50 DWI 4 Over .10 4 Property Damage Accidents 13 Personal Injury Accidents 2 Fatal Accidents 0 Adult Felony Arrests 1 Adult Misdemeanor Arrests 33 Juvenile Felony Arrests 1 Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests 10 Part I Offenses 28 Part II Offenses 57 Medicals 40 Animal Complaints 52 Ordinance Violations 26 Other Public Contacts 1,020 THIS YEAR TO LAST YEAR MONTH DATE TO DATE 833 655 216 740 727 342 51 43 95 31 0 24 371 51 150 273 747 344 669 539 7,516 672 535 194 379 734 341 87 75 104 39 0 30 388 42 107 349 812 343 1,007 501 9,340 TOT/iL 1,575 14,417 16,079 Assists 53 877 543 Follow-Ups 39 377 462 HCCP 4 33 46 Mutual Aid Given 23 193 149 Mutal Aid Requested 11 148 111 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT DECEMBER 1995 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 Violations 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 ~OTAL 4 4 0 7 1 29 5 1 16 0 2 0 6 0 8 0 0 52 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT DECEMBER 1995 Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL WARRANT ARRESTS Felony Misdemeanor 35 22 38 0 4 13 0 0 0 23 135 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Run: 5-~Jan-96. 9:~8 PRO03 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Primary iS#'s only: No Date Reported range: 11/26/95 - 12/31/95 Activity codes: ALL Property Status: ALL Property Types: Att Property Oescs= ALL Brands: Att ModeLs: ALL Officers/Badges: ALL Prop Prop ]nc no ISM Pr Tp Desc SN Enfors Property Report STOLEN/RECOVERED BY OATE REPORTED Prop Date Rptd StoLen Date Recov'd Quantity Act Stat StoLen VaLue Recov'd VaLue Code Brand ModeL Page Off-1 Off-2 Assnd Assnd Prop type TotaLs: Prop type TotaLs: Prop type TotaLs: Prop type TotaLs: Prop type TotaLs: Prop type TotaLs: Prop type TotaLs: Prop type TotaLs: · Prop type TotaLs: Prop type Tota[s: · *** Report TotaLs: 800 0 3.000 65 0 3.000 2 0 6.000 6,700 1,400 2.000 470 0 3.000 1,844 278 44.000 550 0 1.000 4,701 40 7.000 36 0 2.000 96 0 8~.000 15,264 1,718 154.000 Run: 4-dan-96 14:58 CFS08 Primary %SN's on[y: No Date Reported range: 11/26/95 - 12/31/95 Time range each day: 00:00 - gouReceived: AIl Activity Resulted: AIr Dispositions: Att Officers/Badges: Grfds: ALL Patrol Areas: AIl Days of the week: AIl ACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTION 9000 SPEEDING 9001 J-SPEEDING 9002 NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 9004 RESTRICTEO O/L 9012 OPEN BOTTLE 9014 STOP SIGN 9018 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION 9040 NO SEATBELT 9100 PARKING/ALL OTHER 9140 NO PARKING/WINTER HOURS 9200 DAS/DAR/OAC 9210 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIREO 9220 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 9240 CHANGE OF DOMICILE 9300 LOST ARTICLES/OTHER 9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 9313 FOUNO PROPERTY 9314 FOUND VEHICLES/IMPOUNDED 9430 PERSONAL INdURY ACCIOENTS 9450 PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 9451 H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC. 9566 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Ca[Is For Service INCIOE#T ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY C(~OE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 29 1 5 1 1 2 6 18 ? 16 8 1 5 9 2 9 2 Page Run: 4-Jan-96. 14:58 CFS08 Page 2 Primary ISN~s only: No Date Reported range: 11/26/95 - 12/31/95 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Ho~Received: ALL Activity ResuLted: ALL Dispositions: ALL Officers/Badges: AL[ Grids: ALL Patrol Areas: ALL Days of the ~eek: ALL ACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTZON MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors CaLLs For Service INCIOENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS MEDICAL/ASU MEDICAL/DOA MEDICALS MEDICALS/CI FIRES ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIEO OOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT PUBLIC ASSIST ALL NCCP CASES OPEN O00R/ALARMS HANOGUN APPLICATION SUSPICIOUS PERSON INFO/INT WARRANTS MISC. VIOLATIONS J-MISC. VIOLATIONS 9992 MUTUAL AID/8100 ~3 MUTUAL AID/6500 9994 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER A5351 ASLT 5-MS-I#FLICT ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-AOLT-FAM A5354 ASLT S-MS-INFLICT BO HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAM A5355 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BO HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ 1 1 37 1 1 5 8 3 4 6 2 1 2 1 10 9 3 2 1 4-Jan-96 14:58 CFS08 Primary IS#'s only: No Date Reported range: 11/26/95 - 12/31/95 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Ho~ Received: Att Activity Resulted: Att Dispositions: Att Officers/Badges: Att Grids: Att Patrol Areas: Att Days of the week: Att ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION 1~3UND POLICE DEPARTHENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE NU~4BER OF INCIDENTS Page A5356 A5502 B3494 B3T34 B376/+ B~990 E4700 13060 J2500 J2EO0 J3500 J3EO0 li3001 N5313 N5350 N7401 #3030 #3190 ASLT 5-NS-INFLICT BD HRH-HANDS-CHLD-STR ASLT 5-TXRT BOOILY HARN-NO WEAP-ADLT-ACQ BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-UNK WEAP-CON THEFT BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-CON THEFT BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRCoDoUNK WEAP-CON THEFT BUR6 3oUNOCC NRES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-CON THEFT BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-CON THEFT BURG 4-AT FRC RES-U-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT ESC-GN-FLEE AN OFFICER CRIN A6NST FAN-NS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD TRAFFIC-ON-DUI LIQLIOR-UNK INJURY-UNK VEH TRAF-ACC-GN-AL 10 HORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH TRAF-ACCID-NS-DRIVE UNDER iNFLUENCE OF LIQUOR TRAF-ACC-HS-AL 10 NORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER LI~IJOR - OTHER JUVENILE°CURFEW JUVENILE-RUNAWAY SALE OF TOBACCO TO CHILDREN CRUELTY TO ANINALS-OTHER DISTURB PEACE-NS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT DISTURB PEACE-NS-HARRASSING CONHUNICATIONS Run: 4-Jan-96 14:58 CFS08 Primary ISN's o~Ly: No Date Reported range: 11/26/95 - 12/31/95 Time range each clay: 00:00 - 23:59 HouReceived: Att Activity Resutted: Att Dispositions: Att Officers/Badges: Att Grids: Att Patro[ Areas: Att Days of the ueek: At[ ACT[V[TY COOE DESCRIPTION HOUND POLICE DEPARTNENT Enfors Ca[ts For Service ZNCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE NUNBER OF INCIDENTS Page P3110 P3120 P3310 P3600 R~6~3 TBl12 TG021 PROP DAHAGE-NS'PRIVATE-UNK INTENT PROP DAHAGE'NS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT TRESPASS-NS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-NS ROBB-AGG-NO BH-BANK-FIREARN-ADULT-STR THEFT-NC)RE 2500-FE-BUSINESS FNDS-SERVICES THEFT-LESS 200-NS-BU[LDING-NONEY TG029 THEFT-LESS 200-NS-BUILDING-OTH PROP TG051 THEFT-LESS 200-NS-YARDS-HONEY TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-NS-YARDS-OTHR PROP TG069 TG099 TG159 U1287 U~497 U3498 VA024 X3250 THEFT-LESS 200-NS-NAILS-OTHER PROP THEFT-LESS 200-NS-SELF SRV GAS-OTH PROP THEFT-LESS 200-NS-HOTOR VEH-OTHER THEFT-FE-SHOPLIFTING-201-500 THEFT-NS-BICYCLE-NO NOTOR-201-500 THEFT-NS-BICYCLE-NO HOTOR-200 OR LESS THEFT-VEH-NORE THAN 2500-FE-THEFT-SNO~ CRIN AGNST ADNN JUST-NS-VIOL ORD PROTECTION 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 **** Report Tota[s: 34? Run: 4-.Jan-96 11:18 OFF01 1401JND POLICE DEPARTHENT Page 1 Primary [SN~s on[y: No Enfors Offense Report Oate Reported range: 11/26/95 - 12/31/95 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Dispositions: AIl Activity codes: Officers/Badges: AIl Grids: ALL ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ACT ACTIVITY .pFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT CODE DESCR[PTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED A5351 ASLT S-MS-INFLICT ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 3 100.0 A5354 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BO HRM-HANOS-CHLD-FAM 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 A5355 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BO HRM-HANOS-CHLO-ACQ 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 A5356 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BO HRM-HANOS-CHLO-STR 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 A5502 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WEAP-AOLT-ACQ 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 B3434 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-UNK WEAP-CO~4 THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 B3494 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COI4 THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 B37~4 BURG ]-UNOCC NRES FRC-D-UNK WEAP-COH THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 B3764 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-CCM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 B3794 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COI4 THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 B4990 BURG 4-AT FRC RES-U-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 E4700 ESC-GM-FLEE AN OFFICER 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 I~060 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100,0 J2500 TILRFFIC*GM-DUI LIQLIOR-UNK INJURY-UNK VEH 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 J2EO0 TRAF-ACC-GI~-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 J~500 TRAF-ACCID-MS-DR%VE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 100.0 J3EO0 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ'UNK VEH ] 0 ] 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 100.0 N~O01 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENOER 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 M~199 LIQUOR - OTHER 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0 M531~ JUVENILE-CURFEW 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY 8 0 8 2 0 ] ] 6 75.0 M7401 SALE OF TOBACCO TO CHILDREN 1 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 N30]O OISTURB PEACE-MS'DISOROERLY CONDUCT 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 Run: 4-Jan-~6 11:18 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 11/26/95 - 12/31/95 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: Att Activity codes: III Officers/Badges: AIl Grids: AiL ACT ACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTION N3190 DISTURB PEACE-NS-HARRASSING CONNUNICATIONS P3110 PROP DANAGEoMS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT P3120 PROP DANAGE-NS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT P3310 TRESPASS-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT P3500 LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-MS R2623 ROBS-AGG-NO BH-BANK-FIREARM-ADULT-STR TBl12 THEFT°MORE 2500-FE-BUSINESS FNDS-SERVICES TG021 THEFT-LESS 200-NS-BUILDING-HONEY TG029 THEFT-LESS 200-HS-BUILD[NG-OTH PROP TG051 THEFT-LESS 200-NS-YARDS-HONEY TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-HS-YARDS-OTHR PROP TG069 THEFT-LESS 200-NS-NAILS-OTHER PROP TG099 TG159 U1287 U3497 ~3498 VA024 ~3250 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-SELF SRV GAS-OTH PROP THEFT-LESS 200-NS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER THEFT-FE-SHOPLIFTING-201-500 THEFT-NS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500 THEFT-NS-BICYCLE-NO NOTOR-200 OR LESS THEFT-VEH-MORE THAN 2500-FE-THEFT-SNOg CRIH AGNST ADNN JUST-NS-VIOL ORD PROTECTION MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 2 -.OFFENSES REPORTED 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 4 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT FOUNOED OFFENSES PENOING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEAREO 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 5 4 0 0 1 1 20.0 0 1 0 0 0 1 I 100.0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 O.O 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 0 0 0 I 1 100.0 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 **** Report Tota[s: 71 2 69 38 12 ? 12 31 44.9