1998-06-09AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1998, 7:30 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council
and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a
Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda
and considered in normal sequence.
1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PAGE
APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are
not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon
after the Consent Agenda has been approved.
PROCLAMATION DECLARING JUNE 20, 1998 AS MOUND MASONIC
LODGE DAY IN THE CITY OF MOUND ............................ 1991
4. *CONSENT AGENDA
*A.
*B.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 26, 1998
REGULAR MEETING .................................. 1992-2008
SET PUBLIC HEARINGS:
*1.
FOR CASE #98-05, MAJOR SUBDIVISION, JAMES JOHNSON/
DAVE MOORE, 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE.
(SUGGESTED DATE: JUNE 23, 1998) ...................... 2009
*2.
FOR CASE g08-28, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW TWIN HOMES, JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE,
4901 SHORELINE DRIVE.
(SUGGESTED DATE: JUNE 23, 1998) ...................... 2010
*3.
FOR CASE//98-26, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, MOTOR FUEL STATION
TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE B-2 ZONING DISTRICT,
JAMES SMITH/JAMES KOVACH, 1730 COMMERCE BLVD.
(SUGGESTED DATE: JUNE 23, 1998.) ........................ 2011
1988
*C.
*D.
*E.
*F.
*G.
*I.
RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AN ADDITION OF AN
ABUTTING DOCK SITE AT 4586 DENBIGH ROAD ..................
(PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ITEM WAS SCHEDULED TO GO
BEFORE THE DCAC AT THEIR MEETING OF MAY 28, 1998,
BUT THERE WAS NO QUORUM AND TIlE ITEM NEEDS TO BE
ACTED UPON AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.)
2012-2015
RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF REGARDING THE TRIMMING OF TREES,
PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT, ADAM HAWKINSON, 1718 EAGLE LANE, WIOTA
COMMON ............................................
(PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ITEM WAS SCHEDULED TO GO
BEFORE THE DCAC AT THEIR MEETING OF MAY 28, 1998,
BUT THERE WAS NO QUORUM AND THE ITEM NEEDS TO BE
ACTED UPON AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.)
2016-2018
RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF REGARDING THE TRIMMING OF TREES,
PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT, DON SWENSON, 4857 ISLAND VIEW DR., DEVON
COMMON ............................................
(PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ITEM WAS SCHEDULED TO GO
BEFORE THE DCAC AT THEIR MEETING OF MAY 28, 1998,
BUT THERE WAS NO QUORUM AND THE ITEM NEEDS TO BE
ACTED UPON AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.)
2019-2026
RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF TREE,
PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT, RAYMOND SALAZAR, 4559 ISLAND VIEW DR., DEVON
COMMON ............................................ 2027-2033
(PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ITEM WAS SCHEDULED TO GO
BEFORE THE DCAC AT THEIR MEETING OF MAY 28, 1998,
BUT THERE WAS NO QUORUM AND THE ITEM NEEDS TO BE
ACTED UPON AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.)
POLLING PLACE CHANGE ..................................... 2034
LICENSE RENEWALS: CLUB ON-SALE, SUNDAY SALES, ON-SALE WINE,
ON-SALE BEER, OFF-SALE BEER, TREE REMOVAL LICENSE
AND TRANSIENT MERCHANT LICENSE .......................
2035
PAYMENT OF BILLS ..................................... 2036-2050
5. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: STORM WATER UTILITY ORDINANCE. 2051-2067
~ VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK,
MICHAEL & KATHY MEYER, 1748 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE,
LOT 5, BLOCK 6, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES,
PID # 13-117-24 24 0016 ............................... 2068-2083
1989
ge
~ .......... a I Iii
EXECUTIVE SESSION: WOODLAND POINT LITIGATION.
INFORMA TION/MI$CELLANEO US ,
Ao
Fe
Department Head Monthly Reports for May 1998.
................ 2085-2112
Draft of the 1999 Proposed LMCD Budget .................... 2113-2118
Memorandum from Diane Lynch, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Executive
Director, regarding the appointment of liaisons from the City of Mound to interface
with the MCWD Board Liaison which is Tom Maple. Who should be the liaison?
My recommendation would be to appoint the City Manager as the official liaison
and then I can communicate between the MCWD Board liaison and the City Council.
What do you think?
...................................... 2119
Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of May 14, 1998 ........... 2120-2124
Letter from Moody's Investors Service regarding the change in definitions
of the ratings used by Moody's. Mound has been given a designation
of an A2 rating ...................................... 2125-2126
Information from West Hennepin City Managers/Administrators/City Clerks
regarding focus groups on human services planning and coordination in the
West Hennepin area and the announcement of some upcoming meetings .... 2127-2133
1998 Salary Survey for Elected Officials as prepared by the
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) ................. 2134-2142
REMINDER. ANNUAL PARK TOUR, THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1998, 7 P.M.
MEET AT CITY HALL.
REMINDER.
COMMITI'EE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, TUESDAY, JUNE 16,
1998, 7:30 P.M., CITY HALL.
1990
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 9, 1998
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, June 9, 1998, at '7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in
said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, and
Leah Weycker. Councilmember Liz Jensen was absent and excused. Also in attendance were:
City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, ity Clerk Fran Clark...andhthet3.a
following interested citizens: ~tr,,. S u.~ka.n$o.~{2 ~' 3"o~. ~.Onv. a.~, a~.~-~ d~~
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of
Allegiance was recited.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are
not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon
after the Consent Agenda has been approved.
*CONSENT AGENDA
1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
o
APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are
not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon
after the Consent Agenda has been approved.
e
1991
PAOg
PROCLAMATION DECLARING JUNE 20, 1998 AS MOUND MASONIC LODGE DAY
iTY
4. *CONSENT AGENDA
*A. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 26, 1998, REGULAR MEETING.
1992-2008
*B. SET PUBLIC HEARINGS: (SUGGESTED DATE:JUNE 23, 1998, FOR ALL THREE
2009
*1.
FOR CASE 1/98-05, MAJOR SUBDIVISION, JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE,
4901 SHORELINE DRIVE.
2010
*2.
FOR CASE//98-28, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TWIN HOMES,
JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE.
2011
*3.
FOR CASE g98-26, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, MOTOR FUEL STATION
TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE B-2 ZONING DISTRICT,
JAMES SMITH/JAMES KOVACH, 1730 COMMERCE BLVD.
*C. RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AN ADDITION OF AN
ABUTTING DOCK SITE AT 4586 DENBIGH ROAD.
2012-2015
(PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ITEM WAS SCHEDULED TO GO
BEFORE THE DCAC AT THEIR MEETING OF MAY 28, 1998,
BUT THERE WAS NO QUORUM AND THE ITEM NEEDS TO BE
ACTED UPON AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.)
*D. RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF REGARDING THE TRIMMING OF TREES,
PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT, ADAM HAWKINSON, 1718 EAGLE LANE, WIOTA
COMMON.
2016-2018
(PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ITEM WAS SCHEDULED TO GO
BEFORE THE DCAC AT THEIR MEETING OF MAY 28, 1998,
BUT THERE WAS NO QUORUM AND THE ITEM NEEDS TO BE
ACTED UI~N AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.)
*E. RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF REGARDING THE TRIMMING OF TREES,
PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT, DON SWENSON, 4857 ISLAND VIEW DR., DEVON
COMMON.
2019-2026
(PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ITEM WAS SCHEDULED TO GO
BEFORE THE DCAC AT THEIR MEETING OF MAY 28, 1998,
BUT THERE WAS NO QUORUM AND THE ITEM NEEDS TO BE
ACTED UPON AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.)
*F. RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF TREE,
PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT, RAYMOND SALAZAR, 4559 ISLAND VIEW DR., DEVON
COMMON.
2027-2033
(PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ITEM WAS SCHEDULED TO GO
BEFORE THE DCAC AT THEIR MEETING OF MAY 28, 1998,
BUT THERE WAS NO QUORUM AND THE ITEM NEEDS TO BE
ACTED UI~N AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.)
*G. POLLING PLACE CHANGE.
2034
*H.
2035
LICENSE RENEWALS: CLUB ON-SALE, SUNDAY SALES, ON-SALE WINE, ON-
SALE BEER, OFF-SALE BEER, TREE REMOVAL LICENSE AND TRANSIENT
MERCHANT LICENSE.
*I. PAYMENT OF BILLS.
2036-2050
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: STORM WATER UTILITY ORDINANCE.
2051-2067. .... C) ~, ._' n ..t_ ...s-,~
7. CASE g98-25: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, MICHAEL & KATHY MEYER,
1748 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE, LOT 5, BLOCK 6, REPLAT OF HARRISON
SHORES, PID # 13-117-24 24 0016.
2068-2083 ~
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: WOODLAND POINT LITIGATION..- "~"~
, ~.~¢ s~ ~//: ~ ?.x~.
9. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for May 1998.
2085-2112
B.' Draft of the 1999 Proposed LMCD Budget.
2113-2118
2119
Memorandum from Diane Lynch, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Executive Director,
regarding the appointment of liaisons from the City of Mound to interface with the MCWD
Board Liaison which is Tom Maple. Who should be the liaison? My recommendation would
be to appoint the City Manager as the official liaison and then I can communicate between the
MCWD Board liaison and the City Council. What do you think?
D. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of May 14, 1998.
2120-2124
E. Letter from Moody's Investors Service regarding the change in definitions of the ratings used
by Moody's. Mound has been given a designation of an A2 rating.
2125-2126
F. Information from West Hennepin City Managers/Administrators/City Clerks regarding focus
groups on human services planning and coordination in the West Hennepin area and the
announcement of some upcoming meetings.
2127-2133
G. 1998 Salary Survey for Elected Officials as prepared by the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities (AMM).
2134-2142
H. REMINDER:
I. REMINDER:
ANNUAL PARK TOUR, THURSDAY, JUNE~ 1998, 7 P.M.
MEET AT CITY HALL. ~]'-~~i ~ ~0
COMMITrEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, TUESDAY, JUNE 16,
1998, 7:30 P.M., CITY HALL.
MOTION made by~~, s~onded b~to adjourn at
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
11:3D P.M. The
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
c
Z
0
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 26, 1998
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, May 26, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in
said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz
Jensen, and I2ah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shulde, Jr.,
City Attorney John Dean, City Engineer John Cameron, Park Director Jim Fackler, Dan Parks
with MRFA, City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: Orv Fenstad, Frank
Ahrens, Robert Holman, Tom & Amy Reese, Becky Glister, Vince Forystek, Mary Ellen
Stoflien, Cathy Bailey, Marie Johnson, Mike Wallis, Bob & Connie Schmidt, Barb Casey, Tom
& Kathy Latchan, Becky Sherne, Greg Knutson, Shari Casey, Mark Dummer, Jim Schoening,
Joan Evans, David Osmek, Kathy Meyer, Ron Motyka, Frank Mulvey, Matthew Phillippi, Jack
Fallon, Delton Renspe, Bill & Dorothy Netlm, Dennis Kohls, Robert & Margaret Hanson,
Randy Johnson, Larry Cable, Jan DenBeste, John Edewaard, Robert Mitchell, A1 & Elke
Wigand, Jack Fallon, and Pam Amidon.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of
Allegiance was recited.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
APPROVE AGENDA.
At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed
and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted
upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved.
Councilmember Jensen asked that the following 2 Planning & Zoning Cases be removed from
the Consent Agenda: Case g98-20 and/~98-12.
Councilmember Hanus asked that the following 2 Planning & Zoning Cases be removed from
the Consent Agenda: Case g98-24 and g98-12.
*CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to approve the Consent Agenda
as amended. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
*1.0 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 12, 1998, REGULAR MEETING.
MOTION
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
*1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 19, 1998, COMMITTEE OF THE
WHOLE MEETING.
MOTION
'1.2
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
CASE # 98-19: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK,
DELTON & EVELYN RF~NSPE, 3003 BLUFFS LANE, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, THE
BLUvI~S, PID # 22-117-24 44 0001.
RESOLUTION//98-55
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND
SIDE YARD VARIANCES IN ORDER TO ALLOW
FOR REPLACING THE EXISTING DECK, AT 3003
BLUFFS LANE, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, THE BLUFFS,
PID 22-117-24 44 0001, P & Z CASE//98-19
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
'1.3
CASE # 98-21: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, ALLAN C WIGAND, 475
HAMPTON ROAD, LOTS 28-29-30, BLOCK 10, PEMBROKE, Pl]) # 19-117-23
0106.
RESOLUTION//98-56
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD
VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR A
NONCONFORMING ADDITION TO THE EXISTING
NONCONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE, AT 4754
HAMPTON ROAD, LOTS 28-29-30, BLOCK 10,
PEMBROKE, PID 19-117-23 33 0106, P & Z CASE
//98-21
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
*1.4
CASE //98-25: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, MICHAEl. & KATHY
MEYER, 1748 BAYWOOD SHORK$ DRIVE, LOT 5, BLOCK 6, REPLAT OF
HARRISON SHORKg, PID # 13-117-24 24 0016.
RESOLUTION $98-57
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD AND
LOT FRONTAGE VARIANCES IN ORDER TO
ALLOW FOR MODIFICATIONS TO A
CONFORMING DECK, AT 1748 BAYWOOD SHORES
DRIVE, LOT 5, BLOCK 6, REPLAT OF HARRISON
SHORES, PID 13-117-24 24 0016, P & Z CASE//98-25
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
'1.5
CASE # 98-29: VARIANCE EXTENSION: FROM CASE 97-15, MARK MULVEY
5900 CHESTNUT ROAD, LOT 24, KOEHLER'S 2~ ADDN TO MOUND, PID# 14
117-24 43 0006.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 26, 1998
RESOLUTION #98-58
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A ONE (1) YEAR
EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE ORIGINALLY
APPROVED BY RESOLUTION //97-37 FOR 5900
CHESTNUT ROAD, LOT 24, KOEHLER'S 2~
ADDITION TO MOUND, PID# 14-117-24 43 0006, P &
Z CASE//98-29 & 97-15
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
.1.9 RESOLUTION 98 RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING AUTHORIZING CITY
SPONSORSHIP OF STATE GRANT-IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS.
RESOLUTION g98-59
RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING AUTHORIZING CITY
SPONSORSHIP OF STATE GRANT-IN-AID
SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
*1.10 PAYMENT OF BILLS.
MOTION
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
*1.11
CASE # 98-20: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE & SIDE YARD SETBACK,
HARDCOVER, ORVAL FENSTAD, 4366 WILqHIRE BLVD, LOT 82, PHELPS
ISLAND PARK 1sr DIVISION, PID # 19-11%23 13 0015.
Councilmember Jensen was questioned the size of the deck because of a discrepancy between
the proposed resolution and the request. She also thought there may be an overage on the
hardcover. She felt the resolution did not clearly state what is being authorized.
Councilmember Hanus stated that he believes the new deck is permeable so it would not affect
the hardcover. The Building Official agreed.
After discussion, the following revisions to the proposed resolution were considered:
4th Whereas to read as follows:
WHEREAS, the proposed deck will be 8 feet in width and will be 41 feet from
the Ordinary High water requiring a 9 foot lakeside setback variance: and
#1 under NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED is to read as follows:
The City does hereby grant a 9 foot lakeside setback variance and recognizes a 418
square foot hardcover variance, as recommended by the Planning Commission.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 26, 1998
Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution with the corrections above:
RESOLUTION g98-60
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE
SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR
A NONCONFORMING DECK, AT 4366 WILSHIRE
BLVD, LOT 82, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1~
DIVISION, PID 19-11%23 13 0015, P & Z CASE//98-20
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
'1.12 CASE g 98-24: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, THOMAS REESE, 5641
BARTLETT BLVD, P/SECTION 23, PID g 23-117-24 14 0003.
Councilmember Hanus stated that the only issue he has on this item is as was discussed at the
Planning Commission that this lot has four accesssory structures and this size lot is only allowed
three. He stated this is an additional variance that is not reflected in the proposed resolution.
Councilmember Hanus proposed the following changes in the proposed resolution:
Add the following WHEREAS,
WHEREAS, there are four existing accessory structures and Mound City
Code allows 3 accessory structures for this size lot; and
Change gl under NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED to read as follows:
1. The City does hereby recognize a .8 foot side yard, a 38 foot lakeside setback variance,
and recognizes four accessory structures as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Hanus moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution as amended above:
RESOLUTION//98-61
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD AND
LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCES IN ORDER TO
ALLOW FOR A CONFORMING DECK, AT 5641
BARTLETT BLVD., P/SECTION 23, PID 23-11%24 14
0003, P & Z CASE//98-24
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
· 1.13 CASE g 98-12: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK
REAR YARD SETBACK, MATT PHILLIPPI, 4519 MANCHFSTER ROAD, LOT
.2.2 AND PART OF LOTS 1,2,3, & 5, BLOCK 14, AVALON, PID g 19-117-23 31
0059.
Councilmember Hanus stated this is a recommendation for denial and there is no proposed
resolution.
The Building Official explained the request is to recognize a number of variances. The applicant
has proposed 4 different options:
1. Building new roof structure to replace/repair the existing. The pitch,
overhang and configurations would be changed to allow adequate venting,
4
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 26, 1998
insulation and protection for the existing stair.
Same as #1 except that the roof would be framed to allow a loft bedroom.
Build addition to allow a stairway to be built from the garage to the main
floor.
Same as #3 except that the roof would be framed to allow a loft bedroom.
The Planning Commission recommended denial based on no practical difficulty and no hardship.
The Council discussed the fact that this structure does not meet the minimum square footage of
800 square feet for a dwelling.
The Building Official reviewed the resolution from 1991, (Resolution 4/91-135). Councilmember
Jensen stated she remembered this resolution and the discussion and it was passed reluctantly by
the Council at that time. It was their opinion that this structure should have been removed at that
time, but the Council could not take good information into a court case at that time.
The Building Official reviewed part of the Planning report from 1991, which read as follows
"The nonconforming use provisions of the Zoning Code allow improvement of a structure that
required improvements do not exceed 50% of the fair market value ............ "Further, "Despite
the poor condition of the structure and the added hinderance of the poor site distance when
exiting onto the street from the attached garage, the value of the improvements has been shown
to be within the tolerances established in the Mound Zoning Code." The Building Official stated
the structure is only 1 foot from the street.
The Council discussed why this property was given a variance in 1991. The City Attorney
advised that when that variance was given, this is what the applicant was asking for, which was
asking that an existing structure be allowed to exist as it was. Now he is asking to expand that
structure.
Matthew Phillippi, stated he is just proposing to extend his soffits to protect the stairwell.
The City Attorney stated that if the Council desires, it can adopt a resolution of denial tonight,
based upon the action of the Planning Commission as reflected in the Planning Commission
Minutes of May 11, 1998, and adopting those Minutes as part of the findings.
Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution directing staff to prepare a resolution
of denial adopting the f'mdings as stated in the Planning Commission Minutes of May 11, 1998:
RESOLUTION g98-62
RESOLUTION TO DENY THE REQUEST IN P & Z
CASE g98-12, REQUESTING AN EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING USE AT 4519 MANCHESTER
ROAD, LOT 22 AND PART OF LOTS 1, 2,3, & 5,
BLOCK 14, AVALON, PID #19-117-23 31 0059.
The vote was four in favor with Mayor Polston abstaining. Motion carded.
The Mayor stated he abstained from voting because of the time line, (the date this
variance application was received was February 20, 1998).
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 26, 1998
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
There were IlOlle.
1.14 ADD-ON ITEM - PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT
The City Manager explained that the Silverado Bass Tournament is asking to use Mound Bay
Park for a Weigh-In only on Saturday, May 30, 1998. They had arrangements for this at an
establishment in Excelsior but were told this week that this would not work out. They have all
their permits and are requesting the use of Mound Bay Park for the Weigh-In.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to approve a Public Gathering
Permit for the Silverado Bass Tournament Weigh-In only at Mound Bay Park,
Saturday, May 30, 1998. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.15 PUBLIC HEARING: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER VI OF THE
CITY CODE, BY ADDING SECTION 650 RELATING TO STORM SEWER
SYSTEM AND TO IMPOSE JUST AND REASONABLE CHARGES FOR THE
USE AND AVAILABILITY OF STORM SEWER FACILITIES
The City Manager explained that the Council has been discussing the creation of a storm water
utility for about a year. The purpose of this utility will provide the City with a fair method of
financing needed operations and maintenance to the overall drainage system in the City. The
utility would also provide funding for improvements such as the possible acquisition of property
for regional storm water ponds and/or the maintenance of such ponding areas. Federal and
State laws are mandating that we put together a stormwater management plan. This is an
expensive study, analyzing what the City does with its stormwater, where the runoff goes,
whether there are retention ponds for the stormwater, and calculating the amount of flow into the
Lake. He then introduced, John Cameron, City Engineer, and Dan Parks, also with MFRA to
add comments and answer questions on this.
The City Manager stated that if the Mound Visions program is implemented in the downtown
area, there are requirements that have to be met relating to ponding to handle the downtown
area's drainage system. Specifically the City will be required to have regional ponds in its
downtown area to handle drainage of the redeveloped area as well as account for other drainage
issues in the community. Costs associated with the redevelopment of the downtown under
Mound Visions would certainly be eligible for payment out of a storm water utility fund. Other
costs, such as street sweeping, which are now paid for out of the General Fund, could be paid
for out of the storm water utility fund.
The City Manager stated there is a proposed ordinance which would create a storm water utility.
The fees to be charged would be established later after the City has had the opportunity to study
the issues in more detail. He further stated that many cities have established rates based on
acreage. Many of the cities surveyed charge residential users $1.00 to $3.00 per month. It is
likely that residential customers in Mound will pay between $1.00 and $3.00 per month.
Dan Parks, MRFA, stated he is here to answer any questions about what other cities are doing
with their storm water utility funds. It is a program that can be used for maintenance of existing
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 2~, 1~)8
storm sewers, cleaning out existing storm water ponds, or small construction projects that are
hard to assess and show benefit.
City Engineer, John Cameron, stated that the Street Department has several locations in the City
of Mound where improvements are needed in the storm sewer system, and without budgeting
specifically for those, they do not have the money to do those improvements.
The Mayor explained that there are many Federal and State regulations which deal with storm
water and storm water management. We are mandated by the State to come up with a
Stormwater Management Plan and to implement that plan as part of our Comprehensive Plan
review. The Council has chosen to use this stormwater utility, rather than using the General tax
base to generate the money needed to carry out these functions.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
The following persons spoke:
Joan Evans, 2571 Lakewood Lane - Asked if the County would be contributing to this
fund for the water that comes off of the County Roads? Dan Parks, MRFA, stated that
typically the County does not contribute to storm water utility programs. They may
participate in specific projects in which they receive benefit. Ms. Evans then asked if
there would be a difference in rates between commercial and residential? The City
Manager stated there would be 7 classifications and rates and charges for the use and
availability of the system would be determined through the use of a ("Residential
Equivalent Factor") REF. The classifications would be as follows:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Cemeteries
Parks and Railroads
Two-family Residential
Single-family Residential
Public and Private Schools and Institutional Use
Multiple-family Residential and Churches
Commercial, Industrial and Warehouse Uses
Ms. Evans asked what acreage is being considered for single-family residential? The City
Engineer stated the proposed ordinance is at .5 acre. He further stated that any new
development is required to do some ponding or pay fees, but the Watershed District
handles this.
Mike Wallis, 4977 Brunswick Road - Asked if this would be something we would have
to do if the downtown was not being rehabilitated? The Mayor answered, yes, we still
need to comply with the mandates and do a stormwater management plan. Dan Parks,
MRFA, stated that the Watershed District approved their plan in January 1997 and we
have two years from that date to adopt a local plan that generally consists of the
watershed's plan as well as other statutes and requirements of the State.
The City Manager explained that rates have not been decided, but as he stated before $1.00 to
$3.00 per month is typical for what cities our size would charge a residential customer. We will
know better once we have a stormwater, management plan and determine the actual flows that
are expected.
7
MOUND CZTY ¢~¢//'~ MZNT. Z~$ - M.d¥ ~6,
Jack FaHon, 5862 Bartlett Blvd. - objected to being taxed further and suggested
unincorporating the city so that Federal and State mandates would not have to be
followed. He stated he practices sovereignty in the State of Minnesota. He stated he is
not taxed by the State of Minnesota or the Federal Government.
Pam Amidon, 1909 Lakeside Lane - Stated she would like to see a copy of the
proposed stormwater utility ordinance. She will be provided a copy.
Vince Forystek, 3131 Inverness Lane - Asked if he could have the state and federal
rules and regulations that mandate this? The Mayor stated all these are available through
the State of Minnesota. Mr. Forystek then asked if there will be a plan before the rates
are set? The Mayor explained that the ordinance sets up Stormwater Utility so that we
can proceed to put the plan together. This is not an overnight process. Mr. Forystek then
asked what the plan will cost?
Robert Holman, 4851 Pheasant Circle - Asked what other communities about the same
size have paid for a plan? Dan Parks, MRFA, stated there is a fairly wide range of fees
for preparing a stormwater management plan according to State rules. He stated he has
seen plans prepared for $50,000 and as high as $200,000. The City of Minnetrista is
paying between $50,000 and $60,000 for preparation of a stormwater management plan.
The City Manager stated that this utility is not a one time charge, it's an ongoing charge that will
cover the costs associated with managing stormwater beyond the plan.
Mr. Holman, asked if there is a particular reason why this money has to come from a
particular tax as opposed to coming through the General Fund? The City Attorney
explained that one of the reasons that cities have the ability under state law to have this
kind of a charge is because cities were encountering difficulties in funding necessary
activities through other methods. The typical method is special assessments. Normally
the people at the top of the hill benefit greatly from a stormwater system, but they don't
benefit any, in the sense, that they can be specially assessed for it. It's the people at the
bottom of the flood area that every time it rains benefit from the system, but they are a
small portion of the people who can pay. As a result, special assessments have never
worked well for this sort of thing. Ad valorem taxes are not very equitable in terms of
this type of thing because they are based upon the value of the property, not upon the
contribution that a property may make to stormwater problems so the Legislature, a
number of years ago gave cities the authority to impose charges based upon contribution
to the problem rather than other traditional methods of funding these kinds of activities.
Many cities have found that this is an appropriate, fair and equitable way to do it. We
are talking about a way of funding costs that are out there anyway, not to create new
costs and a new mechanism to fund them. The Attorney stated that the mechanism that
is being proposed will probably impose a greater fee on certain commercial and industrial
users because they generate a lot more water runoff because of parking lots and other
impervious surfaces. They are also the ones that have the highest value for tax purposes,
but that is not the focus. It is the impervious surface that is the focus.
Mark Johnson, 1582 Bluebird Lane - asked if after this stormwater system is built and
the expenditures are paid for, and the cost of maintaining the system goes down, would
the tax go down too? The Mayor stated that the vast majority of the infrastructure, the
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 26, 1998
stormwater system, is in place already. The reason for the stormwater management plan,
as indicated, is because the State and the watershed district (MCWD) have mandated that
we come up with a stormwater management plan. The reason for the utility is to spread
the cost of maintaining that system and future expansions somehow driven by usage
rather than just property taxes, which is what the City is using today in order to maintain
the storrnwater system that is in place.
Dan Parks, MRFA, stated that the City is not looking at developing a large public works project.
The funds raised from this stormwater utility will be used for maintenance and cleanup of
existing facilities.
Vince Forystek, 3131 Inverness Lane, stated he would like to see a plan that says it will
cost so much, and then it's done. He stated it looks to him like a tax so that we can build
some ponds in a City project so that it can ultimately go into a fund for dredging the
canal that the City can't pay for.
Dave Osmek, 2160 Basswood, asked about whether these ponds were part of the
downtown redevelopment plan when it was approved? The City Manager stated that the
redevelopment of downtown has been in the process for 8 years. Since that time, the
Feds and the State have mandated that we have a stormwater management plan and
require us to do these retention ponds when we have major projects like this. They are
on the concept drawing now, but the estimate on what the relocation of County Road 15
is going to cost is still in the future because it's not eligible for construction until at least
the year 2000 and it may be later. So the City of Mound will be forced to acquire right-
of-way for building the highway. The County will participate, but they do not pay the
costs for acquiring the right-of-way to build the road as well as these ponds which have
to be built as part of the project, to handle the stormwater that will be involved in the
redevelopment of downtown. There is not a firm construction cost on the relocation of
County Road 15.
Vince Forystek, 3131 Inverness Lane, complained about all the taxes, school district,
city, etc. He then asked if the City has a huge reserve fund. The City Manager stated
that the General Fund Balance is enough to carry the City through the time before it
receives the tax settlements from the County. The Mayor stated this stormwater
management plan would have to be done even if we weren't contemplating the
redevelopment of downtown. The downtown development is not driving the stormwater
management plan. This has been mandated by the State and the watershed district. The
stormwater utility is an effort by the City Council to spread the costs more evenly. This
is not an effort to expand the stormwater system or to put infrastructure in place.
Dave Osmek, 2160 Basswood, asked what would happen to the money already budgeted
for maintaining storm sewers in the regular budget? The Mayor stated he would like to
see this money go toward the development of a stormwater management plan. The
Council agreed. Mr. Osmek then asked if the user fee generated from this utility fund
would be dedicated to maintain the stormwater system? The City Attorney stated, yes.
The City Attorney stated that the ordinance authorizes the City to have a stormwater
utility. Then, in the future, the Council would set the rates by resolution. The Council
will, at that time, look at the detail of the cost analysis and will have better figures for
the sources and uses of the money that will be generated.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 26, 1998
Randy Johnson, 2602 Tyrone, asked if there was an option to sell bonds for this? The
City Attorney, stated this is not an option. The City Attorney stated you are better off
if you accumulate a fund and don't have to sell bonds because that way the fund is
growing because of interest you are earning, rather than having to go borrow money and
pay a bank or bond holders interest after having sold the bonds, plus, pay the very
considerable cost of selling bonds.
Becky Glister, 5008 Wren Road, asked what the penalties would be if the City does
not adopt a stormwater management plan?
Dan Parks, MRFA, explained that the Met Council is requiring the stormwater management
plan be completed as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. He further explained that the Met
Council can affect how the City deals with sewers or sewer extensions, in terms of permitting
or not permitting these things to happen.
Councilmember Jensen stated this is a question that the Council also asked.
Jon Edewaard, 5125 Hanover Road, asked if there are any more approvals needed
relating to the Lost Lake Canal Project? He asked if those approvals are contingent upon
adopting the stormwater management plan and this utility? The Mayor stated, no, not that
he is aware of. Mr. Edewaard stated that he thinks the dredge of Lost Lake and the Lost
Lake project is contingent upon the Council adopting the stormwater utility. The Council
stated that is not true. The City Manager stated that the City did a Comprehensive Plan
Update in 1990 and is working on another update now, that is scheduled for completion
the first part of 1999 and the Stormwater Management Plan is going to be part of the
Comprehensive Plan Update. He further stated that the permits have been granted by the
agencies that needed to grant them for the dredge. Permits have been issued from the
Army Corps of Engineers, the Watershed District (MCWD), the LMCD, and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and none of them was contingent upon Mound
adopting this stormwater management utility.
The City Attorney asked if Mr. Edewaard was referring to a couple of years ago when
the watershed district was thinking of requiring the City to enter into a regional ponding
or cooperative ponding agreement with them before they would give the final permissions
for the downtown? The City Attorney stated that the watershed district, however, relented
on that and allowed this project, as well as others to go ahead without the need for that
agreement.
The Council explained that the Stormwater Management Plan would have to be adopted
regardless of what is going on downtown. The idea of a Stormwater Utility is to pay for that
plan.
The City Attomey stated that he would like to respond to the question of what if the City does
nothing? The Council stated they, too, would like to know.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to continue this public hearing to
June 9, 1998, and directed the Staff to find out what will happen if the City does not
adopt a Stormwater Management Plan.
10
;tool
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998
The Council discussed the fact that the answers to adopting a Stormwater
Management Plan affect whether we need to implement the Stormwater Utility
Ordinance. That means both the Plan and the Utility Fund ordinance will be
continued until June 9, 1998.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.16 REPORT FROM STAFF REGARDING FACTS ASSOCIATED WITH
DOCKg42129 (BARB CASEY},
The City Attorney stated that Councilmember Ahrens has asked him to inform the City Council
that she has voluntarily decided to absent herself from the Council table at this point and will not
participate in these discussions.
The City Manager explained that at the last meeting the Council directed that the Staff prepare
a fact finding report indicating what the safety issues were in the Roanoke Access area,
specifically the Casey dock that is located in the front of the Ahrens property on Commons.
The Park Director prepared the report that is in the packet.
The Mayor commented that in this report there are a number of items which can or could be
done, in the Staffs opinion, that would eliminate or alleviate a safety situation. The report is not
specific and lists a number of items. He stated that as far as he is concerned, the Staff has the
authority to implement whatever they need to do to assure the health, safety and welfare of the
people who are using that Commons and docks. The Casey dock is installed. The Mayor asked
if there were any questions or comments by the Council.
Councilmember Hanus asked for clarification on the following that was in the report because if
wasn't very specific:
1. Hanus asked Mr. Fackler, "If you picture yourself walking down the access and
then down the shoreline to access this general area, this dock site's water space,
either east end or west end, where are you walking? Are you walking on the
hillside, on top of the rip-rap, or where?" Mr. Faclder responded, "In this area
when you start out you are down by the rip-rap, and as you get in front of the
abutting home (Gabos), you begin going up a little bit of an incline and at that
point is about the point where this dock site location would begin. It is about a
40 foot site. So as you start going toward the center of the dock location, you are
going up hill. By the time you get to about the middle of the dock location, that's
where you start going back downhill. You are up from the shoreline about 4 feet
from the rip-rap, and then once you get over the middle of the dock location, there
is a slight hill which does not have any ground cover on it at this time. It is the
area that is adjacent to the retaining wall."
Councilmember Hanus stated that he has a picture of the top of that rip-rap and
he asked, if Mr. Fackler would show him where he was talking about walking.
He asked why he would not walk on top of the rip-rap where it is flat." Mr.
Fackler responded, "You could walk on the first few feet of rip-rap, but after that
you would be walking one foot on the hill and one foot on the rip-rap and also
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1~)8
one of the things that he looked at when he looked at it was that would be at the
far westerly end of the dock location which would then begin to upset the next
abutting dock location. It would be to the far end of their allotted 40 feet."
Councilmember Hanus stated, "I walked that today, and if you want to walk on
the hillside, as you're describing you can, but first of all the hillside doesn't show
any evidence that people are doing that because it is pretty lush grass there, but
use does show on the top of the rip-rap. It's flat. I walked very easily next to
the rip-rap up to the large tree. I can't get beyond, why someone would walk on
the hillside when they have a flat area to walk on." He stated he did not
understand that. It has been talked about several times, but no one seems to
address this."
Mr. Fackler stated that when he looks at an area, he does not look at rip-rap when
it is installed as making an area traversable. He stated he stays on the grass area
when he walks it. He suggested asking the people who utilize the area. He stated
that he agrees that when you begin the 40 feet it is traversable on the grass, but
then it narrows down and you would have two different footings. He stated that
putting the rip-rap there was not to make it traversable, it was to save the
shoreline. Mr. Fackler pointed out that one of the things that is done when a site
is assigned, they ask the person to go down and visit the site. He is very specific
as to where it is and how the access point goes and where the boundary lines are.
Then the person comes back and says whether it is acceptable or unacceptable.
Councilmember Hanus stated that it is pretty obvious, when you look at the
current site, that in order to gain access there has been some pretty large trimming
going on. He stated he did not know if they were done some time ago, but some
trees have been cut down and some large branches cut off to gain access, which
would probably have to take place to get reasonable access to that site. He asked
if Mr. Fackler, is endorsing trimming in order to gain access, even if there are
alternatives.
Mr. Fackler stated that this individual has been at this dock site for over ten years
and Staff has never had a request from them asking about trimming. If there is
a request, it has to go through a Public Lands Permit procedure. Mr. Fackler
stated Staff does not just go out and approve these.
Councilmember Hanus stated that this has already taken place and will in the
future continue to take place whether by permit or not by permit. It's so far taken
place without a permit. It will probably continue in order to use that dock site.
Mr. Fackler stated that he believes there is an application for a Public Lands
Permit to do trimming within that area. That will be coming forth.
Councilmember Hanus asked Mr. Fackler if there is a policy that a dock holder
can move anywhere within their water space that they please. Mr. Fackler stated
that this is not tree. The policy is that there is discretionary ability of the Dock
Inspector to determine where the best access is within an area, based on either the
individual asking to move within that area due to a new boat or a new dock
design. We do say no if it will not fit in an area. The City does not just go in
12 ,~ 00,3
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998
and indiscriminately move people around. All sites are inspected about 4 times
a year. The City relies on the individuals to notify us if there is a problem that
occurs somewhere in between. Generally requests come from the individual.
Councilmember Hanus pointed out that even though this particular site holder has
been there for approximately 10 years, the area has changed substantially in the
last three years.
Councilmember Weycker stated she feels Councilmember Hanus is assuming that
people aren't going to traverse past that part, but there are at least 2 more dock
sites that have been previously issued beyond that site. Councilmember Hanus
stated he is only talking about the Casey site not the other two sites.
Councilmember Weycker stated that she also took pictures and the hill that
Councilmember Hanus is talking about is only about 1 foot high. Councilmember
Hanus stated that the hill he is talking about is if you are standing along the top
of the rip-rap, it is about waist high.
Barb Casey, 4704 Island View Drive, stated she is the one who traverses this
area to her dock and there is not a lot of traffic to her dock. Councilmember
Hanus asked Ms. Casey where she walks to get to her dock. Ms. Casey
responded that she walks on the rip-rap for awhile and then in the middle of the
hillside then up and around the tree and down to her dock. Ms. Casey suggested
that 3 of the 6 trees be removed. She stated she would be willing to sod the area
and stake it or a step could be put in there and then there would be access to the
docks that are further down from hers and public property would remain public
property. She further stated she is getting a cost estimate on this.
The Mayor stated he objects to a step because it is placing another obstacle in the area.
Councilmember Hanus stated that if a step or steps are put in, there needs to be Public Land
Permit. Ms. Casey stated she is aware of this. Ms. Casey asked about the availability of the
docks beyond hers. The Mayor stated this is not an Agenda item for this meeting.
The Mayor stated that the City Staff has the authority to make a determination as to what needs
to be done in order to satisfy any safety concerns that are there.
Gene Smith, 4705 Island View Drive, asked whael~.t.h..e,,two dock sites beyond
Ms. Casey s were eliminated? Councilmember ~ called for a point of
order. The Mayor stated this item is not on the Agenda and will not be discussed
this evening. The City Attorney stated he thinks those questions can be answered
by contacting the City Manager during regular business hours.
1.17 1997 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT - STEVE MCDONALD, ABDO, ABDO,
EICK & MEYERS.
Finance Director, Gino Businaro, introduced Steve McDonald from Abdo, Abdo, Eick & Meyers,
who reviewed the management letter and the 1997 annual audit report with the Council.
Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
13
MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Indian Knoll Manor
# Check No. Vendor/Merchant Amount Comments
1 AT &T $368.45 AOL & HOTEL
2 B F I 217.18
3 GLENWOOD 13.42
4 NSP 1,110.81
$ UNI DIAL 4.05 iLONG DISTANCE
6 SAMS 70.12
7 KAROL CHARON 97.55 MILEAGE
8 PAUL KRONHOLM 31.94 MISC. SUPPLIES
9 I O S CAPTIAL 57.57 COPIER LEASE
10 ADAMS 49.88
11 WATER SPECIALISTS 247.61 SOFTNER SALT
12 PEACHTREE 246.00 RENT RECEIPTS
13 M E I 138.00
14 KOPSA, SYLVESTER 211.00
15 MINNEGASCO 1,069.00
16 AL MASTER PLUMBING 136.00
17 CITY OF MOUND 1,340.61
18 GLASS PLUS 274.37 REPLACE WINDOW
19 STA SAFE LOCK 101.43
20 COAST TO COAST 148.80
21 URBAN SALDEN 34.53
22 PAUL KRON HOLM 1,091.49
23 BETTY KRONHOLM 206.41
24 KAROL CHARON 843.54
25 I R S 693.25
26 MN DEPT OF MN 271.00
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
TOTAL: $9,074.01
TOTAL ACC. PAYABLE
Begining Bank Bal.
Deposits MTD
ENDING BANK BALANCE
Signature:
$9,074.01
$21,189.95
$9,228.00
$21,343.94
AccPay
06~08~98
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 26, 1998
RESOLUTION//98-63 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING TIIE
AUDIT AND FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 1997
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.18 CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE RENEWAL.
The City Manager explained that this presentation is to review the Franchise renewal that is being
proposed by Triax Cablevision and the City of Mound. The current 15 year franchise expires
this year. He introduced Brian Grogan, an attorney with Moss & Barnett, who is an expert in
cable TV law regulation. The other cities involved are Wayzata, Waconia and Chanhassen. We
have been developing a franchise renewal. What the Council has before them tonight is a
Franchise Agreement and a Regulatory Ordinance Agreement. Mr. Grogan reviewed the
documents with the Council. The Regulatory Ordinance is intended to become a part of the
City's Code and that would govern the operations of any new cable television operator who tries
to do business in the City of Mound. We want to create a level playing field for these
companies. Right now there is only Triax, but we are seeing around the state there is more and
more competition and over the length of a franchise, we hope the competition will come to the
City, but we don't want to give any one company an unfair competitive advantage over another.
So we have an ordinance that govems the standard operating principles the same. Things such
as technical standards, customer service, insurance, indemnification and standard operating
requirements. The City Manager has emphasized the importance of customer service, given the
recent history here in Mound and in problems relating to the system. They feel the customer
service standards contained in the proposed ordinance are very strong and very aggressive and
put the City in a much better position than the existing document. The Franchise Agreement
being proposed is essentially a contract that would be executed between the City and Triax and
it would govern the unique relationship between the City and Triax. In particular it addresses
things like the system upgrade. That was the next biggest issue to insure that the system gets
improved as quickly as possible and to a state of the art improvement. What these documents
require is that Triax will rebuild the system in Mound to a 750 megahertz level. There are only
a group of communities on the eastern side of the Twin Cities that have a 750 megahertz system
right now so Mound would be among the next wave of communities that would have this state
of the art cable television system. It would improve channel capacity, improve reliability, and
would improve the signal quality for the subscribers. This will also have a corresponding impact
on the customer service issues. Also included in the Franchise Agreement are provisions to
adjust local programming and support for that programming, like equipment. Mr. Grogan
explained that the reason that we consider renewal with Triax instead of going out for bid is
because the Federal Law doesn't work that way in regard to franchise renewal. It is not the same
as when the original franchise was issued in 1983. Under Federal Law today, we are required
to go through an actual process and the only way you can deny a cable operator the right to
renewal is if they have failed to comply with the franchise or if they are otherwise not qualified.
This is very rare that an operator doesn't get renewal. The Cities have tried to cut the best deal
as possible with Triax and get a new system as soon as possible and improve customer service
and then bring it to the Council for consideration. Mr. Grogan stated that this is what has been
negotiated with Triax and is being presented this evening. There are a few typos and minor
changes that need to be made. He stated he would like to make those changes and bring a clean
copy at a future meeting noting the changes. He is looking for conceptual approval with f'mal
approval at a later date.
The following persons spoke about problems they have had with Triax Cablevision:
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 26, 1998
Jan DemBeste, 5212 Lynwood Blvd.
Ron Motyka, 1545 Bluebird Lane.
Councilmember Ahrens.
Mr. Grogan stated that Triax could not add a channel to the system if they wanted to because
there is no more capacity that is the antiquated system. With approval of these documents, the
City is guaranteed a new system will be built.
The City Attorney asked if there has been any thought given to a joint powers entity among the
cities to administer the franchises. Mr. Grogan stated there is a Lake Minnetonka Cable
Commission (LMCC) but he is representing the cities (Mound, Wayzata, Waconia and
Chanhassen) who are not part of the LMCC but have chosen to work together in a loose
cooperation. He stated he felt these communities enjoyed their anonymity and wanted to have
some autonomy as they moved forward in this. They want to keep their franchise fees and only
address cable issues as the need arises. There has been no discussion by these four communities
to do anything jointly except as they have been.
There were members of Triax Cablevision present. Paul Pecora, Regional Manager from Waseca,
addressed the Council on the upgrade to the sytem. This will give them additional channel
capacity. The system today is operating at its maximum channel capacity. The new system will
also allow them to increase the system reliability. He also stated that customer service is
important to them.
The City Attorney asked if Triax would agree to putting a provision in the regulatory agreement
with Mound that to the extent that you offered, during the term of the franchise, a more
beneficial rate or service or any other change to any of the other cities, that you would make the
same offer to the City of Mound. Jane Bremer, General Counsel to Triax Cablevision nationally,
stated the City Attomey is referring to a "most favored nations" clause which is not something
that cable operators will generally agree to. This cable operator has not had any experience in
agreeing to it for a variety of reasons. Primarily because cable franchises are negotiated on a
community by community level and just as we went through every line and every word of this
document with Mr. Shukle and representatives from the other communities, we go through a
similar process with every other community where we are negotiating renewals. So what is
appropriate for Mound, may or may not be appropriate the next community. They do have
provisions in the document for a periodic revaluation where they agree to sit down and work with
the City on any issues that it would like to bring up.
The Council discussed holding a public hearing.
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to set June 23, 1998, to hold a Public
Hearing regarding the renewal of the Franchise Agreement with Triax Cablevision.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.19 CONTINUED DISCUSSION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION
440:00 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO TOBACCO SALE, POSSESSION
AND USE OF TOBACCO, TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED
DEVICES IN THE CITY OF MOUND AND TO REDUCE THE II.LEGAL SALE,
POSSESSION AND USE OF SUCH ITEM TO ANY MINORS AND AMENDING
SECTION 510:00, SUBD.2, OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO FEES FOR
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998
CIGARETTE LICENSES.
The City Manager reported that this is on the Agenda because the Council extended the current
Cigarette Licenses that were to expire on February 28 to May 31, 1998. The direction was to
check with Hennepin County and see what their licensing procedures were going to be. The City
Clerk reported that she has talked to Howard Epstein at the Hennepin County Community Health
Department and the County is still in the early planning stage for doing a County Ordinance to
regulate cigarette sales. The County Board has not taken any action on this. No fees have been
established. Mr. Epstein faxed a comparison of what the other 6 counties in the metro area are
doing at this point. 4 small cities (Greenfield, Hanover, Rockford and St. Bonifacius) have
notified Hennepin County that they will not have their own ordinance.
The City Manager advised the Council that Christine Valerius of Mainstreet Market submitted
a request that this item be tabled until the next meeting because she is unable to attend the
meeting tonight.
The Council discussed extending all the licenses until February 28, 1999, and monitoring the
County to see what they are going to do with licensing and at what cost.
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Weycker to issue all Cigarette Licenses
until February 28, 1999, at the current License Fee of $24.00 each and work with
Hennepin County when they have adopted an ordinance to license cigarettes.
The City Attorney reminded the Council that when the County has a Licensing
program up and running, the Council will have to deal with this.
The Council discussed the fact that they cannot compare the County restrictions
to the City restrictions until the County has a system in place.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.19 EXECUTIVE SESSION: WOODLAND POINT LITIGATION.
The City Attorney explained that the Council went into Executive Session to discuss pending
litigation.
The Council retumed from Executive Session at 12:50 A.M. The City Attorney stated that they
have just concluded an Executive Session to discuss providing direction to the City's Attorneys
in connection with the continuing mediation on the Bailey Case involving Woodland Point
Commons. The Session did result in direction being given to the attorneys and the attorneys now
will take that information and direction into the continuation of the mediation sessions.
INFORMATIONIMISCELLANEOUS:
A. Monthly Financial Report for April 1998 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director.
Bo
Letter from State Representative Steve Smith regarding our letter opposing levy limits and
the state sales tax.
C. Memorandum from the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District regarding Adult mosquito
Eo
Fo
Go
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998
control notification procedures.
Letter from Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton, Minneapolis, regarding an upcoming luncheon
inviting Mayors from surrounding communities to discuss future challenges. The
luncheon is scheduled for Thursday, July 11, 1998, Noon - 1:30 p.m., Minneapolis Club,
downtown Minneapolis, RSVP'S must be received by June 5.
Annual Park Tour with Park and Open Space Commission will be held Thursday, June
11, 7 p.m. Meet at City Hall if you are interested in attending.
REMINDER:
City offices will be closed on Monday, May 25, 1998 in
Observance of Memorial Day.
Insert in City Newsletter regarding Storm Sever Utility Ordinance public hearing had
typographical error on the time of the hearing on Tuesday, May 26. It should be 7:30
p.m. and not 7 p.m. We will put an notice on the front door in case person are coming
for a 7 p.m. hearing.
Information received from Keith Rennerfeldt, Hennepin County Assessor's Office
regarding the results of the Open Book meeting held earlier this Spring. Also included
is some information from the Assessor on the County Property types, classes and class
rates.
Letter dated May 20, 1998 from Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist, DNR, regarding a request
to her office to visit the Roanoke Commons area and a report on her visit and her
comments regarding the trimming of trees and tree removal along the commons area.
Apparently, residents in this area called her office to have her view the area.
Memommdum from Jim Fackler, Park Director, regarding the issue of a dock site on
Paradise Lane raised at Tuesday's Committee of the Whole meeting. I think the memo
is clear that the fee paid by Mr. Klein was paid on time. Ms. Cometet has no valid
claim.
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 12:55 A.M. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Attest: City Clerk
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
17
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CASE #98-05
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A MAJOR SUBDIVISION
OF LAND LOCATED WITHIN THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICT,
LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A,
AT 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE
PID # 13-117-24 44 0032
P & Z 98-05
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m.
on TUESDAY, June 23, 1998 to consider the approval of a major subdivision of
4901 Shoreline Drive located within the R-2 Zoning District.
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be
given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting ....... ./ /'7,,'/~,~ ....... '..
'i~ris_~t,YPla r~ng Secretary
Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on June 10, 1998
Published in the Laker, June 13, 1998
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CASE #98-28
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW TWIN HOMES LOCATED WITHIN THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICT
LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A,
AT 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE
PID # 13-117-24 44 0032
P & Z 98-28
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m.
on TUESDAY, June 23, 1998 to consider the approval of a Conditional Use Permit
to allow Twin Homes at 4901 Shoreline Drive located within the R-2 Zoning
District. .5 ~2~.~ ~'-' ~;~
~1 ~ ;L__~l',~c~'., n:,:,, ~~,. _ ~XT.~'~
-- ~ ~ ~,,~-~"e; ..; ~¢ o, ~.,, , . .~
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference t~ above will be
given the opportunity to be heard at this meeti.og._ ,./ ..,"~. "---,,.,
Kr 'q st, -ning Secretary
Mailed to prope~y owners within 350 feet of affected prope~y on June 10, 1998
Published in the Laker, June 13, 1998
, ,010
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CASE #98-26
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW A MOTOR FUEL STATION, CAR WASH AND FOOD SHOP
LOCATED WITHIN THE B-2 ZONING DISTRICT,
PART OF LOT 27, LAFAYETTE PARK,
AT 1730 COMMERCE BOULEVARD
PID # 13-117-24 22 0025
P & Z 98-26
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m.
on TUESDAY, June 23, 1998 to consider the approval of a Conditional Use Permit
to allow a motor fuel station, car wash and food shop at 1730 Commerce BIvd
located within the B-2 Zoning District.
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference t~,t~he above will be
given the opportunity to be heard at this meeti_r~g~.--~.. / /
E2-K~( uist), Pl~J~g Secreta y
Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on June 10, 1998
Published in the Laker, June 13, 1998
,2oll
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DOCK AND COMMONS
ADVISORY COMMISSION
TOM MCCAFFREY
ADDITION OF AN ABUTTING DOCK SITE
AT 4586 DENBIGH ROAD
Mr. Scott Nagel of 4586 Denbigh Road has recently completed construction of a new house and
is requesting an abutting dock site. (Note attached portion fi.om Mound City code
437.05.SUBD.5)
I will assign dock# 322775 as a temporary number until I can remeasure and renumber this area.
This will be presented at the dock location meeting this fall.
There will be adequate room for this dock once Mr. Coley relocates his dock site #32790 which
he will do. The attached drawings show this area now and after this change.
June 5,1998
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Tom McCaffrey
Alan R. Coley
Addition of an abutting dock site at 4586 Denbigh Road
Dear Tom:
Since I will not be able to attend the scheduled June 9th meeting City Council Meeting, I wish to
respond in writing.
If Mr. Nagel has a legal privilege as an abutting lakeshore property owner and is entitled to a dock
site, then so be it. Otherwise, I am apposed to the added congestion.
CUSTOMER
SALES REP
SHEET NAME
DATE
SCALE
SHEET #
f
OF
PH GRID.DOC
4808 North Lilac Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55429
(800) 451-3329 Fax (612) 5.,'7-1356
SALES REP
SHEET NAME
DATE
SCALE
SHEET#
PI~_GRID.DOC
05J'25/B4
4808 North Lilac Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55429
(800) 451-3329 Fax (612) 5.t7-1356
Mound City Code
Section 437:05, Subd. 5
Subd. 5. Dock Location. No license shall be recommended by the Dock Inspector
until he or she shall have first determined that the proposed dock is suitable for the
specific dock location as identified on the official dock location map.
Subd. 6. Denial of Application. If the applicant has not maintained a previously
licensed dock, the Dock Inspector may recommend to the City Council that any existing
license be revoked, and the applicant's priorities under this Section 437 be forfeited for
the current year and for the next boating season. A dock license will not be issued for
any dock on public land where the applicant has a correction order pending concerning
a stairway or structure used to access the dock. The license will not be issued until
compliance with the correction order has been completed or satisfactory arrangements
have been made with the Dock Inspector to complete the corrective measures. (ORD.
62-1993, 4/19/93)
Subd. 7. License Priorities. The following priorities govern the issuance of dock
licenses and other dock locations:
Residents owning private lakeshore within the City which has dockable
lake frontage shall have the last priority each year for a dock on public
lands. (ORD. 45-1990- 12-29-90)
bb.
Dock site holders who combine on a single dock while continuing to apply
for and pay for their separate dock site locations shall each be entitled to
return to such separate dock site upon termination of their participation in
the combined dock facility and notice to the City of such termination.
(ORD. 97-1997 - 12-20-97)
ao
First Priority. An abutting owner has first priority for a City designated location
within his or her lot lines extended to the shoreline. Docks shall be located in
accordance with the dock location map. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90)
Second Priority. A licensee or, if licensee has not applied for a new dock
license, the shared owner as shown on the permit application for the preceding
yea.r, has second priority when applying for a dock permit for the same location
held by the licensee the immediately preceding year. Second priority licensee has
no priority of dock locations where a first priority license is in effect.
Co
Third Priority. A duly qualified applicant has third priority on locations vacant
after the first and second priority applications have been made within the
prescribed time limit described in this ordinance. Licenses will be issued to such
applicants in the order of application dates. There shall be no third priority
where the first and second priorities are in effect. Residents owning private
lakeshore within the City which has dockable lake frontage shall have the last
priority each year for a dock on public lands.
5/12/98
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
May 21, 1998
MEETING
DATES:
May 28, 1998 Dock and Commons Commission (D&C)
June 9, 1998 City Council
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Dock and Commons Commission, City Council, and Applicant
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
Trimming Public Lands Permit Application from
Adam Hawkinson
1718 Eagle Lane
Wiota Common
Background/Comments. The applicant is seeking a permit as described in the attached application
in order to prune out some smaller brush from around some larger trees. The trimming of the
brush has a minimal impact on the screening of the adjacent houses from the lake and will
improve the view of the applicants dock site for security reasons.
Recommendation. Staff recommends the D&C recommend approval of the request to remove the
trees/brush. The work shall be done by a contractor who is licensed by the City for tree removal
and coordinated by the Parks Director. The contractor shall give the staff 24 hours notice prior
to starting the work.
JS.'kl
The abutting property owners have been notified of this request.
Rev. 4,'97
PERMIT 'APf LICATiO
CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
55364
DIST .RIBUTION:
~UILDING OFFICIAL
~m'~''--r ~S DIRECTOR
wo s
DOCK MEETING -DATE ~,~ I--t~ '6
~-r..-= t.....r~ ,. ',7
CITY COUNCIL DATE _ =~, ~io
(check one):
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC L.~ND PERMIT - new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL
BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (Cits' Code
Section 320, Subd. I).
PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PEItMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (Ci~ Code Section
320, Subd. 3).
CONTINUATION OF STRUCTLT, E - to allow an existing encroachment to remain in an "as is" condition
(City Code Section 320, Subd. 3).
LAND .a~LTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope~vegetation, fill. em. (City. Code Section 320.
Subd. 4).
The structure or work vou are requesting is an activity on publicly owned lands. Structures like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc.
are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City 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. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new
is applied for due to change in dock site holder. _
Property Owner
Legal Lot Block
Description Subd.
Public Name
Proper~y Dock Site ~ Shoreline T~e
Contractor Name _~/'~--
Address
Phone
VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR a MATERIALS):
DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE:
Signature of Applicant
- ? ?
Date
SURVEY ON FILE? YES~
REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH:
REQUIRED SETBACKS
Pm'NC,PAL BU,LD~m~ "OUSF
FRONT: N s EE~
FRONT:.,,~ S
SIDE: ~' N).,~E W
SIDE:
REAR: N --(J ~'E .)W _15'
LAKESHORE: '-"
~50' (measured from O.H.W.}
TOP OF BLUFF:
ACCESSORY B UII.,D~G/G A~RAG E/S HED
FRONT: N S E('W3 ~.~('"} ~'
FRONT: N S E'I~-
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
SIDE: N S E W _4' or 6'
REAR: N S E W 4'
LAKESHORE: 50' measured from O.H.W.
TOP OF BLUFF:
EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
_ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED~
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF: TOP OF BLUFF:
HARDCOVER CONFORMING ? ~ , .-7-~"~ '----'---- ~
oo.
co~oN
m
o
0
CZ) ~
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
May 21, 1998
MEETING
DATES:
May 28, 1998 Dock and Commons Commission (D&C)
June 9, 1998 City Council
TO:
FROM:
Dock and Commons Commission, City Council, and Applicant
Jon Sutherland, Building Official <:.~5~ [ ,
SUBJECT:
Trimming Public Lands Permit Application fi.om
Donald Swenson
4857 Island View Drive
Devon Common
Back-_round/Comments. The applicant is seeking a permit as described in the attached application
in order to trim vegetation to improve the view. This request very similar to the previous request
that was approved by Resolution//95-40. The larger trees are to remain intact and the trimming
of the brush has a minimal impact on the screening of this and adjacent houses from the lake.
Recommendation. Staff recommends the D&C recommend approval of the request to remove the
trees/brush. The work shall be done by a contractor who is licensed by the City for tree removal
and coordinated by the Parks Director. The contractor shall give the staff 24 hours notice prior
to starting the work.
JS:kl
The abutting property owners have been notified of this request.
Rev. 4/97
PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN-55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
DISTRIBUTION:
taz BU'ILDtNG OFFICIAL
.~S DIRECTOR
~--~PUBLIC WORKS
DOCK MEETING DATE
CITY COUNCIL DATE -
t.check one):
I_
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC L,-MND 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).
PUBLIC LAcND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section
320, Sub& 3).
CONTINUATION OF STRUCTUR.E - to allow an existing encroachment to remain in an "as is" condition
(City Code Section 320, Subd. 3).
LANT) ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees,~ fill, etc. (City Code Section 320,
Subd. 4).
The ~tructure or work you are requesting is an activity on publicly owned lands. Structures like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc.
are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City 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 punic lands. All permits are granted for a limited time and
are non-transferable, Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new
~ermit is applied for due to change in dock site holder.
__ Phone (home) ~T-~ (work) '
~ut t i n~ Addre s s fi~ ~
Property O~er ~ -
Legal Lot .... ~~ Block (~
Description Subd ..... ~ ~D~' --
Pub 1 i c Name
Properny Dock Site ~ Shoreline T~e
Contractor Name ~,~DOP ~ g~t~ <Ll~)
Address -
Phone ~7~- ~/
VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS):
DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE: ,,
~[.O~}ature of Applicant
Date
April 11, 1995
RESOLUlqON ~9~40
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A
SPECIAL PERM-IT TO ALLOW TRIMMING OF VEGETATION
ON DEVON COMMONS
ABUTTING 4857 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 14, DEVON
PID #25-117-24 11 0038
DOCK SITE #43520
WlZiEREAS, Donald and Geraldine Swenson have applied for a Land Alteration Permit
to allow trimming of vegetation on Devon Commons, abutting their property known as 4857
Island View Drive, and;
WH~AS, the applicant requested permit approval for the "cutting and removal of
vines which are encroaching on trees.~
WHEREAS, there is an existing stairway on the commons used to access the applicant's
dock site. It is procedure to update all existing encroachments on a site when a new Public
Lands Permit is applied for, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant states a handrail has been installed on the stairway, 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, the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance allows limited clearing and
trimming of vegetation on steep slopes to provide a view to the water from the principal
dwelling site provided that screening of structures is not substantially reduced, and;
WHEREAS, trees are allowed to be trimmed in a manner appropriate for removal of
branches to benefit the trees. Healthy trees and plants with healthy root systems must remain
intact to prevent erosion of the steep slope, and;
WHEREAS, the Public Land Use Plan classifies this area of commons as Shoreline
Type C, and as a resident permit docking area, and;
WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and
recommended approval, with conditions and supervision by the Par'ks Director.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, to approve the following Public Land Permits for Donald and Geraldine Swenson,
Dock Site #43520, Devon Common, abutting 4857 Island View Drive, Lots 5 & 6, Block 14,
PID #25-117-24 11 0038:
A Special Land Alteration Permit to allow the trimming of vegetation subject to the
following conditions:
a. The permit is a 'one-time" permit.
April 11, 1995
The applicant must notify the City 48 hours prior to the trimming so staff can
meet on-site with the applicant to mark brush for removal.
All brush/vines that are trimmed have to be removed from Devon Common at the
owners expense.
Approval of a permit to allow the continuation of the stairway structure, subject to the
following conditions:
The permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of City Council approval.
R~airs, if needed, shall be done according to code and az approved by the
Building Official.
In the event compliance with these conditions is not achieved within one (1) year
of the date of City Council approval, the applicants dock license will not be
issued until compliance is achieved.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Ahrens and seconded by
Counci2member 1ensen.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Hanus, Akrens, 1ensen, and Polston.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
Councilmember Jessen was absent and excused.
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
RESOLUTION ~6-68
RESOLUTION APPROVING
A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PF_RMIT
FOR A WATER PL1VIP A~ND WATER LINE
ON DEVON CON,IONS ABUTTING 4857 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE,
DOCK SITE #43520
WIlY_RY_AS, Donald and Geraldine Swenson have applied for a Construction on Public
Land Permit to allow a water pump and water line to be placed on Devon Common abut~g
their property at 4857 Island View Drive to accommodate for lawn sprinkling, and;
W]RY_RF_~S, there is an existing stairway on the commons used to access the applicant's
dock site. It is procedure to update all existing encroachments on a site when a new Public Land
Permit is applied for. The stairway is in acceptable condition, and;
VvqRER.EAS, 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;
WtLEREAS, The Park and Open Space Commission have reviewed this request and
unanimously recommend approval, with conditions as recommended by staff.
NOW, TIR~FORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, to approve a five (5) year Consu-uction on Public Land Permit for a stairway and
pump system and elecu-ical supply for Donald and Geraldine Swenson, Dock Site #43520, Devon
Common, abutting 4857 Island View Drive, Lots 5 & 6, Block 14, PID 25-117-24 11 0038,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The electrical shall be installed by a qualified license electrical contractor and approved
by the State Electrical Inspector. The applicant shall schedule a final inspection with the
Building Official to verify this work is completed and has been approved by the State
Electrical Inspector.
The proposed electrical line Mil, and the water line may cross a 20 foot permanent
easement that has an eight inch clay sewer line at an eight foot depth. They will need
to indicate the depth of proposed water and electrical line, and the owner of 4857 Island
View Drive will be responsible for locating them if excavation is needed in this easement
for sewer line repair.
The permit shall expire five (5) y ~ears from the date of City Council approval.
In the event compliance with these conditions is not achieved within one (1) year of the
date of City Council approval, the applicant's dock license will not be issued until
compliance has been achieved.
Re;solution ~96-68
Page 2 June 25, 1996
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Alu'cna and seconded by
Councilmember Hanus.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, I-~us, lensen, lessen and Polston.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None
Attest: Acting City Cie)t(
Resolution adopted: June 25, 1996
Mayor
2 - STORY
HOUSE~'
ISLAND
VIEW
80.0
HOUSE
to be remove
35.~,?'
DRIVE.
2- STC)R'
HOUSE
x9~9.'7
File No.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representatio~ of a survey of
the boundaries O! the .bo~. de,crl{)ed ~ ..d of the Iocatio~ O!saidalll ,and.bUildi~$'--7~?-£
DEMARS - GABRIEL . any. the~,o~, and ,11 vi.:ll~ ee~c~o~nt,, if any. trc~n or on
L.~ '~D SURY~, INC.
·,o,o_,.... .,.
I~ymoutl~ MN 5~447
P
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
May 21, 1998
MEETING
DATES:
May 28, 1998 Dock and Commons Commission (D&C)
June 9, 1998 City Council
TO:
FROM:
Dock and Commons Commission, City Council, and Applicant
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
SUBJECT:
Tree Removal Public Lands Permit Application from
Raymond J. Salazar
4559 Island View Drive
Devon Common
Background/Comments. The applicant is seeking a permit as described in the attached application
and survey in order to remove a basswood tree that is adjacent to his stairway on the commons.
The request is again one that the owner is seeking to improve the view, and is also one that
requires us to look at the Shoreland Management Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 4. Which
states in part "limited clearing to provide a view is permitted provided that screening of structures
is not substantially reduced." In this case, there are trees on both sides that provide screening and
therefore a recommendation to allow the tree to be removed can be supported.
Recommendation. Staff recommends the D&C recommend approval of the request to remove the
trees. The work shall be done by a contractor who is licensed by the City for tree removal and
coordinated by the Parks Director. The contractor shall give the staff 24 hours notice prior to
starting the work.
JS.'kl
The abutting property owners have been notified of this request.
7
Rev. 4/97
PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN- 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
DISTRIBUTION:
" 95 BUILDING OFFICIAL
q-~PARKS DIRECTOR
DATE RECEIVED ~-/O- c~8 .-ILL..
DOCK MEETING DATE
CITY COUNCIL DATE ~-~b_cq~8
one):
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).
PL~LIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section
320, Subd. 3).
CONTIN'UATION OF STRUCTURE - to allow an existing encroachment to remain in an "as is" condition
(City. Code Section 320, Subd. 3).
LAND .M..TER. ATION - change in shoreline, drainage, slope, trees, vegetation, fill, etc. (Ciw Code Section .:20,
Subd. 4).
VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS):
DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE:
d-. \/ ~" " -- - "
Da~e
Appl i cant Name <~/~, £!x/~
-~ddres~..,~r~,,~, ..Z-/'~¢,~:5 V,'~C" ~"
Phone (home) /~.T&--.~.~ ~' (work) ~'~&~;& -
Abutting Address
Legal Lot.. ~ Block /
Publ i c Name ~
Property Dock Site g ~[~ i0 Shoreline T~e
~hon~ ~ ~ ' '' ' - '
~ /'~/~ /
The structure or work you are requesting is an activity on publicly owned lands. Structures like boat houses, patios, sheds, etc.
are all NONCONFOILMING USES. It is the intent of the City 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
re non-transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the permit is for new construction, or a new
ermit is applied for due to change in dock site holder.
' ' - == - :~' ....... uerT.~ca~.e o~ ~urvey -for' '
Creative Developers, Inc.
of Lot 5, Block I, DEVON
Hennepin County, Minnesota
.,,~
,¢
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a
survey of the boundaries of Lot 5, Block 1, DEVON, the location of ali
existing buildings, if any, thereon, and the proposed location of a
proposed building. It does not purport to show any other improvements
or encroachments.
Scale'
Date ·
0 '
1 inch = 30 feet
September 8, 1986
Iron marker
Spot elevation
Proposed elevation
COFFIN & GRONDERG, INC.
Mark S. Gronberg MN.Kc. Ho. 12755
Gordon R. Coffin MN. Lic. No. 6064
Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners
Long Lake, Minnesota
RECEIVED
APR 1 0 1998
MOUND PLANNING & INSP.
MOUND CITY COD~
SECTION 350: 1225, SUBD. 4: -
S~J~d. 4. Shot·land Alterations. Alterations of vegeta~ion
and topography will be regulated to prevent erosion into
public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shot·land aesthetics,
preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and prosec~
fish and wildlife habitat.
ae
Veqe~ation Alterations.
Removal of vegetation necessary for the
construction of structures and the
construction of roads and parking areas
regulated by Section 350:1225, Subd. 5 of
this ordinance is exempt from the
vegetation alteration standards ~hat
follow.
Removal or alteration of vegetation,
except for agricultural and forest
management uses as regulated in Sections
350:1225, Subd. 7 B. and C., is allowed
subject to the following standards:
Intensive vegetation clearing within
the shore and bluff impact zones and
on steep slopes is prohibited.
Intensive vegetation clearing for
forest land conversion to another usa
outside cf these areas is al!cwab!e
as a conditional use if an erosion
control and sedimentation plan is
developed and approved by the soil
and water conservation distric~ in
which the property is located.
be
In shore and bluff impact zones and
on steep slopes on private pro.~ersy,
limited clearing of trees and skrubs
and cutting, pruning, and trimming of
trees is allowed to provide a view to
the water from the principal dwelling
site and to accommodate the ptacemen~
of stairways and landings, picnic
areas, access paths, beach and
watercraft access areas, and
permitted water-oriented accessory
structures or facilities, provided
that:
116
MOUND CITY CODE
SECTION 350:!225, SUBn. 4. A. 2.
(1) The screening of structures,
vehicles, or o~her facilities as
viewed from the water, assuming
summer, leaf-on conditions, is
not substantially reduced.
(2) The above provisions are not
applicable to the removal of
trees, limbs, or branches that
are dead, diseased, or pose
safety hazards.
Touocrauhic Alterations/Gradinc and Fillinc.
Grading, filling and excavations necessary
for the construction of structures and
driveways under validly issued
construction permits for these facilities
do not require the issuance cf a separate
grading and filling permit.
Public roads and parking areas are
regulated by Section 350:1225, Subd. 5 of
this ordinance.
Notwithstanding Items t and 2 above, a
grading and filling permit will be
required for:
The annual movement of more than ten
(i0) cubic yards of material on steep
slopes or within shore or bluff
impact zones; and
The annual movemen5 of more than 50
cubic yards of material outside cf
steep slopes and shore and bluff
impact zones.
The following considerations and
conditions must be adhered to during the
issuance of construction permits, grading
and filling permits, conditional use
permits, variances and subdivision
approvals:
117 3/15/~'3
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Memo~ndum
March 15, 1995
City Council
Parks Director, Jim Fackler
PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLrCATION
#41110, RAY SALAZAR: REQUEST TO TRIM VEGETATION.
The subject application was reviewed by the Park and Open Space Commission on March
9, 1995. Unfortunately, I was not present at this meeting, but I have reviewed the minutes.
Due to the additional information supplied by Mr. Salazar at the meeting, I feel a need to
further explain staff's recommendation relating to trimming the top of the large tree.
When I review requests of this kind, I first look at the condition of the tree. If there are no
health problems evident, I then look at what is reasonable to trim while maintaining the
natural shape and health of the tree. I have always considered the need for a view as
second priority to the health and shape of the tree.
The proposed method of trimming will improve the view of the lake, which is the applicant's
primary intent, but it would also alter the appearance of the tree to an irregular shape. The
topping of a tree is a short-term solution because the root system that is accustomed to a
larger crown will provide for rapid growth, and then the tree will soon obstruct the view
again resulting in another request for trimming of the crown. Eventually, the tree will grow
a large trunk and will have a small crown which provides an unnatural look.
The Shoreland Management Ordinance must also be applied when determining what trimming
should be allowed and to ensure that the structure, as viewed from the lake, remains
properly screened. Please note that this tree is all that remains from an unpermitted trimming
that took place in 1994 by the applicant. Copies of photographs are attached for your
review.
In either event, Mound City Code Section 458:00 requires tree trimmers to be licensed with
the City.
JF:pj
cC: Ray Salazar, Applicant
~]
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
June 4, 1998
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CITY MANAGER
MAYOR
CITY COUNCIL
FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK
POLLING PLACE CHANGE
Because of the decrepit condition of Island Park Hall, I would like to change Precinct 3's
polling place for any future elections to the City Hall Council Chambers. This would take
effect immediately. A notice will be sent to each household with a registered voter.
printed on recycled paper
June 3, 1998
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
TO:
FROM:
SUBEJCT:
CITY COUNCIL
FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK
LICENSE RENEWALS - FOR COUNCIL PACKET JUNE 9, 1998
The following licenses are up for renewal. The license period is July 1, 1997 through June 30,
1998. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted.
CLUB ON-SALE.
American Legion Post #398
VFW Post #5113
SUNDAY SALES
American Legion Post #398
VFW Post #5113
ON-SALE WINE
A1 & Alma's Supper Club
House of Moy
ON-SALE BEER
Mound Lanes
OFF-SALE BEER
By the Way Snack Shop (Steve Bedell)
Mainstreet Market
PDQ Food Store
SuperAmerica
The following TREE REMOVAL LICENSE HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR: IT WILL EXPIRE
MARCH 31, 1999. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being
submitted.
Bear Tree Service
TRANSIENT MERCHANT LICENSE
UNTIEDT VEGETABLE FARM - Mainstreet Market & Scotty B's Parking Lot (comer of
Lynwood Blvd. and County Road 11~ ~r~nred on recycled papor
BILLS ............... June 09, 1998
BATCH 8053
BATCH 8054
Total Bills
$ 77,791.82
109,888.32
$187,680.14
? , ?.,r-
i I
J
Z
~
z
I
! !
ZZzzZzz
i
oo~
uu
,0
0
3::
Z
'm
:3:
h
!
Z
0 z
>
Z aL
!
oO
I
,-t,I
'4:
,:31:
~oSO
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHAR'I'EI:IED
470 PILLSBURY CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
FAX ~ (612) 337-9310
Date: June 5, 1998
Our File No.: MU200-1
TO: Fran Clark
FAX 9: 472-0620
FROM:
John Dean
Direct Dial #: (612) 337-9207
COMMENTS:
Number of pages including cover sheet:
If a problem arises, call Shannon Stang at (612) 33%92?9
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION:
This fax contains confidential information which is legally privileged. Thc information is for the
sole use of the intended recipient(s) listed above. Distribution or disclosure 'to any individuals
not so listed is strictly prohibited.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
John Dean
Ir, arm Cole
June 5. 1998
Failure to Prepare Water Management Plan
INTRODUCTION
You asked about the consequences if the City of Mound declines to prepare a water
management plan as required by Minn. Stat. ~ 103B.235. I have reviewed the statutes dealing
with water law (Minn. Stat. Ch. 103A- 103__) and the statutes dealing with metropolitan planning
(Minn. Stat. Ch. 473). My conclusions follow.
ANALYSIS
R~equir.ements of Minr~. Stat. § 103B.235.
Minn. Stat. § I03B.235 requires each local government unit in the metropolitan area to
prepare a local water management plan:
Subd. l(a) After the watershed plan is approved and adopted, or amended,
pursuant to section 103B.231. the local - having land use planning
and regulatory responsibility for go,,emment units
. territory, within the ~.-dtcrshed shall prepare or
cause to be prepared a local water managemexat plan, capital improvement
program, and official controls as necessary to bring local water management into
conformance with the watershed plan within the time period prescribed in the
implementation program of the watershed plan and. as necessary, shall prepare or
cause to be prepared amendments to the local comprehensive plan.
Other subdivisions of Minn. Stat. § 103B.235 require thc local government to submit the
plan for review by the applicable watershed management organization and by the metropolitan
council, and, in some instances, by the affected counties. Minn. Stat. § 103B.235, sub& 3-3a.
l'ro*2 o o -1
uJeB~;: 60 88-~O-uni'
The use of the word "shall" in subdivision 1 aggests that preparation of a local water
management plan is mandatory. Section 103B.235 does not. however, specify any penalty, or
other consequence for failure to prepare a plan.
Provisions of Chapters 103B and 103D.
Two other provisions in the water statutes do address the failure to prepare local water
management plans. One of those statutes deals with joint powers watershed management
organizations.
That statute provides as ~'ollows:
Minn. Shat. § I03B.211, subd. i. (a) Any agreement under section ~.71.59 to
jointly or cooperatively manage or plan for the management of surface water in
a watershed delineated pursuant to subdivision 2, as required by sections 103B.205
to I03B.255, may provide, in addition to other provisions authorized by section
a71.59, for a joint board having:
(3) the authority of a watershed district under chapter 103D to regulate the u~ and
development of land in the ~'atershed when one or more of the following
conditions exists:
(i) the local government unit exercising planning and zoning authority over the
land under sections 366.10 to 366.19. 39a.21 to 39~t.37. or a62.351 to ~,62.36a.
does not have a local water management plan approved and adopted in accordance
with the requirements of section 103B.235 or has not adopted the implementation
program described in the plan:...
~Th_is ~_ection~g. ives joint powers watershed management organizations power to regulate the use
and development of land when a local water management plan bas not been approved and
Another section-- .% 103D.335 --makes the provisions of Minn. Stat. § I03B.211, subd.
1 applicable to metropolitan watershed districts:
Sub& 23. (a) A watershed district located ,~'holly within the metropolitan area has
the duties and powers in section 10313.211.
KRCI~2e 2
Y~$200-1
(b) Not~-ithstanding any contrary provision of this section, a watershed district
located entirely within the metropolitan area may regulate the use and devclopment
of' land only under the conditions specified in section 103B.211, subdivision 1.
This subdivision allows watershed districts wholly within the metropolitan area to "regulate the
use and development of land" if a local water management plan has not been approved and
adopted. No published caselaw interprets any of the sections cited above.
Provisions of Chap. ter 473.
The metropolitan planning statutes also address the preparation of water management
plans. Minn. Stat. § 473.859, subd. 2 provides:
A land use plan shall_include the water mana~eraent_r>lan required b.v ~ctiqii
103B.235. and shall designate the existing and proposed location, intensity and
extent of use of land and water, including lakes, wetlands, rivers, streams, n~tural
drainage courses, and adjoining land areas that 'affect water natural resources, for
agrieultttral, residential, commercial, industrial and other public and private
purposes, or any combination of such purposes. A land use plan shall contain a
protection element, as appropriate, for historic sites, the matters listed in the water
management plan required by section 10313.235. and an element for protection and
development of access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems...
(Emphasis added.) Thus. § 473.859 requires that the comprehensive plan to be prepared by each
metropolitan city must include a water management plan. Section ,173.859 does not contain any
penalty or consequence for the failure to prepare a local ,a.-ater management plan. Minn. Stat.
473.173. subd. 3 does. however, authorize the metropolitan council to bring suit to obtain
compliance with the statute requiring preparation of comprehensive plans:
If a local governmental unit fails to adopt a comprehensive plan in accordance
with Laws 1976. chapter 127, sections 1 to 23 or if the council after a public
hearing by resolution finds that a plan substantially departs from metropolitan
system plans and that the local governmental unit has not adopted a plan with
modifications required pursuant to section 473.866 within nine months following
a final decision, order, or judgment made pursuant to section 473.866. the council
may commence civil proceedings to enforce the provisions of Laws 1976. chapter
127. sections 1 to 23 by appropriate Iegal action in the district court where the
3
local $ov~rnrncntnl unit is located.
(Emphasis added.) This statute authorizcs thc rnctropoJitan council to enforce the provisions of
Laws 1976. chapter 1 to 23. The section that requires the preparation of comprehensive plans -
- § 473.859 - was enacted as Laws 1976, chapter 9. However, the provision of § 473.$59 that
requires the inclusion of the water management plan in the comprehensive plan was not adopted
until 1993. Laws 1993, ch. 176, sec. ?. Thus, subd. 3 arguably does not authorize enforcement
of the water managemcnt plan provisiola. It seems likely, however, that the legislature intended
to allow enforcement of amendments to § 473.t~59, as well as enforcement of the statute as
originally enacted,
CONCLUSION.
A review of the statutes indicates two possible consequences if the City fails to prepare
a water management plan. First, Minn. Stat. § 103D.335 allo~,,'s tl~e watershed district to take
over authority for the regulation of land if a plan is not prepared. Second, Minn. Stat. § 4?3.173
arguably allows the metropolitan council to bring suit in district court to enforce the statute
requiring preparation of the plan. The argument is available, however, that the metropolitan
council's authority to brin~ suit allows it to enforce only provisions of the comprehensive plan
statute as originally enacted and not provisions such as the water management plan requirement
that were enacted later.
o55'
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER VI OF THE CITY CODE,
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC UTILITIES, BY ADDING
SECTION 650 RELATING TO STORM SEWER SYSTEM
The City of Mound Does Ordain:
Section 650 is hereby added to the City Code to read as follows:
Section 650 - Storm Sewer System
Section 650:00. Storm Sewer System; Statutory Authority. Minnesota Statutes, section
444.075, authorizes cities to impose just and reasonable charges for the use and availability of
storm sewer facilities ("charges"). By this Section, the City elects to exercise such authority.
Section 650:05. Findings and Determinations. In providing for such charges, the findings and
determinations set out in this Section are made.
Subd. 1. In the exercise of its governmental authority and in order to promote the
public health, safety, convenience and general welfare, the City has constructed, operated
and maintained a storm sewer system (the "system"). This Section is adopted in the
further exercise of such authority and for the same purposes.
Subd. 2. The system, as constructed, heretofore has been financed and paid for through
the imposition of special assessments and ad valorem taxes. Such financing methods
were appropriate to the circumstances at the time they were used. It is now necessary
and desirable to provide an alternative method of recovering some or all of the future
costs of improving, maintaining and operating the system through the imposition of
charges as provided in this Section.
Subd. 3. In imposing charges, it is necessary to establish a methodology that undertakes
to make them just and equitable. Taking into account the status of completion of the
system, past methods of recovering system costs, the topography of the City and other
relevant factors, it is determined that it would be just and equitable to assign
responsibility for some or all of the future costs of operating, maintaining and improving
the system on the basis of the expected storm water runoff from the various parcels of
land within the City during a standard one-year rainfall event.
Subd. 4. Assigning costs and making charges based upon expected typical storm water
runoff cannot be done with mathematical precision but can only be accomplished within
reasonable and practical limits. The provisions of this Section undertake to establish a
reasonable and practical methodology for making such charges.
Section 650:10. Rates and Char_ees.
Subd. 1. Residential Equivalent Factor., Rates and charges for the use and availability
of the system shall be determined through the use of a "Residential Equivalent Factor"
CREF"). For the purposes of this Section, one REF is defined as the ratio of the
average volume of surface water runoff coming from one acre of land and subjected to
a particular use, to the average volume of runoff coming from one acre of land subjected
to typical single-family residential use within the City during a standard one-year rainfall
event.
Subd. 2. Determination of REF's for Land Uses. The REF's for the following land
uses within the City and the billing classifications for such land uses are as follows:
Land Uses REF
Cemeteries .25
Parks and Railroads .75
Two-family Residential 1.00
Single-family Residential 1.00
Public and Private Schools and 1.25
Institutional Use
Multiple-family Residential Uses and 3.00
Churches
Commercial, Industrial and Warehouse 5.00
Uses
Classification
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Subd. 3. Other Land Uses.. Other land uses not listed in the foregoing table shall be
classified by the City Manager by assigning them to the classes nearly like the listed
uses, from the standpoint of probable hydrologic response. Appeals from the City
Manager's determination of the proper classifications may be made to the City Council
in the same manner as other appeals from administrative determinations under Section
350:510.
Section 650:15. Es~_ahlishlng Basic Rat.e.. In determining charges, the Council shall, from time
to time, by resolution establish a basic system rate to be charged against one acre of land having
an REF of one. The charge to be made against each parcel of land shall then be determined by
multiplying the REF for the parcel's land use classification times the parcel's acreage times the
basic system rate.
Section 650:20. Standardized Acreage. For the purpose of simplifying and equalizing charges
against property used for single-family and two-family residential purposes, each of such
properties shall be considered to have an acreage of one-fifth acre.
Section 650:25. Adjustments of Chargeq. The City Council may by resolution, from time to
time, adopt policies providing for the adjustment of charges for parcels or groups of parcels,
based upon hydrologic data supplied by affected property owners, demonstrating an actual
hydrologic response substantially different from the REF being used for the parcel or parcels.
Such adjustment shall be made only after receiving the recommendation of the City Manager and
shall not be made effective retroactively. If the adjustment would have the effect of changing
the REF for all or substantially all of the land uses in a particular classification, however, such
adjustment shall be accomplished by amending the REF table in Section 650:10, Subd. 2.
Section 650:30. Excluded Land~. No charge for system availability or service shall be made
against land which is either (i) public street right-of-way or (ii) vacant and unimproved with
substantially all of its surface having vegetation as ground cover.
Section 650:35. Supolving Information. The owner, occupant or person in charge of any
premises shall supply the City with such information as the City may reasonably request related
to the use, development and area of the premises. Willful failure to provide such information
or to falsify it is a violation of this Section.
Section 650:40..Estimated Chargeq. If the owner, occupant or person in charge of any
premises fails or refuses to provide the information requested, as provided in Section 650:35,
the charge for such premises shall be estimated and billed in accordance with such estimate,
based upon information then available to the City.
Section 650:45. Drainage and Erosion Control.
Subd. 1. D~. In the development, improvement or alteration of land, the
direction, quantity or qualify of drainage shall not be changed unless plans for the
development are submitted to the City Engineer. Run-off shall be properly channeled
into a storm drain, watercourse, ponding area or other public facility.
Subd. 2..Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Prior to the issuance of a building or
grading permit for any development, improvement or alteration of land, a plan for
erosion and sedimentation control shall be presented with the site plan. The erosion and
sedimentation control plan shall specify the measures to be used before, during and after
construction until the soil and slope are stabilized by permanent cover. These control
measures shall be maintained in good working order until site stabilization occurs.
Subd. 3. Plan ~. In areas which are susceptible to erosion hazard or
sedimentation damage, the City may require the erosion and sedimentation control plan
to be approved by the appropriate water management organization prior to the issuance
of a permit.
Subd. 4. ~. Plans and provisions required for compliance with this Section
must be submitted to the City Engineer for approval.
AT'FEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
Adopted by the City Council
Publish in the Official Newspaper, The Laker,
tThhee Cil? of. Mound is considering the use of o new technique to pay for
costs or m?naging storm water runoff--a Storm Water Utility. A
public hearing ~s scheduled .on May 26 to discuss the proposed storm
water utility. Everyone is ~nvited. Below are some frequently asked
questions about storm water utilities.
What do you mean by storm water?
Why does it need to be managed?.
Very simply, storm water is another name for rain.
Before people settled in Mound, rainwater that fell
was absorbed into the ground or flowed naturally to
Lake Minnetonka or other water sources. When people
moved to Mound they built roads, driveways, stores,
churches and parking lots. Consequently, the ground
cannot absorb the water as easily, and more water
runs off when it rains. The storm sewers, the grates in
the curbs on the streets, collect the water that falls
and directs it into the sewer system.
What is a storm water utility?
A storm water utility is a se~ice similar to the water
and sanitary sewer utilities. Like the sanitary sewer
utility fee, the fee is based on the amount of water
that is discharged into the system. For instance, a
parking lot creates more runoff than a similar-sized
grassy area so it pays a higher rate. Similarly, a large
parcel creates more runoff than a small parcel, so it
too pays a higher amount. In this way, the citizens of
Mound will pay for the management of storm water in
proportion to the amount of water they "contribute,"
not on the value of their property.
Why is a utility needed?
Federal and state regulations require Mound to take
greater and costlier actions than ever before to
protect water quality in our community. These actions
include forming new water management organizations
and developing regional and local plans to identif~
problems.
These new costs, when combined with the money spent
for ongoing storm drainage maintenance each year,
represents a major expenditure. Today, most storm
water costs are paid for using property taxes and
sanitary sewer fees. Mound must find a way to meet
these rising costs in a fair and equitable manner,
without adding to the tax rolls.
How much will it cost me?
Fees will not be set at the May 26 meeting. The
ordinance that will be considered on May 26 simply
creates the utility and allows, by resolution, to estab-
lish a fee schedule based on the needs of the city. The
fees would likely be set later after the issue has been
studied in greater detail.
What would the money funds collected be
used for?
The money collected would be used for the operation
and maintenance of the city storm water collection
system. Some examples include
· Maintaining existing storm facilities so they will
operate properly for a longer period of time.
· Enhancing wetlands to clean storm water.
· Replacing existing storm facilities that no longer
are usable.
· Sweeping streets and picking-up leaves so they
don't get into the system.
A more specific example would be the Mound Visions
program. As Mound Visions is put in place downtown,
there are requirements that must be met relating to
ponding to handle the downtown area's drainage
system. Specifically, the City will need special ponds in
the downtown area to collect and handle the drainage
of the developed area. Ponds will also be needed to
account for other drainage issues in the community.
Costs associated with the redevelopment of downtown
under Mound Visions would certainly be eligible for
payment out of a storm water utility.
Where can Z get more information?
The Mound City Council will hold a public hearing on the
Storm Water Utility on Tuesday, May 26 at 7 p.m. at
Mound City Hall. Everyone is invited to attend. You
can also call City Hall at 472-0600 for more
information.
PUBLIC H~EAPJNG NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
CITY COUNCIL
Notice is hereby given that the Mound City Council will hold a public hearing on Tuesday,
May 26, 1998, in the City Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound MN at 7:30
P.M. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss amending Chapter VI of the City Code,
municipal services and public utilities, by adding Section 650 relating to storm sewer system
and to impose just and reasonable charges for the use and availability of storm sewer
facilities. The public is invited to attend.
Francene C. Clark, CMC
City Clerk
Publish in The Laker May 16, 1998.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMORANDUM
April 10, 1998
TO:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER&',' ~-
SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF A STORM WATER UTILITY
As you know, we have been discussing, for about one year, the idea of creating a storm water utility.
The purpose of such a utility provides the City with a fair method of financing needed operations
and maintenance to the overall drainage system of the City. The utility also provides funding for
improvements such as the possible acquisition of property for regional storm water ponds and/or the
maintenance of such ponding areas.
As you know, federal and state laws, as well as watershed district regulations mandating stormwater
management, are currently in place. For example, as the Mound Visions program is implemented
in the downtown area, there are requirements that have to be met relating to ponding to handle the
downtown area's drainage system. Specifically, the City will be required to have regional ponds in
its downtown area to handle the drainage of the redeveloped area as well as to account for other
drainage issues in the community. Costs associated with the redevelopment of the downtown under
Mound Visions would certainly be eligible for payment out of a storm water utility.
The City will be required to complete a stormwater management plan as a part of its Comprehensive
Plan Update that is due into the Metropolitan Council by the end of 1998. A possible source of
funding for the stormwater management plan would be the storm water utility fund.
Other costs, such as street sweeping, which are now paid for out of the general fund, could be paid
for out of the storm water utility fund. As you can see, there are many advantages to having such
a utility available.
Attached is a proposed ordinance creating a storm water utility. This ordinance is based upon the
printed on recycled paper
Memorandum to Mayor and City Council
April 10, 1998
Page 2
City of Richfield's ordinance which was passed in 1985. The ordinance does not spell out the fees
to be charged within the utility. The ordinance simply creates the utility and allows, by resolution
to establish a fee schedule based upon the needs of our City. The fees could be established later
after we have had the opportunity to study the issues in more detail.
Although this ordinance does not require a public hearing, you may want to consider having one so
that when you actually establish a fee schedule, the public would have had some background on the
utility. I have also attached some information that Richfield used to educate the public on the
purpose of the utility. Although they used a public hearing process, they were also very careful to
provide adequate education to their residents so that everyone became informed about the utility and
why it was being created. I share this idea with you only to avoid public relations problems that
could occur after the ordinance is established. We can talk more about this Tuesday evening.
I believe we are proceeding in the right direction by establishing a storm water utility. It will
provide another source for financing necessary improvements to our overall drainage system in the
City of Mound.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
3
:ity of "~ ~
U.S. Po$iage
PAID
Permit No. 2256
ichfield M,nneapolis. MN
'00 Portland AYenue South
~chlt®ld, Mtnnesoti 55423-2598
EECEIVEL ';;:,"," 2 § 1998
Lawrence J. Whalen
2910 Pelican Point Court
Mound, Minnesota 55364
(612) 472-3946
May 28, 1998
Mr. Ed Shuklc
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Subject: Storm Water Utility
Dear Mr. Shukle:
Unlike water and sewer services that are user fees, and can/should be based on users decisions
regarding demand on the systems involved, a "Storm Water Utility" demand is not dependent on a
choice by any Mound resident, but simply how much rain falls in a given time period. How does
storm water differ from snow which is plowed as a city service or city street lights. Or... will
we start to be charged for snow removal based on front footage? It is duplicitous to say this is
being contemplated to avoid "adding to the tax rolls", since it is, in fact, another tax that is trying to
hide behind a strange new name.
Our townhome area (Pelican Point) has a significant retention pond to hold and filter storm water
mn-off, and minimize both direct nm-off into Lake Minnetonka and over-taxing of the storm sewer
system. Thus, this development area should get a significant credit for the installation of this
retention pond.
Is the City of Mound prepared to inspect and measure every piece of hardcover, the dimensions of
every building, the relative porosity and rate of absorbency of every crushed-rock driveway in the
entire city before it puts such a system in place? And how will the City account for slope? Clearly,
a one acre parcel that is perfectly flat should be expected to retain more water than the same sized
parcel with a 30 degree slope, assuming they both have the same level of porosity. Mound is a
very hilly area, so that equali~ will be impossible *.o re. ach.
Let's have the guts to call a tax a tax! If our storm water system needs improvement, lets fund it
the same way we do snow removal and street lights. Let's not try to be tricky about it, and spend
thousands of dollars measuring hard cover, semi-hard cover, slope, lot size, house dimensions,
etc. etc., etc., and wind up having to manage an "appeals" process for those who don't like the
results of this hidden tax.
~ical~I ~ufy,~nr~e~nt~satit~a,s,'P-'m--P-'°~-al- ~mes forth a.t the. ti_mc that th.e Mound Visions program
vv-, ~ ~,~-- ~lgnlncanuy unoer-esumated. An obviously major impactor of the
cost of the Mound Vision will be the significant storm water abatement program in the downtown
area. So by charging all residents for the Storm Water Utility "service" money can be sent
downtown to mitigate the problems caused by Mound Visions. Sounds like a tax increase to me.
Ed Shulde, City Manager
City of Mound
Page 2
Why not contemplate impact fees as a way of dealing with Mound Visions. The developers who
will economically benefit from their work downtown can pay into a fund to pay for the storm water
mitigation required because of their own development work.
In short, Ed, storm sewers are not a utility, where one pays based on demand, but a service, where
one pays (via taxes) because one is a resident.
Sincerely,
I. atwrence~en
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
June 5, 1998
Mr. Michael Meyer
1748 Baywood Shores Drive
Mound, MN 55364
SUBJECT: Variance for modifying existing deck.
Dear Mr. Meyer:
It has come to my attention that you have requested your variance case be brought
back to the council for further review and that you did not receive a copy of the
planning commission/staff recommendation in the form of the proposed resolution
prior to the city council meeting. It is our normal procedure to provide you this
information prior to the council meeting and we apologize for the miss
communication.
If you note the attached resolution it is the staff and planning commission
recommendation that the shed is to be relocated to be conforming to the required
setbacks for your zoning district and out of the utility easement.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call us.
Respectfully,
Building Official
Enclosure
May 26, 1998
RESOLUTION #98-57
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD AND LOT FRONTAGE VARIANCES IN ORDER
TO ALLOW FOR MODIFICATIONS TO A CONFORMING DECK,
AT 1748 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE,
LOT 5, BLOCK 6, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES,
PID 13-117-24 24 0016
P & Z CASE #98-25
WHEREAS, the applicants, Michael & Kathy Meyer, has applied for a side
yard and lot frontage variances to allow modifications of a deck at 1748 Baywood Shores
Drive, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of
10,000 square feet, 60 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 30 feet, and side yard
setbacks are 6 feet for lot of record, and;
WHEREAS, the existing lot frontage is 44 feet in width requiring a 16 foot lot
frontage variance, and;
WHEREAS, an existing shed is located in the side yard with a setback of 0 feet
requiring a 6 foot side yard variance, and;
WHEREAS, the existing shed is located within a drainage and utility easement,
currently there are no utilities within the easement, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed deck would modify the existing deck and would be
conforming, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff with alterations, and;
110
May 26, 1998
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows: {~F,,,,,,r/~c ~"~7 i./~,,,~ ~; ~
1. The City does hereby grant~1~a 16 foot lot frontage setback as recommended by the
Planning Comm~ss~o% ...... ---'::-;;.-~' ~2 $,~7~,.,,¢ ~/~=<~ /-,~
T e ved
2. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section
350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express
understanding that the structures described in paragraph number one above remain
as lawful, nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of
Section 350:420.
3. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following improvements:
Modify the existing deck.
4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOT 5, BLOCK 6, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA,
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.
6. 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.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus and
seconded by Councilmember We
ycker.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen, Polston and Weycker.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none.
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MAY 11, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Jerry
Clapsaddle, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff Present:
Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jori Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist.
Public Present: Mark Mulvey, Hugh Bishop, Matt Phillippi, Delton Renspe, Curtis Berg, Michael
Meyer, Alan Nations, Steve Mayer, Vic Sacco, Quirin & Maria Matthys, Craig Goodrich
Meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 27, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
There were no corrections to the Minutes from April 27, 1998
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the
April 27, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 8-0.
Chair Michael explained how the Public Hearing would be conducted.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE #98-25: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, MICHAEL & KATHY MEYER,
1748 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE, LOT 5, BLOCK 6, REPLAT OF HARRISON
SHORES, PID # 13-117-24 24 0016
Loren Gordon presented the case.
The applicants, Michael & Kathy Meyer, have submitted a request to add a conforming
lakeside deck. The associated variance request is listed below.
Existin.q/Proposed Required Variance
Side Yard - shed 0' 6' 6'
Lot Width 44' 60' 16'
The property is located at 1748 Baywood Shores Dr. The lot is 21,530 sf in area,
conforming to the 10,000 sf R-1 standard. Existing noncomformities on the property
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
include a shed which is located on the side yard line and lot frontage. Current
improvements to the property are a one-story walk out home and a shed.
The existing shed is also located on a drainage and utility easement that runs along the
north and east 5 feet of the property. At present there are no utilities located within the
easement. Drainage across the site is from north to south with some fall to the east as
well.
The proposed deck would modify the existing deck. Plans for the deck have not been
finalized however, the applicant indicated a 3 or 4 season porch that would be
integrated to match the design of the house. Construction is still hoped for this year.
The property also has a nonconforming lot width along Baywood Shores Drive.
Developable lots in the R-1 district are required to have 60 feet of lot width at the 30
feet building setback line. The lot was platted with the replat of Harrison Shores in order
to maximize the number of lakeside homes.
COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of
hardship or practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only
in the event that the following circumstances exist (Section 350:530):
Bo
Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not
apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from
lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of
property since enactment of the ordinance have no control.
The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district
under the terms of this Ordinance.
That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or
buildings in the same district.
The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the
hardship.
The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this
Ordinance or to property in the same zone.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
The applicant states that the shed was built in its location over twenty years ago. The
easements on the property preceded the shed construction. It does not appear that the
shed presents a large impediment to drainage along the lot lines. Much of the drainage
probably drains southeast across the property to the railroad tie retaining wall and onto
the adjacent property. The City Engineer has reviewed the case and did not uncover
any other issues on the site.
In most cases where there is a structure place over an easement, it is an owner beware
issue. At any point in time access to the easement may be needed. Although there are
no utilities within the easement currently, the potential is always present that conditions
could change. The burden is placed on the property owner to move the shed if access
to the easement is needed. The entity accessing the easement would not be
responsible for relocation or damage to the structure. A hold harmless agreement would
protect the City from any liabilities knowing the condition exists.
There is no clear answer to the issue. It is probably good planning practice to remove
the shed from the easement and meet code requirements. A conscious effort is usually
made to correct these situations if it is deemed necessary. On the other hand, there are
other situations such as this in Mound that have been allowed to continue. Again, the
owners take the responsibility for any future actions that may occur.
In making a decision on the shed the Planning Commission should consider the
following issues:
The impact of the shed's location on the adjacent parcel.
If there are drainage issues the applicant or adjacent property owners attribute to
the shed.
Future utilities that could be located within the easement.
Other circumstances that could constitute a hardship.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve
conforming modifications to the deck and the lot frontage variance as requested. The
Commission should discuss the alternatives presented for the shed and make a
recommendation to Council with supportive information.
DISCUSSION:
Hanus made comments about the easement.
Sutherland commented that have an option to address the nonconformity in the
resolution stating that if the shed needs to be moved in the future for the easement
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
purposes that it could be removed.
Weiland commented that the shed is in poor condition.
Michael commented on putting a time limit on the shed.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend staff
recommendation with the condition that the shed be removed or
moved to a conforming location. Motion carried 5-3. Mueller, Hanus,
and Michael opposed.
This case will go to the City Council on May 26, 1998
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington
Koegler
Group
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: May 11, 1998
SUBJECT: Variance Request
OWNER: Michael and Kathy Meyer -1748 Baywood Shores Dr.
CASE NUMBER: 98-25
HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5v
LOCATION: 1748 Baywood Shores Dr.
ZONING: Residential District R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to add a conforming lakeside deck. The
associated variance request is listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Side Yard - shed 0' 6' 6'
Lot Width 44' 60' 16'
The property is located at 1748 Baywood Shores Dr. The lot is 21,530 sfin area, conforming to the
10,000 sf R-1 standard. Existing noncomformities on the property include a shed which is located
on the side yard line and lot frontage. Current improvements to the property are a one-story walk out
home and a shed.
The existing shed is also located on a drainage and utility easement that runs along the north and east
5 feet of the property. At present there are no utilities located within the easement. Drainage across
the site is from north to south with some fall to the east as well.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
Meyer Variance Request
Ma), 11, 1998
The proposed deck would modify the existing deck. Plans for the deck have not been finalized
however, the applicant indicated a 3 or 4 season porch that would be integrated to match the design
of the house. Construction is still hoped for this year.
The property also has a nonconforming lot width along Baywood Shores Drive. Developable lots
in the R-1 district are required to have 60 feet of lot width at the 30 feet building setback line. The
lot was platted with the replat of Harrison Shores in order to maximize the number of lakeside
homes.
COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or
practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the
following circumstances exist (Section 350:530):
mo
Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape,
topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of
the ordinance have no control.
The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this
Ordinance.
Do
That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.
That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same
district.
E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to
property in the same zone.
The applicant states that the shed was built in its location over twenty years ago. The easements on
the property preceded the shed construction. It does not appear that the shed presents a large
impediment to drainage along the lot lines. Much of the drainage probably drains southeast across
the property to the railroad tie retaining wall and onto the adjacent property. The City Engineer has
reviewed the case and did not uncover any other issues on the site.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p.$
Meyer Variance Request
May 11, 1998
In most cases where there is a structure place over an easement, it is an owner beware issue. At any
point in time access to the easement may be needed. Although there are no utilities within the
easement currently, the potential is always present that conditions could change. The burden is
placed on the property owner to move the shed if access to the easement is needed. The entity
accessing the easement would not be responsible for relocation or damage to the structure. A hold
harmless agreement would protect the City from any liabilities knowing the condition exists.
There is no clear answer to the issue. It is probably good planning practice to remove the shed from
the easement and meet code requirements. A conscious effort is usually made to correct these
situations if it is deemed necessary. On the other hand, there are other situations such as this in
Mound that have been allowed to continue. Again, the owners take the responsibility for any future
actions that may occur.
In making a decision on the shed the Planning Commission should consider the following issues:
2.
3.
4.
The impact of the shed's location on the adjacent parcel.
If there are drainage issues the applicant or adjacent property owners attribute to the shed.
Future utilities that could be located within the easement.
'Other circumstances that could constitute a hardship.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve conforming
modifications to the deck and the lot frontage variance as requested. The Commission should discuss
the alternatives presented for the shed and make a recommendation to Council with supportive
information.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 5540
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
App cation Fee: $100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date: ~(~ }~ I I, ~ Case No. q~-
I'
City Council Date:.. ~ ~ I
Distribution: ~-~-!~ [ City Planner L~ -~_cf ~
Li'_,~/~ City Engineer Ll_~[_q ~ Other
. L~ -,~'j _~ Public Works '
PROPERTY Lot
LEGAL Block
DESC. Subdivision /;~E ?(.4'f' ~C)/-: /z7~,~/.~,¢.,_~
xPROPERTY Name
OWNER Address / 7 ~/,¢'~ /~/4v"~.~¢~/2 ~/~Q/'ZL~
Phone (H) /--//~-~--,.~;~ (W) ¥? ~- ~,.~/0 (M)
APPLICANT Name
(IF OTHER Address
THAN Phone (H) (W) (M)
OWNER)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, f~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
"~ 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
Variance Application, P. 2
3. Do the existing structures comply with al~ area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes { ), No (~. If no, specify each non-conforming use {describe
reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: REQUIRED
REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
,,
Front Yard: ( N S E W )
Side Yard: ( N S E W )
Side Yard: ( N s(~/)
Rear Yard: ( N S E W )
Lakeside: ( N S E W )
: (NSEW)
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ~ ft. 0'~ ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
sq ft sq ft sq ft
sq ft sq ft sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
o
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage (~' existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
Variance Application, P. 3
C.e
Was the hardship described above created by the action of an¥onej having property interests in the
land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (] 982)? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain:
Was the ha, r.d,~hip created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes (), No~. If yes, explain:
o
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property
described in this petition? Yes~l~), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly
affected?
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Date
Date.
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
MICHAEL MEYER
LOT 5, BLOCK 6, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
$ $,~ o..).~,
HOUs~
y
,/
FA~. ~£'- 472
NAMe:
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
EXISTING LOT ARE~. ~/~ ~ ~ +
- 8QFT X 30% =~.
EXISTING LOT ARE~ 8QFT X 15%. = ~2-~
HOUSE:
GARAGE:
LENGTH
TOTAL HOUSE
· ' WIDTH
DRIVEWAY:
DECK:
= __ :33
surface under ~.
deck - 100%) "TOTALDECK ****~********
.., X = 17q
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SItEET
I
SURVEY ON FILE?~ NO
LO'r OF RECORD? ~ NO
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
_Ri _10,000/60 Bi 7,500/0
R1A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80
R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60
R2 14,000/00
R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
YARD } DIRECTION [ REQUIRED
IiOUSE .........
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE
N S E W
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S E W
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT DEl'TI-I:
LAKE
TOID OF BI.UFF
GARAGE~gllED3 ....
N S E W
I0' OR 30'
EXISTING/PROPOSED
VARIANCE
DETACIIED BUll,DINGS
FRONT
NS E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S E W
LAKE N S E W
'FOP OF BI.UFF
IIARDCOVER
CONFORMING? YES /(N_O~
30% OR 40%
,o. f
10' OR 30'
This Zoning hffo]malion Sheel puly summarizes a portion of the requirements oullincd in die Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound
Planning Depallment at 472-0600.
(~9)
:~,S '3 8 5
, ,' l 5 ,
LO; ,'Z3 ,, ,, . ~
,'(44),,' (41} ,1 (AZ),' (40) i'
PART OF/LOT 22/
~ o -~
O
r-t O I ,,O
1
(~)
HOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT
%~IS.. ~ .J~ %~IS YEAR LAST YEAR
MON/]{ M01~ %"0 ~ TO
DN~ 0F MAY
O. 0F C~ (167) (353)
10~ 54 291 28'7
FI~ ~3 12 67 67
~OUND
~G~ ~ ~ 9~ 96
FI~ Q ~ '~ 5
~!NNETONKA BEACH
HINNETRISTA
F~ ] 8 6 ~ 17
010N0
~G~ % D 9 7
FI~ Q 0 0 1
SHOREW00D
~~ 0 0 2 1
SPRING PARK FI~ 7 6 18 8
~.~G~ 9 1 24 ~ 36
~UTUAL AID FI~ 0 1 3 5
~~ 0 0 0 1
TOTAL FIRE CALLS 65 31 ~201{39 123
TOTAL EMERGENCY CALLS 40 23 152
~CI.~ 0 2 4 1
PgS!D~ 10 6 19 20
~'~ 0 0 0 0
~S & ~~S 38 11 [129)67 ~7
A~ 5- 0 7 3
F~E ~ / FIRE ~- 12 11 39 48
hQ. OF H~ FI~ 715 236 1384 1554
MOUND '~G~ 427 263 1769 1910
~ 1142 499 3153 3464
FI~ 33 59 157 82
- MTKA BEACH ~G~ 11 23 60 0
~ 44 82 217 82
FI~ 214 92 342 539
M' TR ! STA R.~G~ 95 37 360 498
~ 309 129 702 1037
FI~ 516 107 862 540
- ORONO ~G~ 40 76 195 115
~ 556 183 1057 655
FI~ 0 0 0 21
SHOREWOOD m~. 0 0 .44 21
~ O.. 0 44 42
F~ ~83 ~33 402 179
- SP. PARK ~G~ 161 20 434 668
~ 344 153 836 847
F~ '0 17 48
- ~ ~D ~G~ 0 0 0 20
T~ 0 17 48 2~
~o~ D~LS XOURS ]70 167,~ S30 857.5
TOTAL FIRE HOURS 166] 644 qlq5 3099
TOTAL EMERGENCY HOURS 724 4]~ ~6~
~3L F~E & ~G~ ~S 2395 1063 6057' 633]
~U~UA~ AID RECEIVED 0 O ]
~.!UTUAL AID GIVEN Q 1 ~ 6
MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
MOUND, MINNESOTA
FOR MONTH OF MAY 1998
FIRE FIGHTERS DRILLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE
1 JEFF ANDERSEN X × 2 19'.00,',~ 3 100 6.50 650.00
2GR~G ANDERSON X X 2 19,00 4.5 i! lO] 6.50 656.50
I: 6.50
3 PAUL BABB X X 2 19.00 2 68 442.00
4 DAVID BOYD X ~ X 2 19,00 0 56 6.75 378.00
5
6JIM CASEY X X 2 19.00 0 41 6.50 266.50
7 BOB CRAWFORD X X 2 19. O0 5 88 6.50 572. O0
8RA~DY ~GEIMART X X 2 19. O0 9 43 6.5D 279.50
9DAN GRADY X X 2 19.00 5 64 6.50 416.00
IOKEVIN GRADY X X 2 19.00 3 39 6.50 253.50
llBRUCE GUSTAFSON X X 2 19.00 10 70 6.50 455.00
12PAT HANLEY X X 2 19.00 2 89 5,50 578.50
13CRAIG I-IENDERSON X X 2 19. O0 2 73 6.50 474.50
14PAUL HENRY X X 2 19.00 4.5 47 6.50 305.50
15MAIT HENTGES X X 2 19.00 8.5 69 6.50 448.50
16MATt JAKUBIK X X 2 19.00 3 43 6.50 279.50
i~ROGER KRYCK X X 2 ;19.00 2 59 6.56 383.50
18JOt~ LARSON X X 2 ~19.00 2 57 6.50 370.50
193ASON MAAS X X 2 19.00 15 77 6.50 500.50
2GrONY MYERS X X,. 2 19, O0 8 74 6.50 481. O0
21JOHN NAFUS ~/.E~ (E~ 0 -0~ -2 41 6.50 266.50
22JAMES ~2~SON X X 2 19.00 2.5 43 6.50 279.50
233RET NICCUM X X 2 19.00 2 37 6.50 240.50
24GREG PALM X X 2 19.00 3 68 6.50 442.00
25MIKE PALM ~E~.> X 1 9.50 9.5 70 6.50 455.00
26TI~ PALM .X X 2 19.00 3 71 6.50 461.50
27GREG PEDERSON X X 2 19,00 0 81 7.00 567.00
28CHRIS POUNDER X X 2 19, O0 7 62 6.50 403. O0
29RICHARD ROGERS X X 2 19.00 2 90 6.50 585. O0
30~iIKE SAVAGE X X 2 19.00 18 : I 103 6.50 669.50
31KEVIN SIPPRELL ~E~) X 1 9.50 1 ii 59 6.50 383,00
32RON STALIFuaaN X X 2 19.00 6 i~ 37 6.50 240.50
33BRUCE SVOBODA X X 2 19. O0 0 38 6,50 247. O0
_3~ED VANECt~ X X 2 19.00 1 76 §..50 494.00
_3_5RICK ~'LLIAMS X X 2 19.00 22 85 6.50 552.50
36TIM ~.FiILIAMS X X 2 19.00 8 57 6.50 370.50
37 ~m~r~ wmWCWE X X 2 19.00 7.5 73 6.50 474.50
33 35 68
82.5 87.5 170 546.00 188 2395 FIRE 15,622.00
170 ~]~;'~ 646.00
188 ~ 1,250.00
~ 17~518.00
City of Mound
06/01/98
Monthly Report
Utilities
Month of: May 1998
Residential Commercial
No. of Customers:
Water
Sewer
Water Used:
(in 1,000 gallons)
Billing:
Water
Sewer
Recycle
Payments:
Water
Sewer
Recycle
Utility-98
Total
1,152 126 1,278
t ,t 54 126 1,280
16,730 3,893
Total
20,623
$29,321 $8,449 $37,770
$73,547 $21,511 $95,058
$6,192 $124 $6,316
$109,060 $30,084 $139,144
$25,102 $3,850 $28,952
$56,133 $11,887 $68,020
$5.233 $109 $5.342
$86.468 $15.846 $t02,314
Total
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
To: Mayor, City Council and City Manager
From: Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager
Date: June 1, 1998
Re: May 1998, Monthly Report
Another big month for us. Gross sales in May were $178,499.00. Customer count was 11,700.
That compares to May of 1997 when sales were $159,657.00 and customers were 10,773. So far
for the year sales are at $664,,605.00. Last year at this same time sales were $605,486.00.
The big storm that blew into the Twin Cities area on Friday, May 15~h proved to be very eventful
and interesting around here. First of all the 'T' in our Mound Liquor neon sign fell off. It was
found later rolling around over by Jubilee's parking lot. Fortunately it somehow stayed intact and
we were able to install it the next day when things were calmer. We also lost power for fifteen
minutes. Had to lock the doors until everything came back on. We were extremely lucky. The
two other Liquor stores in Spring Park and Navarre lost power for the whole night and into the
next day. Consequently their customers kept coming down to us. Which made for a huge
weekend.
;1.085
printed on recycled paper
TO:
FRO~:
RE:
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER
GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR
MAY FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
Investment Activity
Bought:
Money Market 4M Plus 4,265
Money Market First Bank 50,313
CP Smith Barney 5.625% 305,619
CP Dain Rauscher 5.70% 409,188
Matured:
Money Market 4M Plus (40,000)
Money Market First Bank (145,000)
Money Market Smith Barney (619)
CP Dain Rauscher 5.55% (404,404)
CP Smith Barney 5.708% (300,674)
Financial Re_~orts
On May 26 the City Council accepted the 1997 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
and the independent auditor's unqualified opinion. As a follow up to that publication,
the Finance Department is required:
- to prepare data to be published in the local newspaper.
- to compile forms to be sent to the Government Finance Officers Association
for their review as part of the program of Excellence in Financial Reporting.
- to complete an extensive report to be used by the State Auditor Office
and other state agencies.
- to send to the State Auditor Office detail data on the Commerce Place tax increment
financing district.
County Auction
On May 2nd the County held the annual car auction and the City of Mound participated
with two police cars, two confiscated vehicles and the administration car. The net
proceeds from the auction was $19,745.
Weather related COSt
So far we are not aware of injuries related to the bad weather within the City of Mound
and we are very grateful for that. The cost for removing trees and debris, and for other
damage is going to be considerable. City employees were required to put in many
hours of overtime. I think that the City will be using more resources than for last year's
storm, but at this time we are not aware of any help coming from the Federal Govern-
ment or the State.
LEN HARRELL
Chief of Police
MOUND POLICE
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Telephone 472-0621
Dispatch 525-6210
Fax 472-0656
EMERGENCY 911
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ed Shukle
Chief Len Harrell
Monthly Report for May, 1998
The police department responded to 1,082 calls for service during the
month of May. There were 52 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses
included 1 criminal sexual conduct, 4 aggravated assault, 8 burglaries, 35
larcenies, 1 arson, and 3 vehicle thetis.
There were 71 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 4
forgery/NSF checks, 4 narcotics, 11 damage to property, 12 liquor law
violations, 9 DUI's, 3 simple assaults, 6 domesticS (3 with an assaults), 1
harassment, 12 juvenile status, and 9 other offenses.
The patrol division issued 91 adult citations and 5 juvenile citations.
Parking violations accounted for an additional 17 tickets. Warnings were
issued to 91 individuals for a variety of violations.
There was 3 adults and 17 juveniles arrested for a felonies. There were
36 adults and 27 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were an
additional 2 misdemeanor warrant arrests.
The department assisted in 11 vehicle accidents, 4 with injuries. There
were 27 medical emergencies and 49 animal complaints. Mound assisted
other agencies on 16 occasions in May and requested assistance 9 times.
Property valued at $30,865 was stolen in May.
.2.0"/0
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT - May, 1998
II.
INVESTIGATIONS
The investigators worked on 4 child protection issues cases accounting for
30 hours of investigative time. Other cases included aggravated assault,
burglary, arson, probation violation, adult protection, terroristic threats,
damage to property, forgery, auto theft, NSF checks, narcotics, theft,
harassment, and absenting.
Formal complaints were issued for violation of an order for protection,
gross misdemeanor DWI, disorderly conduct, and domestic assault.
Personnel/Staffing
The department used approximately 36 hours of overtime during the
month of May. Officers used 57 hours of comp-time, 28 hours of
vacation, 27 hours of sick time, and 13 holidays. Officers earned 47 hours
of comp time.
There were 3 shifts at double time for holidays worked.
TRAINING
Several officers attended mandatory training through PTAC. Two officers
attended the Wilson Leadership course, one officer attended the Can Am
narcotics conference, and a attended a course on media relations.
V. COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICERS
Officer's Holzerland and Piper addressed 13 animal complaints,
ordinance violations, and 111 miscellaneous calls for services.
Not available.
19
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MAY 1998
OFFENSES CLEARED EXCEPT- CLEARED BY ARRESTED
REPORTED UNFOUNDED CLEARF, D ARREST ADULT JUV
PART I CRIMES
Homicide
Criminal Sexual Conduct
Robbery
Aggravated Assault
Burglary
Larceny
Vehicle Theft
Arson
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 2 2 2
8 0 0 2 0 7
35 0 1 3 1 5
3 1 1 1 0 3
1 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL
PART II CRIMES
Child Abuse/Neglect
Forgery/NSF Checks
Criminal Damage to Property
Weapons
Narcotic Laws
Liquor Laws
DWI
Simple Assault
Domestic Assault
Domestic (No Assault)
Harassment
Juvenile Status Offenses
Public Peace
Trespassing
All Other Offenses
52 I 2 8
3 17
0 0 0 0 1 0
4 0 1 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 3 3 1
12 0 0 15 15 2
9 0 0 9 9 0
3 0 0 2 0 3
3 0 0 3 4 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 10 0 19
1 0 0 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8 1 0 2 3 2
TOTAL
71 I I 45 36 27
PART II & PART IV
Property Damage Accidents
Personal Injury Accidents
Fatal Accidents
Medicals
Animal Complaints
Mutual Aid
Other General Investigations
TOTAL
7
4
0
27
49
13
835
HCCP
Inspections
2
22
TOTAL
1,082
53
39 44
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT APRIL 1998
GENERAL ACTIVITY SI~Y
Hazardous Citations
Non-Hazardous Citations
Hazardous Warnings
Non-Hazardous Warnings
Verbal Warnings
Parking Citations
DWI
Over .10
Property Damage Accidents
Personal Injury Accidents
Fatal Accidents
Adult Felony Arrests
Adult Misdemeanor Arrests
Juvenile Felony Arrests
Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests
Part I Offenses
Part II Offenses
Medicals
Animal Complaints
Ordinance Violations
Other Public Contacts
THIS YEAR TO I2%ST YEAR
MONTH DATE TO DATE
49 273 444
30 248 365
0 74 105
48 243 359
68 407 338
17 201 361
9 28 42
8 19 34
7 36 40
4 14 17
0 0 0
3 10 17
38 171 188
17 34 10
27 95 49
52 161 85
71 312 319
27 140 127
49 227 264
22 120 120
835 4,214 3,450
TOTAL
Assists
Follow-Ups
HCCP
Mutual Aid Given
Mutal Aid Requested
1,381 7,027 6,734
81 289 322
59 312 196
2 25 15
16 83 51
9 19 44
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MAY 1998
CITATIONS
DWI
More Than .10% BAC
Careless/Reckless Driving
Driving After Susp. or Rev.
Open Bottle
Speeding
No DL or Expired DL
Restriction on DL
Improper, Expired or No Plates
Stop Arm 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
Overweight Vehicles
Miscellaneous Tags
TOTAL
9
8
0
$
1
29
0
0
5
2
3
0
4
2
5
0
0
17
2
4
0
1
1
10
108
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
_1
5
HOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MAY 1998
Insurance
Traffic
Equipment
Crosswalk
Animals
Trash/Derelict Autos
Seat Belt
Trespassing
Window Tint
Miscellaneous
TOT~J~
WARRANT ARRESTS
Felony
Misdemeanor
Adult
27
12
26
0
1
8
0
0
0
11
85
Juveniles
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Jun: 29-May-98 16:25 PR003
Prlmary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 04/26/98 - 05/25/98
Activity codes: All
Property Status: All
Property Types: All
Property Descs: All
Brands: All
Models: All
Officers/Badges: All
Prop Prop Inc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd Stolen
Tp Desc SN Stat Stolen Value
Prop type Totals: 20
Prop type Totals: 500
Prop type Totals: 980
Prop type Totals: 56
Prop type Totals: 1,140
Prop type Totals: 6,500
Prop type Totals: 60
Prop type Totals: 2,375
Prop type Totals: 10
Prop type Totals: 2,691
Prop type Totals: 3,555
Prop type Totals: 2,454
Prop type Totals: 10,000
Prop type Totals: 524
Report Totals: 30,865
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Property Report
STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED
Date Recov'd
Recov.d Value
0
5OO
180
0
3O0
0
0
275
0
1,140
0
5
0
5
2,405
Page
Quantity Act Brand Model Off-1 Off-2
Code Assnd Assnd
1.000
1.000
9.000
3.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
5.000
1.000
7.000
2.000
9.000
1.000
11.000
53.000
Run: 29-May-98 15:53 CF$08
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 04/26/98 - 05/25/98
each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: All
Activity Resulted: All
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
ACTIVITY CODE
DESCRIPTION
9000
9001
9008
9012
9014
9015
9023
9030
9034
9038
9040
9041
9100
9150
9200
9210
9220
9240
9253
SPEEDING
J-SPEEDING
ILLEGAL PASSING
OPEN BOTTLE
STOP SIGN
J-STOP SIGN
EQUIPMENT VIOLATION
J-CARELESS/RECKLESS
J-EXHIBITION DRIVING
CROSSWALK VIOLATION
STOP ARM VIOLATION
ALL OTHER TRAFFIC
NO SEATBELT
J-NO SEATBELT
PARKING/ALL OTHER
NO TRAILER PARKING
DAS/DAR/DAC
PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED
NO INSURAnCE/PROOF OF
OVERWEIGHT VEHICLE
CHANGE OF DOMICILE
STOP ARM VIOLATION/NO TICKET
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
NUMBER OF
INCIDENTS
29
1
1
1
3
1
4
1
1
2
2
5
1
1
15
2
5
5
5
1
1
2
Page 1
kun: 29-May-98 15:53 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 04/26/98 - 05/25/98
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: All
Activity Resulted: All
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVI/"f CODE NI~4BER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
9300 LOST ARTICLES/OTHER 2
9301 LOST PERSONS 1
9310 FORFEITURES 1
9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOD'NDS 3
9313 FOUND PROPERTY 19
9314 FOL~TD VEHICLES/IMPOUNDED 1
9420 DERELICT AUTO 1
9430 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS 4
9450 PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 5
9451 H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC. 2
9452 H & R ACCIDENTS W/TICKET 2
9520 PUBLIC PROPERTY ACCIDENTS 2
9566 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 4
9720 MEDICAL/DOA 1
9730 MEDICALS 24
9731 MEDICALS/DX 2
9800 A~L OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED 10
9801 DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT 3
9802 PUBLIC ASSIST 3
9810 LOITERING/LURKING 4
9811 J-LOITERING/LURKING 1
9900 ALL HCCP CASES
2
Page
~un: 29-May~98 15:53 CFS08
Primary ISN's only:
Date Reported range:
range each day:
How Received:
Activity Resulted:
Dispositions:
Officers/Badges:
Grids:
Patrol Areas:
Days of the week:
NO
04/26/98 - 05/25/98
00:00 - 23:59
All
All
All
Ail
All
All
All
ACTIVITY CODE
DESCRIPTION
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT A/~AJuYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
NUMBER OF
INCIDENTS
Page
9904
9930
9932
9980
9992
9993
~2585
:~5252
'.3253
'5353
~L351
~L352
:'2494
h3394
~3434
~3494
~3765
OPEN DOOR/kLAP~4S
HANDGUN APPLICATION
OFP VIO. CRIME COIFIq~OL & I2%W ENF ACT OF '94
WARP~S
MI/I"JALAID/8100
MIFI~JkL AID/6500
MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER
ASLT 2-SUBSTANTIAL INJURY-FIREARM-ADULT-STR
ASLT-2-THREAT BODILY HAR/~-BB GUN-CHLD-ACQ
ASLT 3-SUBSTANTIAL INJ]3RY-HA/TDS ETC-A/)LT-ACQ
ASLT 3-SUBSTANTIAL INJLrRY-HANDS ETC-A_DLT-STR
ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-ADULT-STR
ASLT 5-MS-FEAR BOD HRM-NO WEAP-ADLT-STR
DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HAP-M-H/UNDS-AD-FAM
ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS-INFLT BODLY HRM-HArDS-ADLT-AC
BURG 2-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT
BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT
BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-b-NK WEAP-COM THEFT
BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UN~K WEAP-COM THEFT
BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT
BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM PROPERTY
BURG 4-AT FRC NRES-D-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT
2
2
6
3
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
R~un: 29-May-98 15:53 CFS08
Prlmary ISN's only: NO
Date Reported range: 04/26/98 - 05/25/98
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: All
Activity Resulted: All
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT AN~LYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE
NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
307E1 FORGERY-UNK LVL-ENDORSE-CI{K 200 OR LESS-PERS 1
C37C1 FORGERY-MS-ENDORSE-CHK-201-2500-PER 1
C37E1 FORGERY-MS-ENDORSE-CHK-200 OR LESS-PER 1
DA540 DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK 2
DC500 DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH-POSSESS-UNK-UNK 1
7400C ARSON 3-MS-UNK COND-OT PROP-S299 LESS 1
10149 CPM AGST FAM-UNK LVL-CRIM ABUSE VI3LN ADULT-UNK 1
J2501 TRAFF-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 3
J2E01 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 3
'3501 TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE 6
33E01 TRAF-ACC-MS-;kL 10 MORE-UN-K INJ-MV 5
'3R01 TRAFFIC-MS-FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV 1
lIB31 CSC 1-CONTACT-GUARDIAN-UND AGE-13-F 1
>~3001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 2
M3002 JUVENILE-CONT SUBST OFFENDER-PO$S SM AMT MARIJ 1
M3005 JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO 6
M4140 LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21 1
M5313 JUVENILE-CURFEW 3
M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY 3
N3030 DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT 1
N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HAR~.ASSING COF~IUNICATIONS 1
N3380 VIOLATION OF HARASSMENT RESTRAINING ORDER 1
Page
Run: 29-May-98 15:53 CFS08
Primary ISN's only:
Date Reported range:
range each day:
How Received:
Activity Resulted:
Dispositions:
Officers/Badges:
Grids:
Patrol Areas:
Days of the week:
NO
04/26/98 - 05/25/98
oo:oo - 23:59
All
All
All
All
All
Ail
All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ;%NA.LYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
PROP DAMAGE-GM-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT
PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT
PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT
PROP DAMAGE-MS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT
P2110
73110
P3120
73130
?B059 THEFT-MORE 2500-FE-YARDS-OTH PROP
:B159
73111
:'C159
~'F059
~F!59
.G021
~J029
:,]059
:~069
:Gl51
?G159
i'G229
'11497
THEFT-MORE 2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP
THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUSINESS FN~DS-MONEY
THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-FIREARMS
THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-O/q~ PROP
THEFT-201-500-GM-YARDS-OTH PROP
THEFT-201-500-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-MONEY
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-OTH PROP
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MAILS-OTHER PROP
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-MONq~Y
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OT~ER
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-STREET-PK LT-OT~ PROP
THEFT-FE-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500
THEFT-MS-ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-200 OR LESS
THEFT-MS-BY SWINDLE OR TRICK-200 OR LESS
THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MO~X)R-200 OR LESS
5
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
2
3
3
5
1
1
1
1
6
U3068
'33498
Page 5
Run: 29-May-98 15:53 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 04/26/98 - 05/25/98
rime range each day: 00:00 ~ 23:59
How Received: All
Activity Resulted: All
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE ~ER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
VA024 VEH-MORE T~AN 2500-FE-TFIEFT-SNOW I
VB021 VEH-501-2500-FE-THEFT-AUTO
VE081 VEH-200 OR LESS-MS-TAMPER-AUTO
X3080 CRIM AGNST ADMN JUST-MS-OBST LEGAL PROCESS
Page
Report Totals:
327
Run: 29-May-98 15:56 0FF01
Primary ISN's only:
Date Reported range:
range each day:
Dispositions:
Activity codes:
Officers/Badges:
Grids:
No
04/26/98 - 05/29/98
00:00 - 23:59
All
All
All
All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Page 1
ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL
CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING
..... OFFENSES CLEARED ....
ADULT JI3VENILE BY EX- PERCENT
ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED
A2323
A2585
A3252
A3253
A5352
A5353
A5503
B2494
i~3394
~3434
B3494
!i3764
!~3765
~4030
£1211
337C1
'37E1
DA540
I0149
ASLT 2-SUBSTANTIAL INJURY~FIREARM-ADULT-STR 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
ASLT-2-THREAT BODILY H~M-BB GUN-CHLD-ACQ 1 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0.0
ASLT 3-SUBSTANTIAL INJLrRY-HA/TDS ETC-ADLT~ACQ 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
ASLT 3-SUBSTANTIAL INJURY-HANDS ETC-ADLT-STR 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD }{P.M-HANDS-ASLT-AC I 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0
ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HA~rDS-ADULT-STR 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 50.0
ASLT 5-MS-FEAR BOD HRM-NO WEAP-ADLT-STR 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HA~RM-HANDS-AD-FAM 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS-INFLT BODLY H]{M-~I~DS-ADLT-AC 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
BURG 2-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM T~EFT I 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
BURG 3-LrNOCC NRES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM PROPERTY 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 100.0
BURG 4-AT FRC NRES-D-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
FORGERY-FE-UTT POSSESS PLACE-CHECK-PERSON 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
FORGERY-MS-ENDORSE~CHK-201-2500-PER 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
FORGERY-MS~ENDORSE-CHK-200 OR LESS-PER 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0
DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-F~RIJ-UNK 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH-POSSESS-UNK-UNK 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
ARSON 3-MS-UNK COND-OT PROP-S299 LESS 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
CRM AGST FAM-UNK LVL-CRIM ABUSE VULN ADULT-UNK 1 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
ku~: 29.May.98
15:56 OFF01
MOUND POLIce DEPARTMENT
Primary ISN,s Only: No
Date Reported range: 04/26/98 . 05/29/98 Enfors Offense Report
Time range each day: 00:00 _ 23:59
Dispositions: Ail OFFENSE ACTIViTy DISPOSITiONs
Activity COdes: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Page
ACT ACTIVITy
CODE DESCRIPTION
J2501 TRAFF-GM-Dui LiQUoR_uNK INJ-UNK VEH
J2Eo1 3 0 3
TRAP-ACc-GM-AL 10 MORE-LINK iNj_Mi;
33501 3 0 3
TRAPF-ACCID-MS_DRivE UNDER INFLUENCE
I3EO1 6 0 6
TRAP'ACC-MS'AL 10 MORE-UNK iNj_Mv
13RO1 TRAFFIC-MS_FAiL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INj_MV 5 0 5
!~3! CSC i_CONTACT_GUARDIAN_uND 1 0
AGE-13-F
~025 CSC 4-UNK 1
ACT-PARENT-13_15_F
-
001 J-GVENILE-ALCORoL OFFENDER
$
)05 JI3VENILE-usE OF TOBACCO 5
40 LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21 5 C 5
~3 JUVENILE-cURFEW 1 0
1
0 JUVENILE_ RUNAWAy 2 0
2
; DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLy CONDucT
DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSiN~ COMMUNICATIONS
VIOLATION OF HARASSMENT RESTRAINING ORDER
PROp DAMAGE_GM_PRiVATE.uNK INTENT
PROP DAMAGE_Ms_PRIVATE_uNK INTENT
n DAMAGE.Ms. PUBLiC~UNK INTENT
DAMAGE-MS-BusINESS~UNK INTENT
% MORE 2500_FE~YARDs_oTH PROP
~ WORE 2500-FE-MoTOR VEH~OTH PROP
I 1-2500-FE-YARDS-oTH PROp
/' ?500-FE-BUSINESS FNDS-MoNEy
1
1
1
1
OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL
REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSEs
3
1
2
0
1
0
6
0
4
0
!
0
1
0
1
0
1
PENDING
0
0
0
0
0
!
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
..... OFFENSES CLEARED
ADULT
~sT aa~sT UE~r~ON ,RCENT
........ TOTAL - :TARED
3
3
6
5
0
$
0
4
0
0
2
0
3 0.0
3
0
6 lC
5 10C
1 100.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
5 100.0
5 100.0
1 lO0.o
2 100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
Run: 29-Ma¥-98 15:56 OFF01
Primary ISN's only:
Date Reported range:
range each day:
Dispositions:
Activity codes:
Officers/Badges:
Grids:
NO
04/26/98 - 05/29/98
00:00 - 23:59
All
All
All
All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Page 3
ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- AC773AL
CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING
THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-FIREARMS
THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP
THEFT-201-500-GM-YARDS-OTH PROP
THEFT-201-500-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-MONEY
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-OTH PROP
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MAILS-OTHER PROP
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-MONEY
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-STREET-PK LT-OTH PROP
THEFT-FE-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500
THEFT-MS-ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-200 OR LESS
THEFT-MS-BY SWINDLE OR TRICK-200 OR LESS
THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS
VEH-MORE THAN 2500-FE-THEFT-SNOW
VEH-501-2500-FE-THEFT-AUTO
VEH-200 OR LESS-MS-TAMPER-AUTO
CRIM AGNST ADMN JUST-MS-OBST LEGAL PROCESS
..... OFFENSES CLEARED ....
ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT
ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED
TC155
TC159
TF059
?F159
?G021
IG029
/G059
:'G069
FG!59
?G229
~1497
~3028
~3068
~3498
JA024
JB021
/E081
:':3080
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 5 4 0 1 0 1 20,0
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 1 1 0 0 0 0 0,0
0 6 6 0 0 0 0 O.0
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0
0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0
0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0
**** Report Totals:
121
2 119 63 31 22 3 56 47.0
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
II/IEMOI~AIVDUM
DATE: June 1, 1998
TO:
City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff
FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official
SUBJECT: MAY 1998 MONTHLY REPORT
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
There were 46 building permits issued in May for a construction value of
$ 458,914. we issued 24 plumbing, mechanical, and miscellaneous permits
for a total of 70 permits this month, and 257 permits year-to-date. Total
valuation now stands at $1,558,562.
Thus far 8 permits have been issued to repair damage to property due to
the storm and high winds that hit on May 15, 1998.
PLANNING & ZONING
The Planning Commission reviewed sixteen (16) cases and sent seven (7)
variance cases, one (1) Minor Subdivision cases and one (1) rezoning
amendment to the City Council. One case was denied and one case was
withdrawn. The Planning Commission continued five (5) cases.
kl
City of Mound
BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT
Month: ~¥ Year: 1998
THIS MONTH YEAR TO DATE
RES IDENTIALNEW CONSTRUCTION II #PERMtTS I # UNITS I VALUATION II #UNITS I VALUATION
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 1 ]. 130 , 000 3 /418 , 68/4
SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (CONDOS)
TWO FAMILY / DUPLEX
MULTIPLE FAMILY (3 OR MORE UNITS)
TRANSIENT HSG. (HOTELS / MOTELS)
SUBTOTAL 1 ]. 1301000 3 ~18168~
COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT}
OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL
INDUSTRIAL
PUBLIC / SCHOOLS
SUBTOTAL 0 0 0 0
ADmnONS TO PmNaPAL BU~LmNG 2 10/4 ~ 397 9 3/48~ 96/4
DETACHED ACCESSOBY BU~LmNGS 4 /48 ~ 651 10 119~ 7/4/4
DECKS 8 65,180 17 89, 110
SWIMMING POOLS 0 0
REMODEL- MiSt RESIDENTIAL 28 97,825 92 /47 [, 9 0 6
REMODEL- MULTIPLE DWELLINGS 0 0
SUBTOTAL 42 316,053 129 1,053,047
COMMERCIAL {RETAIL/RESTAURANTI 1 500 3 50,670
OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL 1 2, 500 1 2,500
INDUSTRIAL 0 I 500
PUBLIC /SCHOOLS i 9,861 2 33,161
DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 0 0
SUBTOTAL 3 12 t 8,61 7 86 t 831
RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS
NON RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
TOTAL DEMOLITIONS 0 0 0 0
# PERMITS # UNITS VALUATION # UNITS VALUATION
# PERMITS
3
TOTAL 46 /458,914 139 1,558 , 562
PERMIT COUNT I THIS MONTH J YEAR-TO-DATE
"BUILDING 46 139
FENCES & RETAINING WALLS 4 14
SIGNS 0 2
PLUMBING 6 52
MECHANICAL 12 /4 2
GRADING 0 0
S&W, STREET EXCAV., FIRE, ETC. 2 ~
TOTAL I 70 I ? ~ 7
0
z
0 ww
z ~
z
n,'
Z
0
0
~z ~
~ ~Oz w
~Z~
Z
5www~ZW~
~ZZZZ~ZZ
GENERAL PERMIT REPORT FOR MONTH OF MAY 1998
MONTH YEAR DAY PERMIT# ADDRESS
CONTRACTOR
PERMIT TYPE
MAY 98 8 3975 5054 BAYPORT ROAD
MAY 98 6 3978 4882 EDGEWATER DR
MAY 98 8 3979 2560 LAKEWOOD LANE
MAY 98 8 3980 5508 BREEZY RD
MAY 98 13 3981 4882 EDGEWATER DR
MAY 98 11 3982 5330 PIPER ROAD
MAY 98 11 3983 1603 MAPLE MANORS CT
MAY 98 14 3984 2858 PELICAN POINT CIR
MAY 98 14 3986 5148 TUXEDO BLVD
MAY 98 19 3987 5070 WINDSOR RD
MAY 98 19 3988 2868 PELICAN POINT CIR
MAY 98 22 3989 2910 OAKLAWN LANE
MAY 98 26 3990 4727 CUMBERLAND RD
MAY 98 26 3991 2964 PELICAN POINT CIR
MAY 98 26 3992 2974 PELICAN POINT CIR
MAY 98 26 3993 2858 PELICAN POINT CIR
MAY 98 26 3994 4957 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
MAY 98 26 3995 2600 SETTER CIRCLE
MAY 98 28 3996 5573 BARTLETT BLVD
MAY 98 28 3997 1754 RESTHAVEN LANE
NORBLOM PLUMBING
LEGEND PLUMBING
CULLIGAN WATER
DIAMOND POWER
LEGEND HEATING & AIR
CUSTOM PLUMB
KLEVE HEATING
STEINKRAUS
NARKIE HEATING
DEL MAR
STEINKRAUS
WESTONKA S/W
DIAMOND POWER
FLARE HEATING
FLARE HEATING
FLARE HEATING
PLUMB
PLUMB
PLUMB
MECH
MECH
PLUMB
MECH
PLUMB
MECH
MECH
PLUMB
WIS CON-ST EXC
MECH
MECH
MECH
MECH
DEPENDABLE INDOOR AIR MECH
DAN BRADLEY CURB CUT
COUNTRYSIDE HEATING MECH
DIAMOND POWER MECH
,211o
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
June 4, 1998
TO:
CITY MANAGER
FROM: CITY CLERK
RE:
MAY MONTHLY REPORT
There were 2 regular Council Meetings in May. From these meetings there were
minutes, resolutions and follow-up items to be completed.
I attended the annual IIMC (International Institute of Municipal Clerks) Conference
from May 15 to 22. There were a variety of topics covered in the educational
sessions, presentations and the exhibits. I feel this conference helps me to acquire
knowledge that can be used in Mound to better serve the residents and my
profession. There were over 40 different workshops on a variety of topics. IIMC
now has over 10,000 members from all over the world.
Review of all liquor and beer license applications and required accompanying data
that have been submitted.
The usual calls from citizens.
printed on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1667
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-O620
MONTHLY REPORT
MAY
PUBLIC WORKS
STREET DEPARTMENT
We have started repairing our water main breaks patches. Don and Brain have also started hand
patching for this years seal coating. The big job this mouth is the clean up from storms. We
have spent the second half of the month picking up and trimming trees and branches. We had
our annual (and most likely our last) recycling day.
WATER DEPARTMENT
Bob Shanley has returned to work on the 18th. Jerry has been doing meter work and shut-off
repairs and locates. We were unable to flush fire hydrants this month due to the storm. We will
flush on June 8th.
SEWER DEPARTMENT
Scott and Damon cleaned some storm and sewer lines before the storm. After the storm they
were doing repairs to the electrical problem that resulted from the storm. We will mm this
damage over to the insurance company in June.
MISC.
The summer banners are up. We also got all the parking lots striped.
printed on recycled paper
BOARD MEMBERS
Douglas E. Babcock'
Chair, Tonka Bay
Bert Foster
Vice Chair, Deephaven
Eugene Partyka
Secretary, Minnetrista
Craig Nelson
Treasurer, Spring Park
Andrea Ahrens
Mound
Bob Ambrose
Wayzata
Kent Dahlen
Minnetonka Beach
Craig Eggers
Victoria
Tom Gilman
Excelsior
Greg Kitchak
Minnetonka
I.iii McMillan
Orono
Robert Rascop
Shorewood
Herb J. Suerth
Woodland
Sheldon Wert
Greenwood
RECEIVED 3 1§cj8
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
2500 SHADY~NOOD ROAD. SUITE 19 - EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 · TELEPHONE 612/471-9588 · FAX 612/471-0632
Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
May 29, 1998
TO:
FROM:
LMCD Member Cities
LMCD Board of Directors
Greg Nybeck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: 1999 Draft LMCD Budget
Enclosed is a copy of the 1999 Draft LMCD Budget for your review. A
meeting has been scheduled at NOON on Friday, 6/5/98 in the LMCD
conference room to review and allow your input on it.
Under its enabling act, the LMCD is required to adopt a budget before July
1 of each year for the upcoming calendar year. If any city objects to the
budget, the LMCD is required under its enabling legislation to hold a
hearing to consider these objections.
The LMCD values your input and believes it is a key element in our budget
process. I strongly encourage you to attend the meeting scheduled for
6/5/98. A light lunch will be provided for those that attend.
I look forward to your attendance at this meeting!
50% Recyclgc~ Content
20% Post Con.5,umet Waste
Web Page Address: http://www.winternet.com/-Imcd/
E-mail Address: Imcd@winternet.com
DRAFT
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1999 BUDGET
1996
Budget
1. Administration
a) LMCD Communities Admn Levy
b) Reserve Fund Contribulion
c) Court Fines
d) Licenses
e) BWSE
f) Interesl, Public Funds 8,000
g) Other Income 0
SUB-TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 245,800
2. Exotics Management
a) LMCD Communities Exotics Mgmt Levy 29,500
b) Other Public Agencies 24,500
c) Private Solicitation 1,000
d) Reserve Fund Allocation 50,000
e) Interest 10,000
SUB-TOTAL EXOTICS MANAGEMENT 115,000
TOTAL REVENUES 360,800
· ?~ . ~
ADMINISTRATION
1. Personnel Services:
a) Salaries 106,000
b) Planning/Special Projects Intern
c) Employer Benefit Contributions 18,000
SUB-TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES 124,000
2. Contractual Services:
a) Office Lease & Storage 12,200
b) Professional Services 10,000
SUB-TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 22,200
3. Office & Administration:
a) Office, General Supplies 4,500
b) Telephone 2,000
c) Postage 4,800
d) Printing, Publications, Advertising 2,000
e) Maintenance, Office Equipment 2,000
f) Subscriptions, Memberships 300
g) Insurance, Bonds 7,500
h) Public Information, Legal Notices 2,000
i) Mileage, Expenses, Training 1,500
j) BWSE Expenses
k) Wintemet
I) WebPage/Inlernel Maintenance/Service
SUB-TOTAL OFFICE & ADMINISTRATION 26,600
4. Capital Outlay:
a) Furniture, Equipment 1,000
b) Computer software & hardware; 2,500
training
SUB-TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 3,500
5. Legal:
a) Legal Services 22,000
b) Prosecution Services 27,000
c) Henri. County Room & Board 6,000
d) Recodification/Zoning
SUB-TOTAL LEGAL 55,000
6. Contract Services/Studies:
a) Mgmt Plan Implementation 14,500
b) Boater Ed. Pilot Program 0
c) Record Archival 0
d) Access/Channel Signage
SUB-TOTAL CONTRACT SERVICES/STUDIES 14,500
7. Contingency
TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
111,800
0
40,000
86,000
1996 1997 1997 1998 1998 1999
A~ual Budget Actual Budget YTD (3/31) Budget
109,564 80,524 80,524 109,640 30,239 104,448
0 48,000 0 0 0 15,000
40,238 40,000 43,173 40,000 9,732 40,000
119,182 86,000 105,103 100,000 87,554 100,000
2,100
8,265 8,000 11,398 8,000 4,022 10,000
9,557 1,000 3,687 2,000 5,591 2,000
286,806 263,524 243,885 259,640 137,138 273,548
28,910 67,500 67,501 64,500 17,789 42,000
24,500 24,500 23,854 24,000 0 24,000
0 1,000 0 1,000 0 0
0 12,000 0 5,500 0 ~0,000
10,092 12,000 8,021 12,000 4,679 8,000
63,502 117,000 99,376 107,000 18,258 94,000
350,308 380,524 343,261 366,640 165,396 367,648
106,424 111,418 91,884 95,480 25,249 102,500
0 0
19,640 18,646 15,477 16,618 5,393 18,668
126,024 130,064 107,361 112,098 30,642 121,168
15,031 17,160 18,272 17,952 4,473 18,000
11,076 10,000 10,988 10,000 2,175 240
26,107 27.160 29,260 27,952 6,648 18,240
4,755 4,500 3,035 5,000 509 4,500
3,253 2,000 4,006 4,140 995 4,440
3,750 5,000 3,175 4,500 900 4,350
2,192 2,500 2,187 2,500 0 2,500
1,643 2,000 2,470 2,000 997 2,500
65 300 1,034 450 198 450
6,382 7,000 6,705 6,000 0 7,000
2,151 2,000 2,099 2,000 278 2,000
1,313 1,500 1,280 1,500 478 1,500
794 2,100
75 300
0 1,000
25,504 26,800 26,785 28,090 4,430 32,640
0 1,000 262 1,000 0 1,000
7,475 10,000 2,279 2,500 43 2,000
7,475 11,000 2,541 3,500 43 3,000
19,717 20,000 15,268 20,000 7,155 20,000
28,246 28,000 31,028 30,000 17,597 32,000
1,695 3,000 3,180 3,000 1,129 4,000
0 7,500 0 7,500
49,658 51,000 49,476 60,500 25,881 63.500
26,833 5,000 6,050 10,200' 209 0
0 5,000 0 0 0 0
0 7,500 0 10,000
20,000
26,833 17,500 6,050 20,200 209 20,000
10,853 6,000 177 15,000
245,800 261,601 263,524 232,752 259,640 68,030 273,548
1996 1996 1997 1997 1998 1998 1999
Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Y'rD (3/31) Bud/let
EXOTICS MANAGEMENT
1. Weed Harvesting Operational Exp.:
a) Salaries & Employer Taxes/Insurance 35,000 30,533 35,000 22,034 32,000
b) Trucking Contract 26,000 10,913 21,000 12,804 15,000
c) Administrative 4,000 1,091 1,000 1,539 1,000
d) Operational Supplies 20,000 17,589 22,000 14,641 20,000
e) Contract Services 15,000 15,396 16,000 18,420 19,000
f) Heavy Growth Season Extension 15,000 8,447 7,000 0 8,000
SUB-TOTAL WEED HARVESTING OP. EXP. 115,000 83,969 102,000 69,438 95,000
2. Zebra Mussel Operational Exp.:
0
0
73
3
0
0
76
30,000
15,000
1,000
15,000
20,000
8,000
79,000
0 0 15,000 989 12,000 0 15,000
TOTAL EXOTICS MANAGEMENT EXPENSES 115,000 83,969 117,000 70,427 107,000
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS
360,800 345,670 380,524 303,179 366,640
Save the Lake Program Income:
a) Private Donations 27,000 25,015 27,000 33,873 30,000
b) Other Income 2,000 698 1,000 3,941 1,800
c) interest 4,500 2,425 4,000 7,020 7,000
SUB-TOTAL SAVE THE LAKE INCOME 33,500 28,138 32,000 44,834 38,800
Save the Lake Program Expenses:
a) Administrative 4,000 4,912 3,700 2,723 3,700
b) Program 36,723 19,776 28,300 18,319 35,100
SUB-TOTAL SAVE THE LAKE EXPENSES 40,723 24,688 32,000 21,042 38,800
76
68,106
55
0
690
745
196
2,042
2,238
INFORMATIONAL:
EWM Equipment Depreciation 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 12,000
94,000
367,548
35,000
... ,,7115"'
LAKE MINNET0~ CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1999 BUDGET
DRAFT
The following assumptions were made in the preparation of the draft 1999 LMCD Budget:
Salaries (la)
Executive Director
Admin. Tech.
Admin. Ass't.
Admin. Clerk
Employer Benefit
Contributions (lb)
P.E.R.A. (4.75%)
P.E.R.A. Life Ins.
Unum Life Ins.
F.I.C.A. & Medicare
Medical Ins.
Office Lease & Storage (2a)
Office & storage ($1,500/mo.)
Off-site storage
Telephone (3b)
U.S. West
AT&T
Insurance, Bonds (3g)
Property
Inland Marine
Municipal Liability
Excess Liability w/Waiver
Bond
Access/Channel Signage (6d)
Public Accesses
Channels
Bridges
Contingency (8)
Salaries, Prof. Services, Moving Exp., etc
Current 1999
$42,000 $42,000
$29,500 $29,500
$22,000 $22,000
$11.20 per hour $9,000
$4,868.75
$432.00
$64.80
$7,841.25
$5,461.20
$18,668.00
$18,000.00
$240.00
$18,240.00
$4,200.00
$240.00
$4,440.00
$150.00
$1,100.00
$4,000.00
$1,500.00
$250.00
$7,000.00
$13,000.00
$5,000.00
$2,000.00
$20,000.00
$15,000.00
.$102,500
EWM Salaries & Employer
Taxes/Insurance (la)
· Salaries
F. I. C.A. & Medicare (7.65 %)
Insurance (Auto & Workers Comp.)
Zebra Mussel Program (2)
Salaries
F.I.C.A.
Insurance
Operation Supplies
Public Education
Contingency
1998
12/31/97 Balance
Budgeted Reserve Fund Allocation
Transfer to Equip. Repl. Fund
1999
Projected 12/31/98 Balance
Reserve Fund Allocation
Transfer to Equip. Repl. Fund
Projected 12/31/99 Balance
$25,000.00
$2,300.00
$2,700.00
$30,000.00
$2,000.00
$230.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$10,000.00
$770.00
$15,000.00
Administration
$138,282
$0
$0
$138,282
$138,282
$15,000
$0
$123,282
EWM/Exotics
$167,691
$5,500
$12,000
$150,191
$150,191
$20,000
$35,000
$95,191
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Improving Qua/i~y of Water, Quali~y of £ife
Gray Freshwater Center
Hv~/s. 15 & 19, Navarre
Mail:
2500 Shadywood Road
Excelsior, MN 55331-9578
Phone: (612) 471-0590
Fax: (612) 471-0682
Email:
admin @ minnehahacreek.org
Web Site:
www.minnehahacreek.org
Board of Managers
Pamela G. Blixt
James Calkins
Lance Fisher
Monica Gross
Thomas W. LaBounty
Thomas Maple, Jr.
Malcolm Reid
District Office:
Diane R Lynch
District Administrator
i~ Printed on recycled paper containing
at least 30% po~t consumer waste,
RECEIVED .;j;;- 3 1998
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 29, 1998
TO:
Mayor Polston & Manager Shukle
FROM:
Diane Lynch
District Administrator
RE:
Board Liaisons is: Tom Maple Phone # 474-4514
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District would like to enhance
communications with all of our member cities and townships. As a result of
several meetings with cities, the Board decided on May 14 to assign a
manager (liaison) to each of our member cities and townships. The liaison is
supposed to establish a relationship or enhance an existing working
relationship with a public official representing the assigned city or township.
In addition:
· The manager (liaison) assigned is the only Board representative to
the city or township authorized to represent the Board, unless the Board
determines it is in the best interests of the District to involve another/other
manager(s)
olt is the responsibility of the liaison to represent the Board accurately
regarding Board action or the status of Board activities
· When speaking on his/her own behalf, the liaison must make it clear
that she/he represents only one point of view on Board matters and does not
have the authority to make promises regarding future Board action
°The liaison is supposed to communicate by phone and personal
visits to the each city or township at !east quarterly, in order to provide
information on specific concerns and to mutually provide updates regarding
activities that affect both entities
oln addition, it is the liaison's responsibility to keep the MCWD Board
and staff informed regarding township issues and concerns
The Board requests that your city pass a resolution or complete another form
of authorization to appoint a public official to interface with the liaison. In
addition, please assign a staff person to be the official liaison with District
staff. If possible, we'd like the name of the public official and staff liaisons by
June 19, 1998.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 612-471-0590. Thank you!
PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
MINUTES
May 14, 1998
Present were: Peter Meyer, Bev Botko, Rita Pederson, Tom Casey, and City Council
Representative Leah Weycker. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler and
Secretary Clare Link. The following interested citizens were also present: Jacquie
Robbins and Mary Berglund.
MINUTES
Motion made by Botko, seconded by Pederson to approve the minutes of the
April 9, 1998 Park and Open Space Commission meeting, as amended: page
4, Meyers suggested the plumber come out and clear out the drain; page 6,
delete "being designed as an NCA. Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA CHANGES
Dumping on City Property Discussion was added. He also suggested the June and
July meetings start at 8:00 p.m. A report on Lake Sanders will also be made.
REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INPUT ON PARKS
Meyer asked those present for input on parks. Jacqueline Robbins, 3036 Highland
Boulevard requested new play equipment be installed at Highland Park. She
described the unsafe condition of the existing equipment. She illustrated her points
by showing pictures of the equipment. She stated much of the equipment can
remain and is suitable for older children. There needs to be more equipment for
younger children.
Pederson asked what the cost would be. Fackler stated all ADA requirements will
be in effect in 1999, and the cost will double.
Meyer asked if there are any plans to replace the equipment at Highland. Fackler
stated staff is aware it needs to be replaced, but there are no plans. He explained
the accessibility requirements which must be met.
Robbins suggested more swings be added at least. Meyer asked if it would be
helpful to even out the ground. Robbins replied it is not necessary.
Mary Berglund, 5049 Avon Drive stated she would like to have more swings in the
newly remodeled Avon Park. She stated she would also like to have the basketball
City of Mound
Park and Open Space Commission
May 14, 1998
Page 2
refinished and striped for older children. She would also like to have the road going
into the park resurfaced. Fackler noted it is access for an existing house.
POSC CAPITAL OUTLAY REQUEST FOR 1999
Meyer reviewed requests for capital outlay items for 1999. He stated a workshop has
been scheduled for Monday, May 18 at 7:00 p.m.
ISLAND PARK HALL
Meyer stated the standing water is gone from the basement. Meyer asked for paint
estimates. Weycker stated an article will be put in the newsletter requesting
information on the hall's history.
Commissioners discussed holding the POSC meetings at the hall in June. Weycker
was not in favor of the idea.
Weycker suggested a follow-up letter be put in the Laker inviting people to visit the
building. Commissioners discussed a combined open house and POSC meeting.
Casey suggested an architect provide an estimate of remodeling the entire building
rather than pieces here and there.
Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Casey to recommend getting an
estimate from McCombs Frank Roos on the work that needs to be done to
remodel Island Park Hall and to provide information on the architectural and
historical value of the building.
Commissioners discussed funding for the estimate. Fackler suggested funding from
the park dedication fund.
Casey suggested it come out of the General Fund. If funds are not available, he
would like to know why. Weycker suggested getting estimates to provide the
estimates.
Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Meyer to get estimates from two
architectural firms on the cost for the analysis of the renovation of IP Hall.
Motion carried unanimously.
City of Mound
Park and Open Space Commission
May 14, 1998
Page 3
LOST LAKE DREDGE COSTS
Information is not available yet.
RENTAL FEES FOR DEPOT
Pederson suggested a sign be put in the Depot noting nails are not allowed in the
walls. She stated she would also like a list of who is using the facility.
Fackler stated knowing who is using the building could help to determine if the
rental fees need to be adjusted.
Casey believed rental fees should go into the park dedication fund.
Motion made by Casey, seconded by Pederson that all rental fees from the
Depot be repaid into the park dedication fund. Motion carried unanimously.
Pederson suggested a monthly report be provided of the Depot use. Meyer
suggested it be provided twice a year.
Motion made by Pederson, seconded by Botko to request an analysis of the
previous year's use and cash flow for the Depot in February. Motion carried
unanimously.
Fackler stated Jody at city hall could have a sign made up regarding nail usage.
PARK DEDICATION FUND BALANCE
Commissioners reviewed the park dedication fund balance.
LANGDON LAKE PROPERTY
Meyer was concerned Langdon Lake property may be getting filled in. Fackler
stated the contractor is not depositing fill on City property. He stated the only way
it can be determined for sure is to have a survey done.
CRESCENT PARK PLAN
Meyer suggested restoring part of the park but discussions should wait.
City of Mound
Park and Open Space Commission
May 14, 1998
Page 4
Commissioners discussed plans for the park.
MOSQUITO CONTROL/LONG GRASS PROGRAM
Casey updated the Commission on mosquito control and responsibilities of the
Metropolitan Mosquito Control District. He stated property owners can request their
property not be sprayed for mosquitoes. He suggested having representatives from
MMCD and the Audobon Society to come to the July meeting.
PLAN FOR COMMUNITY CENTER
Meyer asked if there is any new information on the green space. Weycker stated
there is no additional information.
MARCH FOR PARKS
Meyer reviewed the March for Parks. Mound made $435 which will be split between
park acquisition and Music in the Parks.
JUNE POSC AGENDA
The park tour will take place at the June meeting beginning at 7:00 p.m.
DUMPING ON CITY PROPERTY
Weycker noted dumping can be reported to the City's CSO. Fackler stated a resident
has to see someone actually doing the dumping. Meyer stated education and
awareness are needed. Weycker stated dumping is a legal concern and should not
be an issue of the POSC. Commissioners discussed problems with dumping
throughout the city. Weycker suggested talking to the police chief about their
dumping concerns.
LAKE SANDERS
Pederson reported on Lake Sanders issues.
REPORTS
City of Mound
Park and Open Space Commission
May 14, 1998
Page 5
Weycker reported on City Council actions. Commissioners and staff discussed
recent mediation.
Fackler discussed getting parks ready for the summer.
ADJOURN
Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Botko to adjourn the meeting at 10:15
p.m.. Motion carried unanimously.
Moody's Investors Service
99 Church Street
New York, New York 10007
May 22, 1998
Mr. Gino Businaro
Finance Director
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364-1687
Dear Mr. Businaro:
We wish to inform you that on May 22, 1998, Moody's Rating Committee reviewed and assigned
an A2 rating on the City of Mound General Obligation bonds.
Moody's will monitor this rating and reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to revise or
withdraw this rating at any time in the future.
The rating as well as any revisions or withdrawals thereof will be publicly disseminated by
Moody's through normal print and electronic media and in response to oral requests to Moody's
rating desk.
Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me or the
analyst assigned to this credit, Jennifer L. Davis at (212) 553-4051.
Sincerely,
Nicole Jol~nson
Senior Vice President
NJ:ko
JUN-Ol-1998 02:06 MOODY'S
Moody's Investors ervme
Municipal Credit Research
212 553 3?90
M.82/02
January 13, 1997
Special C~?lment
New York
Moody's Expands Rating Scale
for All Public Finance Issues
Effective immediately, Moody's will rate new public
finance issues ~]sing expanded bond racing symbols, to
inc[ude the n~uncrical ,nodi~ers 2 and 3. These modifiers
will be added to the e.'dsring nmnerical modifier 1--used
by Moody's since 1981~but none of the modifiers will
apply to issues rated Aaa, Caa, Ca, or C. The modifier 1
indicates that the issue ranks in the higl'ter =nd of irs
generic rating category; the modifier 2 now indicates that
the issue is in d~e mid-range of its categmT; and the
modifier 3 indicates that it is in the Iow end. In effect, by
~,sing the numerical modifiers 2 and 3 in addition to the
numerical modifier I, Moody's has increased the number
of possible bond credit ratings for these sectors to 19
fi'om la}. (See Figure 1.)
lu October 1996, Moody's began assigning nmnerieal
modifiers to Aa, A, Baa, Ba, and B ratings relating to
outstanding bond issxtes within the health care, b. igher
education, and other not-for-profit sectors. 1,~ November,
Moody's began using the expmded raring scale for state
revolving funds. Bond isles rated Aal, Al, Baal, Bal,
and B1 remah~ tmaffected.
Under the new rating qstem, the meaning of asa Al
rating does nor change. It indicates that the security
meets all of Moody's criteria for a single-A rating and
that ir ranks at the high end of that generic rating
mtego,'y.
Figure 1-- New and
Expanded Public
Finance Rating
Symbols
Previous New
Rating Symbols Rating S~mbob
A~ Aaa
Aa1 Aa1
Aa Aa2
Aa3
A1 A1
A AZ
A3
Baal Baal
Baa3
Bal Bal
Be Ba2
81 B1
B B2
B3
Caa Cea
Ca C.~
C C
TOTRL P.02
Hennepin County
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Jeff Spartz, County Administrator
May 29, 1998
Dear Community Colleague,
We have listened to you and we're moving ahead!
Enclosed is a report on the five focus groups recently conducted on human services planning
and coordination in the West Hennepin area. This report outlines the major themes that
emerged from the focus groups, recommendations for a community-based approach to human
services planning and coordination, and steps for implementation.
Please help us once again! Attend one of the community meetings listed below to:
· Refine the recommendations and implementation steps
· Consider the commitment required to become a pilot project
· Explore your interest in joining an oversight group for the pilot projects
Tuesday, June 23, 1998 - 7:30 am to 9:00 am
Minnetonka City Hall, Lower Level
Board & Commission Room
14600 Minnetonka Blvd., Minnetonka
(Just north of Minnetonka Blvd. & Williston Rd.)
OR
Wednesday, June 24, 1998 - 7:30 am to 9:00 am
Orono City Council Chambers
2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono
(Just north of Highway 12 & Old Crystal Bay Road)
We appreciate the time and efforts so many of you have put into the interview and focus
group process over the past nine months. Please RSVP to Rex Holzemer at 348-3456 by
Thursday, June 18, 1998, regarding which meeting you plan to attend. Thanks!
Sincerely,
Kathy Lueckert
Asst. City Manager
City of Plymouth
Steve Mielke
City Manager
City of Hopkins
James Hurm
City Manager
City of Shorewood
Patrick Wussow
City Manager
City of Tonka Bay
Rex Holzemer
Principal Administrative Assistant
Hennepin County Administration
Hennepin County Administration
A 2303 Hennepin County Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0233
(612) 348-7574 F,a0((612) 348-8228 TDD (612) 348-7367
Recycled Paper
REPORT ON FOCUS GROUPS CONDUCTED
Coordinating Western Hennepin County Human Services
· .. today's urban leadership demands advanced skills:
inventive collaborations, regional alliances, outreach to neighborhoods
and sensitivity in such complex areas as police and schools.
--Neal R. Peirce, national columnist on state and local affairs
BACKGROUND
The puCpose of this project is to discover how to best assess needs and coordinate
human services that effectively and efficiently serve the residents in the 25
communities of western Hennepin County. Also, the purpose is to build community
ownership of a structure for meeting those needs.
The project evolved from informal discussions involving Hennepin County
administration and officials from the cities of Hopkins, Plymouth, Shorewood, St. Louis
Park and Tonka Bay. They became a city-county working on how human services
needs could be met appropriately following the demise of Suburban Alliance, one of
three suburban human services councils in Hennepin County.
The first step in the project was to learn about approaches for coordinating and
delivering human services. More than 120 telephone interviews were conducted. The
interviews were with Hennepin County commissioners representing the western
suburbs, elected and appointed officials from the municipalities, staff from the cities,
staff of provider agencies, school district officials, members of faith communities,
citizen volunteers and recipients.
In the second step, the city-county working group reviewed the data and developed a
draft model that would assess current and future human service needs, promote
coordination of services, improve communications, maintain accountability, and
encourage joint decision-making. This model was presented to five focus groups.
The third step was to conduct five focus groups. Seventy-one people participated. With
some differences, the information gathered was quite consistent. Eleven major themes
emerged from this information and they are summarized below, as are
recommendations from the city-county working group on how to develop this effort.
MAJOR THEMES
Suburban Alliance
There was concern that this might be another Suburban Alliance, where citizen
participation was lost. As one participant put it: same old, same old. Suburban
Alliance, however, could step back and see the bigger picture, it could advocate for
emergency service dollars, and it could make comments to the County. These aspects
are still needed.
Collaboration
The focus on collaboration concerned many. Some were concerned that the answer
for a specific structure was being prescribed before the goals of planning and
coordination were really clear. Overall planning needs to come first. Collaborations
are time consuming and it is difficult to bring people together. Collaboration is hard
and ambiguous. In addition, most collaborations are school based, focus on specific
issues and do not serve overall human service needs in their communities.
At the same time, people emphasized the need for grass-roots decision-making and
agencies working together to serve needs and reduce turf. The framework for
collaboration was good although the word "collaboration" is problematic. Support for
skill development in bringing people together, strengthening and broadening
participation, and resolving conflicts was encouraged.
Funding
Committed dollar support for this effort over time was acknowledged as crucial.
Answers on how to make that happen were not as strong. An overall plan, however, is
needed to prevent splintering.
Incentives, however they might happen, should not become a "stick." But credit needs
to be given to make this work. And the reasons why certain agencies are funded
should be made clear.
Many felt money should go to the communities for maximum application to needed
services. Local money (e.g. from municipalities) should stay in the community and not
go to support a regional office. And the money should be spent as the local community
believes it should to best meet the needs of that area.
Existing Efforts
Very strongly, many reported there was little recognition of existing efforts. Examples
were cited repeatedly as models: Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council,
South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency, Day One, Interfaith Outreach and
Community Partners, WeCan, Prism, Interfaith Community Association.
The Alliance for Families and Children (School Redesign), in development for six
years, was seen by many as a possible vehicle to deliver the planning and
coordination. It was recognized, however, that the present mission does not cover the
broader issues of seniors, transportation, mental health, etc. It was also recognized
that the Alliance is very much school-based.
Regardless of what develops, many stressed the need to build upon existing
collaborations and structures to foster local ownership. Don't re-invent and don't add
layers, many said. Leverage existing efforts.
Focus
The focus needs to be on all of the western region. Transportation, for example, is a
major issue. Those areas west of 494 often feel left out. And the consumers should not
be forgotten. While the focus does need to be on the broader issues of transportation,
housing, etc., meeting the human service needs of residents in the area is what this is
all about. Consumers need to be represented.
2
Geography of the Area
Many recognized the need to keep a regional focus. When it comes to organizing,
however, smaller geographical areas were stressed by many. It was recognized that
municipal boundaries don't match school districts, and that makes organizing difficult.
Similarly, providers have overlapping territories.
Many saw the need for perhaps more than one planning effort because people identify
on a sub-region basis. The needs are different in different areas. In addition, parts of
the region, such as the smaller municipalities bordering Wright County, go
unrecognized to the point where Wright county provides services in Hennepin County.
Role of the County
There are very strong feelings that this could be too County-centered. Flexibility might,
therefore, be lost as the County focuses on accountability within planning, contracting,
etc. Having clout with the County would be difficult also. Some felt planning and
coordination have historically not been well supported.
At the same time, the county has the greatest access to data and is in the best position
to do data gathering and analysis as well as coordinate planning and technical
assistance. This assistance, however, should not be located downtown.
Measurement/Accountability
Some said they were tired of outcome-based services, especially when trying to
measure something like information and referral. At the same time, many responded
that the outcomes are needed; greater accountability is wanted.
A clear mission is crucial. Outcomes must focus on the needs of the recipients and not
make agencies look good. How services are organized should follow the desired
measurable goals. The collaborations and the providers should serve the outcomes
based on community needs. The whole emphasis should be on being responsive to
individuals and families. The data should show the impact on the people. Too many
people fall though the cracks.
Have providers be responsible for what they're given and what they do, but not for
demonstrating need. Accountability for meeting needs and providing services should
rest with the community. Right now, providers are responsible to the County, and what
is expected varies based on what different commissioners want.
Participation
Many people are worn out. Different and expanded players are needed. Greater
representation from recipients, communities of color, and Iow income people is
needed. Participation by local communities and school districts is very important, as is
by agencies. Both citizen input and agency cooperation are crucial, but perhaps they
are separate efforts.
Functions Needed
Regional planning, research and coordination is very important. All of this needs to
come together in one visible access point for information. What's out there, including
needs and best practices, should be known and communicated, communicated,
communicated in user friendly ways.
13o
Other functions are needed: technical assistance, organizing, convening, advocacy,
and fostering the creation of efforts for which there is little capacity in communities. In
addition, a system that links providers would be very helpful. All of this needs to
support the provision of services.
Structure
Don't add layers and bureaucracy and meetings!! Don't duplicate local efforts. Keep it
simple and small; grow as needed. The emphasis should be on meshing what is here
because successful efforts are ad hoc. Keep things fluid. People come together when
they have a reason to come together; structures evolve to respond.
Use County resources for planning, research and coordination. Keep control local.
Hire people for special needs and then have them move on.
RECOMMENDATIONS
With input from the telephone interviews and the five focus groups, the city-county
working group concluded that overall functions of on-going planning, technical
assistance and regional advocacy contained in the draft model are still needed.
Relying on local collaborations is still the best vehicle for delivery, as they are to the
greater extent community/citizen based and most in-tune with local needs. And the
need for municipalities as well as school districts to become more involved remains
important, because the trends are increasingly to localize recognition of need and
delivery of services.
Beyond those conclusions, the working group saw the need to focus on the purpose of
this project-- to discover how to best assess needs and coordinate human services
that effectively and efficiently serve the residents in the 25 municipalities of western
Hennepin County and to build community ownership of a structure for meeting those
needs. In addition, the working group realized that the data from the focus groups
showed that community must be central, efforts need to build on what exists, and the
project should proceed by starting small and then expand as everyone learns.
Recommended Community-based approach
Given the stated purpose and the input from the focus groups, the following
recommendations are being made as the basis for further community input:
Process Responsibility Results
Research and report
community indices on
assets and liabilities.
County: staff provides
demographic, trend, service
and utilization data from county
and state sources;
Community: augments data by
local community information
gathering.
Each community has
tailored information
applicable to its needs and
assets.
4
2. Community
collaborative uses
data to prioritize
needs, establish
outcomes, and
determine measures.
Community
collaborative
determines action plan
to allocate resources
that meet community
needs
4. Community
implements plans
Community evaluates
outcomes and revises
community indices,
priorities, outcomes
and measures
County: provides technical
assistance to refocus or form
collaboratives as needed in a
community;
Community: existing
collaboratives expand focus
and broaden membership, or
new collaboratives are formed
to look at broader community
issues.
County: works in partnership
with the community;
Community: establishes broad
base support in partnership with
the County.
County: contracts with service
providers in concert with
community-set outcomes and
priorities, channeling resources
to the greatest extent possible;
Community: integrates services
and oversees providers
according to community plan
and County contracts.
County: services provided are
measured against community-
established outcomes and
measures for accountability
reports and best practices
analysis;
Community: community
determines effectiveness in
partnership with county and
quickly makes adjustments to
meet community needs;
community reports to all
community constituencies
including cities and school
districts.
Each community has broad
representation from the
municipality, school
district[s], service providers,
faith communities,
businesses, service
recipients and the County.
The focus in each
community is on outcomes.
Greater likelihood of
community support since
community determines
what are its highest priority
needs and focuses
resources toward meeting
those needs.
Better utilization of
resources given ever
increasing demand,
making best use of County
and community strengths
Greater assurance that
community residents
benefit from the services,
and that the community,
overall, will be a better
place to live and work;
learnings can be shared
between communities to
strengthen cost/benefit
analysis of programs and
services.
5
Steps toward implementation of the community-based approach
1. Send this summary report and recommendations to everyone who participated in the interviews
and focus groups, and include the County Board and all municipalities in the Western region.
2. Invite participation in additional community forums to develop the recommendations in this report
and create an oversight group who will advise in the pilot projects.
3. Select two communities to develop this approach -- one larger, one smaller; one inner ring and
one further west -- and learn from the pilot efforts.
4. Investigate what data exist and how to make them readily available to communities.
5. Gain support from key officials in County government.
6. Organize County support to deliver research, technical assistance, revised contracting and
County participation in the collaborations.
7. Learn from the two pilot projects and revise process and support as needed to expand efforts
into additional communities.
Develop regional approach to coordinate efforts toward major outcomes of housing,
transportation, child care and jobs, and to advocate for and leverage resources on behalf of the
region. Eventually, this might include searching for grants and outside funding, coordination of
sub-regional and regional implementation and accountability efforts; dissemination of community
learnings to constituencies throughout the local communities.
6
0
o
0
o
o
cD
~0
o Ix) ~1' o o o
'~' '~' ~,0 0~ wi' e0
0
o
o
o
0 CD 0
o o o
o ~- co
o o o
o o o
o ~ co
Z o ~0
Z o ~o
o o o o o 0~ o o
o o o o o 0~ o
0 * o 0 * 0q o o o
o o o 0~ o o
o~~ ~_
o ~:~ o o o o o o
o '~ o o o co o
o o o
o o o
o
o
o o o
o o o
c~ ~o co
~-- 00
o o o o
o o o o
o§
c~_~ o
o
o o o
o o o
0q o o
o o o
o o o
~ o o
o cD o
o o
o
o
m m m
:~ ,--
0
o
o
o
o
o o o o
o o o o
v- ~o o~ o
o o o o o
~ o 0 o o
b- w- ~- o~ 0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o o o o o *
o 00 ~q cq o
o
o
o o o o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0~
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0 * 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0
0 O0 0 CO 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 ~0 0 0 0
0 b~ CO q'~ ~
0
;[
CD
_o
0
0
;I
),, ~ 0 C) 0 0 C) (:::) 0 0 0 0 0
n,' ~ 0 CO 0 LO 0 ~Z3 0 0 0 C) 0
O~ v- I'-- r-- w-- Cq ~ 0 ~0 0 0
~ _~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ 0 CO 0 ~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ ~ O~ v- r-- ~- C~ ~' ~1' 0 ~0 0 0
0
0 0 0 ~4D 0 0 0
0 0 0 I'-- CO 0
0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 I"- 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 kO LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~.0 0 LO ~ 0
o ~ g g o° g o° g g g o °o °o · g g g g ~ oo §
~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0
Z 0 0 0 ~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0
Z
0
Z
Z
CD 0 C~
0 ~ ~-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~0 0 0 0
0 0 0 ~'~ 0 0 0 0 ~'~ CD i'~ 0
0 ~' O~ 0 (D I'- ~ (D (D 0 ~-- ~1'
0 ~' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~.0 0 CZ) 0
0 0 C~I 0 0 0 0 ~'~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~0 0
0 ~r ~-- ~' 0 0 1.0 0 ~.0 ~ ~1' ~0 (0 0 0 '~'
0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0
0 CD 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ('~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0
0 0 ~' ~'- ~' ~.~ 0 ~0 0 O~ ~ ~' ~0 ~.0 0 ~-' 0
0 * 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0
0 0 c~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~- 0 (0 0
0 0 00 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1.0 0 ~0 0
0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~'- 0
0 0 0 0 ~0 0 0 0
~ 0 0 0 f'-. 0 (D '~'
- o
o o o o o o o o o o o ~' o o o o o
~ ~. ~ ~ ~.' ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ co' ~- ~
CD 0
0 0
o o ~' o 0
o o ¢~J o o
(iD 0 o~ 0 0
· 0 ¢4D 0 0 ~0 0
0 ~ 0 0 ~0
w~- ~0 0 I~ oo
0 m~ 0 0 O~ 0
0 ~D 0 0 C~ ~0
0 0 0 0 0
0 ~ (ID 0 ~
0 CD 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 CD
0 0 (D 0 0
0 0 U'~ 0 0
C~ OD 0'~ ~ ~
o ~ ~D ~0 m~ ~
~- 0 ~0 I'~ cO 0
0 0 l.O 0 0
0 m~ v- ~0
o o ~.o CD ',ct'
o mi' co ~o
<r. < m
o_ o n
._ >, >, .~
0 0 0 ~
0 ~
o o ~
(D (D (D
0 :,,
~O o o o
~ o o o
o o o
o o ~o
o o o
co' ~ m
o o
o o
o o o o
w~- o o o
~ mi' co ~4D
0 0 * 0 '" 0 0 0
0'~ 0 0 0¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 '~' 0 O0 0
~ o ~. ,..- co. o ~ ~ ~ ~
0 * 0 * * * CD 0 0
-B lgg8
RECEIVED
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF: DIREOTOR$
AGENDA
7:00 PM, Wednesday, June 10, 1998
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock
READING OF MINUTES- 5/20/98 LMCD/MCWD Joint Workshop/Planning Session 5/27/98 LMCD/MCWD Regular Board Meeting
PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.)
CONSENT AGENDA - Consent Agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one
motion unless a Board member requests a discussion of any item, in which case the item will be
removed from the consent agenda.
1. SAVE THE LAKE
A) Army Corp of Engineers, Presentation of Triclopyr Study planned for Lake
Minnetonka in 1998;
B) Additional Business;
2. LAKE USE & RECREATION
A) Stephen Hicks, consideration of request for "minimum wake" buoys on channel
between Deering Island and Shadywood Point;
B) Review of MCWD Rule B (previously handed out at 5/27/98 Board meeting);
C) Update on 6~9~98 LCMR Proposal Hearing;
D) Review of MN DNR Request for comment on proposed licensing system;
E) Additional Business;
3. FINANCIAL
A) (*) Audit of vouchers for payment (6/1/98 -6/15/98);
B) Review of draft 1999 LMCD Budget;
C) Additional Business;
4. WATER STRUCTURES
A) Meadowbrook Boat Club, Staff update on 1998 renewal w/o change multiple
dock license application;
7.
8.
9.
10.
B) Groveland HOA, consideration of request to refund $110 received for two-unit
1998 DMA license;
C) Additional Business;
EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE
A) (*) 6/12/98 EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting has been cancelled;
B) Additional Business;
ADMINISTRATION
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
JOINT WORKSHOP/PLANNING SESSION
6:00 P.M., Wednesday, May 20, 1998
Grays Freshwater Center
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spring
Park; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Lili McMillan, Orono; Bob
Rascop; Shorewood; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka. Also present: Tom
Maple, MCWD Manager; Monica Gross, MCWD Manager; Pamela Blixt, MCWD Manager;
James Calkins, MCWD Manager; Diane Lynch, MCWD Executive Director; Don Germanson,
LMA; Jo~hn Barten, Hennepin Parks; Tom McDowell, Hennepin Parks; Nm~cy Rzmdall;
LMCD Administrative Technician; Greg Nybeck, LMCD Executive Director.
Members Absent: Andrea Ahrens, Wayzata; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Herb Suerth,
Woodland; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Sheldon Weft, Greenwood.
INTRODUCTIONS AND WEI.COME
Chair Babcock welcomed those in attendance. He stated this meeting was scheduled based on
review by the LMCD Board of the Environmental and Management section in the Lake
Minnetonka Management Plan. He noted at this meeting, review of this Section identified that
either the MCWD has either direct responsibility or involvement of related projects. He added
the purpose of the meeting it to allow for dialogue between the two organizations on where
they currently are with some of the items and to ask for assistance from the MCWD in
updating this Section of the Management Plan.
Detailed below is a general summary of topics/issues discussed:
Babcock stated the role of the LMCD in the Environmental Section of the Management
is to be an advocate of related projects on Lake Minnetonka. He added the LMCD
relies heavily on the MCWD and lake-communities for these projects because the
LMCD has very limited financing.
Maple provided a general overview of MCWD projects. He stated the main focus of
the MCWD is on water quality projects throughout the whole watershed district. He
reviewed the Gleason Lake flood-plain project that flows into Lake Minnetonka. There
was discussion on retention ponds and how they have been used to address water quality
issue in the watershed district.
Barten stated he supports retention ponds to remove nutrients but stated the needs of the
lake need to be considered when the development of retention ponds occur.
Gross stated one treatment the MCWD has used to address water quality is the use of
alum. She noted the treatment of a lake with alum binds the nutrients up and settles
them to the bottom.
LMCD/MCWD Planning/Workshop Session, 5/20/97, Page 2
Foster asked if the main limitation the MCWD has is funding?
Gross stated they main difficulty they face is political difficulties rather than funding.
Barren discussed phosphorous and how the nutrient is introduced into the lake. He
suspected some of it can be attributed to the old sewage treatment plants and new
development. He discussed lawn management and how it loads into the lake.
Gilman asked for an update on phosphorous-free fertilizer and how this has been
presented to the cities.
Gross stated there was an active campaign with mode! ordinances a few years ago.
added there was a push to require a restriction of this fertilizer state-wide or metro-
wide. She noted an outcome was that to ban it was shot down by the Minnesota
Extension Services because they believe the problem is the misuse of fertilizer with
phosphorus rather than the actual use of it.
She
The consensus of those present is that this issue needs to be re-addressed.
There was a brief discussion on MCWD Plan B and how it works. The consensus was
to allow those present to review and make comments back to the MCWD in the near
future.
Staff was directed to place this discussion on the 6/10/98 Board agenda.
REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND MANAGEMENT SECTION
There was limited discussion by those present on this Section of the Management Plan. The
consensus was to allow time for MCWD staff and Managers to review this Section of the
Management Plan and to recommend changes/updates to it. Staff was directed to facilitate a
joint meeting in August to review these changes/updates.
OTHER DISCUSSION
There was no other discussion.
ADJOURMENT
There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Douglas Babcock, Chair
Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary
RECEIVED
DRAFT
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
7:00 PM, Wednesday, May 27, 1998
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Douglas Babcock Tonka Bay; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Bert Foster, Deephaven;
Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka; Lili McMillan, Orono; Gene Partyka,
Minnetrista; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Sheldon Weft, Greenwood. Also present Charles
LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Gregory Nybcck, Executive Director; Nancy Rand~l, Adndnistrative
Technician.
Members Absent: Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Bob
Rascop, Shorewood; Herb Suerth, Woodland.
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chair Babcock reminded the Board of the Lake Inspection Tour on Saturday, 6/6/98. He noted the
boat would depart from Aahhhz of Excelsior Park at 7 a.m. and would be out on the lake until around
NOON. He encouraged Board members to contact the office to indicate whether they would be able
to attend.
Chair Babcock recommended the 6/3/98 Workshop/Planning Session be cancelled. The Board
concurred with his recommendation.
READING OF MINUTES- 5/13/98 Regular Board Meeting
5/20/98 LMCD/MCWD Joint Meeting
MOTION: Gilman moved, Partyka seconded to approve the minutes of the 5/i3/98 Regular Board
Meeting as submitted.
Babcock recommended one friendly amendment on page 6, 54 paragraph. He noted it should state
"passengers pay" rather than "passengers are being paid". Gilman and Partyka agreed to the friendly
amendment.
VOTE: Ayes (8), Abstained (1; Foster); Motion carried.
Babcock stated staff has indicated that the minutes from the 5/20/98 LMCD/MCWD Joint meeting
have not been completed. He noted these minutes would be reviewed at the 6/10/98 Board meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.)
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 27, 1998
There were no comments from persons in attendance on subjects not on the agenda.
Page 2
CONSENT AGENDA
Gilman moved, Dahlen seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Motion carried
unanimously. Items so approved include: lC Staff recommends full refund of $3,000 Liquor Deposit
for the charter boat Sea Breeze; and 3A Audit of vouchers for payment (5/1/98 - 5/15/98) and
(5/16/98 - 5/31/98).
1. LAKE USE & RECREATION
A. Jim Zimmerman, Consideration of request for no-wake buoy.
Babcock introduced the agenda item noting that staff received feedback from Denis Bailey
regarding buoys costs. He addressed the letter submitted by the applicant and noted the Board
has done significant research on shoreline erosion and whether they justify the placement of a
"slow-wake" buoy. He concluded the Board typically has not approved these buoys strictly
based on erosion.
Foster asked if shoreline erosion is the only problem?
Zimmerman stated he believed it is a combination of shoreline erosion and safety for his kids
who want to swim. ~._
Wert stated he had visited the area in question and stated he believed it could be approved
because of its unique characteristics. He added he believed it is a low cost of enforcement and
believed it would not set a precedent that is bad for the lake.
Kitchak suggested it might not be in the best interest of the District to approve the request at
this time. He recommended the District work with Hennepin County to specify criteria,
through a policy, in approving buoy requests. He questioned where you either start or stop
approving these buoy requests without this policy.
Babcock clarified that the District has been involved in minimum-wake areas of the lake
outside of the shoreland zone because they have been approved by Code. He added he
believed there is a problem in the area but questioned how you remedy it.
Zimmerman stated some years ago that navigational buoys were placed in the lake at the area
in question.
Babcock stated based on the memo, it appears that Hennepin County had a policy change some
years ago for dead-end channels.
Dick Ogle, 2771 Shadywood Road, discussed the uniqueness of the channel to the main lake.
He stated the channel is very visible to boaters when traveling east towards the Narrow
Channel. He noted he has lived in this area for 13 years and that boaters and snowmobilers
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 27, 1998
will travel into the channel at high rates of speed.
Page 3
Eggers asked if the navigational buoys that existed some years ago provided relief?.
Ogle stated he believed it did but he pointed out the use of the lake, mainly because of fishing
tournaments and PWC's, has changed over the years.
McMillan questioned whether there is a better way to look at the situation as a whole,
especially the costs of the buoys and the need for a policy. She added in this situation, she
believed a buoy made sense.
Babcock stated he believed the problems presented by the applicant are a symptom of the
bigger problem. He stated he believed education and enforcement of the 150' shoreland zone
is the problem. He suggested using alternative signage to inform boaters of the rules on the
lake. He added he believed approving a buoy in this area of the lake is not consistent with
previous Board actions.
Partyka stated he believed this is a safety issue and that it needs to be addressed. He added
because the Water Patrol is limited on what they can enforce, he believed the request makes
sense on a short-term basis.
Wert stated he believed approving the buoy request might be a reminder for those who might
want to obey the law.
Kitchak expressed concern with placing buoys around the lake in an attempt to control speed
based on safety needs. He added he did not believe it is in the lakes best interest to allow
buoys to proliferate.
Babcock stated he believed signage rather than buoys is the best means to educate the public on
the 150' shoreland zone. He added this should be done on other channels throughout the lake
and is the best way to educate the public.
Zimmerman stated he believed signage works on a limited basis because they are on top of the
sign before they slow down.
Wert suggested the Board approve a temporary buoy until a buoy policy has been established.
Foster stated a policy option for the Board to consider is to allow residents who want to place
buoys in the lake is to permit them, allow them to buy them, and to allow them to place them
in the lake.
Babcock expressed concern about this because it might open up a pandora's box.
Ogle stated the unique feature of this channel is that it is adjacent to a main channel on the
lake, the Narrows.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 27, 1998
Page 4
LeFevere stated if the Board allows for the approval of a private buoy, it is in the best interest
of the District to either have Hennepin County place the buoy in the lake or keep a close eye on
it. He added this allows for consistency of buoy placement on the lake.
MOTION:
Weft moved, Eggers seconded to approve one "no-wake" buoy to not exceed
100' from shore, subject to the residents who have made the request purchasing
and presenting the proper buoy to Hennepin County and subject to Hennepin
County being responsible for placing the buoy in and taking it out each year.
Babcock expressed a concern that residents might not be able to transfer a buoy they have
purchased to Hennepin County.
McMillan suggested the Board might want to amend the motion to state to note the buoy is not
for shoreline erosion to assist in not setting a precedent. She added it is in a dead-end channel
and is completely with the 150' shoreland zone.
Babcock stated from a policy standpoint, the Board has not approved private buoy placement in
the past.
· Dahlen asked if there is any empirical data, rather than intuition, to verify that safety is an issue
in the area.
Babcock stated he believed there is a quiet waters study policy procedure to assist in these
requests.
McMillan stated she believed that Hennepin County should be paying for buoys because of
uncertainty of who pays for buoys.
MOTION:
TO
AMEND
McMillan moved, Gilman seconded to amend the original motion to require
Hennepin County to purchase the no-wake buoy.
Babcock and Partyka expressed concerns because Hennepin County has stated they have budget
limitations.
VOTE ON:
MOTION
TO
AMEND
Ayes (2; McMillan and Gilman), Nayes (7); Motion to amend denied.
Babcock asked for feedback from Board members on the criteria being considered on why this
buoy should be allowed. He expressed concern in opening it up on a lakewide basis.
Wert ..stated he believed the area is unique, the residents are willing to purchase the buoy,
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 27, 1998 page ~
residents are willing to keep it within 100', and that it will assist in public safety by becoming a
passive deterrent.
McMillan stated she believed it is unique because there were some historical navigational buoys
in the past.
LeFevere stated because the area in question is at a point and there are no other navigational
buoys.
VOTE ON:
ORIGINAL
MOTION
Ayes (7), Nayes, (1; Kitchak), Abstained (1; Babcock); Motion carded.
B. Update on LCMR Application.
Babcock updated the Board on the LCMR application submitted for blanket funding of 1-2
public accesses on Lake Minnetonka. He noted the LMCD has made the first cut and was
granted a public hearing to discuss the proposal on Tuesday, 6/9/98 at 8:30 a.m. He
concluded he and Foster would be meeting with Mike Markell and Gordon Kimball on
Tuesday, 6/2/98 in the office at 8 a.m. to prepare strategies for the public hearing. He invited
Board members to attend this meting if they are interested.
Nybeck added that additional information that needs to be submitted to' the LCMR pri°r to the
public heating should be resolved at the 6/2/98 meeting.
D. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
2. WATER STRUCTURES
A. Ordinance Amendment, Second reading of an ordinance relating to the length of watercraft
stored at reconfigured multiple docks, amending LMCD Code by adding Subd. 9 to Section
2.015 and Subd. 4 to Section 2.01.
McMillan questioned whether the Board might want to include add-on attachments in the
overhang measurement. She stated she would like to see a little more flexibility in the'
ordinance.
Babcock stated he believed what this ordinance is attempting to accomplish is to specify how
length overall should be defined.
LeFevere stated it might be difficult for staff to determine measurements if it is unclear what
add-on attachments should be included. He added it would be difficult to justify different
measurements if in one situation it is manufacturer's equipment and in another case it is an
add -on.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 27, 1998
Page 6
0
Sarah Colville, Dock Manager for Groveland HOA, asked when the ordinance would become
effective if the draft ordinance was approved?
Babcock stated the ordinance would not apply to Groveland HOA but that 4' length overall
overhang restrictions, at normal operating position, were agreed to by the Association.
LeFevere stated the ordinance would become effective one day after date of publication.
MOTION:
Foster moved, Partyka seconded to approve second reading of the draft
ordinance amendment, to waive third reading, and adopt the ordinance relating
to thc length of watercraft stored at reconfigured multiple docks.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
B. Additional Business.
Groveland HOA
Babcock stated that an updated slip size report for Groveland HOA has been included in the
handout folder for record purposes of approved square footage at the 5/13/98 meeting. He
noted this figure was 6074 square feet.
FINANCIAL
B. April financial summary and balance sheet.
Nybeck reviewed the April financial summary and balance sheet.
MOTION: Foster moved, Partyka seconded to accept the April financial summary and
balance sheet of the as submitted.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
C. Update on timetable for review of draft 1999 LMCD Budget.
Babcock reviewed the timetable for review of the draft 1999 LMCD Budget. He noted the
first review meeting will be held on Friday, 5/29/98 at 8 a.m. in the office. He added a
meeting is scheduled for Friday, 6/5/98 at NOON in the office to meet with city officials. He
noted the Board will review the draft budget at the 6/10/98 and 6/24/98 meeting and will
forward the adopted budget to the member communities by the 7/1/98 deadline. He concluded
Board members should forward comments to Nybeck if they cannot attend the 5/29/98
meeting.
D. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 27, 1998
4. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE
A. Consideration of compensation adjustment request from Marsh Gabriel, EWM
Diesel/Hydraulic Mechanic.
Nybeck stated that Gabriel has served in this capacity since the early 1990's. He noted he
currently is compensated $25 per hour for mechanical work and $10 per hour for non-
mechanical work. He added he has paid these hourly rates since he began with the District
and has asked a $5 per hour increase for mechanical work. He concluded that Gabriel has
been a key component in the milfoil harvesting program and recommended the Board
consider his request.
MOTION:
We~ moved, seconded to approve thc compensation adjustment request for
Marsh Gabriel, EWM Diesel Hydraulic Mechanic, from $25 to $30 per hour for
mechanical work performed, and to maintain the $10 per hour rate for non-
mechanical work performed.
Kitchak recommended that staff receive the certificates of insurance and proper paperwork to
verify that he qualifies as an independent contractor.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
B. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
5. SAVE THE LAKE
A. Review of Lake Minnetonka Association LCMR Application.
Don Germanson, President of LMA, reviewed with the Board three projects they have planned.
First, he noted they have submitted a LCMR application to rejuvenate the training, education,
and lakewatch programs on Lake Minnetonka. Second, he discussed the Army Corp of
Engineers Study of Triclopyr scheduled for Lake Minnetonka. He noted Army Corp of
Engineer representatives will be in town from 6/8/98 - 6/10/98 and encouraged they attend the
6/10/98 to make a presentation to the Board. Third, he noted they are rejuvenating the
LakeWatch Volunteer Program and are looking for $500 to assist in the purchase of equipment.
He concluded the LMA is looking for LMCD Board support on the LCMR application and the
Triclopyr projects and is looking for financial assistance for equipment for the LakeWatch
program
MOTION: McMillan moved, Eggers seconded to approve $500 from "Save the lake" funds '
to purchase equipment for the LakeWatch Volunteer Program.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 27, 1998 Page 8
MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to support conceptual approval for the LMA
LCMR application.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously
B. Additional Business.
Babcock stated McMillan has volunteered to Chair the effort to revise the "Save the Lake"
· Advisory Committee. He asked the Board to formally approve McMillan for this position.
MOTION: Foster moved, Wert seconded to appoint McMillan as Chair of the "Save the
Lake" Advisory Committee.
VOTE: Motion carded unanimously.
e
ADMINISTRATION
A. Consideration of staff recommendation for compensation adjustment for Administrative
Assistant, Diane Samis.
Nybeck stated that he and Randall had recently completed a performance appraisal for the first
six months of employment for Samis. He noted staff believes she has performed well in he
position and that staff is recommending a compensation adjustment for Samis from $21,000 to
$22,000, retroactive to 5/1/98.
MOTION: Foster moved, Wert seconded to approve a compensation adjustment for Diane
Samis, Administrative Assistant, from $21,000 to $22,000 retroactive to 5/1/98.
Gilman stated he believed compensation adjustments with employees at the cities generally do
not go higher than 3 %. He added he believed the proposed adjustment might be high for an
employee that grades out at average.
Nybeck stated her overall performance would probably have graded out at above average;
however, she was either out of work or limited for several weeks due to carpal tunnel in both
wrists. He noted when Samis was hired, the range that staff had to work with was up to
$22,000. He concluded that the previous employee of the District was making just short of
$23,000 annually.
VOTE: Ayes (8), Nayes (1; Gilman); Motion carried.
B. Consideration of staff recommendation for compensation adjustment for Administrative
Technician, Nancy Randall.
MOTION:
Partyka moved, Gilman seconded to approve a compensation adjustment for
Nancy Randall, Administrative Technician, from $28,500 to $29,500 effective
6/1/98.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 27, 1998
Page 9
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
C. Discussion with Steve Tallen regarding increase in prosecuting fees in 1998.
Babcock introduced Steve Tallen, prosecuting attorney for the District, and asked him to
update the Board on his activities.
Tallen reported on the increase in year-to-date prosecuting fees. He noted:
That defendants appear to be defending BWI's more than in the past with the change in
legislation this year. He added this legislation makes it easier to get to multiple offenses
and has made them more serious. He noted starting in August of 1995, BWI offenses go
on individuals driving records. He stated he believed these additional consequences have
resulted in defendants fighting BWI's more than in the past.
· There have been three challenges to the authority of a special deputy to enforce Distict
Code and State laws. He added he believed the increase in fees this year has been
attributed to the hearings and briefs associated with them. He reported two of the Orders
have been favorable to the District and that the third is pending.
· He stated he believed the fees have been higher this year versus past years; however, he
believed activities will be slowing down in the near future.
He asked for comments or questions from the Board.
Babcock asked Tallen for an interpretation between what he prosecutes and what Hennepin
County prosecutes?
Tallen stated the agreement requires Hennepin County to prosecute game and fish violations
and that he prosecutes violations of LMCD Code including all BWI cases on Lake
Minnetonka. He noted this includes all gross misdemeanor cases and that fine revenue
collected goes to the District. He concluded he believed this arrangement provides for the
most consistent enforcement program on the lake.
D. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
e
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
Nybeck reported on the following:
· A copy of Rule "B" from the MCWD was in your packet to review for the 6/10/98 Board'
meeting. He noted a representative from the MCWD would be in attendance at this
meeting to discuss it.
· A copy of a calendar of activities in June was distributed for the Boards reference.
· He updated the Board on special events that have been permitted for the month of June.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 27, 1998 Page 10
· He noted the Boat washing station will be open from 4-7 p.m. starting on Friday, 6/5/98.
8. OLD BUSINESS
Foster stated he had followed up on the potential office spaces that Board members had checked on
recently. He noted the one space that the majority of those present preferred has some concerns
because the one wall to be moved could not be moved. He recommended the Board authorize him
to contact a space planner to work with staff to verify the office space needs for the District. He
stated this would cost around $300 and added he believed it should be done.
The consensus of the Board was to allow Foster to coordinate a space planner to discuss office
space concerns with staff.
9. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
Douglas Babcock, Chair
Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 9, 1998
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, June 9, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in
said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, and
Leah Weycker. Councilmember Liz Jensen was absent and excused. Also in attendance were:
City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, ity Clerk Fran Clark and the
following interested citizens:
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of
Allegiance was recited.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
1.0
APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed
and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent
Agenda has been approved.
*1.1 CONSENT AGENDA
1.2
1991
PROCLAMATION DECLARING JUNE 20, 1998 AS MOUND MASONIC LODGE
DAY IN THE CITY OF MOUND.
'1.3 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 26, 1998, REGULAR MEETING.
1992-2008
· 1.4 SET PUBLIC HEARINGS: (SUGGESTED DATE:JUNE 23, 1998, FOR AL1,
THREE
*.5
2009
FOR CASE #98-05, MAJOR SUBDIVISION, JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901
SHORELINE DRIVE.
'1.6
2010
FOR CASE//98-28, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TWIN HOMES,
JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE.
'1.7
2011
FOR CASE g98-26, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, MOTOR FUEL STATION
TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE B-2 ZONING DISTRICT,
JAMES SMITH/JAMES KOVACH, 1730 COMMERCE BLVD.
'1.8 RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AN ADDITION OF AN
ABUTTING DOCK SITE AT 4586 DENBIGH ROAD.
2012-2015
(PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ITEM WAS SCHEDULED TO GO
BEFORE THE DCAC AT THEIR MEETING OF MAY 28, 1998,
BUT THERE WAS NO QUORUM AND THE ITEM NEEDS TO BE
ACTED UPON AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.)
.1.9 RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF REGARDING THE TRIMMING OF
TREES, PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT, ADAM HAWKINSON, 1718 EAGLE
LANE~ WIOTA COMMON.
2016-2018
(PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ITEM WAS SCHEDULED TO GO
BEFORE THE DCAC AT THEIR MEETING OF MAY 28, 1998,
BUT THERE WAS NO QUORUM AND THE ITEM NEEDS TO BE
ACTED UI~N AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.)
*1.10 RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF REGARDING THE TRIMMING OF
TREES, PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT, DON SWENSON, 4857 ISLAND VIEW DR.,
DEVON COMMON.
2019-2026
(PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ITEM WAS SCHEDULED TO GO
BEFORE THE DCAC AT THEIR MEETING OF MAY 28, 1998,
BUT THERE WAS NO QUORUM AND THE ITEM NEEDS TO BE
ACTED UPON AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.)
*1.11 RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF TREE,
PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT, RAYMOND SALAZAR, 4559 ISLAND VIEW DR.,
DEVON COMMON.
2027-2033
(PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ITEM WAS SCHEDULED TO GO
BEFORE THE DCAC AT THEIR MEETING OF MAY 28, 1998,
BUT THERE WAS NO QUORUM AND THE ITEM NEEDS TO BE
ACTED UI~N AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.)
.1.12 POLLING PLACE CHANGE.
2034
· 1.13 LICENSE RENEWALS: CLUB ON-SALE, SUNDAY SALES, ON-SALE WINE,
ON-SALE BEER, OFF-SALE BEER, TREE REMOVAL LICENSE AND
TRANSIENT MERCHANT LICENSE.
2035
· 1.14 PAYMENT OF BILLS.
2036-2050
5. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
1.15 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: STORM WATER UTILITY ORDINANCE.
2051-2067
1.16 CASE //98-25: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, MICHAEL & KATHY
MEYER, 1748 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE, LOT 5, BLOCK 6, REPLAT OF
HARRISON SHORES, PID # 13-117-24 24 0016.
2068-2083
1.17 EXECUTIVE SESSION: WOODLAND POINT LITIGATION.
1.18 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for May 1998.
2085-2112
B. Draft of the 1999 Proposed LMCD Budget.
2113-2118
2119
Memorandum from Diane Lynch, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Executive
Director, regarding the appointment of liaisons from the City of Mound to interface with
the MCWD Board Liaison which is Tom Maple. Who should be the liaison? My
recommendation would be to appoint the City Manager as the official liaison and then
I can communicate between the MCWD Board liaison and the City Council. What do
you think?
D. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of May 14, 1998.
2120-2124
E. Letter from Moody's Investors Service regarding the change in definitions of the ratings
used by Moody's. Mound has been given a designation of an A2 rating.
2125-2126
F. Information from West Hennepin City Managers/Administrators/City Clerks regarding
focus groups on human services planning and coordination in the West Hennepin area
and the announcement of some upcoming meetings.
2127-2133
G. 1998 Salary Survey for Elected Officials as prepared by the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities (AMM).
2134-2142
H. REMINDER:
ANNUAL PARK TOUR, THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1998, 7 P.M.
MEET AT CITY HALL.
I. REMINDER:
COMMITrEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, TUESDAY, JUNE
16, 1998, 7:30 P.M., CITY HALL.
MOTION made by , seconded by to adjourn at
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PoMo
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk