The URL can be used to link to this page

1977-11-22 CC Agenda Packet CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota AGENDA CM 77-340 ~~ CM 77-331 CM 77-336 3. -~. CM 77-3.35 ~. CM 77-337 CM 77-338 CM 77-339 Mound City Council November 22, 1977 City Hall 7:30 P.M. Planning Commission Recommendations Pg. 1040-1064 Tax Forfeit Land Pg. 1036-1039 Winter Off Street Parking Pg. 1031-1035 Comments and Suggestions by Citizens Present (2 Minute Limit) Suburban Court Facilities Pg. 1027-1030 ~L. Animal Control Vehicle pg. 1023-1026 ~ HECO Assessment Pg. 1014-1022 .Interceptor Maintenance Agreement Pg. 1010-1013 Transfer of Funds ~{r. Payment of Bills 11. Information Memorandums/Misc. Pg. 90~-1009 12. Committee Report Pg. 1065 THE ~!'~SFOI~.S!BILITY OF ,;CT1ArELY SUPP~6!TING Y. uUTH SE_~VI,,G ,~GENCIES GFJ~D8 IF YOUTH 2:SCHOOL ::?' '"'~ ._..... f. ~ ;: ,' .~ :':' .4: "' ' ' :'? '/''~ "': f U ~ ~_~ . · ,: ..~. ~ .... _ -, :. ~.,,~,,,. ', ... : . · .. ... · ~ .. ........ ; . -.. ~ '.: Dote o£ Co~r~iss±o~ '~eco.~te~.d~.~io~ Oot~c±l Ap~oi~t.~e~t Date ., Res..~ Tez-.~nation by r~s~ngtion or ~ismissal -baf, e ~f~_ ___~ Oo~r,. action CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota November 18, 1977 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-340 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: The Honorable Mayor and City Council The City Manager Planning Commission Recommendations Attached is a copy of the Planning Commission minutes. is required on the following: Item 1. Subdivision of Land Lots 1,2,3,4 and 13, Block 4, Pembroke Zoned A-2 6,000 Sq. Ft. Council action The Planning Commission recommended the division provided deficient assessments be assumed and a soil report be provided. Supplemental assessments were charged this property on previous approval for the division so there are no deficient assessments. Also, the Building Inspector has been given a report of the soil borings. The requested division is: Parcel A: Parcel B: Parcel C: Lot 1 and the North 15 feet of Lot 2 except that part taken for Tuxedo Road - 7,227 Sq..Ft. That part of Lot 2 South of the North 15 feet as measured at right angles to the North line and that part of Lot 3 lying North of the South 10 feet except that part taken for Tuxedo - 8,516 Sq. Ft. Lots 4 and 13 and the Southerly 10 feet of Lot 3 - except that part taken for Tuxedo Boulevard - 10,025 Sq. Ft. Authorization of the above was given in 1971, but not filed at the County. Waivers for supplemental assessments were signed at that time. The assessments are on the property now. The Administration concurs with thePlanning Commission recommendation. Side Yard Setback - Non Conforming Use Lot 8, Block 2, Mound Terrace~ [~ ?/ Zoned A-2 6,000 Sq. Ft. The house is non-conforming since it is 5.3 feet from the lot line on one end of the house and 5.8 feet on the other end. The Planning Commission recommended a .7 foot variance so an addition can be added to the building. The Administration concurs. Planning Commission Recommendations November 18, 1977 - Page 2 Item ~/~~~ 3. Side Yard Setback - Non Conforming Us Lot 47, Auditor's Subdivision 168 zoned A-1 10,000 Sq. Ft. The Planning Commission recommended the side yard variance of 3.8 feet (now existing) and allow the remodeling providing no other encroachments are sought. Side Yard Variance ,~|~ Lot 60 Whipple Shores ~ k~ Zoned A-1 10,000 Sq. Ft. ~ Existing house meets the side yard requirement and an addition which would require a variance is requested. A motion to deny the variance failed on a 1/2 vote. No vote was taken on recom- mending the variance. Those who opposed the motion to deny listed their reasons: 1. The variance would not be of a major consequence on density. 2. The abutting property owner concurred. 3. A 10 foot side yard is too restrictive on a 50 foot lot. Street Front Variance ~.'~A~ Lot 22 and Part of Lot 21, Block 3, Shadywood Point ~~ The Planning Commission recommended a 5.3 ft. front yard variance for the garage providing all other setbacks were met. The Admin- istration concurs. 6. Turnquist Development The Planning Commission recommended that the Attorney draw an ordinance that would deal with the Turnquist property. The Attorney advises that an ordinance can be drawn in a short time. 'Leonard L. Agenda for lV~OUND AD¥ ISO~,~Y PLANNING COMM/SSION November I6, i977 BOARD OF APPEALS ETHAN A. C LrRTL5~ ~L18 Tuxedo Blvd. Lots 1.~4, 13, Block 4, Pembroke,. Map I3 Subdivision 0£ L~nd DOUGLAS U. Btt!GGS, 6344 Rambler Lot 8, Block Z, Mound Terrace~ Map Non-coni'ormL-lg Use {-.?ft. Side Yard) I~ANDY W. BUZZELL, 59Z6 Beachwood Rck Lot 47, Auditor'~ ~. t168, Map 9 No~-con/orrninff~ Ulie (A/t. Side Yard) DONALD MC CAi~VILLE, 3349 %~farner L~ne Lot 60, Whipple l~aore~, Map 15 ~ft, 81n. ~de Yard V~ri~ce i062 MINUT~I$ Newell seconded and vc~e was ua~.ni~o~l, BOARD OF APPEALS ETHAN A. CURTIS, 3L18 T~edo Bird. Lots 1-4, 13, Block 4~ l~mbroke, ~/~p 13 Subdivision of IAnd Kc-subdivide land i~to 3 building site~, each havinl/over 6,000 sq. ft. · *~q~lewell moved to ~pprove tJae /tvi~i~,~ as requested, providing that soft teets show th~ p~cels A ~d B are b~ble sites which ~ sup~ ~ dweH~g ~ ~e req~ed s~e yards ~d S,tbacks an4 ~1 n~ effect the ~a~ge in ~e ar~a. ~y deficient ~msemsmm~e shoed be ~i by develo~r. ~ s~c~d~d and vote ~ ~oum. Non-co~forming U~e i. 7ft. ${de e~New~ll m~td ~n/i ,%rdt2, m~cond~l ~t the . 7f~. mA~ ~ deficiency be ~lved and a ~r~t ~ ~ed am ~e average li~ ~d ~ ~e6 ~e req~rementm, I.,ot47, Auditor'm S~. #1&8, Non-con/orm!,,~ ume (It. St%. Sid~ Water and sewer &re not hooked lots ~ ~. bilk. 2. Neighbor ~ DAVE X~XIqEIR, I~0 IIhG'~'~oG,~ l,,,i~ Lots P/21, &22. Bl~k 9, ~adl/'~/ ~, 5, Irt, l~r~ Fret V~vl~ac~ ZA *~NeweH moved to request the 8t~or,,ey ~o draw u~ 'aa ~b~nce to de&l November 10, 1977 TO: FR OM: RE: Mound City Council and Advlsory Plann{ng Commisslon Henry Truelsen, Inspector November Board of Appeals 1. Combination subdivision of plotted lots A subdivision in 1971 was never properly recorded and those parcels reverted back to the original five parcels of land. Resolution No. 75-357 - This com- bination subdivision of the five parcels into two legal building sites was never properly recorded and once again reverted back to the original of five parcels of property. Resolution No. 77-136 - Combining and subdividing into two building sites was mistakenly approved as the property owner and buyer intended to change the subdivision into three legal building sites, but was not submitted as such due to misinterpretation of the previous unrecorded subdivision in Resolution No. 75-357. It is the intent at this time to combine and subdivide them into parcels A, B, and C, all three of which are and will be legal building sites for that particular zoned area. The attached Certificate of Survey shows the subdivision of parcels A and B. Current Certificate of Survey updating these parcels and to include parcel C has been ordered and will be forthcoming. I would hope that the Commission wSll stipulate to the agent that if these Certificates have not arrived by the time of the Commission meeting, that they ~shall be man- datory at the meeting of the City Council on No%rember ZZ, 1977. 2. Request permission to expand an existing non-conforming use ExiSting structure is 5. 3ft. from east property line. Non-conformity is existing structure does not meet the side yard requirements for that zoning of that area, which is A-2. The owner wishes to expand the habitable area of the home by adding 12ft. and also an attached 24ft. garage. 3. Existing structure is non-conforming use as it does not meet the side yard requirement of 10ft. for that zoned area. I would not recommend allowing to refurbish the existing structure at its present location. The structure should be removed from the premises and rebuilt to conform to the zoning requirements. 4. Would recommend against reducing side yard because of the narrdwness of the existing lots. Does not add to the life safety of this structure or of structure on abutting property. Would recommend against allowing this variance. APP ATION FOR SUBDIVISION Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND FEE OWNER Ethan A. Curtis and Marlene L. Curtis PLAT 37910 PARCEL 1450 , 1475 & part of 1500. Location and complete legal description of properly lo be divided: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 13, Block 4, "Pembroke". ZONING A-2 To be divided as follows: Parcel "A": Lot 1 and North 15feet of Lot 2, Block 4, "Pembroke", except that part taken for Tuxedo Road and subject to easements of record. Parcel "B": That part of Lot 2 lying South of North 15 feet as measured at right angles to the North line thereof and that part of Lot 3 lying North of South 10 feet as measured at right angles to the South line thereof, Block 4, "Pembroke", except that part taken for Tuxedo Road and subject to easements of record. Parcel "C": Southerly 10 feet of Lot 3, LoG 4, and Lot 13, Block 4, "Pembroke", except that part taken for Tuxedo Road. Subject to easements of record. Reason: Ethan A. Curtis/~n'd Marlene I~Lgn~ax~tis ADDRESS 3118 Tuxedo Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota 55364 Applicant's interest in the property: TEL. NO.472-1040 DATE This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan- ation given why this is not the case. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: DATE COUNCIL ACTION Resolution No. DATE APPROVAL OF THIS DIVISION IS DEPENDENT ON THE LEVYING OF ANY DEFICIENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BY WAIVER, THE FILING OF THE DIVISION AS APPROVED AND THE NECESSARY PAYMENT OF_TAXES BY THE FEE OWNER WITHIN 1 YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE RESOLUTION OR IT BECOMES NULL AND VOID. A list of residents and owners of property within _feet must be attached. I I 12_ ¢ C i977 ~h Th~ Hono~.~bie ~yor ~nd Ci%7 Council · Th~ City Divi~io~ of land 77-52 whe~ the di~,ien :F ~ta 1,,~, '~ 3, 4 and 15, Block 4¥ Pembro~ The The app!icmnt ~.~qu~sted .in 1975 ~nd recei-~e~ authority ~o divid~ ~he lo~e a~ lh~¢~e! B - Lot~ 4 ~ad 15 and Sou~he~ly I0 feet of Lot 5 would hmv~, -~4,3-5 ~qu~.~e~_~,- ~ ~oel B would ~ 12,765 RtCMMONO LANE CUMBERL. AND C.. RESOhUTION NO. 75-357 RESOLUTIONWAIVING P~QUIR~Ei~fS OF CHAPTER 22 OP TKE CITY CODE REGARDING TKE DIVISION OF PROPERTY Lots 1 - 4 and 13, Block 4, Pembroke WTUMMFAS, an application %o waive the subdivision requirements contained in Section 22.00 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound, and WHEREAS, said request for a waiver has been reviewed by the Planning Com- mission and the City Council, and WltERMAS, it is hereby determined that there are special circumstances affecting said property such that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; that the waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right; and that granting the waiver will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property owners, NOW, TEEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TKE CITY OF MOUND: The request of Ethan A. Curtis for the waiver from the pro- visions of Section 22.00 of the City Code and the request to subdivide property of less than five acres is hereby granted to permit division of the following property in the following manner: Divide Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 13, Block 4, Pembroke (Plat 37910 Parcels 1450, 1475, 1500, 1525 and 1750) into two building sites: A. Lots 1, 2 and Northly 50 feet of Lot 5 B. Lots 4 and 15 and Southerly l0 feet of Lot 5 It is determined that the foregoing division will con- stitute a desirable and stable community development and is in harmony with adjacent properties. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant for filing in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of this City. Adopted by the Council this 9th day of September, 1975. RESOLUTION NO. 77=i36 'RESOLUTIONWAIVINGREQCC/~S OF CHAPTER 22 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING TF~ DIVISION 0FPROPEKTY (Lots l, 2, 3, 4 and 13, Block 4, pembroke) an application to~aive the subdivision requirements contained in Section 22.00 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound, and ~qqE.~REAS, said request for a waiver has been reviewed by the Planning Com- mission and the City Council,.and kq~S, it is hereby determined that there are special circumstances affecting said property such that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; that the uaiver is necessary for the preserw-ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right; and that gr~nting the ~.aiver will not be'detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to Other property o~ners, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TEE CITY OF MOUt~D: 1. The request of Ethan A. Curtis for the waiver from the provisions of Section 22.00 of the City Code and the request to subdivide property of less tPmn five acres is hereby granted to permit division of the follow- ing property in the following manner: Divide Lots 1, 2 , 3, 4 and 13, Block 4, Pembroke (Plat 37910 Parcels 1450, 1475, 1500, 1525 and 1750) into two building sites: Parcel A - Lots 1 and 2 and Northerly 30 feet of Lot 3 Parcel B - Lots 4 and 13 and Southerly 10 feet of Lot 3 2. It is determined that the foregoing division will constitute a desirable and stable community development ~nd is in harmony with adjacent properties. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this re.solution to the applicant for filing in the office of the Register of I~eds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to shou compliance with the subdivision regulations of this City.- Adopted by the Co-~ncil this 155h ..... · day of ~rcb _, 19 77. APPLICATION FO~ARIANCE CITY OF MOUND NAME OF APPLICANT D6~c(c2 /~.$' (~. Address ~ 3 ~/5~ f?~ D~_ t?/~ F INTEREST IN PROPERTY $ zomNG PROPERTY ADDRESS_~,? ~-/x///~.~/~f~.~ L LC(: Fl ~ LOT Te le phone Number ~/7f2- (~?,SZ~ADDITION FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Address PLAT ~9 / g f~) PARCEL Telephone Numb e r VARIANCE REQUESTED: NOTE: FRONT YARD FT.I REAR i LOT SQ. YARD FT:I FOOTAGE ACCESSORY BUILDING N. C. U.* or OTHER (describe) / REASON FOR REQUEST:. A building permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the ~ /,~ ~affc~l ~'~lution or variance granted becomes null and void, TPLANING COM~ON RE COMMENDATION DATE 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement in relation to lot lines, other buildings on property and abutting streets, Z. Give ownership and dimensions of ~djoining property~ Show approximate locations of all buildings, driveways, and streets pertinent to the application by extending survey or drawing. 3. Attach letters from adjoining affected property owners showing attitude toward request. COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO ........ 1 t.35 DATE *non-conforming use 63, er Road $CHOELL'^xD MADSON E~,NE~-RS A~O SURVEYORS ~O NINTH AVENUIr SOUTN HOPKINS. MINNESOTA PHONE: g3~,-7614 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY A. z,~55 ~.'~ ~- CARLISLE ldAD$ON REOIST£RED LAND SUR~YO~ IOWA NO. 3701 /( .;. WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF: AND OF THE LOCATION OF ALL BUILDINGS, IF ANY. THEREON AND AS SURVEYED ~Y US THIS i · .,,,'-, .: '?:_. .... ,., ..... .' .:. _ ..~-/' ;--'.':-,:~ :~':- -, ,~ :-: ./ ----:.' '~ .. , .; 'T..? .. ' '. ~ · CITY OF MOUND ZONING ,,~ ',/ -7 /O~'-~' c~ ADDRESS ,5-9~ G ~ao~,wooO .~,E~ ..... NAME OF APPLICANT ~. Ja-'.,Y~,z?.Z~.-- PLAT ~I~70 PARCEL, ,.LOT ~/~' BLOCK ADDITION INTEREST IN PROPERTY ,, .~q $ ~'o ~,~, FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) , Address , / Telephone Number VARIANCE REQUESTED: NOTE: YARD LOT SIZE · - YARD FT. FOOTAGE /'~O0o N. C. U.* or OTHER (describe) REASON FOR REQUEST: 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement in relation to lot lines, other buildings on property and abutting streets. 2. Give ownership and dimensions of adjoining property. Show approximate locations of all buildings, driveways, and streets pertinent to the application by extending survey or drawing. 3. Attach letters from adjoining affected property owners showing attitude toward request. A building permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the council resolution or variance granted becomes null and void. Variances are not transferable. APPLICANT . ~~~.. ~.) ~?~/ DATE ~~' &'~/ t S~na~re ~ RECOMMENDATION DATE RESOLUTION NO DATE . *non- conforming use APP LICA TION FO~ARIANCE CITY OF MOUND APPLICANT Address ~ FEE $ ZONING PROPERTY ^DDRESS 3.M. 7'c0. , ,~ o,,. [--~ .... PLAT -~?r/c/c~ PARCEL .,. ~ ~t>0 -, mot . Tele phon~ INTEREST IN PROPERTY ...... ~ c6/~ ~v~ FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Address Te le phone Number VARIANCE R_EQUES TED: FRONT YARD FT.I YARD . j ~ FT. REAR [ FT.] YARD N. C.U.* or OTHER (describe) REASON FOR REQUEST: ; .~.. . .-"--- . ',.~.-~ ACCESSORY BUILDING LOT SIZE LOT SQ. FOOTAGE NOTE: 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement FTJ in relation to lot lines, other buildings on property and abutting streets. Z_. Give ownership and dimensions of locations of all buildings, driveways, and streets pertinent to the application by extending survey or drawing. 3. Attach letters from adjoining affected property owners showing attitude toward request. ITILLAGE OF . ......... .%/(:...? . ......... A--buiI~Iing permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the council resolution or~ariance grand becomes null and void. Variances are not t~a,sfer,~e. / / . 11. ///~/71! APPLICANT ~nAN~NO eO~SS~ON ~mCO~ZNOA~ON DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO, DATE *non- conforming us e / 'L OF NAME OF APPLICANT Address -tDZ J LI ZONING PROPERTY ADDRESS , PARCEL L~] ,,.LOT 7-/-~/~ ~ZI BLOCK Tele phone Nurnber 47l- %-~4D ADDITION ~g/]bV[[300~ INTEREST IN PROPERTY -D~M i'51'-TuIJ I---f [ F_./J I L~I-r/Z_ ) FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Address ' Telephone Number 47Z- _Y311 VARIANCE REQUESTED: FRONT YARD SIDE ,FT.J YARD REAR YARD i FTj N. C. U.* or OTHER (describe) REASON FOR REQUEST: ACCESSORY [ B UI LDING .... LOT SIZE LOT SQ. FOOTAGE NOTE: FT.l J .4eo FTJ 1_. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement in relation to lot lines, other buildings on property a~d abutting streets. 2. Give ownership and dimensions of adjoining property. Show approximate locations of all buildings, driveways, and streets pertinent to the application by extending survey or drawing. 3. Attach letters from adjoining affected p--roperty owners showing attitude toward request. 'VLLLAG~ACgu[iding ~ermit must be applied for within one year from the date of the fly .............. c~..J, coancil, resolution or variance granted becomes null and void, Variances are not transfe~/~le. APPLICANT. DATE .... /! ~/4- 7 7 PLANNING COMMISSION llECOMMENDATION DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO, .'j DATE ERTIFICATE LAND SU RVP'YORS Survey *'" OF SURVEY 8713 DuPO'-:T AVENUE SOUTH OO~tl~ :'~N MINN. 55420 -. / / ,,,, (~' · ~ '~_ ~ x, ~,, / ~ We.hereby certzfv that this'is ;~%rue and correct representation of a surYt'y o~ the ~ all buildings, g any, thereon and allv~slble'encr°achments' ~ any, ~rom or un ~ : .... .-,' M~esota ~egLstratlon No. Ll 11/22/77 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota November 1, 1977 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-331 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: The Honorable Mayor and City Council The City Manager Tax Forfeit Land The City has acquired Lots 5 and 6, Block 28, Whipple, since they are land-locked and may be low. The owner of Lot 15, Block 28, would like to acquire them to go with his property. Inasmuch as the only access to these lots is over Lots 15 and 16, it is recommended that the City return these lots to the State and ask for a private sale of the lots and in turn resell them to the owner of Lot 15. cc: Paul Henry RO~ 7 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota November 17, 1977 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-336 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: The Honorable Mayor and City Council The City Manager Winter Off Street Parking The Public Works Director has received requests for Off-Street Winter Parking at the following addresses (None are recommended): J. Clapshaw, 5027 Edgewater Drive M. David, 2163 Diamond Lane Neil J. Hemsey, 5325 Piper Road Robin Reger, 2136 Overland Lane Under the Winter Parking Ordinance, no on-street parking is allowed between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. from November 15 to April 15. cc: Public Works Director Police Chief City of Hound VARIANCE RE'ST, OFF STRJEET PARKING PHO~[E - Home__ ~ '7~,'~- -21j 7~-- Business APPX. APPOINI~.,.~?:T? TI~ FOR ON SITE iNSPECTION A.M. P.M. &PPLICANrS SIG:NATUP, E ~ ~ ~.~ ~j~z~~- DiAG~ OF LOT -Use reverse side of 6his reques%: REi. L~RKS & RECOJ.Z,~,NDATICNS BY I~DIVIDUAL FL4KING INSPECTION SIGNATURE OF INDIVIDUAL M&KING INSPECTION & /DENTIFICATION City of Mound VAR!M~CE , OFF STREET PARKII'~G PHONE - Home ~/27- 'z-/"..~-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-~PO LOT P¢¢~%~ ~ [/ BLOCK APPX. g_PPO17~I~.,.~N? TI_V~ FOR ON SITE iNSPECTION APPLICANTS S Ig.~ ~¢TLE DZAG~4 OF LOT -Use reverse side of this request: Business ADDITION .~_ ~_C~ .... A.M.P.M. SIGNATURE OF LtroIVIDUAL M[KING INSPECTION & IDENT/FICATION ,H. 6P,,.,o~o j 1033. of Mound V~NCE REQI~ST, OFF S'IREET PAP](II~G O~tNANCE Business ADDITION APPX. APPOt~'~.'~T TII~ FOR ON SITE INSPECTION DIAG.~4 OF LOT -Use reverse side of this request: A.M.P.M. ,,~I,.~P~,S & RECO]-D~._.'~DAT!ONS BY II~DIV!DUAL ;iqKING INSPECTION SIGNATURE OF INDIVIDUAL M~KING INSPECTION & IDENTIFICATION V~RT_ANCE P~ City of ]Cound ., OFF STREET PAWJ<ING Date_t/ ~ j ~ D~G~ OF ~T -Use reverse side of this request: R~.Z~RK..S & RECO].~,E~%~ATICNS BY I~¢DIV~DUAL lC&KING INSPECTION / ? ¢'6,, · SIGNATURE OF INDIVIDUAL ~[KING INSPECTION & IDENTIFICATION 1031 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota November 16, 1977 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-335 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: The Honorable Mayor and City Council The City Manager Suburban Court Facilities Some months ago the Council was informed of the County's studies and discussion on upgrading the overcrowded suburban court facilities. Attached is a copy of a latter from the Prosecuting Attorney con- curring with the County's position of building the new court facili- ties in the "Dales" which means Ridgedale would serve Mound. Also attached is a copy of a proposed resolution if the Council wishes to support the County's position. Leonard L. Kopp ! ' GARY L. PHL£G[R RnBERT W. REUTIhlAN, dR. PHLEGER AND REUTIMAN ATTBRNEYS AT LAW 4D1 EAST LAKE BTREET WAYZATA, MINNE?~I3TA 55391 612-473-9328 November 11, 1977 Leonard Kopp, City Manager City of Mound Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Construction of suburban court facility Dear Leonard: As you know from the information I furnished last winter, the court administration is looking at a solution to the current over-crowding problem in the suburban court facilities. Presently these suburbs are served by facilities in Crystal, Wayzata, Bloom- ington-Richfield, and St. Louis Park. The most severe space problems exist in Wayzata and Crystal. More specific details of the reason for the need and alternative proposals were presented in the suburban court development plan which I delivered to you last spring. Hennepin County is willing to proceed with construction of new court facilities to serve the suburbs. The court administration believes that the most feasible plan both economically and geo- graphically to meet the future needs of the suburban court system would be to locate new court facilities in the areas of Brookdale, Ridgedale, and Southdale. These would be in conjunction with the construction of the new suburban library regional centers. The Municipal Prosecutors Association of Hennepin County has de- cided to support the plan, subject to individual members of course being responsible to the direction from their respective city councils. I enclose herewith a proposed resolution to support the concept of such location plans and would ask that you place the same on an upcoming appropriate council agenda. If you would advise me when the matter is on the agenda I will plan to attend such meeting. Yonni~lY, ~ , /~ , Prosecuting Attorney GLP: lj Eno. 2 0 2 Council member and moved its ~'dopt{on: introduced the following resolution CITY OF RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF COURT FACILITIES FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY >~NICIPAL COURT AT THREE LOCATIONS WITHIN SUBURBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY W-HEREAS, the Hennepin County ~nicipal Court Act established various locations for the holding of court throughout the County; and ~EREAS, the legislation established the Court as a County Court to serve all the citizens and the municipalities of the County with adequate and convenient Court facilities; and WHEREAS, the legislation requires the County of Hennepin to provide convenient and adequate Court buildings and facilities at various locations throughout the County; and ~gHEREAS, for the twelve years since the Court's inception, it has utilized facilities provided on a rental basis by various muni- cipalities and private parties, many of which facilities are inadequate for the needs of the Court; and ~EREAS, the long range planning goals of the Hennepin County M~nicipal Court include a plan to have a major court'facility built and maintained by the County at three suburban locations, roughly corresponding to the locations of the Brookdale, Ridgedale and Southdale shopping centers; and ~EREAS, the~Hennepin County Commissioners have considered the establishment of County Library facilities at the same locations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of Mound that it supports the concept of the construction ~nd es~ablishm~h~ of Court buildings and facilities by the Board of Hennepin County Commissioners at three suburban locations roughtly corresponding to Brookdale, Ridgedale and Southdale shopping centers, in con- junction with planned library facilities at the same location; BE IT _FURTHER R_ESOLVED, that the City of Mound urges the State Legislature to amend iOcati6ns contingent upon the construction, by Hennepin County, of adequate Court buildings and facilities at the said locations. Date: Attest: The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and, upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted i~ favor thereof: And the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passsd and adopted. i 0 2 7 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota November 17, 1977 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-337 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: The Honorable Mayor and City Council The City Manager Animal Control Vehicle Bids have been taken on replacement of the pickup truck now being used for animal control. The bids are: Thurk Bros. Chevrolet 1978 Chevrolet Stepside 6% Ft. Pickup Less Trade In 1975 Dodge ½ Ton Purchase Price $6771.60 --3056.60 $3715.00 Suburban Chevrolet 1978 Chevrolet Stepside 6% Ft. Pickup Less Trade In 1975 Dodge ½ Ton Purchase Price $5515.83 ~1200.00 $4315.83 It is recommended that Thurk Brothers be awarded the bid at $3715.00. ,.eonard L. Kopp cc: Police Chief ON I..~KE MINNETONKA 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 INDIAN BURIAL MOtJND~ TELEPHONE (612) 472-1155 November 14, 1977 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Leonard Kopp - City Manager Charles Johnson - Chief of Police Purchase of Animal Control Vehicle Attached are specifications and bids received from Thurk Brothers Chev- rolet and Suburban Chevrolet for a heavy duty l/2 ton pick up truck which is to be used primarily for animal control. This vehicle is to replace the 1975 Dodge currently in use. This vehicle ~vas budgeted for 1978. The expected useful life of this vehicle is not less than three years. It is recommended we accept the bid of $3,715 from Thurk Brothers Chevrolet. This bid is $600.83 lower than the bid of Suburban Chevrolet. Both bids include a trade in allowance for the 75 Dodge. Respectfully, c Chief of Police CJ:lao 1978 Th Bros. Chevrolet Co. ST. BONIFACIUS, MINN. 55375 446-1082 'SERVING THE AREA SINCE 1928' Bid for City of Mound November 1, 1977 1978 Chevrolet Stepside 6~' Pickup H.D. Freight Heavy duty seat ~' Gauges, volt, temp and oil Cigarette lighter ~' Tinted glass ~- Air conditioning 4, Courtesy lights Eye line mirrors ~ Dual horns Drip moldings AM Radio '; Tilt wheel '~' Heavy duty front and rear springs~ Front stabilizer'-' Power brakes ,- Power steering- Automatic transmission~ Transmission cooler Locking differential' L78x15/B Tires 350 V8 engine ~ Heavy duty cooling,/ Heavy duty battery'~: 60 Amp generator'.~' Step bumper Inside hood release~' Total $6771.60 - 3056.60 3715.OO Trade in allowance for 1975 Dodge ~ ton with cover Trade difference Note: SEE WHAT'S NEW TODAY INA CHEVROLET. (1) Ail tax refunds remain property of Thurk Bras. Chevrolet Co. (2) Bid does not include spot light ..... ....... .- -; ~- ~T°0~,° ~~_,~.m.,_, c~.~Uq Impala Caprice Classic Corvette Suburban Chevrolet Co. 1100 EXCELSIOR AVE., HOPKINS, MINN. 55343 PHONE 938-2751 FLEET ~' QUOTATION Date Facto~ F.O.B. Lis~ Price ...................... ~ ~~ ,. . _ . ~;~~ ..... Preigh~ ' · ot~ ................................................................................... kes~l%w~ee for Trade-in or Diseo~ ................................ ~_~ ............ Mae ~~ Model fl/b~ Body ~e~ c~ss ~~ rs~c~ or wmc~~ } ~2~ ~icense~ Weight ~lesge .~ . ............................ ~s quotation e~ Prices quoted herein are subject to change by the ManuFacturer without notice. Conditions of used vehicles shall be revalued on date of delivery. State Sales Tax and License not included. /~ presentative / / ,-'"'~/'~ ~ Sales Manager PARTS a.a SERVICE OPEN 7:30 ^.M. to ~ ~/; ~ CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota November 17, 1977 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-338 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: The City Manager SUBJECT: HECO Assessment The City is a part of the Hennepin Emergency Communications Organi- zation (Fire and Police Radio) and as such, we are being assessed $800 for an Engineering study. The HECO Board has requested a com- mitment prior to their next meeting. It is recommended that the Council authorize the expenditure.~ A letter from the Police Chief regarding this assessment and other background material are attached. cc: Police Chief ON LAKE ~I|NNE'TONKA INDIAN BURIAl.. MOUND~ 53411 MAYWOOD ROAD TELEPHONE MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 November 14, 1977 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Leonard Kopp - City Manager Chuck Johnson - Chief of Police HECO Engineering Study Assesment The attached letter from the HECO Board of Directors explains and requests the payment of an $800 assesment to offset engineering expenses expected to be incurred during the next six months. A Commitment from the city council is needed on this prior to the next HECO board meeting November 23, 1977. It is recommended we give this $800 commitment to HECO. There is a possibility the money may be returned if LEAA funds are made available, however whether they are or not it is anticipated we will have to commit at least some money sometime in the near future. As a dependant department (we are provided communications by the Hennepin County Sheriff as opposed to those independant departments that have their own communication systems) we will be forced to go along with whatever decision is made by the county with regard to their pledging their radio frequencies to HECO. This decision to pledge frequencies must be made by all departments that hold frequencies by July l, 1978. The study to be conducted at this time ~v[ll furnish the data needed for all departments both dependant and independant, the facts necessary to make the best decision for frequency use and the direction HECOwill take in providin~ emergency communications for all county police and fire departments. Respectfully, Cd~ u~'~C~, Ja~ Chief of Police CJ:lao HENNEPIN SHERIFF EPARTMENT 6 Courfhous Minneapolis, Minnesota 554 f 5 Don Omodt, Sheriff October 28, 1977 Mr. Leonard L. Kopp City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mr. Kopp: The Board of Directors of the Hennepin Emergency Communications Organization (HECO) met on Thursday, October 20th.~ The main purpose of t{ECO is twofold: First, we must prepare for the advent and implementation of 911 telephone service. We can report to you that a work program has been adopted, and we are proceeding onschedule and satisfactorily in this regard. The second main purpose is to work toward a plan to better utilize the scarce and precious radio frequencies available to the several public safety organizations in Hennepin County. The HECO Agreement contemplates, at least, some consolidation or combination of police and fire dispatch facilities. A target date of July 1, 1978, is established by the HECO Joint Powers Agreement for a decision on this aspect. To date, we have made little progress towards a resolution. It is imperative, we believe, 'that HECO now commence ~an engineering study from which, among other things, we can best combine or consolidate some or all of the several dispatch operations and make better use of the existing frequencies. The HECO Executive Committee is in the process of preparing a Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) grant request for the funds necessary to finance an engineering study that will recommend alternative methods of achieving the objectives of HECO. The estimated cost is $60,000. There is some doubt whether HECO will be able to get the grant funds, not because of any questions regarding the importance and desirability of this project, but rather because of prior commitments of the funds. It seems that the best that HECO can hope for is the use of reversionary funds, that is, funds that have already been allocated for some project but have not been spent. We do not expect to receive a definitive answer to the grant request until July 1978. In the meantime, we believe that it is in the best interests of the entire County that we proceed with the engineering study so that we can have the information available before next July, (1978). and be able to make the necessary decisions. If this is done, it is possible that immediate substantial savings in the 911 installation, and recurring cost of dispatching can be accomplished. HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer Mr. Leonard L. Ko~ Page 2 October 28, 1977 The Board of Directors has directed the Executive Committee to seek financial commitments from each of the members. Some moneY will be needed and soon. If the grant request is unsuccessful, all will be needed. If we get the grant, the direct cost to the members will be less. The Executive Committee has evolved a formula for payment of the amount necessary which we are calling "1978 dues". This is not to he construed as an ongoing amount. The formula is as follows: POPULATION NO. OF M~BERS 1978 DUES DUES x NO. Over 50,000 3 $5300 $15,900 40 to 50,000 3 $4400 $13,200' 30 to 40,000 4 $3500 $14,000 20 to 30,000 3 $2600 $ 7,800 10 to 20,000 3 $1700 $ 5,100 Under 10,000 5 $ 800 $ 4,000_ $60,000 Th~ Board of Directors will meat again om November 23, 1977. We need to have your co~}tment, as Well as all others, by 'that date. We trust that this will allow mdequate time for City Council consideration and action. If any of us cam he of help with additional iaformation, please advise. Or, you can get assistance from John O'Sullivan, Director of Hennepin County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, telephone 348-6497, or from Jim Brekken, who is on loam to HECO from the Bloom{ngton Police Department. He can be contacted throughMr. O'Sulltvan's Office or at Bloomington, 884-3591. If we do not receive the necessary co~{tments on November 23rd, some members, because of J_mmediate and pressing needs, will go ahead on their own with what we consider a piecemeal engineering study.' We do not believe a limited study will be in the best interests of all, but we understand it may be necessary considering the special needs of these member communities. Very truly yours, HENNEPIN EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS ORGANIZATION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DON OMODT, PRESIDENT HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF JOHN PIDGEON, VICE PRESIDENT BLOOMINGTON CITY MANAGER WILLIS, SECRETARY-TREASURER THOMAS A. THOMPSON ~ '- PLYMOUTH CITY MA~NAGER ASSISTANT CITY COORDINATOR, MINNEAP0] DIRECTOR, DO:ehs Enclosure DONALD DAVIS SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT HENNEPIN ~ERGENCY CO}R. fdNiCATIONS ORGANIZ BOAPJ3 OF DItlECTORS ~icipalit~ Director ]ity of Bloomington 2215 West Old Shakopee Road Bloomington, Minn. 55431 John G. Pidgeon City Manager City of St. Anthony 3301 N. E. Silver Lake Road Minneapolis, Minn. 55418 James Fornell City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minn. 55423 Wayne S.'Burggraaff City Manager 'City of Mound 5341 MaywoOd Road Mound, Minn. 55364 Leonard L. Kopp. City Manager City of Plymouth 3025 Harbor Lame Plymouth, Minn. 55441 James G. Willis~ City Manager City of New Hope~ 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minn. 55428 Harlyn G. Larson 'City Manager City of Golden-Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road b~nneapolis, Mi~n. 55427 James Crawford Director of Public Safety City of BrooklynPark 5800 85th Avenue North Bro0klynPark, Minn. 55443 R. M. Henneberger City Manager Cityof St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, Minn. 55416 John Elwell City Manager Village of Excelsior 339 Third Street Excelsior, Minn.-55331 Donald E. Davis Director, South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department City of Shorewood 20630 Manor Road $horewood, Minn. 55331 ~Donald E. Davis Director, South Lake Minnatonka Public Safety Department City of Hopkins 1010 First Street North Hopkins, Minn. 55343 William Craig City Manager {ECO BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Continued) ~unicipalitv City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minn. 55424 City of Minneapolis 311 City Hall Minneapolis, Minn. 55415 City of Eden Prairie 8950 County Road 4 Eden Prairie, Minn. 55346 City of Orono Box 6~ Crystal Bay, Minn. 55323 City of M_innetonka 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, Minn. 55343 City of Crystal~. 4141 Douglas Drive North Crystal, Minn. 55422 · Hennepin County Room 6, Courthouse Minneapolis, Minn. 55415 A2309 Government Center Minneapolis, Minn. 55487 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minn. 55430 City of Maple Grove 14310 93rd Avenue North Osseo, Minn. 55369 City of Robbinsdale 4221 Lake Road Robbinsdale, Minn. 55422 Page 2 Director Robert Buresh Director of Safety David Niklaus City Coordinator Thomas A. Thompson Associate City Coordinator Jack Hacking Director of Public Safety Walter R. Benson Administrator Robert Grewell City Manager John T. Irving City Manager Don 0modt Sheriff (Dave Duryee, Room #6) and Dale G. Folstad Director of Management Services · Gerald Splinter City Manager Robert A. Erickson City Administrator John F.'Fischbach City Manager i0,'I 7 HENNEPIN EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS ORGANIZATION TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: All HECO Members Staff November 2, 1977 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The following material was developed at the request of the Executive Committee for your use when presenting the request for dues to your governing board. Police communications, or more precisely the effective use of radio technology, has been a subject of discussion and controversy ever since the two-way radio was first used by police. AS the technology and equipment have become more sophisticated, generally, the police became more adept at making full use of these resources. However, in recent years technological advances have not been fully used due to extremely high costs and, perhaps more importantly in our own jurisdiction, the limited number of radio frequencies has severely hampered the implementation of changes which could insure a more effective use of radio tech- nology. At the present time there are a number of agencies i.n Hennepin County that are sharing police radio frequencies which are so congested by normal use that the full benefits of two-way radio systems are not possible. In simple terms, no additional frequencies are available and alternative solutions must be found. The most straightforward solution~is the redistribution and sharing of the avail- able radio frequencies. This sharing can take the form of two or more adjacent communities sharing a single radio frequency with each maintaining its own dis- patching center; or there can be "clustering" in which two or more communities share a radio frequency and use one dispatching center with the~costs of dis- patching being shared amqng the participants; or there can be full consolida- tion where all public safety dispatching takes place in one center and all com- munities pay a fair share of the operating costs. Even though the solution seems simple, there was no mechanism whereby the vari- ous communities in the county could cooperatively institute change without peripheral issues such as parochial interests, competition among agencies and suspicion as to motives getting in the way. The result was a lot of talk and speculation, but no action. In response to these problems, the Hennepin County Criminal Justice Council Communications Steering Committee initiated a series of planning activities which resulted in a recommendation to create an organization wherein all members participated as co-equals with adequate safeguards to assure user control. The organization that evolved was the Hennepin Emergency Communications Organi- zation (HECO), a joint power organization with 23 member units of government which range in size from the city of Medicine Lake to the city of Minneapolis. November 2, 1977 Page Two A review of the joint power agreement highlights why HECO was created. It was created to plan for the "reallocation and the greater sharing of the frequency channels available..."; to explore the feasibility "to have the several existing dispatch facilities consolidated into a lesser number, with one centralized facility possibly providing enhanced public safety services and the best opportunity for application of current and future technological developments"; to develop "a plan and operating procedures for an integrated and coordinated public safety communications system which includes county- wide 911 telephone service .... " In addition, the agreement provides a means to operate such a center or centers should that be the decision of the HECO Board and to assess the operating costs to the participating members based upon an established formula. HECO as an organizational entity exists and appears theoretically able to make significant improvements in public safety communications but, like a rocket.without fuel, it is a very static achievement. Just as the rocket needs fuel to do the job for which it was intended, HECO needs "fuel" to ac- complish results. The "fuel" needed for HECO is a mixture of p.articipation, cooperation and resources. Each member of HECO has been asked to consider a request for dues to under- write the cost of conducting a study which will, among other things, determine the future of HECO. To begin to make system improvements, HECO needs a great deal of information and advice which will serve as the basis for~ decisions by individual members and as the basis for recommending detailed operational im- provements. The study is crucial if system improvements are to be made. The issues facing HECO can be summarized as follows: Some radio frequencies are currently overloaded to the extent that the quality of service is marginal. The County system is now at this point. 2. Some radio frequencies in the county are underused. 3. When frequencies are licensed by an agency they are literally "owned" by that agency. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that a reallocation or sharing of frequen- cies is necessary and that any sharing or reallocation will require the willing cooperation of those members who currently control radio frequencies. Capital costs of dispatching equipment continue to increase and most of the present radio dispatching centers will require significant investments for new equipment within three to six years. By reduc- ing the number of dispatching centers through clustering or consoli- dation, it is possible to minimize the impact of capital spending for dispatching equipment. November 2, 1977 Page Three By reducing the number of dispatching centers and by instituting a procedure wherein each community pays its fair share of the dis- patching costs, it is likely that the cost to each agency will be more equitable and, in some cases, the cost per agency will actually be less than its current expenditures for public safety communica- tions. The following will be included in the study. 1. Community profiles will be developed which will reflect the current and projected public safety communications needs of each community. 2. An inventory and description of the current use of all radio fre- quencies available for public safety purposes. Professional engineering services will be provided to: evaluate existing radio and dispatching equipment, recommend reallocation of frequencies, recommend system improvements, recommend cluster or consolidation arrangements (technical aspects), assist in dispatch center site selections and design of facilities, 'develop specifica- tions for modifying existing equipment for use in consolidated or cluster center, revise county 911 plan to conform with system changes, evaluate equipment needs, and assist in developing detailed imple- mentation plans. Several alternative methods of system improvement will be described as options for consideration by the HECO members with each alternative including a des- cription of its general operational features. At the last HECO Board meeting a question was raised as to the status of the potential for LEAA funding for this purpose. The Executive Committee has directed staff to continue the preparation of such a grant request; however, you should be aware that at the time the HECO Executive Committee approved the work pro- gram, there was a strong likelihood that LEAA funding would be available for at least the first year of operation of HECO. Within the last few. weeks, that situation has changed to the extent that it is now virtually certain that LEAA funds will not be available for a grant to operate HECO. Therefore, if HECO is to produce any results, the members must demonstrate their commitment to improving public safety communications by underwriting the start-up costs and this project directly by dues or other contributions. JMB:bjr CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota November 17, 1977 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-339 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: The Honorable Mayor and City Council The City Manager Interceptor Maintenance Agreement Each year the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission asks that we renew the maintenance agreement for the Metro sewer lines and lift stations in Mound. Attached is a letter requesting the 1978 agreement along with the agreement. Ail costs are paid by the Commission. They suggest monthly prepay- ments totaling $7,000. annually. During 1976, they are prepaying based on $6,000. annually. November l, 1977 m=JRO SOUARE BLDG. 7TH & ROBERTITREEU SAINT PAUL M~ SSIOI Mr. Leonard L. Kopp City Manager City of Mound 5341M]a~p~ood Rd. Mound, Minnesota 55364 Subject: Inteterceptor Maintenance Agreement for 1978 Dear Mr. Kopp: We wish to renew for another year Interceptor Maintenance Agreement No. 139 under the same general terms and conditions contained in the Agreement now in force between the City of Mound and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission with the exception of Section 6.02 Cost Estimates; Payments. We would like to amend this section to read: "Section 6.02 Cost Estimates; Payments." The parties estimate that the total amount of costs which the Commission will be required to pay the Municipality for performance of this Agreement in 1978 will be $7000. Such amount shall be paid in twelve monthly installments as an advance payment of such costs. On or before February l, 1979 the Municipality will submit to the Commission a detailed statement of the actual costs incurred by the Municipality which the board is required to pay in accordance with Section 6.01, and will remit to the Commission any amount paid to the Munici- pality which is in excess of such actual costs. If the total of the monthly advances paid by the board is less than the actual amount of such costs, the Commission shall pay to the Municipality on or before March 1, 1979 an amount equal to the difference between the actual costs and the monthly advances previously paid. The Municipality shall keep detailed records supporting all costs of the types specified in Section 6.01 which it expects the Commission to pay, and shall make the same available to the Commission on request. Mr. Leonard L. Kopp City of l'.~o~ Page 2 The Renewal Agreement is enclosed in triplicate for endorse- ment. We have signed the enclosed statement as our intention of renewing the Agreement and ask that you also sign and return to us two (2) of the executed copies and retain one (1) for your records. Should you have any questions or suggested changes to the basic Agreement, please feel free to contact us. Your cooperation in accepting this renewal procedure is greatly appreciated. Very truly yourself, R o Chief Administrator RJD:LOB:ba Encl osu res CC: Richard L. Berg, Comptroller, MWCC LaRae O. Bohn, Administrative Assistant, MWCC George W. Lusher, Director of Operations, MWCC John Almo, Interceptor Engineer, MWCC STATEMENT OF AGREEltENT RENEWAL INTERCEPTOR MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT NO. 139 The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and the City of Mound agree to renew the Interceptor Maintenance Agreement No. 139 which is currently inforce between these parties. The terms of the Agreement for the renewal period shall be the same as those contained in the Agree- ment which was executed for the January l, 1977 - December 31, 1977 period with the exception of Section 6.02: "Section 6.02 Cost Estimates.;. Pasments.'' The parties estimate that the total amount of costs which the Commission will be required to pay to the Municipality for performance of this Agreement in 1978 will be $7,000. Such amount shall be paid in twelve monthly installments as an advance payment of such costs. On or before February 1, 1979, the Municipality will submit to the Commission a detail ed statement of the actual costs incurred by the Municipality which the board is required to pay in accordance with Section 6.01, and will remit to the Commission any amount paid to the Municipality which is in excess of such actual costs. If the total of the monthly advances paid by the board is less than the acutal amount of such costs, the Commission shall pay to the Municipality on or before March 1, 1979 an amount equal to the difference between the actual costs and the monthly advances previously paid. The Municipality shall keep detailed records supporting all costs of the types specified in Section 6.01 which it expects the Commission to pay, and shall make the same available to the Commission on request. The renewal period for Interceptor Maintenance Agreement No. 139 shall be January l, 1978 - December 31, 1978. That both parties agree to the renewal period and terms is evidenced by the signatures affixed to this statement. FOR THE CITY OF MOUND (Title) (Title) Dated FOR THE METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION Oos~h ~. Stffauss, Chairman ~chard-d~~erty, Chief ~dm~gg'ff~tOr CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota November 15, 1977 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 77-196 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: The City Manager SUBJECT: Fall Pickup The cost of general Citywide Fall Pickup was $3,060.50 made up as follows: Paid -Illies & Sons Trucks & Labor $2,915.50 Landfill costs 196.00 Less Funds received for pay items $3,111.50 51.00 $3,060.50 The total cost of both the Spring and Fal~ Pickups is $7,838.50. CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota November 15, 1977 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 77-197 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: The Honorable Mayor and City Council The City Manager State Aid for Police Service The State has been collecting 2% on all automobile insuranca policies which is rebated on a formula basis to all cities. The funds received by the City are required to be used to pay toward the Police Pension, which is our PFRA-PERA fund. In addition, Cities contracting with other municipalities are by law required to credit contracting communi- ties. A check for $19,324.33 was received for 1977. This has been placed in the PFRA fund. In billing the police contractingCommunities for next year, they will have to be credited for their percentage share of the $19,324.33. cc: Police Chief CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota November 15, 1977 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 77-198 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: The Honorable Mayor and City Council The City Manager Tax Increment Financing Increasingly the newspapers are referring to redevelopment projects being accomplished by tax increment financing. Attached are copies of articles on tax increment financing, as well as a copy of the T. G. Evensen's newsletter that discusses Tax Increment Financing. cc: Planner uU! ON LAKt[ hlIINNETONKA INDIAN BURIAL, MOUNDS 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD TELEPHONE MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 November 14th, 1977 To: From: Leonard L. Kopp, City Manager Subject: Development District--Tax Increment Financing Attached is narrative material that includes articles, editorials which represent an "overgtew of the tools involved in creating a development district--Tax Increment Financing". Tax Increment financing has proven to be a successful development method. The key is the power of the city or renewal authority t8 borrow money to finance improvements or to "w~ite down" and pay the bond interest and principal from the increased property taxes derived from the new or improved property. In many cases, the properties identified for redevelopment are acquired, cleared and resold to private owners for redevelopment. The difference between the amount of property taxes before and after are refSrred to as tax increments. These increments are pledged by the city to redeem the bonds initially sold to finance the projeat. After the bonds are repaid the total increased property tax is added to the local taxing jurisdicating; an improved and stable tax base to benefit the entire community. TERRY L. NOVAK, Hopkins City Managm, The challenges of community renewal require con- stant experimentation with new techniques. The "de- velopment district" is an experimental program whose impact, if it can be made to work, could extend to both housing and commercial development, in all types of communities. The development district idea can be traced to the Minneapolis Planning Department under Lawrence .Ir,tin, Deputy City Coordinator for Planning. The Min- neapolis staff drafted a bill for the 1971 Legislature in which they sought special legislation to use tax incre- ment funding for commercial district improvements. Hopkins' State Representative noticed the Minneapolis bill, inquired if we were interested in having similar powers, and, learning that we were, introduced a bill for Hopkins. He used the Minneapolis bill's language throughout, changing only the city names. The Speaker of the House sent the Minneapolis bill to the Metro Affairs Committee and ours to the Municipal Govern- ment Committee. The Minneapolis bill emerged with- out the condemnation power, but finally passed both houses and was signed (Laws 1971, Ch. 677); the Hopkins bill emerged unscathed and became law also. Robbinsdale, another city with need for commercial redevelopment, became interested and tacked onto the Minneapolis program. Thus Minneapolis, the original sponsor of the bill, and Robbinsdale have fewer powers than does Hopkins, which borrowed the idea word for word. Tax Increment Funding The development district law relies upon the' tax increment funding concept of the Minnesota Renewal Statute, MSA 462.~ The key is the power of a city or a. renewal authority to borrow money to finance im- provements or the "write-down" and pay the bond interest and principal from the increased property taxes derived from the improved property. The development district and renewal funding follow a similar theme, but are distinct. ~See Terry L. Novak, "The Local Approach to Urban Renewal, Minnesota Municipalities, October, 1970, pp. 315, 316. TABLE I. Concep}ual Comparison, Development Districts and Urban Renewal item Development District Urban Renewal Agency City Council Housing and Redevel- Involved opment Authority Activity Construct certain Finance a "write-down" facilities of land cost Tax Increased value Increased value of Increment of property property after Source improved by redevelopment the facilities The tax increment idea is used heavily in Califor- nia for renewal financing and has been used in a number of Minnesota federal renewal programs. It was used first in Robbinsdale for scattered site redevelopment and then in the Hopkins local renewal project of 1970. We have received both a favorable bond opinion and acceptance by federal renewal officials. TABLE II. Funding Computation--Example Taxes 1972 taxes (all agencies) within district ....... $ 9,000 1973 taxes (all agencies) within district after parking lot completed and shopping center open ..................... ( ..... 38,000 Annual increase in taxes for all agencies ..... $ 29,000 Expenditures Land purchase, demolition and relocation costs $200,000 Parking lot construction .................. 40,000 Total to be bonded ....................... $240,000 Calculation $240,000 bonds, paid back with 6% interest at $29,000 per year means a tax increment term of 12 years. After that term is up the complete tax increment goes to the normal property tax recipients. Minnesota Municipalities 1~e?etopmen~ Districts: Uses, and Process The dcvdopment district statute (Laws lg"/l, Ch. 455) covers funding of four basic types of facilities: pedestrian skyway systems, underground pedestrian con- courses, special lighting systems and parking structures. Parking lots are included by definition as a parking structure. The powers granted the city are listed in Table 1II. T^~[E IIL Powers Granted by Development District Ac* Acquire land and easements, by condemnation if neces- sary (except Minneapolis and Robbinsdale.) Adopt ordinances governing the facilities constructed in the district Require private developers to construct so as to accomo- date the pedestrian system, with city reimbursement for added expense Lease air rights over public buildings and lease out areas of public buildings so constructed to private commer- cial enterprises Issue bonds to finance the public improvements and relocation costs Repay the bonds using the tax increment m~.thod Annually special assess the costs of operation and mainte- nance of the facilities. The process set forth in the law follows the pattern for local or federal renewal programs. TABLE IV. Steps in the Process, Forming a Development District Initial suggestion for the district, from property owners, Council, staff City staff prepares development plan and estimates the financing Planning Commission reviews and recommends action to the City Council Publication of notice of public hearings before Council City Council holds publi.c hearings and establishes the district by official resolution City Council adopts the development plan and financing program by resolution Purchase land, demolish structures, relocate residents and businesses Construct the facility and pay contractor Sell bonds Certify the bond principal and interest to the County Auditor for tax increment funding Pay bond principal and interest from annual fund estab- lished for that purpose by the County Auditor. The Minneapolis Planning Department also sought powers for a variation of the Development District pro- gram which would allow the city to assist private devel- opers to "package" land for low and moderate income housing and "write-down" the land cost. The expenses would be met from a revolving fund replenished by the tax increment proceeds. Thc program as proposed would not have gone as far as federal-style renewal, would have been mu flexible anti better-received by the neighborhoods. Ahhough thc special legislation did not materialize, the idea is worthy of further experi- mentation. Robblnsdale Procedures'-' Because Chapter 677 did not give the Robbinsdalc City Council condemnation powers, the Robbinsdale City Council and Planning Commission have decided to coordinate their activities with the Robbinsdale Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The City Council and Planning Commission will initiate projects and the. Housing and Redevelopment Authority will implement them. The advantage of this procedure is the freedom of debt responsibility on the part of the City while at the same time accomplishing its redevelopment pur- poses. A Cautious Approach to the First Project Hopkins, while eager to experiment with a new idea, has adopted a "go slow" attitude. We feel, espec- ially in legal matters, that it is better to err on the side of conservatism. The development district idea has two basic problems--other than the usual one of over- coming the inertia of the established way of doing things. These include: (I) How do you separate the tax increment due to improvements in the district from tax increments due to inflation, or new highway con- struction, for example? (2) How do you determine "benefit" to individual properties from such improve- ments? Thesecond question is faced by each City Council when it special assesses a project; techniques for quantifying benefit are available and generally ac- cepted. To resolve the first problem, however, Hopkins is tapping only the tax increment from new construction. We are drawing the district boundaries to include only the parking lot which is to be constructed and the ad- joining shopping center development for which the parking is to be provided. No other properties are in- volved. We will also be taking steps to explain the program to our local school district personnel, since it is "their" tax money in part which is to pay the bonds. In the case of Hopkins, the 1970 tax increment renewal' program has laid the groundwork for interagency coop- eration. We have also decided to use the program, initially, only for a parking lot, rather than the more elaborate projects such as Minneapolis might desire. In addition, we will be purchasing land, whenever pos- sible, on options secured by the shopping center developer, assignable to the City, rather than use the condemnation power. We hope such a conservative approach will allow the first development district to proceed smoothly and be. accepted by bond houses and courts. Initial success would help establish this tech- nique as a valuable tool in our municipal repertoire. The refinement of techniques such as the develop- ment district must proceed by trial and error, with cities sharing their experiences, both good and bad. These techniques are valuable to all cities, not just the older communities. Many of our fresh suburban com- munities will themselves soon face the need for reiuv~ enation of commercial and residential areas. ~Information from George E. DeLay, Robbinsdale.~ City 45 'l'i~:tt level hdp~ kcup thc provcmcnt. 0 Btfor~ a city enters inlo a tI~elupm~nl dislricl ecom}ati~ impa¢l ~ ckptdul distdcls. Reniei!lb~r, in effect, )'on arc preventing other dis~icts, from collecting taxes on the increment. Work with lhem to insure your proposed project will not caus~ them harm. ,.- .qt'ea w:ns 1o brir:..'.l' in add..i{hmal fin:racing tools meat tool. Thc [nest SUCCC:',M'L!! p;'ojccts will be those which take advm{taac of muldp!c fei'ms of assistance. ,r' ,,'po increment 1o,)1 ~ a supplement b. ln=l .o in thc tax to proiccts involving federal or state assistance may make projects feasible that wouldn't be o3hcrwise. Ocher tuois to cuspidor inciudc diode vi ti~c Farmers florae Administration. Small Bu~incs~ Admiaistra- 1}on. U.S. Dcparuncnt of Housing and Urban D:vel- opmct:t, ~Mmnc>o,a'" · ' · itousinu~ From;cc' Agency, plus municipal commercial or industrial revenue, bonds.. Remember, the cky needs to be able to actually achieve the redevdopfi~ent. These supplementary tools can help. THE DON'TS -'- What arc some et' thc pitfalls communities must be w;try of'?. ~ i3on't b.uy a "pig in a poke." Sound advice any time---- but particularly im- portant here. Peter Seed. attorney for tb,, St. Paul law firm et' Briggs and Morgan who has represented local communities in tax-increment matters, explains the problem: : ' "There is always thc concern flint some small municipality or maybe even some large but hungry municipality will be given a super sales iob about thc tremendous developmental potential of a ~pccific area. "'Don't worry about it; sign here; adop: resolution; ~!OVC Out snlartly.' Of coBrsc, the con- cern i~ that the municipality just simp!5 might be dtt~cd, i)c,pitc. %n ',,;~,h .... L.,,' a city. may not itavc its dacks in order. It may not have had suff}cicnl commirme:~ts lo asMlrd that development will in facl "XVh;~t can you do lo safcgu;)rd agab}s~ ~his kind of abuse? Well, thc n?st crucial safcgt:ard, in my devclnpers. Once you have identified your project arc;t :111~ ',O~1 ;Irc cotlllti~t~ Oil thc I'cdcvch,?;]ic{lt of tilat ;trca to capture ti~c kind ,,~ tax increments will bc nccdcd to p:t;. ~;~"" tl,zbl service. thc dcxch,n,.r Y,,t, m;~¢}t fortify that ticp,~it and c~,:';; a perf~,rm;trlcc O Generally, a, old one-building prgjects. While mlov,'ab~e' ' under t:',c: .law, one-building projects require a great dczl of discretion and judgment by locai officials. The spirit of the law suggests the tool is to bc used in situations where the scale of the effort or difficulty :of achieving needed private redevelopment demand special city help. Just helping a single business obtain a new facility ~ without evidence, that this is an extraordinary situation ' is one of the potential abuses the Legisa lamre will be sensitive to in the future. 0 Don't be n laud.grabber. Keep the size of the project manageable. This a lesson learned from com'ent}onal renewal. More · than one Minnesota downtown renewal effort has hmguishcd because the city leaders' eyes were b;~er 0 l)nn'~ .xe l:~x i,crcmen~ if ifs not rea;iv needed. 'l'hi~ ' '"; ' · ' " pr ....~ is m.d~rcct opposition to thc pur- poses for thi, icgi,!.itien. Stick to projects and re'cas that couldiet bt.~,~r"Mv,'lor.. .~=t, '~ t, hrpt, zh,,, any ,ther means than tax increment "'," ",, ht ..... cra_. New buildines th.V c~mli{ :;t:~{~d ,,n tkcir ..,'.-'i: fzct ,h~:t:M. taxes captured lhroueh tax increment financing are just tile city. Schools :t~,J cc:reties, for instance, may to their tttx hast Ir~ some way:., the lc~iqaturc vlcws 1003 BY RALPH MASON ~. ~ :._' ...... , ..... ~_~ FOR SEVERA/L, ~ I have ~ "vie~ ~th M~" the ~ght of bus~s ~d ~dus~ ~m M~s ~e sub~bs ~ ~d ~yond. It is s~ly ~tis~g, ~e~fo~, ~ 1~ of a ~ty-s~n~ ~dustfl~ p~k pmj~t ~t is p~g n~ space for ~ver~ doz~ ~mp~, ad~g $720,0~ ~ ~e ~'s ~ ~eip~ ~d suppl~g jobs for a~ut 1,~ worke~ (~y~). The p~k ~ 1~ on Ka~ Ave. b~n E~ ~e w~ ~ of St. Pa~. The ~ac~ ~ac~, a foyer d~p, w~ p~c~ ~m the B~on No~he~ ~ad in 197~ for 25 ~n~ a squ~e f~t.~ $~0,0~. The ci~, t~ugh i~ ~dustfi~ development sewe~, s~ sewe~ ~d u~. ~e p~j~ ~ by a ~ million ~nd issue, w~ by !9~ ~der a ~- ~c~men~ p~. ~ent ~n~g, ~e ~i~ ~iv~ a~ of the ~s~ ~ ~ip~ above what ~e pm~y was t~s ~ $17,~0 ~ 1975, ~ the ~nds ~ re~. T~s The ~d~ development ~mm~sinn, a s~ ~ple head~ by Donald ~ ~sk, ~r, put ~ a b~e pa~, pl~ some t~ ~d b~ l~g for ~p~. The ~t ~s~mer w~ J. M~k ~ ~uc~,' a m~ac~r of au~ 8~fies, w~ch bought 4.1 ac~ ~d ~mple~ a 61,0~qu~f~t b~g ~ 1976. Es~a~ v~ue of ~e pm~y now is $6~,0~. J. M~k employs 97 and ex~ to have 150 employ~ 19~. The second site went to Halper Redi-Made Box 'Co,, formerly of St. Paul, which bought 2.3 acres and put up a · 35,000-square-foot building now valued at $540,000. The firm has 50 employees. . Next came Twin City Fan & Blower Co., buying 7.2 acres and building a 74,000-square-foot plant valued at $1.5 million. The company started with $0 employees and now has 115. When it completes additions totaling another $0,000 square feet in the next six years, it w~ll employ more than 200. M & M Development Co. bought 3.1 acres and put up a $700,000 building of 36,000 square feet, which' it is renting out for office and warehouse space. It employs 50 people. M & M also bought 10.3 acres and is building a 173,000- square-foot Produce center valued at $3.5 million. Twelve firms engaged in meat, vegetable, fruit, fish and refrigerated food wholesaling lease space in the center. Many of these firms were displaced by the freeway on the north side of Minneapolis or by site clearing for the proposed Downtown stadium. About 400 are employed Harvey Vogel Manufacturing Co. purchased 5.2-acres and built a 70,000-square-foot building to house its metal stamping operations. The new plant is valued, at $800,000 and has 116 employees. Plans call for adding 'another 36,000 square feet within five years at a cost of $500,000, giving employment to another 60 peoplb. M & M Development, which has become a firm believer in the Kasota park project, bought another 5.2 acres and is building an 81,600-square-foot building which will be completed late this year. Valued at $1.4 million, the building will be leased out for offices, warehousing and light manufacturing. About 11~ jobs are expected to be created. The last ayailable site in the park, 4.8 acres, alsb was snapped up by M & M, which is spending $2 million on an 86,400-square, foot building to be completed next spring. An estimated 100 employees are expect~l to occupy the .building, which ~will be used for manufac- turing mad warehousing. ESTIMATED value of the entire park when it is com- pleted is.$12 million. But Dana R. Rotegard, the young commission aide, who showed me around the park, is almost as excited about the lake created on the property as he is about the panorama of buildings. Called Bridal Veil Lake, because it is-fed by Bridal Veil Creek, the body of water occupies about two acres and bas i~ own island. The lake has been stocked with fish and is tested regularly, showing a high rating for purity. Although swimming is discouraged, the lake has attracted a good deal of patronage from the University of Minnesota i students. Dinky Town is only a few stones' throws away. Most'of the construction on the Kasota park buildings! has been done by Kraus-Anderson, sheehy Construction,.~ and Rauernhorst. Needless to-say, a large .number workers have been employed in the two-years of con-~ Rotegard said the commission has completed two other industrial parks in Northeast Minneapolis also under the tax increment program. The commission is assisting on one or two sites in the Nicollet-Lake area and will aid developing the. Industry/. Square. whether, or.. not. th~.' .!0oi 113 0 g ExCe Sio'r'Creates ' -, HRA, starts to rebui}d The ~xcelsior Council ~pPointed it- Sirec't: Wat;r st~t; Bolt-~aidi:. "is. ;elf the ciys hous~g and r~eve[- the he~ of Excelsior.' ..... ~pment au~ofity, Monday ~t ~d '-. W. Frank Kelly, ~celsi~'~ 'at~~ open~ ~scu~io~ on what the sha~ ~ Wmey, put the order ~ w~ch a d~ of that development might Mayor Ralph Bolt spoke about the . possibility of tax increment financing . right off the. bat.:The tax increment, he said, would defray the city's cost by issuing bonds to develop commer~ - rial property in Excelsior:.. But first, Bolt said, a development district must be designated by. the council. Bolt said all commercial. zones in Excelsior might be included;: but at the top of his list was the prop-- ertyi' facing the. lake.along Lake Street. This Would include, he said, the remaining property on which the ' Excelsior:Amusement Park. once. .stood, ". Bolt said-'desig~atior~ .of. a develop-. ment district. ".would- enable, us. to : have maximum control" of dommer: · -cial development in the city; He said. the city would, reach: a firm agree- ment with any developer before "it spends dollar lan .buying property." .~- IN. ADDITION, BOLT said, what- - ever businesses go in along Lake Street" mu st be compatible with" the '"thriving businesses"- on Water velopment of this nature w~ald occur~ ' in a nutsheJl. First, he. said, a plan' must be developed. Next a developer. is decided upon and then the city bor- rows- money for issuing bonds_ The final step, Kelly said, is collecting the tax increment and applying it to the ci,ty',s, cost inthe .first place.. 2' ... -. ' . In other action~ the council ap- 'proved:again a liquor license for T. Butcherblock, with an attached fee 'of $10,000. Also approved were formal' flood plain standards which would comply with national flood insurance standards. By the council's accepting these national standards, residents of Excelsior who reside in a flood plain area will now qualify for FHA loans '.from which they were previously The-other major item on the agenda Monday night was the animal control program. The Excelsior City council authorized city manager- Charlie Hodg~ to make expenditures. required to have the program under- way by as early as Monday. '. 999 T~-increment fin~cing ~:,=~'~ed bY~;;~{he''. o61~':~{~ the. develoP~ but' t~. ~he'd~;elopmeht ),~nn~ota Leg~lat~e in 19712 Minnea~lis"is now trict ~'well:' These 'se~ices would have to be 'inii~ most ambitiom ph~e of using thEs t~hnique for~in=pa~ by higher ~ in'other are~ ~o~buy up.'{and, Zle~'i~ and'sell it-to develOpers2 city, since t~es in the' rene'w~ distflct' Wo~ ~w buil~ngs bring in higher t~es. The differ- frozen ~t~ the debt on it'~ repaid. ~'.e~e betw~n the original ~xes and the higher .... "- n~w taxes, is then appli~ to pay off the city's It {s"~fo~te that the city h~ b~n put in the - adcumulat~ expenses for acquiring and clewing- position of hav~g to assemble }and for developers. t~. land. That difference later g~s into'the general But. subur~n p~j~ attract developers ~cause ~ ga,'fund..". - - :,~:-... ~ :~. t. ' .~:-.~: .: .' ~'=~=~t*~,.. there ~e o~n. 'no b~l~ngs to ~ to~ down and ~: ~ .... : .... '~:-'. no ten~ to ~ ~l~t~. Inner~ity land acqu~i- 'F~lings are ~ed a~b~' the.effe~tiven~ of ~- tion is expemive. ~ the Lofing P~k Development in~rement ' financing-- S~te- 'Sen~ Jack Da~es,.' a District, acquisi~on, rel~ation .of ten~, demoli- {edding critic~ is:.especially pe~ur~ by the. m~- tion, admini~ration ~d. general'impr°vements will n~in which~ch financing "creat~ empty land tO~_ ~ a~ut $26 million .by~ ~e time,-the projec~'is b~d things on2" Somet~es, he compla~s, still- completed. -- '- -- '~ ..... :~ ......, ""' u~ble renal prope~y h to~ down to assemble ...... , ']a~ for a debelopmeat. The senatq~ eg~gss.~.~o~e~er, after in/ti~ delays caused c~cern over-the ~idy that t~-incremdn~ ftc,. and s~ye~l en~ronmen~l impact studies requiring ndncing involves ~ for example, free...utilities and . dp to ~ year ~ch, Lofing h~ ~g~ Ih:mOve iff thi' other improvements 'that no~allF ~'Oet°(~.~d ...dire~i~n odgin~ly p~jecte~h~ bfiginal~tax'b~e f0~y the user in sp~ial a~e~m~nts. He'q~itiOna?' of~ $6.5 million generatid~d~xes?:z~t='$900,OgO thg/'appropriatene~ of le~ing developers have sq.' ShOuld, when all the pro~'"projeb~T~e c0m: amch for nothing w3en others have had t°~pay, 'Pleted, r~e to $35.2 million producing taxes of 'F~' these and other re~ns, Davi~ would like to $3.75 million.' The ~ference ~tw~en the smiler se~ the ta~-increment device repealed by the Legh- ~x-and the l~ger-will ~' ~d to pay off city ia~re. We doubt, that re~al would ~ wise. indebt~ne~2 When the debt is paid,, all the~ew - .... . ~- taxes will be a~abl~?t, gene~l ~e .... ~:': ~.- .This method of redevelopment d~s hav~ flaws. ..' . .-'~.--. ..... -=z '.,:~..-~- F~ ex~ple, the expect~ tax increment can fail T~-inc~ment f~ancing is o~e promising means t~ materialize through lack of developers. Some of revisiting deca~g s~tions of the i~er citY~:~ ..... r~idential developments could create a demand for Along with other meth~ il'should ~ given a mb~e services, such ~ ~lice and fire protection chance to prov~ i~elL ~ ~':edu~tion, lhis~.would call for a su~idy 'not ' -: ..... :" -'~ .;- ~'- :': J=; :''' ~ ~' / CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota November 17, 1977 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 77-199 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: The City Manager SUBJECT: County Budget The Mayor requested that we check on what the County budgeted for 1978 on Water Patrol and Lake Maintenance. The Water Patrol was budgeted $142,000 in 1978 and Lake Maintenance was budgeted $143,000. This compares with 1977 when $71,000 was budgeted for Lake Maintenance and $50,000 for Water Patrol. ~The $50,000 was later increased to $85,000. Leonard L. Kopp CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota November 17, 1977 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 77-200 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: The City Manager SUBJECT: Federal Public Works Funds For some time the Council has been discussing additional space for Police, Fire and Public Works. There has also been discussed the possibility of getting Federal Funds for some construction. In order to be eligible for the past two Public Works grants by the Federal Government, the City had to have plans developed at the time of application. Since the City had no plans, the City couldn't "stand in line" when the last grant was made. A call was made to Senator Humphrey's office and we were informed that applications for more than the total grant were on file. In order to determine the cost of what plans might cost the City, the problem was discussed with Thomas W. Prokasky, an architect that lives in Mound. Mr. Prokasky has put together a proposal of what he would do to make plans and application and the estimated cost. Estimated cost of pre- liminary plans and application for police, fire and street building would cost about $3,400. If the Council is interested in discussing this further, Mr. Prokasky could be invited to the next Public Works meeting to discuss the possi- bilities. Attached is a copy of Mr. Prokasky's letter and proposal. Also attached is a copy of the forms to be completed for a Federal application. cc: T. Prokasky 995 THOMAS WILLIAM ~ I 4 FOSHAY TOWER PROKASKY & ASSOCIATES INC. · ARCHITECTS MINNEAPOLIS. ~',IlNNESOTA 55402 ~, TELEPHONE (612) 339-?~89 October 31, 1977 Mr. Leonard L. Kopp, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 RE: FEDERAL PUBLIC WORKS GRANTS FOR: PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING, FIRE DEPARTMENT ADDITION, PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE Dear Mr. Kopp: Pursuant to your request we have investigated the require- ments of various Public Works Grant programs to determine the extent of architectural-engineering input required to complete applications for your proposed projects. Enclosed is a copy of the forms for the "Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act" of which Round Two was com- pleted as of September 30, 1977. There is no commitment to fund Round Three as of this date and pursuant to President Carter's directive, the agencies are in the process of re- vising forms. Mr. Stan Pechover, of the E.D.A. area office, has, however, been most helpful and anticipates the upcoming programs to generally follow these procedures. 1. ~o~osa~. Outline proposals submitted to local agency offices (St. Paul) who will forward to regional offices (Chicago). SCHEMATICS and preliminary cost estimates by architect will be required. Preapplication Conference. If the regional office finds the proposal generally acceptable they will schedule a preapplication conference to be attended by the applicant and its Architect. Questions will be answered and corrections will be noted and sugges- tions will be proposed. Notification to Submit Application. Shortly after the preapplication conference the agency will notify the applicant .that it may submit an application. I under- stand this is tantamount to funding. ?he architect must prepare DESIGN DEVELOPMENT drawings specifying materials to be used, etc. and an updated cost estimate. Mr. Leonard L. Kopp, City Manager page 2 October 31, 1977 Application. After review and approval of the applica- tion the applicant will be formally offered the Grant and must accept it within 10 days. Construction Management Phase. At this point the architect will proceed wi~h CONTRACT DOCUMENTS (see Exhibit II-B-1 page 1) which are reviewed by the agency's technical staff (Duluth). During the CONSTRUCTION PHASE surveillance services are to be provided by the architect (see Exhibit II-B-lb page 2). The definition of Phases by the E.D.A. and other agencies closely corresponds to the standard Owner-Architect Agreement A.I.A. Doc. B141. We thus propose to use that form as the contract base with Exhibit "A" further defining the Schematic Phase. If this is acceptable to the City please return one executed agreement to this office. We look forward to serving you. Si~relyl~~.yOurs' Thomas W. Prokasky Enclosures TWP/ps ../ AIA Document B14'l Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect THIS DOCUMENT HAS IMPORTANT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES; CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY IS ENCOURAGED WITH RESPECT TO ITS COMPLETION OR MODIFICATI'ON AGREEMENT made this Thirty F±rst Hundred and Seventy Seven day of October in the year of Nineteen BETWEEN the Owner: CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 and the Architect' THO.~AS WILLIAM PROKASKY 514 Foshay Tower Minneapolis, Minnesota For the following Project: (Include detailed description of Project location and scope) Public Safety Building, Public Works Garage & ASSOCIATES, INC. 55402 Fire Department Addition, The Owner and the Architect agree as set forth below. AIA DOCUMENT B141 - OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT o JANUARY 1974 EDITION · AIA® · ~)1974 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 1 :392 MULTIPLE OF DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE L THE ARCHITECT shall provide professional services for the Project in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of this Agreement: Il. THE OWNER shall compensate the Architect, in accordance with the 'Terms and Conditions of this Agreement. A. FOR BASIC AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES, as described in Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.3, compensa- tion shall be computed on the basis of a MULTIPLE OF DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE, as fol- lows: Principals' time at the fixed rate of'thirty nine & ~51;l'rlO'D 39,65 ) per hour. For the purposes of this Agreement, the Principals are: Thomas W' Prokasky Employees' time (other than Principals) at a multiple of %wo point five (' 2 . 5 ) times the employees' Direct Personnel Expense as defined in Article 4. Services of professional consultants at a multiple of one point two five ( 1 2 5 ) times the amount billed to the Architect for such services.- AN INITIAL PAYMENT OF One hundred & 00/100 dollars ($ 100. O0 shaJJ be made upon the execution of this Agreement and credited to the Owner's account. C. EC)R REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, amounts expended as defined in Article 5, including computer time for professional services. IH. THE OWNER AND ARCHITECT agree in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of this Agree- ment that: A. IF SCOPE of the Project is changed materially, compensation shall be subject to renegotiation. B. IF THE SERVICES co~'ered by this Agreement have not been completed within . twelve ( 12 ~ ) months of the date hereof, the amounts of compensation, rates and multiples set forth in Paragraph II shall be subject to renegotiation. AIA DOCUMENT B141 · OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT · JANUARY 1974 EDITION · AIA® · ©1974 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 ,'- g91 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ARCHITECT ARTICLE I ARCHITECT'S SERVICES 1.1 BASIC SERVICES The Architect's Basic Services consist of the five phases described below and include normal struc~ rural, mechanical and electrical engineering services and any other services included in Article 14 as Basic Services. SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE 1~1.1 The Architect shall review the program furnished by the. Owner to ascertain the requirements of the Proiect and shall confirm such requirements to the Owner. 1.1.2 Based on the mutually agreed upon program, the Architect shall prepare Schematic Design Studies consist- ing of drawings and other documents illustrating the scale and relationship of Project components for ap- proval by the Owner. · 1.1.3 The Architect shall sufomit to the Owner a State- ment of Probable Construction Cost based on current a'rea, volume or other unit costs. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE 1.1.4 The Architect shall prepare from the approved Schematic Design Studies, for approval by the Owner, the Design Development Documents consisting of drawings and other documents to fix and describe the size and character of the entire Project as to structural, mechani- cal and electrical systems, materials and such other essen- tials as may be appropriate. 1.1.5 The Architect shall submit to.the Owner a further Statement of Probable Construction Cost. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE · 1.1.6 The Architect shall prepare from the approved Design Development Documents, for approval by the Owner, Drawings and Specifications setting forth in detail the requirements for the construction of the entire Project including the necessary bidding information, an.d shall assist in the preparation of bidding forms, the Con- ditions of the Contract, and the form of Agreement between the Owner and the Contractor. 1.1.7 The Archi'tact shall advise the Owner of any adjustments to previous Statements of Probable Con- struction Cost indicated by changes in requirements or general market conditions. 1.1.8 The Architect shall assist the Owner in filing the re, quired documents for the approval of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. BIDDING OR NEGOTIATION PHASE 1.1.9 The Architect, following the Owner's approval of the Construction Documents and of the latest Statement of Probable Construction Cost, shall assist the Owner in obtaining bids or negotiated proposals, and in awarding and preparing construction contracts. CONSTRUCTION PHASE-- ADMINISTRATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 1.1.10 The Construction Phase will commence with the award of the Construction Contract and will terminate when the final Certificate for Payment is issued to the Owner. 1.1.11 The Architect shall provide Administration of the Construction Contract as set forth in AIA Document A201, General Conditions of the Contract for Construc- tion, and the extent of his duties and responsibilities and the limitations of his authority as assigned thereunder shall not be modified without his written consent. 1.1.12 The Architect, as the representative of the Owner during the Construction Phase, shall advise and consult with the Owner and all of the Owner's instructions to the Contractor shall be issued through the Architect. The Architect shall have authority to act on behalf of the Owner to the extent provided in the General Conditions unless otherwise modified in writing. 1.1.13 The Architect shall at all times have access to the \York wherever it is in preparation or progress. 1.1.14 The Architect shall make periodic visits to the site to familiarize himself generally with the progress and quality of the Work and to determine in general if the Work is proceeding in accordance with the Contract Documents. On the basis of his on-site observations as an architect, he shall endeavor to guard the Owner against defects and deficiencies in the Work of the Con- tractor. The Architect shall not be required to make exhaustive or continuous on-site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work. The Architect shall not be responsible for construction means, methods, tech- niques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the Work, and he shall not be responsible for the Contractor's failure to carry out the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. 1,1.15 Based on such observations at the site and on the Contractor's Applications for Payment, the Architect shall determine the amount owing to the Contractor and shall issue Certificates for Payment in such amounts. The issuance of a Certificate for Payment shall constitute a representation by the Architect to the Owner, based on the Architect's observations at the site as provided in Subparagraph 1.1.14 and the data comprising the Appli- cation for Payment, that the Work has progressed to the point indicated; that to the best of the Architect's knowl- edge, information and belief, the quality of the Work is in accordance with the Contract Documents (subject to an evaluation of the Work for conformance with the Contract Documents upon Substantial Completion, to the results of any subsequent tests required by the Contract AIA DOCUMENT B141 · OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT · JANUARY 1974 EDITION · AIA~ - ©1974 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 990 Documents, to minor deviations from the Contract Docu- ments correctable prior to completion, and to any specific qualifications stated in the Certificate for Payment); and that the Contractor is entitled to payment in the amount certified. By issuing a Certificate for Payment, the Archi- tect shall not be deemed to represent that he has made any examination to ascertain how and for what purpose the Contractor has used the moneys paid on account of the Contract Sum. 1.1.16 '[he Architect shall be, in the first instance, the interpreter of the requirements of the Contr:act Docu- ments and the impartial judge of the performance there- under by both the Owner and Contractor. The Architect shall make decisions on all claims of the Owner or Con- tractor relating to the execution and progress of the Work and on all other matters or questions related thereto. The Architect's decisions in matters relating to artistic effect shall be final if consistent with the intent of the Contract Documents. 1.1.17 -[he Architect shall have authority to reject Work which does not conform to the Contract Documents. Whenev~, in his reasonable opinion, he considers it nec- essary or advisable to insure the proper implementation of the intent of the Contract Documents, he will have authority to r~quire special inspection or testing of any Work in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Documents whether or not such Work be then fabricated, installed or completed. 1.1.18 The Architect shall review and approve shop drawings, samples, and other submissions of the Contrac- tor only for conformance with the design concept of the Project and for compliance with the information given in the Contract Documents. 1.1.19 The Architect shall prepare Change Orders. 1.1.20 '[he Architect shall conduct inspections to de- termine the Dates of Substantial Completion and final completion, shall receive and review written guarantees and related documents assembled by the Contractor, and shall issue a final Certificate for Payment. 1.1.21 The Architect shall not be responsible for the .acts or omissions of the Contractor, or any Subcontrac- tors, or any of the Contractor's or Subcontractors' agents or employees, or any other persons performing any of the Work. 1.2 PROJECT REPRESENTATION BEYOND BASIC SERVICES 1.2.1 If more extensive representation at the site than is described under Subparagraphs 1.1.10 through 1.1.21 inclusive is required, and if the Owner and Architect agree, the Architect shall provide one or more Full-Time Project Representatives to assist the Architect. 1.2.2 Such Full-Time Project Representatives shall be selected, employed and directed by the Architect, and the Architect shall be compensated therefor as mutually agreed between the Owner and the Architect as set forth in an exhibit appended to this Agreement. 1.2.3 The duties, responsibilities and limitations of au- thority of such Full-Time Project Representatives shall be set forth in an exhibit appended to this Agreement. 1.2.4 Through the on-site observations by Full-Time Project Representatives of the Work in progress, the Ar- chitect shall endeavor to provide further protection for the Owner against defects in the \'Vork, but the furnish- lng of such project representation shall not make the Architect responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety pre- cautions and programs, or for the Contractor's failure to perform the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. 1.3 ADDI;I'IONAL SERVICES The following Services shall be provided when au- thorized in writing by the Owner, and they shall be paid for by the Owner as hereinbefore provided. 1.3.1 Providing analyses of the Owner's needs, and pro- gramming the requirements of the Project. 1.3.2 Providing financial feasibility or other special studies. 1.3.3 .Providing planning surveys, site evaluations, envi- ronmental studies or comparative studies of prospective sites. 1.3.4 Providing design services relative to future facili- ties, systems and equipment which are not intended to be constructed as part of the Project. 1.3.5 Providing services to investigate existing condi- tions or facilities or to make measured drawings thereof, or to verify the accuracy of drawings or other informa- tion furnished by the Owner. 1.3.6 Preparing documents' for alternate bids or out-of- sequence services requested by the Owner. 1.3.7 Providing Detailed Estimates of Construction Cost or detailed quantity surveys or inventories of material, equipment and labor. 1.3.8 Providing interior design and other services re- quired for or in connection with the selection of furni- ture and furnishings. 1.3.9 Providing services for planning tenant or rental Spaces. 1.3.10 Making revisions in Drawings, Specifications or other documents when such revisions are inconsistent with written approvals or instructions previously given and are due to causes beyond the control of the Archi- tect. 1.3.11 Preparing supporting data and other services in connection with Change Orders if the change in the Basic Compensation resulting from the adjusted Contract Sum is not commensurate with the services required of the Architect. 1.3.12 Making investigations involving detailed apprais- als and valuations of existing facilities, and surveys or inventories required in connection with construction performed by the Owner. 1.3.13 Providing consultation concerning replacement of any Work damaged by fire or other cause during con- struction, and furnishing professional services of the type AIA DOCUMENT B141 o OWNER4ARCHITECT AGREEMENT - JANUARY 1974 EDHION · AIA® · ©1974 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 98u set forth in Paragraph 1.1 as may be required in connec- tion with the replacement of such Work. 1.3.14 Providing professional services made necessary by the default of the Contractor or by major defects in the Work of the Contractor in the performance of the Construction Contract. 1.3.1,5 Preparing a set of reproducible record prints of drawings showing significant changes in the Work made during the construction process, based on marked-up prints, drawings and other data furnished by the Contrac- tor to the Architect. 1.3.16 Providing extensive assistance in the utilization of any equipment or system such as initial start-up or testing, adjusting and balancing, preparation of operation. and maintenance manuals, training personnel for opera- tion and maintenance, and consultation during operation. 1.3.17 Providing services after issuance to the Owner of the final Certificate for Payment. 1.:3.18 Preparing to serve or serving as an expert witness in connection with any public hearing, arbitration pro- ceeding or legal proceeding. 1.3.19 Providing services of professional consultants for other than the normal structural, mechanical and electri- cai engineering services for the Project. 1.3.20 Providing any other services not otherwise in- cluded in this Agreement or not customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted architectural practice. ARTICLE 2 THE OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES 2.1 The Owner shall provide full information, including a complete program, regarding his requirements for the Project. 2.2 The Owner shall designate, when necessary, a rep- resentative authorized to act in his behalf with respect to the Project. The Owner shall examine documents sub- mitted by the Architect and shall render decisions per- taining thereto promptly, to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of the Architect's services. 2.3 The Owner shall furnish a certified land survey of the site giving, as applicable, grades and lines of streets, alleys, pavements and adjoining property; rights-of-way, restrictions, easements, encroachments, zoning, deed re- strictions, boundaries and contours of the site; locations, dimensions and complete data pertaining to existing buildings, other improvements and trees; and full infor- mation concerning available service and utility lines both public and private, above and below grade, including inverts and depths. 2.4 The Owner shall furnish the services of a soils engi* neer or other consultant when such services are deemed necessary by the Architect, including reports, test borings, t~st pits, soil bearing values, percolation tests, air and water pollution tests, ground corrosion and resistivity tests and other necessary operations for determining sub- soil, air and water conditions, with appropriate profes- sional recommendations. 2.5 The Owner shall furnish structural, mechanical, chemical and other laboratory tests, inspections and re- ports as required by law or (he Contract Documents. 2.6 'The Owner shall furnish such legal, accounting, and insurance counseling services as may be necessary for the Project, and such auditing services as he may require to ascertain how or for what purposes the Contractor has used the moneys paid to him under the Construction Contract. 2.7 The services, information, surveys and reports re- quired by Paragraphs 2.3 through 2.6 inclusive shall be furnished at the Owner's expense, and the Architect shall be entitled to rely upon .the accuracy and completeness thereof. 2.8 If the Owner becomes aware of any fault or defect in the Project or nomconformance with the Contract Documents, he shall give prompt written'~otice thereof to the Architect. 2.9 The Owner shall furnish information required of him as expeditiously as necessary for the orderly progress of the Work. ARTICLE 3 CONSTRUCTION COST 3.1 If the Construction Cost is to be used as the basis for determining the Architect's Compensation for Basic Services, it shall be the total cost or estimated cost to the Owner of all Work designed or specified by the Architect. The Construction Cost shall be determined as follows, with precedence in the order listed: 3.1.1 For completed construction, the cost of ail such Work, including costs of managing construction; 3.1.2 For Work not const'ructed, (1) the lowest bona fide bid received from a qualified bidder for any or all of such Work, or (2) if the Work is not bid, the bona fide nego- tiated proposal submitted for any or all of such Work; or 3.1.3 For Work for which no such bid or proposal is received, (1) the latest Detailed Estimate of Construction Cost if one is available, or (2) the latest Statement of Probable Construction Cost. 3.2 Construction Cost does not include the compensa- tion of the Architect and his consultants, the cost of the land, rights-of-way, or other costs which are the responsi- bility of the Owner as provided in Paragraphs 2.3 through 2.6 inclusive. 3.3 The cost of labor, materials and equipment furnished by the Owner for the Project shall be included in the Construction Cost at current market rates including a reasonable allowance for overhead and profit. 3.4 Statements of Probable Construction Cost and De- tailed Cost Estimates prepared by the Architect represent his best judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. It is recognized, however, that neither the Architect nor the Owner has any control over the cost of labor, materials or equipment, over the con- tractors' methods of determining bid prices, or over com- petitive bidding or market conditions. Accordingly, the AIA DOCUMENT B1¢1 · OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT · JANUARY 1974 EDITION · AIA~ o ©1974 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N,W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 " g8c Architect cannot and does not guarantee that bids will not vary from any' SIatement of Probable Construction Cost or other cost estimate prepared by him. 3.5 V'/hen a fixed limit of Construction Cost is estab- lished as a condition of this A§reement, it shall be in writing signed by the parties and shall include a bidding contingency of ten percent unless another amount is agreed upon in writing. 'When such a fixed limit is estab- lished, the Architect shall he permitted to determine what materials, equipment, component systems and types of construction are to be included in the Contract Docu- ments, and to make reasonable adjustments in the scope of the Project to bring it within the fixed limit. The archi- tect may also include in the Contract Documents alter- nate bids to adjust the Construction Cost to the fixed limit. 3.5.1 If the Bidding or Negotiating Phase has not com- menced within six months after the Architect submits the Construction Documents to the Owner, any fixed limit of Construction Cost established as a condition of this Agreement shall be adjusted to reflect any change in the general level of prices which may have occurred in the construction industry for the area in which the Project is located. The adjustment shall reflect changes between the date of submission of the Construction Documents to the Owner and the date on which proposals are sought. 3.5.2 When a fixed limit of Construction Cost, including the Bidding contingency (adjusted as provided in Sub- paragraph 3.5.1, if applicable), is established as a condi- tion of this Agreement and is exceeded by the lowest bona fide bid or negotiated proposal, the Detailed Esti- mate of Construction Cost or the Statement of Probable Construction cost,' the Owner shall (1) give written ap- proval of an increase in such fixed limit, (2) authorize re- bidding the Project within a reasonable time, or (3) co- operate in revising the Project scope and quality as re- quired to reduce the Probable Construction Cost. in the case of (3) the Architect, without additional charge, shall modify the Drawings and Specifications as necessary to bring the Construction Cost within the fixed limit. The providing of such service shall be the limit of the Archi- tect's responsibility in this regard, and having done so, the Architect shall be entitled to compensation in accord~ ance with this Agreement. ^RTICLE 4 DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE Direct Personnel Expense is defined as the salaries of professional, technical and clerical employees engaged on the Project by the Architect, and the cost of their mandatory and customary benefits such as statutory em- ployee benefits, insurance, sick leave, holidays, vacations, pensions and similar benefits. ARTICLE 5 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES 5.1 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to the Com- pensation for Basic and Additional Services and include actual expenditures made by the Architect, his employ- ecs, or his professional consultants in the interest o{ the Project for the expenses listed in the following Subpara- graphs: 5.1.1 Expense of transportation and living when travel- ing in connection with the Project; long distance calls and telegrams; and fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. 5.1.2 Expense of reproductions, postage and handling of Drawings and Specifications excluding duplicate sets at the completion of each Phase for the Owner's review and approval. 5.1.3 If authorized in advance by' the Owner, expense of overtime work requiring higher than regular rates and expense of renderings or models for the Owner's use. 5.1.4 Expense of computer time for professional services when included in Paragraph II. 5.1.5 Expense of computer time when used in connec- tion with Additional Services. ARTICLE 6 PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHITECT 6.1 Payments on account of the Architect's Basic Serv- ices shall be made as follow's: 6.1.1 An initial payment as set forth in Paragraph l[ is the minimum payment under this Agreement. 6.1.2 Subsequent payments for Basic Services shall be made monthly in proportion to services performed so that the compensation at the completion of each Phase, except when the compensation is on the basis of a Mul- tiple of Direct Personnel Expense, shall equal the follow- ing percentages of the total Basic Compensation: Schematic Design Phase ........ 1.5% Design Development Phase ...... 3.5% Construction Documents Phase ... 75% Bidding or Negotiation Phase .... 80% Construction Phase ............ 100% 6.1.3 If the Contract Time initially established in the Construction Contract is exceeded by more than thirty days through no fault of the Architect, compensation for Basic Services performed by Principals, employees and professional consultants required to complete the ministration of the Construction Contract beyond the thirtieth day shall be computed as set forth in Para- graph Il for Additional Services. 6.2 Payments for Additional Services of the Architect as defined in Paragraph 1.3, and for Reimbursable Expenses as defined in Article 5, shall be made monthly upon presentation of the Architect's statement of services ren- dered. 6.3 No deductions shall be made from the Architect's compensation on account of penalty, liquidated dam- ages, or other sums withheld from payments to con- tractors. 6.4 If the Project is suspended for more than three months or abandoned in whole or in part, the Architect AIA DOCUMENT B141 - OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT - JANUARY 1974 EDiTI()N · AIA~ · ~1974 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1715 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 shall be paid his compensatior~ ior services performed prior to receipt of written notice from the Owner of such suspension or abandonment, together with Reimbursable I~×penses then due and all term/nat/on expenses as fined in Para§raph 8.3 resulting from such suspension abandonment. If the Project is resumed after being sus- pended for more than three months, the Architect's compensation shall be subject to renegotiation. 6.5 Payments due the Architect under this Agreement shall bear interest at the legal rate commencing sixty days after the date of billing. ARTICLE 7 ARCHITECT'S ACCOUNTING RECORDS 'Records of Reimbursable Expenses and expenses pertain- ing to Additional Services on the Project and for services performed on the basis of a Multiple of Direct Personnel Expense shall be kept on a generally recognized account- ing basis and shall be available to the Owner or his authorized representative at mutually convenient times. ARTICLE 8 TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT 8.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven days' written notice should the other party fail substantially to perform in accordance with its terms .through no fault of the party ini!iating the termination. B.2 In the event of termination due to the fault of par- ties other than the Architect, the Architect shall be paid his compensation for services performed to termination date, including Reimbursable Expenses then due and all termination expenses. 8.3 Termination Expenses are defined as Reimbursable Expenses directly attributable to termination, plus an amount computed as a percentage of the total compen- sation earned to the time of termination, as follows: 20 percent if termination occurs during the Schematic Design Phase; or 10 percent if termination occurs during the Design De- velopme'nt Phase; or 5 percent if termination occurs during any subse- quent phase. ARTICLE 9 OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect whether the Project for which they are made is executed or not. They are not to be used by the Owner on other projects or extensions to this Project except by agreement in writ- ing and with appropriate compensation to the Architect. ARTICLE 10 SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS The Owner and the Architect each binds himself, his partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to tile other party to this Agreement and to the partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives of such other party with respect to all covenants of this Agreement. Neither the Owner nor the Architect shall assign, sublet or transfer his interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. ARTICLE 11 ARBITRATION 11.1 All claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties to this Agreement, arising out of, or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof, shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construc- tion Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitra- tion Association then obtaining unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. No arbitration, arising out of, or relating to this Agreement, shall include, by consolidation, joinder or in any other manner, any additional party not a party to this Agreement except by written consent containing a specific reference to this Agreement and signed by all the parties hereto. Any consent to arbitration involving an additional party or parties shall not constitute consent to arbitration of any dispute not described therein or with any party not named or described therein. This Agreement to arbitrate and any agreement to arbitrate with an addi- tional party or parties duly consented to by the parties hereto shall be specifically enforceable under the pre- vailing arbitration law. 11.') Notice of the demand for arbitration shall be filed in writing with tile other pTrty to this Agreement and with the American Arbitration Association. Tile demand shall be made within a reasonable time after the claim, dispute or other matter in question has arisen. In no event shall the demand for arbitration be made after the date when institution of legal or equitable proceedings based on such claim, dispute or other matter in question wouldbe barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 11.3 The award rendered by the arbitrators shall be fi- hal, and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof. ARTICLE 12 EXTENT OF AGREEMENT This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the Owner and the Architect and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both Owner and Architect. ARTICLE 13 GOVERNING LAW Unless otherwise specified, this Agreement shall be gov- erned by the law of the principal place of business of the Architect. AIA DOCUMENT B141 .. OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT · JANUARY 1974 EDITION · AIA® · Gq974 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 7 14ol See Exhibit A ARTICLE 14 OTHER CONDITIONS OR SERVICES This Agreement executed the day and year first written above. OWNER CITY OF MOUND By _.- ARCHITECT THOMAF% WILLIAM PROKASKY~,&~S~C., INC. Thomas W. Prokasky, President /' ~ 8 CR 974: AIA DOCU;~I~NT B141 · OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT · JANUARY 1974 EDIq'ION · AIA® . (D1974 ]'HE A~%£RtCAN INS].I].U]'E OF ARCHI].EC].S, 172,5 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 EXHIBIT A CITY OF MOUND PUBLIC FACILITIES BUILDINGS SCHE[~TIC P~RSE MANPOWER ESTI~ITE Police Programming Conferences Schematic Drawings Review Conferences Drawing Revisions Cost Estimating Schematic Phase Review Fire Garage 1-1/2 1 1-1/2 20 10 18 1-1/2 1 1-1/2 6 3 6 4 2 3 1-1/2 1 1-1/2 34-1/2 TOTAL 84 man hours @ $39. 65 (Principal) = 18 31-1/2 $3,330.60 A maximum of $3,500, plus reimbursables, for the Schematic Phase will not be exceeded without notification and approval of Owner. To avoid additional expenses for prolonged conferences, develop- ment of alternate schemes, etc., it is in the Owner's interest to ask department heads to carefully consider their program requirements and have those requirements outlined, in writing, for the programming conferences. Maximums for succeeding phases can be established once the scope of the projects are defined in the Schematics. ,/ LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PROGRAM APPLICATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration 983 'FO~,~ ED-101LPW L0eRI: PUBLIC'WORKS CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT I ' ~ u'S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE O~B No. 41-R-29)4 Atto iNVESTMEPtT PROGR~ APPLICATION P.L. ~36~ S~:. 107 Approval Expires SepJember, 1977N0 A~slstance Shall be Approved until a Completed Application has been Received OMB Approval No. ~-R0218 ' FEDERAL ASSISTANCE " 2. Appli-'a.' Num~ ' 3.'State a. SAJ~u'm~er ' ' Part I cent's oppll ca- appJl- b. D~tey~. ~o. da> Hen b. Date Yr. mo. d~y 1. Type of ~ PreappJicatJon cation identifier action ~ Application 1~ (SAI) Assigned 19 (mer~ ~ NotiJic~don DJ [ntent (Opt.)~eve Blen'~ ' ~pp~p~ate ~z) ~] Report of Federal Action 4. Legol applicant/recipient 5. Federal employer identification ~o. '" ' a. Applicant name : c. Street,/P.O box : Program [ I I { I ~ J d. City : ~. County : ('From b. Title Local Public Works f. State : . ZIP Code: , Federal Capit~ Development and h. Contact person : Cet~Io~ Inves~ent Program (N~me & phone no.) 7. Title and description of appllcant's project' 8, Type of ~pplicont/recipient ~Interstate ...... 2~. ~: I-Higher Educadon,l Inst. ~Substate DisttJ .J-Indian T{ibe D-County K-at her (S~cily), E-City F-School District ~Special Purpose Dis~ic~ (~n~er empro~te IetteO ~ 9. Type of assistance A-Basic g~an~ B-Suppl. 8~ant ~-Othe~ fS~ity}: ,, ~Loan (Enter appropriate letterfs) '=10.~'Ar~ of p~oject impact f Nsme el c/t/se, c~triee. ' 11. Estimated number 12. Type of application of persons -, : A-New C-~evis~on 'E~Augmen~c~on, ~. , 37 t¥~;~' benefiting .'~ .': ..... - : : ,:., : :,_:.~,~, -:. ,~ . ' ' - · B-Renewal D~ontinuation~ ' (Enter 8p~ro~a~e letter) 1~. Type of Change. (For 12C ~ 12~) 13. PROPOSED FO'NDING r ' 1~.' CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS O~:' a-lncrease dollars '),, F~d,c., u Federal $ .00 o: Appllcon~ b. 'P'ro~ecf B-Decrease dollars -;:: ' ,, ~. : ,':"/'~ · C-Increase duration' b. Applican{ .00 O-Decrease duratton ;. r .~ ....... C. State '.00 16. P'roiecf Stuff D~te 17. Proiect Duration E-Canceltat~on ' :,_, '?.~ ~/:.,':> ~ ', ":. d. Local .00 19 Yr. mo. day Months (Enter ap~omlete'letterC$) :5' ~' ', ' ~'~ e. Other .00 18. - ' Yr.. mo, day ,-- 19. Existing Federal identification number ' ' ~stlmated date to b~ f. Total $ .00 submitted to Fed. Agency ~. Feder'al Agency to receive request fN~me, City, S~a~e, Zip C~e) {2{. Re~ar~s added (See ~ec. I~) I ~ Yes ~ No 22. a. To {he best of my knowledge ~nd belief.'b ~{ reouircd by OMB Cirqular A-~ this npplication was No Response data in {bls ~re~ppllcadon/applicadon sub'tied, pursuant to lnstr~ct{ons thereto, to appro- Response Attached The are true and CDr{eec, {he document has priate clearinghouses ~nd all responses are attached: Appli. been duly authorized by the governing (See rem~rk~ - Sec. ~V if more t~n 3 body of the applicant and {he appllcan{ (]) ~ cons will comply with the z{tached assu~- (2) ~ certifies: antes i{ the assistance is approved. (3) 23.' ' a, Typed name and title b. Signature c. Da~e signed Certifying ~r. mo. {alive 24. Agency name 25. Yr. mo, day Applicotion received 19 , ~6. Organizational unit [ 27. Administrative office 28. FederaJ application ID ~. ~ddress .... 30.. Federal grant ID 31. Action taken 32. FUNDING 33. Action Year month day ~. Slatting Yr. mo, day ~a. Awarded a. Federal S .00 date 19 date 19 ~b. Re ected.' b. Applican~ .00 ~S. Contact lot additional information 36. Ending Yr. mo. day Den ed ~c, Returned c. State .00 (Neme end ~etephone number) dote Io~ Amend- d. Local ' .00 37. Remarks added (See Sec. IV ~d E~tblt I'22-b) ~e. ~i~hdrawn ~. Totol $ 3~. ~. In ~aking above action, any commen~s received horn clear~ng- b. Federal Agenc~ A-95 Federal Agency houses were considered. If agency response is due under provi- (Name and telephone A-95 Action sions of Part I , OMB Circular A-9~, it has been or ~s being made. g 8 2 (Please reference the proper item number from Sections t II, or Ill, it applicable.) Agency Special Instructions: (a) Shaded-over items need not be {~llljile.~ (b) Item 12 c - Revision refers to applicatl~lllff, g#~,~;'~te~ after deficiencies are remedied. (c) Item 13 - "Proposed Funding" - identify all ,g. ffcle. J~.funds: Agency Name Funds Type of Funds EDA - LPW LPW Grant *Total Federal $ --~-..-.-(Enter in Item ]3a) (*) Must agree with sum of Line 13 and appropriate part of 14b in Part III, Section B - LPW Grant Budget. (d) Item 16 -- In estimating project start date, assume approval 60 days after receipt. (e) Item 22b - Modified OMB Circular A-95 procedure af~plies for first 90 days (see Regulations and/or Pro~rarn Guidelincs). CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota November 18, 1977 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 77-201 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: The Honorable Mayor and City Council The City Manager Applications for Park and Planning Commissions Recently the Mayor requested that all applications for the Commissions be brought to the Council so appointments can be considered. Attached is a list of the present Planning and Park Commissioners and the expiration date of their term of office. Also attached are copies of all applications for the openings that we can find. Several of them were received in 1976. In addition, the Park Commission minutes of November 3, 1977 listed the following persons as being interested in being on the Park Commis- sion: .Andrew Merwin, 5749 Sunset Road Ferner Johnson, 3018 Island View Drive -' 96U Planning Commission Louis Oberdeck (Resigning) Gerald Smith C~klair Hasse Helen Newell Lorraine Jackson Russell Peterson ~L~Frank Weiland (Resigned) George Stannard Park Commission Halden W. Larson Edward Hasek ~dward Buhr Patricia Shay Catherine Bailey Jon Lynott ony Case /~ale Johnson l~Sandra Smith (Resigned) Expiration Date of Term of Office Jan. 1, 1978 Jan. 1, 1978 Jan. 1, 1978 Jan. 1, 1979 Jan. 1, 1979 Jan. 1, 1979 Jan. 1, 1980 Jan. 1, 1980 Dec. 31, 1979 Dec. 31, 1979 Dec. 31, 1979 Dec. 31, 1978 Dec. 31, 1978 Dec. 31, 1979 Dec. 31, 1977 Dec~ 31, 1977 Dec. 31, 1977 October 31, 1977 Donna M. Harrington 2132 Grandview Court Mound, Minnesota 55364 Mayor Tim Lovaasen City Hall 5341 Maywood Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mayor Lovaasen: I would appreciate being considered to fill a vacancy on the ]Planning Commission. I have lived in Mound for a little more than a year and am anxious to be of service to the community. i~rior to my moving to Mound I lived ~vlth my three children in St. Louis Park for eight years. During those years, I was very involved in city politics, as well as the state IR party, holding various offices at the city and senate district level, being alternate or delegate to all conven- tions, etc. I was serving my second term on the St. Louis Park Charter Commission at the time of our move. I served on the Board of Directors as treasurer of the Gerard Schools Parents Association, the school being a residential treatment center for children in Austin, Minnesota, for Years 1974-76. I am very involved in various activities of my church and at present am attending the University of Minnesota extension classes program. ~ ! am employed full time by DATA 100 Corporation in Minnetonka ms a corporate tax accountant being involved in international, federal and state tax. I have been in the tax field for six years. Thank you in'advance for your attention to my request. Yej;.¥ truly you~rs, Donna Harringto?~/ Home phone: 472-2108 Work phone: 94i-6500, ext. 6O3 To: }.I~yor Tim Lovazsen City of 5341 4673 Isl~ Vie~ ~ Sub3~: V~y on P~k I wo~ l~e ~o be ap~ing~ ~o a position on the City ~ P~k Co,salon. ~y c~ren~ reside~= abuts De, on Como~ ~herefore, ~ h~ve a gze~ interest in ghe reg~tiou of' Co~o~. I f~iy inte~ oa reuresen~i~ ~i ~butti~. property o%~ers on Co~ !~keshore. Be~ ~ new fa~er, I in/erest~ in seei~ that go~ s~e p~rks ~e ~v~l~ble ~d I ~ve had some e~erie~e in'~he oper~tio~ a~ ~n~ement of park syste~. 'In the S~r of 1972, I Water Fr6n~ Dir~tor for ~he Cle~ L~e Io~ City Beth. i~l~ 6rgaB{zing ~ entirely new progr~ of s~ing instr~&. ion, lifeq~rdi~, ~ ~ s~i1 cr~t school. Duties also i~l~ed h~ing ~ supe~sion of perso~el, ~king up qu~ng ~ grou~s mzinten~e. I hold a degree in ~co~ti~ from the U~versity of .' ~rthern Io~ ~d a }4asters desree in .B~iness fro~ the s~e universi~. I h~ve considerable e~erie~e prep~ri~ ~d u~nt~i~ng ~dgets for ~over~ent~ ~ ~so ~ve been ~he fi~i~ off,er for a. few L~w ~orce- ment ~sist~e ~s~i=tion feder~ ~r~s. I believe %h~ ~erie~e ~uld be ~ asse% to the p~k co~ssion in prepari~ April 29, 1976 MOUND CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION Mound City Hall Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Sirs: I have been made aware that an opening on our planning commission is now or soon to be available. I have been residing at 5162 Emerald DL for over two years; before that living in the Minnetonks Area for twenty-five years. I have received a variance on my own behalf and due to this feel aware of our commission's inner workings. I am'a graduate of Minnetonka Senior High and Cornell College with a B.A. degree in Economics. With these facts at your disposal, I hope to have the honor and privilege to serve our community on the Mound Planning Commission in the near future. Thank you, Gregory Gipson GG/sc February 7, 1976 City Mgr.; Village o£ ~tuud 5545 Shod_line Blvd. Mound, ~Lu. 55364 Dear Sir: I am writing in regards to volunteer work on the Park & Youth Com~missions. You are probably wonde~_ng why two areas of interest. To' be perfectly honest - I can't in my ov~ mind seperate their importance. Our cDh!dren need areas in %:b/ch to play as well as see nature, tilth todays population ~ud industrialization we must t~y to prese~se nature. %'tuat will the future generations see -- buildings where the trees were; go to zoos to see birds & ~uim~ls once common to our eyes; ~ill there be fish in our l~:es after sewage, fertilizer & careless people get through? We have a beautiful area in ~.:b_ich we live ~d we must t~y to conse~,e that. Thru careful pla_~ing i feel that areas c~_n be ~rov~ded for over- e..~o ....... ~ .... the .... time ~c, thc ~1~' ~ ' ~r--p~ ~ ~ - - _ My husband and I only have one child, however, my interests are hiEh in seeing that children are given the opportunity to learn and do new At present I am wc~ing in Child Psych. and enjoy my wo~K im~mensly. We also have the problem of limited f~nds and what we c~u provide for free- time activities. I do not feel because of financial reasons the children of our community should be denied opportunities to p:_rtake in activities that average income families do. We all know that children with idle h~nds and minds are more apt to get in trouble. Just as important, they should have fond memories of their childhood. True, even busy hands get into trouble. That can't always be prevented. I feel if children are given more opportunities and experiences in life they can grow up to be more complete persons. It gives them,a chance to incorporate their needs as well as societies. Exposure to a variety of people and experiences is helpful in learning to relate &nd comm'&uicate. Page 2 I am thirty-one years old. My outside interests are: Bowling; Water skiing; Reading; Cards; ~ishing; Boating & water skiing; Snowmobiling; Tennis; Golfing; Biking; Traveling. My profession if Registered Nurse - Presently in Child psych. If you wish to contact me call either my home number or work - 588-2771 ex 241. Because of my hours of ~ork it may be difficult to reach me at home. Th~n_k you for a_ny time and consideration given to my letter. Sincerely, 1593 Bluebird I_e_ne Mound, ~ m. 55364 i have lived in Moo_nd proper scmswhat over t¥~o years. ..a~or Tim Lovaa-~en City Office Blda. 5341 i-,ia~yv~ood Road Januamy 4, 1977 4921 Tuxedo Blvd. l~Iou/md, Mn. ~536~ Dea~ b~. Lovaasen: Please send me application form and description of jobs open in the ~.o%uad Park Commia~ion. Thank you. Gr indahl CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota November 18, 1977 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 77-202 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: The Honorable Mayor and City Council The City Manager Occupancy Permit Ordinance Attached is a copy of the ordinance relative to occupancy permits that has previously been discussed. The attached ordinance requires inspection when any building changes occupancy. The Mayor has indicated that this might be adopted for rental proper- ty only. Section 27.10 and after applies to rental property. ORDINANCE NO. A~ ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 27 TO THE VILLAGE CODE, PROVIDING FOR A CERTIFICATE OF HEALTH AND SAFETY BEFORE OCCUPANCY OR OWNERSHIP CHANGES FOR ANY BUILDING WITHIN THE VILLAGE: AND REQUIRING INSPECTION AI~D LICENSI~Gi FOR ALL MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE. VILLAGE, ESTABLISHING MINIMUM STANDARDS REGARDING BASIC EQUIPMENT, FACILITIES, PHYSICAL CONDITION, .r4AINTENANCE, OCCUPANCY AND USE OF SUCH D~.TELLINGS, PREMISES AND STRUCTURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARDS TO I~{PLEMENT SAID REQUIREMENTS. THE VILLAGE OF MOUND DOES ORDAIN: Chapter 27 is hereby added to the Village Code an~ ~hal1 read as follows: - HEALTH AND SAFETY IN HOUSING i~.~.~ ...... ~ Section 27.01. Certificate of Health and~fet¥ ~ompiiance. When the occupancy Or oWnersh~'-0~ny~ilding within the Village of Mound changes after June 1, 1973, the present occupant or owner, or any agent designated by the present occupant or owner, shall make application for the certificate of health and Safety compliance. This section shall not apply to any lawfully licensed multiple dwelling structure, and shall have no effect upon the provisions of law or other ordinances relating to the issuance of building permits. Section 27.02. Application; Inspecti0~. Application'for the certificate of health and safety compliance shall be made upon forms furnished by the Village and approved by the Village Council. Upon receipt of a properly executed application for a certificate of health and safety compliance, the village manager shall cause an inspection to be made of the premises to insure that the structure is in compliance with the minimal requirements of the housing code. Such inspection shall be based upon requirements of the housing code only and shall not be used to discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, sex, income level, or any other basis not ~.contained in the housing code. Minimal requirements for purposes .of this ordinance means those re~irements or standards which were generally in e'ffect at'the date of construction of"'the buiiding, and t e~mmedi'ate health and safety hazards as enumerated in Section IV of~plementati0n standards, Housing Code ~e-qu~remeht~. doe~~ 'orate ~ose subsequent standards or requ~emen~s_~ th~tat~building co--Which reflect present day standards for n~_str,~ction~ It is intended to include any condition constituting an immediate hazard to health and safety, but it is not the purpose of inspections under this ordinance to require all buildings to be upgraded to satisfy the standards of the current . codes. The standards which must be satisfied in order to obtain a certificate of health and safety compliance are only those standards set forth in the Implementation Standards, Housing Code Require- ments, Sections I through VI, dated July 17, 1972, which are 35U incorporated into made a part of this or ance by reference. Thre~ copie~ of the Implementation Standards, HoustOn? Code Require- ments, shall be marked "official copy" and filed with the ¥illage Clerk for use and examination by the public. Section 27.03. Issuance Of Certificate. If the structure is in compliance with the minimal requirements of the housing code, the Village Manager Shall cause a certificate of health and safety compliance to be issued to the present occupant or owner, which shall state that the structure has been inspected and is in compliance with the. minimal requirementg of the housing code. The present occupant, owner or any agent designated by the present occupant or owner shall obtain the certificate of health and safety compliance. Section 27.04. ~iling of Certificate by Pro.sPectiv~ Occupan~ or Purchaser. The present occupant or owner, or any agent desi~hated by'th% present occupant or owner shall furnish a copy of the certificate of health and safety compliance to the prospecti~ occupant or owner, who shall file a copy of the certificate with the village. The proposed buyer or renter shall not take occupancy of the dwelling unit prior to the filing of the certificate with the village, except that upon the filing of an affidavit by the present or prospective owner or occupant, or his designated agent, approved by the Building Inspector which sets forth the dates by which necessary corrective action shall be taken, the occupancy shall be permitted pending issuance of the certificate of health and safety compliance. Section 27.05. Review of the Ordinance. At the end of one year following the effec--t~ve date of this ordinance the Village. ~anager and Buildin~ Inspector shall make a comprehensive report to the Village Council on the results of this program. During the year the Council shall be furnished with interim reports on activities under the ordinance. Section 27.06. Fee. The fee for the inspection and certificate of health and safe--ty compliance of a dwelling unit shall be ten dollars. 9 I__np~ec~ion and Licensinq of Rental Dwellinq~ '~ Sectio~ .10. ~spection ~nd Li( qf Re~tal Dwellings, It shal~ be unlawful for any person tO'conduct' or operate or cause to be operated either as owner, lessee, agent or any other capacity within the ~illage of Mound any multi~fami!y dwelling w$~hout having fir"st obtained a license or temporary certi- f. ica~e ~t6 ~d-~'as hereafter provided. -A m61ti-family dwelling is ~ef{~a~fa~"a structure containing two or more dwelling units where one.6~ more units ~s rented or occupied by someone other than the owner. Section 27.11. App!icatioq ~.or Lic~ns.e,. Within ninety (90) days after the effective date of this ordinance, the owner of each multi-family dwelling as hereinbefore stated existing on the effective date of this Section shall make written application to the Village Building Inspector for a license for such use on a form to be supplied by the Village Clerk and containing such information as necessary to administer and enforce the provisions of, and to insure compliance with, the provisions of this ordinance, and the Housing Code in its entirety. In addition, the legal owner of record of each such multi-family apartment house, as hereinbefore stated, constructed after the effective date of this ordinance shall make written application to the Village of Mound for a license as herein provided prior to any initial occupancy. Section 27.12. Issuance of Temporary Certificate. Upon receipt of a completed application for a license, as aforesaid, with tender of the appropriate license and inspection fee as here- inafter provided, the Village of Mound shall issue a "Temporary Certificate" indicating that a license has been duly applied for, and that such license shall be issued or denied after the building, including interior portions thereof intended or used for human habitation, has been inspected for compliance with applicable provisions of the Housing Code. A "Temporary Certificate", as issued, shall authorize continued occupancy, without penalty, of such dwelling units in actual existence and use on the effective date of this Section, pending the issuance or denial of the applied for license. Structures for such intended use, constructed or intended to be converted to rental usage after the effective date of this section, shall not be occupied for human habitation prior to issuance of the required license. ~'~en a license has been denied, expired, suspended or revoked as hereinafter provided, no further rentals and occupancy of dwelling units then vacant or which become vacant shall be permitted until a license has been issued. Section 27.13. Issuance or Denial of License. %~en upon completion of the inspection of the bui'lding and habitable portions thereof, the Inspector finds that the requirements of the Housing Code have been met, a license certifying such facts shall be issued. If the Village Building Inspector finds that the requirements of the code have not been met, a written denial specifying the defects shall be transmitted to the applicant. Sectioi7.~4. Rene%~al of Licens~ Unless sooner revoked or suspended for cause, each license shall expire tw~((2) years £rom issuance, ann shall be renewed each %w0 2) y arg thereafter. Section 27.15. Transfer of License. A license issued hereunder is'transferable, for a fee of Ten ($10.00) Dollars, to any person who has acquired ownership of a licensed building for the unexpired portions of the two (2) year term for which it was issued or reissued, provided that the application to transfer such license is filed with the Village Building Inspector 15 days prior to actual change of ownership, and the licensed building and dwelling units are in compliance with the Housing Code. The license shall terminate upon failure to apply for its transfer prior to change of ownership. Section 27.16. Suspension or Revocation. A license once issued or reissued may be suspended upon a f-i~g by the Village Building Inspector that one (1) or more of the requirements of this Code has been violated. Upon failure of the licensee to comply with a notice of violation, the Village Building Inspector shall revoke the license and proceed with appropriate enforcement action as provided. A suspended license may be revalidated upon meeting the requirements of this code and payment of fifty percent (50%) of the applicable license and inspection fee. Reissuance of a revoked license shall be subject to payment of the full amount of the applicable license and inspection fee. ~ction 27.17. Display of License and Availability. Licenses issued under this Section shall be prominently and publicly displayed on the premises of the structure, wherever feasible, or produced on demand by a tenant or prospective tenant,~and shall be available at reasonable times for inspection by an authorized inspector. Section 27.18.. Schedule of Fees. At the time of application for the license or for license renewal required by this Section the Village Clerk shall collect the appropriate license fee and inspection fee in accordance with the following schedule: Multi-Family Dwelling Units: License Fee $ Plus Inspection Fee~ as follows: FLAT FEE $ 0 Plus $5.00 for each dwelling unit from 3 to 5 $ 25.00 Plus $4.50 for each dwelling unit from 6 to 10 $ 47.50 Plus $4.00 for each dwelling unit from 11 to 20 $ 87.50 Plus $3.50 for each dwelling unit from 21 to 40 $157.50 Plus $3.00 for each dwelling unit from 41 to 100 947 $337.50 Plus $~.50 for each 6welling unit~from 101 to 200 $587.50 Plus $2.00 for each dwelling unit above 200 Above license and inspection fe~s shall be tendered with application for first issuance of license and bi-annually thereafter on or before date of license renewal. The license fee shall be subject to a ten percent (10%) penalty per month, or any portion thereof, beyond the date due and payable. Except as provided for the transfer of license, no refund of license and inspection fees shall be made to those discontinuing operation or who sell, transfer, give away, or otherwise dispose of a licensed building to another person. In the event it is detezmined by the Village of Mound that an application must be denied due to legal restrictions that prohibit the issuance of the license, the applicant's tendered fees will be returned. The Village Manager shall review the fee schedule annually and recommend changes as he deems appropriate to the Council. Adopted by the Mound Village Council this 1973. day of , Attest: Mayor Village Clerk Passed by Village Council Published in Official Newspaper BOARD MEMBERS Thomas $, Maple, Jr., Chairman Deepheven Robert $. MacNamara, Vice Chairman WayZata Alan W. Clark, Secreta~/ Minnetonka Beach Robert T. Brown, Treasurer Greenwood Edward G. Bauman Tonka Bay R. Jon Ehrman Minnetrista Offal R. Fenstad Moum:l Frank R. Hunt, Jr. Spring Park My[on (Jen'y) Johnson Exceisior William C. Keeier Shorewood Angus T. Morrieon Woodland Norman W. Paurua Orono Robert K. Pillsbury Minnetonka Richard J. Sode~'t3erg Victoria David F. Nixon Laketown Township LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION 402 EAST LAKE STREET , WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 ~ TELEPHONE~ FRANK MIX TO: M~.yors and City Clerks and FROM: LMCD Boazd-of Directors ~ DATE: Novembe~ 3, 1977 SUBJECT: Envi~onmenta~ Review of Development P~oposals on the Lake. Unde~ the-Minnesota. Envi~onmenta~ Policy Act- (Minnesota Statutes~-Chapter. ll6~). ~d ~es ~o~.g~ted-the~e~de~- (6MC~5.021, et seq.) ~oposed ~ctions having ~ poten- ti~ly si~ific~t env~o~ental ~p~ct ~t be ~e~_ewed by a "loc~ ~esponsible ~ency~';, ~ly the ci~ o~ s~ci~_~ict-having ~t issuing j~is~ction fo~ the ~oposed ~oject o~ p~t thereof. ~e ~eview ~ocess is no~ly be~ by the ~oposer of the ~oject ~- ~tt~g ~ ~t env~o~ental assessment wo~heet (~W) to the Responsible ~ency o~ ~g the ~ency to ~ep~e the ~W. ~e ~W is then sub~tted to the ~v~o~ental Q~li~ Bo~d (E~) with the ~ency's ~eco~e~tions. · -:]~cause p~oposals fo~ major developments on-the lake often involve dock or mooring facilities, and in-some cases m~y-consist~in_ major, pazt of such_-f~cilities, the LMCD must at-some point appmove the issuance-of-licenses o~ permits for them unde~ the LMCD code. In some cases it may be p~oper for the LMCD to be the Responsible Agency or to act jointly in that capacity with the city. In other c~ses the phase of the D~oject involving LM~D =eview may be so mino= ~s not to ~equi~e LMCD involvement other than the simple informational requirement conta&ned in the EQB ~ules. In any case, it is essential that LMCD be awa.~e of quests for EAW's concerning development on the lake so that the p~oper level of LMCD involvement in the'review p~ocess can be ~etained. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Con ' t. -2- Environmental Review of Development P~oposals on the Lake. The board, therefore, respectfully requests that copies of d~ft EAW's or requests for l~epa~ation of EAW's m~de to. your~city be forwarded to ottr staff at the earliest possible time._ The~ board is not seeking, ~by this requsst, to interfere with municipal ~eview authority in these matters; it merely w~nts to insure that p~opos~ls for ~ction having significant environmental, impact on the la~e and its:sho~e a~er-given the:kind-of =eview.by local_zu- thorities-that is requi~ed by the law~ Be ~ssu~ed that the LMCD staff and bos~d will coopers.re fully with you~ city staff to ma~ke the ~eview p~ocess work ~s satis- fmcto~y as possible. TONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTICE SPECIAL BOARD MEETING Wednesday, Novembe~ 16, 1977 8:00 p.m., Tonka Bay Village Hall 1. Call to 0rde~ 2. Roll Call- 3- Hea~ing - Laketown - Dues Delinquency 4- Code Amendment - Deicing Permit Fees - 3md Reading 5- Code Amendment - Dock License Fees r 2nd Readin'g 6. Code Amendment - Moma%o~ium Issues - 1st Reading 7- Othe~ 8. Adj ou~nment LAKE MINNETONKA'" CONSERVATION DISTRICT 40~ EAST L.AKE STREET WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 - F:~EN~LE:xHA.O~xEEcu61.11~/E 4D~R3:70:~ Robert T. Brown, Treasurer Greenv~:t ~JonEh~an ' , ~nk ~ Hun~ Jr. Spd~ Pa~ Mxfon(J~) J~ - Angus T. Mo~ W~ N~an W. Omno Mlnnetonka Vlct~a ~vid F. Nixoo ~et~n T~hip On June-:~;,:: 197T-you We=e-mailed the 1977 LMCD budget a~d =evisions, and a cha~t showing you~ sha~e of that ~ce~e& ~e ~e~o~, ~o~e& ~& ce~i~e& ~he b~e~ ~nneton~ Conservation Dis~ict. ~icipalities ha~ the option of p~ing the~ ~ le~es by q~te~s: the_.f~st q~te~ berg ~ J~. l, 1978t ~e second_q~te=-is~d~ A~il l, 1978, the -q~te= is d~ J~Y l, 1978, ~d t~ forth q~3_~vte= is d~ October- 1, 1978; o~ ~ they so choose, they m~ p~Y - ~e ent~e-~o~t d~ J~Y l, 1978. .~,- ~e L~ ~netonks C0nse~vstion Dis~ict h~ m~y ~o~ ~oposed ~d ~de~wmy to m~e L~ ~nnetonks ling ~d =ec~estion mo=e enjoyable fo~ ~es citizens. ~ you ha~ ~Y q~stions, plebe feel ~ee to gi~ ~k ~ ~ c~l at 473-7033- ~k you fo~ yo~ coo~ation ~ helping to "Ss~ the ~~e~ c~ L~ ~nnetonkm Conse~v&t~on D~s~m Printed on Paper Made with Recycled Fibers LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LAKE INN TONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT -,~ ' 1978 1~78 LA.KEMINNE~0~'KAC0~SERYA~Z0~ ~ZSTRIC~ ~UI)G~ REVENITE LMCD Communities Othe= Income TOTAL GENERAL FUED~ DISHURSEMENTS Gene=al Fund - Administration Pe= sonal Se=vices Sala.~ies Auditing Se=vices Consulting Services Total Pe=sonal Se=vices Contractual Se=vices Telephone Postage P~tg., thzb., & Adv. Utilities Janitorial Se=vices Othe=_ C ontr actual Se=vice s Total Contractual Se=vices Commodities & Supplies Office Supplies Books & Pe=iodicals Gene=al Supplies Total Commodities & Supplies Othe= Charges Office Rent Office Equipment Rent Insurance & Bonds Memberships Employe~ Contributions Mileage & Expenses Total Othe= Charges 1975 1976 1977 1977 1978 Actual Actual .Jan-Apr Estimate Approved $44,399 $48,440 $34,226 1,469 1,458 .. 874 $~5,s6s $49,s78 ~ $55,025 . 1,8oo ~54,S25 $56,205 , 1,80Q ~58,oo5 $27,188 $29,519 $10,586 $31,200 $52,600 5OO 5OO -- 500 500 $27,488 $29,819 $10,386 $51,500_ $52,900 $ 55? $ 571 $ 151 652 790 211 261 405 210 310 321 110 500 520 120 1,083 1,205 228 $ 2,963 $ 5,410 $ 1.,010 $ 405 8OO 1,150 575 360 1,1oo $ 4,19o $ 1,2oo lO5 8O $ 984 $ 861 $ 1,090 114 52 6 83 ~ 22 $ 405 8OO 1,550 595 59O 1,oqo $ 4,540 $ 1,015 105 8O $ 1,181 $ 1,O12 $ 1,119 $ 1,585 $ 1,200 $ 1,980 1,500 45o 12O 4,500 8OO $ 9,550 $1,98o $1,98o $ 66o 1,585 1,5o9 555 284 466 ' -- 75 IOO -- 5,519 5,824 1,539 751 5~5 78 $ 7,974 $ 8,442 $ 2,850 $ 1,980 1,400 45O 155 4,700 $ 9,665 ' 940 1978 LMCD Budget 1975 ~xm3uas~s (Cont.) Genemal Fund- Adminis~ation (Cont.) Capital Outlay Office Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment Total Capital Outlay Total General Fund- Adminis t~ ation General Fund- Legal Legal Services $39;606 $ 6,177 $ 6,177- Total General Fu~d - Legal__ General Fund - Committees & ContinEency Committees & Contingency Total General Fund - Committees & Contingency 1976 Actus~ $ 133 $42,816 $.4,899 $ 4,899' .1977 1977 Estimate $ -- $ 3oo $15,545' $ 1,850 $ 1,830 $1,392 $ ,874 $ 55 $ 1,392 $ 874' $ 55 $46,725 $ 5,500 $ 5,3oo' ,$ 2,800 $ 2,800 1978 Approved $ 3oo $ 3oo $48,405 $ 5,600 $ 5,600' $ 4,000 $ 4,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND - DISBURSEMENTS' ' $48,589. $17,250 ~54,825 $58,005 939 De e ph&ven Excelsior Greenwoo~ Laketown Township Minnetonka Minnetonka Beach Minnet~ist~- _ Mound O~ono Sho~ewoo~ SlUing Pa~k Tonka B~y Victoria Wayzata Woodland Total ~TNETONKA CONSERVATION DI 1978 BUDCET DISTRIBUTION OF ~SE % of Assessed Total Value Assessed 1/3 Mil ( 1, OO0 ' s) Valuation Taxable $ 21,855 5.5% $ 7,278 11,559 2.8 5,780 3,692 0.9 1,231 8,262 2.1 2,754 186,568 46.6 11,241' ' 4,800 1.2 1,600 15,266 5.8 5,089 51,754 7.9 lO,578 45,471 10.9 14,490 22,155 5.5 7,578 6,579 1.6 2,126 7,356 '1.8 2,452 5,560 0.9 1,120 28,951 7.2 9,651 5,108 1.5 1,705 $400,254 .100.~ $82,471 % of Budget Resulting from $11,241 Maximum to Minnetonka 4.2 1.4 5.1 20.0 1.8 5.7 11.9 16.3 8.3 2.4 2.7 1.5 10.8 1.9 Sha~e of $56,205 1978 Budget $ 4,609 2,561 787 1,742 11,241' 1,012 5,204 6,688 9,161 4,665 1,549 1,517 751- 6,070 1,068 $56,205 *M~ximum of $11,241 by l~w. 938 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LMCD 1978 BUDGET COMPARISON 1977-1978 TAX LEVIES Shame of $53,025 Share of $56,205 1977 ~,et 1978 Deephaven $ 4,295 $ 4,609 Excelsio~ 2,386 2,361 G~eenwood 742 787 Laketown Township 1,592 1,742 M_tune tonka 1 O, 605* 11,241 Minnetonka Beach 954 1,012 Minne t~ is ta 3,022 3,204 Mound 6,257 6,688 O~ono 8,643 9,161 Sho~ewood 4,242 4,665 Spmimg ~Pamk 1,326. 1,349 Tonka B~y 1,432 1,517 Victoria · 689 731 Wayzata 5,833 6,070 Woodland 1,007 1,068 Total $53,025 $~6,205 Change 1978 +314 - 25 + 45 +150 +636 + 58 +182 +431 +518 +423 + 23 + 85 + 42 +237 + 61 +3,180 WMax~rmmn by law. iTIETROPOLITRF! LUR/TE ¢OFITROL co,'nmi/liOn Cities mETRO ]'OURRE BLDG. 7TH & ROBERT]'TREET! /I:IIFIT PRUL mn 551Ol 61'2 '2 '2 '2 . 8 4,2 ~ November 7, 1977 Mr. Leonard Kopp, City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Kopp: I am enclosing a copy of a letter that the Comm, ission received on November 3, 1977 from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency addressed to Ms. Sandra Gardebring, Executive Director of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Your co,..~munity's growth and economic development may be affected by the content of the enclosed letter. This matter is of serious import and requires your i~ediate attention. The Commission has underway one of the largest pollution abatement programs in the nation. At our Metro Plant, the Commission is spending in excess of $250.million in order to bring that facility into compliance with U.S. government's requirement for secondary treatment levels. Practically all the work is under construction and the total plant will be completed in 1981. Please read the enclosed letter and focus on the proposed punitive action on the part of the federal agency. The matter may be referred to the U.S. Attorney for enforcement proceedings by EPA. Litigation could cause penalties and liquidated damages to be imposed upon the people and businesses of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Further, the enforcement action could result in. the loss of construction grant funds and a ban on sewer extensions for all new housing and businesses. EPA is intimating that the Commission may have to stop all futur~ connections to the ~tetropolitan Disposal System. Such a~tion would mostly affect young persons struggling to establish families and ne~ business ventures. It is especially discriminatory to !ow income families. The economic consequences of the s~ggested punitive actions on the part of the EPA will have a substantial impact on your co,¢~nuni~y. One of the reasons for the threatened action on the part of EPA is due to the failure of the Pollution Control Agency to extend the Commissicn's Operating Permit beyond July 1, 1977. There is insufficient reason for g3 Nov6mber. 7, 1977 not granting the Commission this permit extension without hearings, since ~he Commission has under construction all remedial work to achieve the secondary treatment levels required by U.S. EPA. rdPCA forced this Commission to a public hearing because of complaints from the Citizens for a Clean Mississippi downstream and threatened litigation by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, neither of whom have produced reliable evidence and unquestionable proof.of degradation of personal health or economic co~nunity loss. It should also be noted that this Commission has substantially improved wastewater treatment since its creation in 1969, thereby improving the water quality of the Mississippi River to the highest levels since record keeping was started 51 years ago. All of this work has directly benefited downstream residents. The communities in the Metropolitan Area need to consider their interest and to express that interest to both MPCA and EPA. Your concerns and support fer the Commission's efforts to achieve the requirements of PL 92-500 under its - present construction program are needed. This Commission has been concerned with the rising cost to local governments for sewage treatment resulting from the more stringent standards, the lagging efforts of Congress to provide grant funds, and the unnecessary delays of the MPCA and EPA to approve programs and policies. Bureaucratic red tape is now engulfing the Metropolitan Area in threatened litigation and economic sanctions. It is unfortunate that communities have not spoken out in their own best interest. We urge you, at this time, to indicate your opposition to litigation or penalties to be brought upon the Commission, and to protest against EPA's consideration'of a sewer and building ban on homes and industry. Write to your State legislators, Congressional representatives, the EPA Region V, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Certain of these addresses are provided on the attached sheet. · Very truly yours, Chief Administrator RJD:pd Enclosure The Honorable Hubert H. Humphrey United States Senate 2113 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Wendell R. Anderson United States Senate 443 Russell Senate Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510 The Ronorable Albert Quie United States House of Representatives 2185 Rayburn Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Tom Hagedorn United States House of Representatives 325 Cannon Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable William E. Frenzel United States House of Representatives 1026 Longworth Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Bruce Vento United States House of Representatives 1330 Longworth Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Donald M. Fraser United States House of Representatives 2268 Rayburn Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 Mr. George Alexander, Administrator Region V U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 230 Dearborn St. South Chicago, Illinois 60604 Ms. Sandra Gardebring, Executive Director Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1935 W. County Rd. B2 Roseville, MN 55117 COMMUNICATIONS l1.8.77 (To be discussed at both Committee Meetings.) Ms. Sandra S. Gardebrlng Executive Director Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1935 West C~unty Road, B2 Rosevllle, Minnesota 55i13 -. ~.,.'.:~ ¢;.~;~ .~,,-, ].;.~'~, ~ -. ~... *..-.? ,. -. -:'i'; .].De~a~ .Ms,.. G.ardebrlng:. .=-,,:: .: ,~:. :..: . : : ~.: :. ........... ~,....,?,.~,. ~-'... .... r ..The Minnesota Poi lutlon Control-'AgencY'has scheduled a hearing which will / ~ .... ~ake place on November 2, 1977, In the matter of Metropolitan Waste Cx~ntrol Co~ission Metropolitan Was~ewater Treatment Plant (Metro), NPDES No. MN 0029815. The United States Envlronmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) wlshes to state l~s position in this matter. "-',.- ........ -Metro's NPDES permit was Issued on December 19, 1974, and expired on June 30, ~- 1977. As you know, theme has been a history of noncompliance with the effluent "~.:.'": "limitations in their permit. Clearly, Metro exceeded Its limits for blochemlcal oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), pH, and fecal coliform on numerous occasions. In our opinion, lack of adequate facllltles to adequately process the sludge generated is the most serious problem at Metro. Permit violatlons began In February 1976, caused by Insufficient sludge processing capaclty resulting . - ........ · from operation and malntenance problems with the sludge Incinerators. The ~ "~"~ "long term solution to the problem Is construction of.new solids processing .' .' ~,,-'.;~." .. A new NPDES permlt was proposed for relssuance and approved by U.S. EPA on '~: ':' August 22, 1977.' The new permit contalns effluent limits based on the., '~-~-::£~'-.: attainment of secondary ~reatment., It Is the position ..... of.thl~s.~gency'that'.: Issuance of a new permit is of paramount Importance. " Metro must attain secondary treatment In the shortest posslble time. Sectl'on : · · ". 301 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (F~PCA), 53 U.S.C. §1311, ,-',.']-' :~. '-.requires that secondary trea*ment be achleved by July 1, 1977. A program for u:~" adequate sludge processlng is a key to meeting tills requirement Metro Is ' '*".', already well past the July 1 deadllne with no legally enforceable schedule for "::'": ~.. brlnglng the facllity'lnto compliance. The need for an enforceable plan Is ~'~ '~ .. I ~,'.~ ' ~. emphasized by the f~c~ that t.letro is the greatest source of water pollution In . ..':: >'-... Minnesota, as wol-i as the largest slngle municipal plant In Region V which is not on a legally enforceable compliance schedule. .:..;~.' ;:~'. ~...- . ; .:' :]., .... ~ ::.'.::-' . ~'.. ' . uo ! s ! ^ 1 (] ,~ue~e3-o~ u3 Jo~3eJll3 'pleuOaDhl '0 seuml' ..... "' ' 'elqlssod ' ~'--: '~..;-~-~'66~'~ ~esTx~ ~T~e ~ ~-d ~0~ 6'~~ ~i ~n~os .... e~o~u~' .......... '- "x~ ~oi''''~'~. ~'~. e6jn I 'elqgPlOag pug snolaeJ6 q,oq eJg ~lns~gl e q3ns ~o SUOl~O3111mgJ eqz sJasn lelJ~snpul s~oaseH ~eq$ pooqllO~ll eq$ 'pug ![(q)g~[[§ '~'S'fl E£] VgdM3 eu, ~o (q)gO~§ aepun ueq je~os e ~o A~lltqlssod eq$ fspun~ ~UgJ~ UOl~na~suo3- 7- I~JSpoj ~eu ~o ssoI elqe^le~UO3 e s~JodmI oJseH 4sule~e ~lns~el e 'uol~lPPe Ul;.,':'-'.;.i.~:~ · se6emep peSgPlnbll pug sel~ieued eseladoJdde o$ oJseH SDe~qns Plno3 UOl$3e'ug ,,~- -'.' qDnS '~jno0 lejepoj uI s~ulPeeDoJd $ueme3JO~UO jo~ AouJo~v seSe$S pe,lUfl eq~ o~ JO~$e~ Slq~ ~o leJJO~oJ oq~ ~uljeplsuo3 s! Vd3 *o^oqe oq$ ~o ON LAKE MINNETONKA INDIAN BURIAl. MOUND~ 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD TELEPHONE MOUND, MINNESOTA 5536¢ (612) 472-1155 Novez~ber 14, 1977 Mr. William D. Parsons Chief, General Regulatory Branch Construction-Operations Division Department of the Army St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers 1135 U.S. Post Office & Custom House St. Paul, MN. 55101 Re: NCSCO-GR(VF 77-94) Dear Mr. Parsons: I returned from vacation today and have your letter of 31 October on the Lost Lake Area in Mound. Your Investigator, Paris Getty, has been in touch with us on this matter and it is our intention to cooperate with the Corps of Engineers in any way we can. As I understand it, any fill that went in the wet area was inadvertent and steps are being taken to block the area so no future mishaps will occur. We have asked our Public Works Department to give us a report on this area and we will contact you as soon as this report is forth- coming. Sincerely, L'eona~d L. Kopp City Manager LLK/ms cc: City Council Public Works Dept. City Attorney ON LAKE MINNETONKA INDIAN BURIAl.. MOUNDB 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD TELEPHONE MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 November 15, 1977 Mr. John Rutford Referral Coordinator Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building 7th Street & Robert Street St. Paul, MN. 55101 Re: Department of the Army/Hennepin County Public Works Department Permit Application to Excavate Approximately 60 cubic yards of material from the bed of Lost Lake Channel a portion of Lake Minnetonka in Mound--Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 5246 Dear Mr. Rutford: The excavation in question is in conjunction with bridge construction. The bridge in question is badly in need of replacement and the City Council has approved the preliminary plans for the bridge. Approval of the necessary dredging will be appreciated. Sincerely, L~nard L. Kopp City Manager LLK/ms cc: City Council Public Works Dept. §3O UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA November 9, 1977 Mr. Tim Lovaasen Mayor of Mound Mound City Hall 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, Minnesota 55364 Natural Hazards Warning Systems 2001 Riverside Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454 (612) 376-1865 Dear Mayor Lovaasen: We are writing to inform you of a research project we are conducting on the dissemination of severe weather warnings~ funded by the National Science Foundation (ENV 77-01452) in cooperation with the National Weather Ser¥ice, This project is a major, nationwide attempt to develop an empirical base upon which to design and improve plans for the rapid and authoritative dis~ semination of natural hazard warnings through the local con~nunity structure, On the recommendation of the National Weather Service, we have selected Hennepin County as one of the study sites at risk to winter storm threata? From November 14 through November 23 we will be conducting interviews with representatives of those organizations in Hennepin County involved in re~ sponding to a possible winter storm threat, Professor Sigmund Krane and Research Specialists Ms. Maureen Shadle and Ms. Marjorie Gardeen will be conducting the interviews. If you have any questions regarding this research, please feel free to contact either Professor T. Michael Carter or Professor Sigmund Krane at the above address and phone number. Sincerely, T, Michael Carter Co-Principal Investigator Sigmund Krane Research Fellow 929 Office of Planning & Develo HeNNePIN COUNTY Mr. Leonard L. Kopp, Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Kopp: 2308 Governrnenl November 7, 1977 Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARDS As you know, the question of funding for Community Planning Boards (Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, South Hennepin Human Services Council, and West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board) has been an issue in Hennepin County for the past several years. These discussions have usually centered around the County Budget and, while the County Board has expressed its intent to reduce its level of funding for these Boards, proposals to do so as part of the County budget process have not been implemented because municipalities (on the same budget timetable) would be unable to seriously consider fund- ing these groups at such a late date. In order to provide adequate time for advance planning and discussion, the attached resolution was introduced and reviewed by the Ways and Means Committee of the Hennepin County Board on October 31. The purpose of this resolution is to reaffirm the Board's intent to reduce County funding of Community Planning Boards in 1979 and to direct staff to: a. meet with local officials.and board members to dis- cuss the details of the proposed funding policy; and, b. give the Boards sufficient time to solicit supple- mentary sources of support for 1979. The final decision on the amount of County support to be provided to these organizations in 1979 will be made next fall when the County's 1979 budget is adopted. The Ways and Means Committee deferred action on this resolution for 30 days to provide municipalities and affected .agencies sufficient time to 92 3 FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARDS NOVEMBER 7, lg77 PAGE TWO review and con~nent. Committee action is tentatively scheduled for Mondav, December 5. I would appreciate receiving your comments on this proposed resolution by December 1, and I am available to answer any questions you might have about it. Sincerely, Philip C. Eckhert Di rector bk enclosure (1) cc: Hennepin County Commissioners g27 RESOLUTION NO. Commissioner , Chairman, offered the following resolution' Committee BE IT RESOLVED that for purposes of the development of the 1979 Community Planning Budget, and not withstanding other County policies established for the funding of community planning, staff be guided by the principle that County financial support shall not exceed two-thirds of the costs of eligible services provided by community planning organizations. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in order to provide currently funded community planning organizations with sufficient lead time to develop additional sources of financial support in 1979, staff be directed to meet with representatives of these organizations to explain this policy and procedures for its implementation. The question was on the adoption of the resolution and there were~ and NAYS as follows: YEAS HENNEPIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS YEA NAY OTHER Jeff Spartz Thomas E. Ticen Richard E. Kremer E.F. Robb, Jr. Sam S. Sivanich Nancy Olkon John E. Derus, Chairman ATTEST: Deputy County Auditor 926 CLAYTON L. LEFEVE~E J. DENNIS O'.~SRIEN JOHN B. ~EAN DAVID J. KENNEgY GLENN E. PURDU~ JAHES D. LARSON CHARLES L. LEFEV~RE HERBERT p. LEFLER JEFFREY J. STRAND LAW OFFIOES LEFEVERE, LEFLER, PEARSON, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ IIOO FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 November 14, 1977 Mrs. June McCarthy P. O. Box 161 Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: County Road 44 Water Dear Mrs. McCarthy: On April 28, 1977 I sent a check from the City of Mound made payable to you and to Charles R. Carmichael, your attorney of record, in the sum of $2200. This letter was sent after dis- cussions with you and your attorney, i% being my understanding that we had an agreement to dismiss the appeals and to resolve this matter. I have sent the easements, releases and~check to Mr. Carmichael and he tells me that these documents are on file in his office and that you have promised to come in and sign them, but that you have not done so. I sent a subsequent letter on June 7 and talked to you on the telephone on August 9 and you have assured me that you would go in and get these documents signed. I talked to Mr. Carmichael again last week and he tells me that you have not signed the documents and we are both confused as to how you want to handle this matter. 'If it is your intention to proceed with the appeal, then the City of Mound will of course also have to proceed on its appeal concerning the condemnation award. If that is your inten- tion, the check and papers should be returned and we should go ahead, because it is not wise to leave this in limbo. The City also would be required to deposit 75% of the $2200 with the dis- trict court because we have proceeded to install the water main, it being our understanding that you are in agreement in all respects. June, I beg of you, please let us bring this aspect of the case to a close or advise us so we can move it ahead with the court. LA'vV OFFICES LEFEVEIRE, LEFLER, HAMILTON AND PEARSON Mrs. June ~4cCarthy Page 2 November 14, 1977 The fact that you have appealed the special assessments against your property is not affected, nor should it affect this aspect of the case in any way. Please call Mr. Carmichael and go in and see him so that we can complete the condemnation portion of this file. If you have any questions or are confused by this in any manner, call Mr. Carmichael or me, as he has authorized me to send this letter to you directly. Very truly your~ Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney City of Mound CAP :ms cc: Mr. Charles R. Carmichael Mr..Leonard L. Kopp 924 westonka area chamber ol commerce 'i'he Westonka Area Chamber of Commerce is interested [n YOU~ To be most effective the Chamber needs the broadest base possible within the bus[ness commun]ty. If we are to be the spokesman for business we need parHcipaHon by the entire business community. Each business- man, .and hls firm, is an important l[nk ]n the well being of the Westonka area. That [s why we would like to have your support. -She Chamber has made s~gn]f[cant accomplishments ]n its three year history toward the goals of the bus,ness community° Groundwork has been lald Jror development of new retail develoF~- meat, and [nfluendng a flow of new bus[ness and consumer activity within the Westonka Area. We have had a s[gnlflcant publicity directed to Chamber act|v[t]es and [ts pos[tive j.rr, poct on the community. Fach of us must understand that such benefits are derived only through the investments ]n th2 Chamber program. The ~ccompl[shments have been notc~ble, our future plans ~re ambitious, and our success can only be achieved if we have a total commitment from the bus[ness and professional community. Enclosed is your appl[clation for 1978 membership. Please return it soon with your check for your investment in the Chambers and your future. Please feel free to call me at 472-4989 if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Ronald J. Nor;trem Westonka Area Chamber of Commerces. Pres]dent RJN:dn Encl. 9?..3 POST OFFICE BOX 426 a MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 WESTQ~I~ AREA CHAMBER OF ~,~ERCE, IIIC. I~'BERSHIP SUBSCRIPTIC~ AGR~I~ 'The undersigned hereby subscribed to membership in the ~ESTONKA AREA . CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC. and agrees to invest the sum of $ annually. It is also understood and agreed this membership will be auto- matically renewed unless notice to the contrary is given, in writing, to the WESTONKA AREA CHAM~ER OF COMMERCE, INC., PRIOR TO THE ANNUAL DATE OF RENEWAL. This application is subject to the approval of the Board of Directors. Firm Name Authorized by Address Zip Telephone f/ INVESTMENT FORMULA Small Business Medium Business Large Business Associate Member $35.00 $75.00 $150.00 $15.00 Associate members are business and professional men who work outside of the area but who are interested in the growth and development Of the Westonka area. The annual membership term is January 1 through December 31. Make check payable to Westonka Chamber of Commerce, Inc. and mail to Box 426 Mound, MN 55364 Reproduction courtesy of Tonka Toys g 2 '2 CLAYTON L. LcFEVERE HERBERT P. LEFLER CURTIS A. PEARSON J. DENNIS O'BRIEN JOHN E. DRAWZ JOHN B. DEAN DAVID J. KENNEDY GLENN E. PURDUE JAMES D. LARSON CHARLES L. LEFEVERE HERBERT P. LEFLER TTT JEFFREY J. STRAND LAW OFFICES LEF"EVERE, LEF"LE~, PEAI~SON, O'BF~IEN & DRAWZ I100 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 November 11, 1977 Mr. Len Kopp, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Continental Telephone Dear Len: I am enclosing herewith a copy of a letter from the Hearing Examiner and an order for a pre-hearing conference. It appears things will heat up in the near future, and Mr. Flynn and I will have to be working to prepare for the pre-hearing conference on December 21. It is our hope that somewhere along the line the telephone company will come down off their high horse and show some willingness to negotiate on this matter. City Attorney CAP:ih Enclosures cc: Mr. Bill Flynn 921 STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF HEARING EXAMINERS ROOM 300-- 1745 UN;VER$1.'rY AVENUE ~T. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55104 (612) 29&.6910 November 8, 1977 Mr. John Co McNulty Atto~ey at Law Maslon, Kaplaz~, Edelman= Borman= Brand and McNulty 1800 Midwest Plaza ~i~nneapolis~ Minnesota 55402 Mr. Curtis A. Pearson Attorney at Law LeFevere, Lefler~ Pearson, O'Brien and Drawz 1100 First National Bank Building · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Mr. Richard J. Schieffer AttOrney at Law Schieffer & Carlson 610 Brookdale Towers Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 In the Matters of the Complaints'of Mound~ ~. and l.~ple Plain, Mn. and Continental Telephone Subscribers Residing Therein Against Continental Telephone Company Regarding Reasonableness of Rates° Docket Nos. PSC-78-034-BS; PSC= 78-035-BSo Gentlemen: Enclosed an~ served upon~il~ plea~my Order for Prehear[n~ Conferen~_~ny. above-~r~fitled matters. Hearin9 Examiner BS:sw Enclosure CC' Mr. Richard McMillen Utility Rate Division AN EQUAL OPPORTUNi~ ¥' EMPLOYER PSC-78-035-BS PSC :-034-BS STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF HEARING EXAMINERS FOR THE ~[fNESOTA PUBLIC SERVICE CO~.'~ISSION In the Matter of the Complaint of ) Mound~ ~4n. and Continental Tele- ) phone Subscribers Residing Therein ) Against Continental Telephone Com- ) p~.ny Regarding Reasonableness of ) Rates. .In the Matter of the Complaint of Maple Plain, ~. and Continental Telephone Subscribers Residing Therein Against Continental Tele- phone Company Regarding Reasonable- ness of Rates. ORDER FOR PREHEARING CONFEP~CE WHEREAS, on April 1, 1977t the above-named parties filed Complaints against Continental Telephone Company with the Public Service Commission; and $~IEREAS, on October 4, 1977, the Commission at its regular CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota ?ag~ 1 Month 0f ~ f'i,~'/hl 7 ? Monthly Activity Report of ~,Jatcr DCpart:znt i ......... THis L~st This Year Last"Yea { Work Un,its ...... Month Month %9. date 6o date o._~o~_Water Custo,mers // .,, ., 7. H~,~ant~ Flushed - Man Ho~s Hyd~ants Painted - ~n Ho~s Main Breaks ,,, [H~drants Inspected o. Times Checked P~p [No. Times Checked p~p'~ , /~ ~ ~'7 ,., ~,~f,, ~ ~/ ~ ~ , ....... c~ ~ox~ Lowe~, ,, ~ // ~Z _?/ icu~, $ox~ .~ .'7 ,,, ~Locat~n9 C~b Bo~es Man Ho~s ~/ '3/ ~ ~& ~// ........... i, . ~ .,, -' ..- 910 CITY OF NOJND ~iound~ ~4inneso~ Monthly Activity R,eport of Wst~r Dep~-rtmeat MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT October 20, 1977 The meeting was called to order on October 20, 1977, by Chairman Cochran at 7:30 p.m. at the Wayzata City Hall, Wayzata,' Minnesota. Managers present: Cochran, Lehman, Palmatier, and Williams. Manager absent: Russell Also present were board advisors Holmquist and Macomber. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the regular meeting of September 15, 1977, were reviewed. Following discussion, it was moved by Palmatier, seconded by Lehman, that the minutes be approved with the following correction: That on page 4 under "Application No. 77-114," the text thereunder be deleted and corrected to read as follows: The engineer reviewed the grading and drainage application and recommended approval as submit ted. Following discussion, it was moved by Russell, seconded by Palmatier, that the application be approved.as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote, the motion carried. Upon vote, the motion carried. Baycliffe ~omeowners, Shoreline Retaining Wall, Upper Lake Minnetonka - Minnetrista; Application No. 77-80 The engineer advised the managers that the application of the Baycliffe Property Owners Association, Inc., for dredging and construction' of. a retaining wall was in conformity wi~h the .... . - . requirements of the district and recommended approval. Following discussion, it was moved by Cochran, seconded by Palmatier, that the application be approved as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote, the motion carried. Saul Segal, Site Grading - Minnetonka; Application No.. 77-103 The engineer reviewed the application for site grading for a single- and multi-family development~which had been tabled at the September, 1977, regular meeting of the managers. The engineer advised the managers that the present application was reduced in scope from that previously considered by the managers. 0c%ober 20, 1977 Page Two The managers questioned whether either on-site or off-site pond- ing capacity was adequate to serve this development. Following discussion, it was moved by Palmatier, seconded by Lehman, that the application be tabled pending receipt of additional informa- tion from the applicant to be provided to the district's engineer. Upon vote, the motion carried. University of Minnesota, Horticultural Research Center, Groundwater Withdrawal - Chanhassen; Application No. 77-116 The engineer advised the managers that the application for groundwater withdrawal near Arboretum Drive was in conform- ity with the requirements of the district and recommended approval contingent upon receipt of a Minnes~ta Department of Natural Resources permit. Following discussion, it was moved by Cochran, seconded by Palmatier, that the application be approved as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote, the motion carried. E. J. Zimmer, Shoreline Erosion Control, Albans Bay,' Lake Minnetonka - GreenwOOd; Application No ''77-117 The engineer reviewed the application to install shoreline riprap and advised the managers that the application was in conformity with the requirements of the district and recommended approval. Following discussion, it was moved by Palmatier, seconded by Williams, that the application'be approved as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote, the motion carried. E. R. Boedecker, Shoreline Erosion Control, Lake Minnetonka - Minnetrista; Application No. 77-118 The engineer advised the managers that the application for shoreline riprap was in conformity with the requirements of the district and recommended approval. Following discussion, it was moved by Cochran, seconded by Palmatier, that the application be approved as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote, the motion carried.' G. A. Jackson & Associates, Grading/Drainage Plan, Brown Road Court, Long Lake - City of Long Lake; Application No. '77-119 The engineer advised the managers that additional data was necessary to evaluate the grading and drainage plan submitted by the applicant. Following discussion, the matter was laid over until the next regular meeting of the managers and pending receipt 'of additional information from the applicant. City of Minnetonka, Utilities, Twelve Oaks Center - Minnetonka; Application No. 77-120 The engineer advised the managers that the application of the City of Minnetonka for utilities construction was in .,- 9!,:, October 20, 1977 Page Three conformity with the requirements of the ~istrict and the muni- cipal drainage plan and recommended approval. Following dis- cussion, it was moved by Cochran, seconded by Palmatier, that the application be approved as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote, the motion carried. K. Huney, Floodplain Fill for Housing Development, Enchanted Island, Lake Minnetonka - Minnetrista; Application No. 77-121 The engineer reviewed the application to fill two lots to elevation 932.0 which are presently slightly below 931.5. The engineer advised the managers that 'the City of Minnetrista has approved the application. Following discussion, it was moved by Palmatier,~seconded~byLehman,_.that~he.application-be~-~?~ approved as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote, the motion carried. H. W. Lurton, Shoreline Riprap - Maxwell's Bay, Lake Minnetonka - Orono; Application No. '77-122 The engineer advised the managers that the application for shoreline riprap and bank stabilization was in conformity with the requirements of the district and recommended approval. The engineer further advised the managers that the application has been approved by the City of Orono and the work done has been ordered by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and recommended approval. Following discussion, it was moved by Cochran, seconded by Palmatier, that the application be approved as recommended by-the engineer. Upon vote, the motion carried. H. & S. Winters, Lake Setback Variance, Excelsior Bay, Lake Minnetonka - Greenwood; Application No. 77-123 The engineer advised the managers that the setback variance requested was in conformity with the requirements of the district based on existing building patterns and recommend- ed approval. Following discussion, it was moved by Cochran, seconded by Palmatier, that the application he_approved as ~.-~ recommended by the engineer. 'Upon vote, ~the mot~ion carried. Hennepin County Public Works, Bridge Replacement, CSAH 9125 Over Lost Lake Channel - Mound; Application No. 77-124 The engineer advised the managers that the application of the Hennepin County Department of Public Works for bri~e construction was in conformity with district requirements and . recommended approval. Following discussion, it was moved by Cochran, seconded by Palmatier, that the application be approved as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote, the motion carried. October 20, 1977 Page Four City of Edina, Creek Bank Erosion Control, Minnehaha Creek at Zenith Avenue - Edlna; Application ~o. 77-125 · The engineer advised the managers that the application of the City of Edina for bank stabilization with assistance from the District's water maintenance and repair fund was in conform- ity with the requirements of the district and recommended approval. Following discussion, it was moved by Cochran, seconded by Palmatier, that the application be approved as submitted. Upon vote, the motion carried. L. Derner, Grading/Drainage Plan, Sinclair Court - Mound; Application No..77-126 The engineer reviewed the application for grading and drainage of Sinclair Court and recommended approval, with stan- dard erosion and siltation controls and restrictions on filling below elevation 931.5. Following discussion, it was moved by Lehman, seconded by Palmatier, that the application be approved as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote, the motion carried. 'C Widmer, Lake Setback Variance, 3884 Sunset Drive, West Arm, Lake Minnetonka - Mound; Application No.''77-127' '. The engineer advised the managers that the application for a variance from the district's setback requirements was in conformity with the district's requirements based on existing building patterns. Following discussion, it was moved bY Cochran, seconded by Palmatier, that the application be approved as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote, the motion carried. F. W. Griswold, Grade/Drainage Plan, Linwood Hills - Deephaven; Application No. 77-128 The engineer reviewed the application of F. W. Griswold for grading and drainage. The applicant appeared before the m~na- gers and explained the proposal and also advised the managers that the Deephaven Planning Commission has tentatively approved the proposal. The district engineer advised the managers that he had not been provided with data on the on-site ponding areas, nor with data on off-site drainage areas, nor with design information for the ponding areas and overflow structures. Following extensive discussion, it was moved by Lehman, seconded by Palmatier, that the application be approved subject to the applicant's submitting to the engineer all data required by the engineer and the engi- neer's approval of that data prior to issuance of a permit from the district. Upon vote, the motion carried. ilw. Lovkvist, Grade/Drainage Plan, Housing Development, Priest Bay, L__ake___M!nnet____qonka - Mound an~d Minne______~trista; Application No. '77-12~ The engineer reviewed the prior history of recent erosion at this site and indicated that he had recently inspected the site October 20, 1977 Page Five with the applicant. The engineer advised the managers that the applicant had not yet submitted to the engineer plans for erosion control, riprapping at the base of the slope, or a grading access plan. Rick Sathre of McCombs, Knutson and Associates appeared on behalf of the applicant. Following discussion, it was moved by Palmatier, seconded by Williams, that the application be approved in concept subject to the condition that the applicant submit to the engineer for his review and approval, detailed plans for ero- sion control, riprap, grading access, and any other matters pro- perly within the purview of the district in connection with this project. Upon vote, the motion carried. J. Nolan, Lake Setback Variance, Cooks Bay, Lake Minnetonka - Mound; .Application.No...-~7_7-130 The engineer advised the managers that the application for a setback variance complied with the requirementS of the watershed district based on existing building patterns. Follow- ing discussion, it was moved by Cochran, seconded by Palmatier, that the application be approved as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote, the motion carried. R. Lyckholm, Spoil Deposition, Tuxedo Road, Manchester - Mound; Application No. 77-131 The engineer reviewed the application for spoil deposi- tion in F~und and advised the managers that he had inspected the site with the Mound building inspector. Following discussion, it was moved by Palmatier, seconded.by Williams, that.the application for this spoil deposition be approved on Lots l'and 2~ Block 17, "Avalon," ~ennepin County, Minnesota, as recommende~ by the engi- neer, subject to receipt of a letter by the engineer from the owners of Lots 1 and 2, Block 17, "Avalon" specifically authoriz- ing such filling activity. Upon vote, the motion carried. S.M.S. Company, Grading/Drainage Plan for Copperfield Addition - Minnetonka; Application No. 77-132 The engineer_advised the managers that the application for grading and drainage was in conformity with the requirements of the district and recommended approval. Following discussion, it was moved by Cochran, seconded by.Palmatier, that the appli- cation be approved as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote, the motion carried. B. F. Claypool, Jr., Bank Erosion Control and Shoreline Riprap, North Arm, Lake Minnetonka - Orono; Application No. 77-133 The engineer advised the managers that the application for bank stabilization was in conformity with the requirements of the district and recommended approval. Following discussion, it was moved by Cochran, seconded by Palmatier, that the application be approved.as recommended by the'enginner subject .... to standard conditions on erosion~ siltation and riprap. Upon vote, the motion carried. October 20, 1977 Stanley Markson, Setback Variance on Lake Minnetonka - Minnetrista; Applicat. ion No. -77-104 Mr. Markson appeared to review his application for a variance from the dis%riot's lakeshore setback requirements which had been tabled at the last regular ~eeting of the managers in order to secure additional data. Mr. Markson advised %he managers that his project involved removal of one existing building and con- struction of a new house and that the new structure complied with the setback requirement of the City of Minnetrista. The engineer recommended approval of the application as submitted. Following discussion, it was moved by Lehman, seconded by Palmatier, that the application be approved as recommended by. the engineer. Upon .... vote, the motion carried. Discussion of Matters of General Public Interest Mr. Peterson of the Creekside Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America appeared before the managers and inquired as to the present status of the headwaters control structure project. Mr. Peterson was advised that the district intends to schedule a public hearing on the project early in 1978. Mr. Peterson also inquired as to the responsibility for clean-up work along the creek and was advised that the ~-ater- shed district assists in such work, with the actual physical clean-up being done by the municipality. Treasurer'.s Report President Cochran distributed the treasurer's monthly administrative fund report dated October 20, 1977, a copy of which is attached hereto. Following discussion it was moved by Palmatier, seconded by Lehman, that the report be approved and the bills paid as set forth in that report. Upon vote, the mo- tion carried. The managers discussed the form of the present trea- surer's report and raised the question whether on pages 2 and 3 of that 'report it would be helpful-to show ~a current month's proposed expenditures, in addition to the columns presently on those pages. In the absence of Treasurer Russell, further dis- cussion of this matter was deferred until ~he next regular meet- ing of the managers. President Cochran then distributed the treasurer's nonthly EPA grant fund report dated October 31, 1977, a copy of 'which is attached hereto. Following discussion, it was moved by Palmatier, seconded by Lehman, that the report be approved and the bills paid as set forth in that report. Upon vote, the mo- tion carried. President Cochran noted the need for the treasurer and the district's accountants to review the status of this pro- ject with the engineer and to determine what, if any, additional activities were required to be undertaken with respect to it. October 20, 1977 Page geven Headwaters Control Structure The engineer distributed for review by the managers a revision of a proposed operating policy for a headwaters con-' trol structure to be located at the Gray's Bay dam site. Fol- lowing extensive discussion, the managers directed the engineer to work with Manager Lehman and finalize the proposed operating policy for distribution to each of the managers at the earliest possible date so that the draft policy can be reviewed by all managers and distributed to all interested parties. ~ Water Maintenance and Re~..air Fund The engineer advised the managers that projects pre- Viously authorized for funding from the water maintenance and repair fund for the Cities of Long Lake and Mound had now been completed and that billings had been submitted to the treasurer for payment. The engineer further advised the managers that the City of Edina had applied for 1977 water maintenance and repair fund monies previously authorized by the managers. St. Louis Park Floolp~ain Definitions The engineer reviewed the status of amendments to the floodplain ordinance in the City of St. Louis Park. Discussion ensued with respect to the relationship between the St. Louis Park definitions, the Department of Natural Resources definitions, and the floodplain definition utilized in the district's regula- tions. Following discussion, the managers directed the engineer and the attorney to review this matter in greater detail and report back to the managers at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the managers. Diamond Lake Restoration The engineer reported that the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board has assumed responsibility for the Diamond Lake restoration project. ~The. engineer .further advised t_he ...... managers that the Minneapolis Park and Recreate{on Board would be in contact with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District in order to coordinate the activities of the various groups involved in this project. Department of Natural Resources Proposed Rules The attorney advised the managers that written comments . were due for inclusion in the hearin9 record not later than October 27, 1977. The managers directed that the attorney and the engineer coordinate preparation of comments to be submitted on behalf of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. .. October 20, 1977 Page ~gh~ Hopkins Property The attorney advised the managers that an inquiry had been received from the Hopkins City Manager concerning %he status of %he ~opkins property a% %he northwest end of ~he city. The attorney advised the managers that the engineer had been requested %o respond %o the inquiry from the City of Hopkins. Lake Minnetonka - Lake Level Markings The engineer advised the managers that the district engineer's office had suggested various locations for the establishment of lake level elevation markings on bridges and docks on Lake Minnetonka and distributed a letter dated October 18, 1977, to Mr. Edward Monteleone engineer at the ~ennepin County Public Works Department. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the meeting, Chairman Cochran declared the meeting adjourned at 11:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Dale Palmatier, Secretary AGENDA Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Call to order. Present: November 17, 1977 7: 30 p.m. Wayzata City Hall Wayzata, Minnesota Absent: Staff: Approval of Minutes: October 20, 1977 - e Hearing of Permit Applications: A. 77-103. Saul Segal, Site Grading - Minnetonka Action Taken: B. 77-119. Action Taken: G. A. Jackson & Associates, Grading/ Drainage Plan, "Brown Road Court", Long Lake - City of Long Lake 908 C. 77-134. Action Taken: C. A. Soderman, Shoreline Riprap, Forest Lake - Orono D. 77-135. Action Taken: City of Medina, Drainage Improvement, Deer Hill Road - Medina E. 77-136. City of Mound, Fill Pond, Bartlett Boulevard - Mound Action Taken: F. 77-137. Strilich and Bialon, Lake Setback Variance, Harrison's Bay, Lake Minnetonka - Mound Action Taken: G. 77-138. N. McCaffrey, Grading/Drainage Plan, "Gleason North" - Plymouth Action Taken: 9O5 H. 77-139. Action Taken: Victoria Commercial Developers Inc., Grading/Drainage Plan, Steiger Lake - Victoria I. 77-140. Action Taken: Hennepin County Department of Environment and Energy, Boat Launch, Gray's Bay Causeway, Lake Minnetonka - Minnetonka J. 77-141. Central Construction Company, Grading/Drainage Plan, "Mill Pond Development" - Mound Action Taken: K. 77-142. Wayzata Yacht Club, Dredge Mooring Basin, Wayzata Bay, Lake Minnetonka - Wayzata Action Taken: Hearing of requests or petitions by public for action by Watershed District. 3 9OZ. 5. Hearing and discussion of matters of general public interest. Reports of Treasurer, Engineer and Attorney: A. Treasurer's Report- Mr. Russell Be Engineer's Report- Mr. Holmquist: 1. Permit Procedure 2. EPA Grant Project Report Ce Attorney's Report- Mr. Macomber: 1. St. Louis Park Floodplain Zoning 2. Headwaters Control Structure 3. DNR Rules 7. Unfinished Business e New BusineSs A. Annual Meeting of the Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts, Inc. Adjournment , 4 90; ON LAKE: MINN~I'ON~r.A INDIAN BURIAL, MOUND~ 534]. MAYWOOD ROAD TELEPHONE MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: Leonard L. Kopp, FROM: Don Levens, City Manager City Planner %~ · SUBJECT: Metro Planning Grant approval On October 27, 1977, the Metropolitan Council formally approved the Planning Grant application entitlement of $2,051 for the City of Mound. The grant funds will be used to update Mound's Compre- hensive Plan. The Special Planning Problems funds request of an additional $2,500 will be considered when all applications have been received. 902