The URL can be used to link to this page

81-02-10 C~TY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota AGENDA CM 81-40 CM 81-51 CM 81-56 CM 81-38 CM 81-49 CM 81-39 CM 81-50 CM 81-45 CM 81-41 CM 81-48 CM 81-58 CM 81-47 CM 81-54 CM 81-46 CM 81-43 CM 81-42 CM 81-44 CM81-53 CM 81-57 CM 81-55 CM 81-52 Mound City Council February 10, 1981 City Hall 7:30 P.M. 1. Minutes Pg. 420-422 2. Public Hearing--Rezoning Residential to Commercial--Lots 1-17, Incl. Lynwold Park, vacated alley and part of Sec. 14 T. 117 R. 24 Pg. 419 3. Planning Commission Minutes Pq. 379-418 A. Change of Restrictive Covenants - 3041 Brighton Boulevard & 3046 Brighton Commons B. Rezoning from Residential A-1 to Commercial - 2300 Driftwood Lane C. Sign Variance - 5307 Shoreline Boulevard D. Side Yard, Lake & Street Front Variances - 2957 Island View Drive E. Side Yard & Lot Size Variances - 5543 Bartlett Boulevard F. Sign Variance - 2361Wilshire Boulevard S. Sign Variance - 5241 Shoreline Boulevard H. Subdivision of Land - 2700 Block on Grove Lane 4. Street Construction A. Preliminary Report - County Road llO Pg. 378 B. Watermains & Lights - County Road llO Pg. 375-377 C. Hardrives' Request for Retainage Pg. 364-374 D. Other 5-~~lnsurance P~A 363 6. Cemetery Lot , Graves 7 & 8, Division A Pg. 362 7. Fire Relief 2% Insurance Fund Pg. 359-361 8. Liquor Ordinance Pg. 357-358 9. Bids - Sale of Two Motor Vehicles Pg, 356 10. Comments and Suggestions by Citizens Present (3 Minute Limit) Il. Request for Use of Community Center Pg. 354-355 12. Permits A. Bingo 1. American Legion Post 398 Pg. 353 2. Our Lady of the Lake Church Pg. 352 3. Gambling - American Legion # 398 and VFW Post # 5113 Pg. 347-351 13. Land A. Tax Forfeit Land Conservation List Pg. 346 Bo Lot 4, Block 14, Mound Terrace Pg. 344-345 C. City Owned Land - Part of Sec. 23 T. 117 R. 24 N. of RR Tracks behind Sewer Plant Pg. 342-343 14. Use of Public Buildings Pg. 341 15. Request for Parking Variance Pg. 339-340 16. Delinquent Utility Bills Pg. 337-338 17. Police Reorganization Pg. 331-336 18. Transfer of Funds ^4 19. Payment of Bills ~^% 20. Information Memorandums/Misc. Pg. 244-330 21. Committee Reports Pg. 423 BILLS .... FEBRUARY 10 981 Air Hydraulic Sy~_ A.T.0.M. American Arbitration Holly Bostrom Greg Bergqul st Holly Bostrom Gayle Burns B 1 ackowi ak Burlington Noryhern Bryan Rock Prod. Baldwin Supply F.H. Bathke Bowman Barnes Cargill Salt Bill Clark Oil Coast To Coast Continental Telephone Commiss. of Revenue Mary Cronin Carl's Station Mary Cronin Robert Cheney Don David Ins. II II II Davies Water Equip Dependable Services Judy Fisher First Nat'l Bank-Mpls Feed Rite Controls Flaherty Equip Ronald Gehri ng Gross Industrial G 1 enwood Ing 1 ewood Judy Hansen Eugene Hickok Geo. M. Hansen Hawkins Chemical Henn Emergency Commun. Ken Johnson Printing The Johnson Corp Leonard Kopp Ray Klanerud League of MN Cities II II II L.O.G. I .S. The Laker Mound Police Dept Munici -Pals Mound Postmaster MN Bicycle Safety Metro Waste Control Mound Postmaster Mound Fi re Dept Org. 189.21 5 00 200 00 1OO OO 34 20 139 33 11 94 43.00 533.33 188.71 428.91 13.80 114.58 717.66 4,228.95 15.72 753.78 7,956.43 15.O0 1.50 129.30 334.OO 13,595.35 2,090.10 267.36 30.OO 29.08 21,O56.60 24.83 5.31 54.09 55.47 35.25 3.00 562.00 1,6OO.O0 202.52 150.O0 16.OO 538.73 56.88 78.64 3O.OO 1,O10.00 2,000.00 3O.27 22.22 5.OO 71.73 25.OO 841.50 3OO.OO 5,082.37 Macqueen -quip Mi nnegasco Marlna Auto Supply Marina OK Hdwe Mound Hdwe Wm. Mueller & Sons Metro Fone Mpls. Star & Trib Mound Bank Midwest Electric Metrop Clinic of Counsel MN Park Supervisors Nat'l Registry EMT Navarre Hdwe N.S .P. National Super Mkt Michael Pol ley Rita Pederson Protection Systems Timothy Piepkorn St. Paul Dispatch Super America Marjorie Stutsman Standard Heating Sheraton INN Stallman's Repair Shepherds Laundry State Treas. Soil Testing Services State Treas. Thrifty Snyder Drug Thurk Bros. Chev. Tri State Drilling University of MN Uniforms Unlimited Village Chevrolet Widmer Bros. Westonka Sanitation Winner Industries TOTAL BILLS LIQUOR BILLS Eag 1 e W i ne Griggs Cooper Johnson Bros. MN Distillers Old Peoria Liq. 53,144. OO 37.43 2,193.33 (~43.9g 2.95 37.98 611.81 35.40 192.5o 7.1o 250.00 126.OO 10.00 15.O0 179.55 7,851.24 13.51 25.89 15.OO 1, OOO. OO 35.OO 1,O42.50 57.00 15.75 18.52 13.33 311.50 38.OO 31.00 79.25 1.00 45.OO 1,298.05 20.56 150.37 720.46 5O. O0 12O.OO 17.50 193.35 26,675.47 2,277.50 45.00 2.20 165,674.64 83.68 3,444.02 5,090.51 1,045.60 3,110.O7 (pg I Of 2) 'i~ BI LLS ..... FEBRUARY 10 LIQUOR BILLS (cont.) Ed Phillips & Sons Blackowiak Continental Telephone Minnegasco Mound Shopping Center N.W. Linen Serv. Nels Schernau Regal Window Cleaning Water Care Bradley Exterminating Information Publishers Nat'l Pen Corp A.J. Ogle, Inc. Butch's Bar Supply Coca Cola Day Distrib. East Side Beverage Gold Medal Beverage Home Juice Jude Candy Leding Distrib Midwest Wine Pepsi Cola/7 Up Pogreba Distrib Rouillard Beverage Thorpe Distrib TOTAL LIQUOR BILLS GRAND TOTAL--ALL BILLS (cont.) 4,385.25 32.00 7Z.80 135.49 675.00 12.86 9.67 IO.75 10.40 57.oo 125.00 52.95 1,512.50 156.60 135.05 1,839.15 2,898.91 127.40 10.98 244.74 2,273.56 613.20 lO3.6o 2,959.40 941.87 4,076.90 36,246.91 201,921.55 (pg 2 Of 2) TRANSFERS Street to Imp & Equip Outlay Park " " " Finance Elections " " " Diseased Trees " " Sewer " ii ii Water i, ,, ,, Cemetery " " ii Street to Shop & Stores Sewer " " " Water " " " Parks ,i ,, ,, Bldg Inspector" " Police i, ,, ,, Liquor to General 1,666.66 333.33 80.17 25.00 176.66 375.00 416.67 25.OO 665.49 12.03 89.83 217.22 127.07 970.60 !,500.00 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Hound, Hinne$ota February 9, 1981 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 81-31 SUBJECT: Selection of a City Manager At this writing, February 9, 1981, there are 37 applicants for the subject position. The Council has requested a time table for selection. Applications close March 15th. 1. Shortly after March l, the proposed Citizens' Committee .should begin reading resumes. 2. By March 16th, they should be able to recommend their candidates to the Council. 3. March 17 or 18th, the Council should decide who they wish to inter- view. 4. Interviews should be completed by March 31st. 5. Selection of a Manager to be made Tuesday, March 31st or Tuesday, April 7th. Note: Prior to the Citizens' Committee, the Council should establish quali- ties they would like to see in a candidate. These are general quali- ties and not specific. This would help the Citizens' Committee in their work. 'Leonard L. Kopp 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota February 9, 1981 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 81-32 SUBJECT: Manager Out of Town The Manager has been asked to participate in two seminars; one in Marshall, Minnesota on Friday, February 20 and the other in St. Cloud on Saturday, February 28. This is to advise the Council that the Manager will be out of town on those two dates. Leonard L. Kopp PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NEW DOCK LICENSE MARTIN & SON BOAT RENTAL Notice is hereby given that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District will hold a public hearing at the Spring Park City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue, at 8 p.m. on Wednesday, February 18, 1981 in the matter of a new dock license at Martin & Son Boat Rental, 4850 Edgewater Drive, Mound on LMCD Area 15, Harrisons Bay. F~~~ra~~~rector Lake Minnetonka Conservation District American Legion Post 398 DATE JANUARY GAMBLING REPOR~ CURRENT MONTH 1981 YEAR TO DATE GROSS: ,~ 2850. O0 f 27. ? 90. O0 EXPENSES: GA~:)T,T~ ~, WA'MT'I- ~75.00 SALES TAX 108.80 PAYOUT AS PRIZES: ,~183.80 ~16oo.00 ~33~8.72 15. 550.00 PROFIT: ~ ~ 10/46.20 ~ 8891.22 DI~RIBUTIONOFPROFITS: BOYS STATE ~115.00 A.F.S, 350.00 SERV]CFMV. N'S CFNTFR 200.00 ALANO 25.00 {690.00 CHECKING ACCS. ~308~.21 CASH ON HAND 305.00 ~6227.80 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL January 20, 1981 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota was held at 5341Maywood Road in said City on January 20, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. Those present were: Mayor Rock Lindlan, Councilmembers Gordon Swenson and Pinky Charon. Councilmember Polston was absent and excused. Also present were City Manager Leonard L. Kopp, City Attorney Curtis A. Pearson, Assistant Engineer Lyle Swanson and City Clerk Mary H. Cronin. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of January 13, 1981 were presented for consideration. Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of January 13, 1981 as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS Charon moved and Swenson seconded a motion to table the public hearings. The vote was unanimously in favor. FINAL PLAT - FERNWOOD ADDITION Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion to table this item. The vote was unanimously in favor. HOSTAGE RELEASE Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion RESOLUTION 81-38 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING GRATITUDE AND THANK- FULNESS FOR HOSTAGES RELEASE The vote was unanimously in favor. SUBDIVISION OF LAND - LOTS 1 & 2 , BLOCK 3, AVALON Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion RESOLUTION 81-39 RESOLUTION DENYING THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND The vote was unanimously in favor. STREET CONSTRUCTION Bids - Three Points Boulevard Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion RESOLUTION 81-40 RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TUXEDO BOULEVARD AND THREE POINTS BOULEVARD TO THE LOW BIDDER - HARDRIVES, INC. - IN THE AMOUNT OF $824,487.47 DELETING THE ALTERNATE OF $22,787.~8 Roll call vote was unanimously in favor. January 20, 1~81 Coun¢ilmember Ulrick arrived at 8:13 p.m. and voted on the motion. PUBLIC HEARINGS Rezoning - Lots 1-17, Incl. Lynwold The City Clerk presented an affidavit of publication in the official newspaper of the notice of public hearing on said Rezoning - Lots 1-17, Incl. Lynwold. Said affidavit was then examined, approved and ordered filed in the office of the City Clerk. The Mayor then opened the public hearing for input on said Rezoning - Lots 1-17, Incl. Lynwold and persons present to do so were afforded an opportunity to express their views thereon. No persons presented objections and the Mayor then closed the public hearing. Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded a motion to continue this item to the next meeting on February 10, 1981. The vote was unanimously in favor. Vacation of Easement - Lots 21-24, Block 14, Whipple The City Clerk presented an affidavit-of publication in the official newspaper of the notice of public'hearing on said Vacation of Easement - Lots 21-24, Block 14, Whipple. Said affidavit was then examined, approved and ordered filed in the office of t'he City Clerk. The Mayor then opened the public hearing for input on said Vacation of Easement - Lots 21-24, Block 14, Whipple and persons present to do so were afforded an opportunity to express their views thereon. The following persons offered comments or questions: Kathy Hiller; Mr. Robinson. The Mayor then closed the public hearing. Swenson moved and Ulrick seconded a motion to table this item. Should this item appear on a future agenda all interested parties shall be notified by mail. The vote was unanimously in favor. FINAL PLAT - FERNWOOD ADDITION Ulrick moved and Charon seconded a motion RESOLUTION 81-41 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF FERNWOOD ADDITION WITH CERTAIN STIPULATIONS Roll call vote was unanimously in favor. 1981 INSURANCE Lindlan moved and Swenson seconded a motion to continue with the current local insurance committee. The vote was Lindlan and Swenson in favor with Charon and Ulrick voting nay, no action. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT No comments or suggestions were presented at this time. COUNTY ROAD llO- COSTS January 20, 1981 Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded a motion RESOLUTION 81-42 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE ENGINEER TO PREPARE A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON SAID IMPROVEMENTS The vote was unanimously in favor. TAXICAB LICENSES Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion RESOLUTION 81-43 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF TAXICAB LICENSES The vote was unanimously in favor. PAYMENT OF BILLS Swenson moved and Ulrick seconded a motion to approve the payment of bills as submitted on the prelist in the amount of $455,962.92 when funds are available. Roll call vote was unanimously in favor. METRO COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE Lindlan moved and Ulrick seconded a motion to recommend the appointment of Bill Sands to the Metro Council. The vote was Lindlan and Ulrick in favor with Swenson and Charon voting nay, no action OTHER MATTERS Councilmember Swenson asked that addresses be included in legal descriptions for the sake of clarity. POLICE CHIEF SELECTION Ulrick moved and Charon seconded a motion that the Police Chief be selected by the new City Manager. The vote was Ulrick and Charon in favor with Lindlan and Swenson voting nay, no action. ADJOURNMENT Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeeting on February 10, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. The vote was unanimously in favor, so adjourned. Mary H. Cronin CMC, City Clerk/Treasurer Leonard L. Kopp, City Manager 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota January 29, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-40 / SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Rezoning Residential to Commercial Lots 1-17, Incl., LynwoJd Park, vacated alley and Part of Section 14, Township 117, Range 24 The subject rezoning was tabled (See Council Memorandum 81-28, Page 220) and will be considered again on February lOth. Note: 1) Rezoning requires a 4/5th vote to pass. 2) Also, the Council may rezone an area less than advertised, but not an area greater than the area listed. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Independent School District No. 277 has sold to Westonka-Orono Sports Center Association, Inc., a parcel of land in the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 117, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, on which said Association is erecting a sports arena, and, WHEREAS, the size of said parcel is insufficient to provide parking for the public, and, WHEREAS, the school district owns and maintains a parking lot immediately adjoining the arena which is expected to accommodate the arena parking, because the arena will mainly require parking at times when said parking lot would otherwise be underutilized, and, WHEREAS, future use of the present school buildings may put additional demands upon parking facilities in the neighborhood, and, WHEREAS, the school owns a playground area immediately to the west which, due to soil conditions, is better suited for future parking than for future building purposes, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the School Board of Independent School District No. 277 that it communicate with the City of Mound as follows: 1. Parking accommodations should be re-evaluated in two (2)years. That it pledges the cooperation of the school district to the City of Mound in accommodating future parking needs created by the existence of the sports arena and the school facilities. That it will not for the next four (4) years place improve- ments upon said playground that will be valuable enough to be a deterrent to the dedication of its use for future parking. That while it does not foresee a time when the football field or the baseball field would be available for parking, it does believe that it will be feasible in the future to reconstruct the softball fields at other city or school district owned sites which would ma~e available approximately three (3) acres for potential future parking. That it is possible that the kindergarten will be moved to some other location in the future, thus releasing an additional 6/lOths of an acre for potential future parking in the area presently being used for a kindergarten playground. ADOPTED FEBRUARY 9, 1981, BY THE SCHOOL BOARD OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277, MOUND, MN 55364 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota February 4, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-51 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Minutes Attached is a copy of the Planning Commission minutes. Council action: Item 1. 2. The following require Delayed - no action. 3041 Brighton Boulevard & 3046 Brighton Commons Change of Restrictive Covenants - Parcel E, R.L.S. # 1149 from Lot 11, Block 15, Arden to Lot 25 and 1/2 of Lot 26, Arden The Planning Commission recommended the change as requested with two stipulations: 1. That Lot 11, 25 & 26 be changed back to the combination of Lot 11 and 1/2 of Lot 26 and the S. 1/2 of 26 and Lot 25 2. That written approval of the transfer of Lot E be received of all the affected property owners.. Since Mr. Bischke is out-of-state, we have written him regarding this recommendation. If the Council approves the recommendation, a motion of intent to approve would be helpful. The Council can officially approve the transfer after the stipulations are met. 3. 2300 Driftwood Lane Rezoning Part of Lot 5, Skarps East Lawn from Residential A-! to Com- mercial The Planning Commission recommended the rezoning. x A public hearing is required - the date of March IOth is suggested. 4. Sign Variance - 5307 Shoreline Boulevard Lots l, 2 & 3, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F Zoned Commercial The request was for an 8 foot by 32½ inch sign. The Planning Commission recommended a 6 foot by 32 inch sign. Side Yard, Lake & Street Front Variances - 2957 Island View Drive Lots 4, 5 & 6, Block 23, Devon Zoned A-2 6,000 Square Feet The Planning Commission recommended approval of addition to the house but tabled consideration on the deck. 2-10-81 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-51 Planning Commission Minutes - Page 2 o (Continued) If the Council concurs with the Planning Commission, the footings for the addition can be poured prior to road restrictions. The deck can be considered next month. Side Yard & Lot Size Variances - 5543 Bartlett Boulevard Part of Lots 8 & 9, The Bartlett Place Zoned A-2 6,000 Square Feet This is a non-conforming use having a 1.2 foot side yard deficiency and 343.12 square foot lot size deficiency. The Planning Commiss'ion recommended approval of the proposed addition recognizing that it is a non-conforming use. Sign Variance - 2361Wilshire Boulevard Lots 29-36, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F Zoned Commercial The Planning Commission recommended approval of the 12 foot by 3 foot providing it will be attached to the building. Sign Variance - 5241 Shoreline Boulevard Lots 7, 20, 26-35, Incl., Block l, Shirley Hills Unit F Zoned Commercial The Planning Commission approved the sign requested provided it is com- patible with and no larger than Sally's sign on front of the building. (Sign requested was 16 feet by 4 feet) Subdivision of Land - 2700 Block on Grove Lane Lot 54 and Part of Lot 46, Auditor's Subdivision 168 Zoned A-1 Residential The Planning Commission approved the subdivision with the following stipulations: 1. That Lot 8 front and have egress on the cul-de-sac and that 30 foot setback be maintained from both the cul-de-sac and County Road 110, and that portion of unopened Grove Lane be considered the side yard with a 10 foot setback required. 2. That a drainage plan be submitted for approval by the City Engineer ensuring that drainage will be to the right of way on Grove Lane. 3. That a IO foot utility easement be maintained on all properties. 4. That the existing structure on Lot 4 either be removed or brought up to code within two years. An appropriate bond would be required. 5. That the 10 foot right-of-way between the street edge and the lot lines be properly improved. 6. Park dedication be waived in view of the fact that the owner has over the years in 3 separate dedications given land to the City. 7. That Block 1 be added to the legal description. A public hearing is required on the plat. March 10th is suggested. HINUTES OF THE HOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COHHISSION HEETING January 26, 1981 Present: Chairman Russell Peterson; Commissioners Frank Weiland, Margaret Hanson and Roy O'Donnell. Also present was Mayor Rock Lindlan filling in for Council Representative Gordon Swenson who was unable to be present. Also present was City Manager Leonard L. Kopp, City Inspector Henry Truelsen and Secretary Marge Stuts- man. MINUTES The minutes of the December 8, 1980 Planning Commission meeting were presented for consideration. Weiland moved and Hanson seconded a motion to approve the minutes as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Parking Variance for Snyder's Drug, 2321 Commerce Boulevard Note: Item not considered as applicant had requested a delay. Subdivision of Land/Request to Change Restrictive Covenant Usage Lots ll, 25 & 26, Block 15, Arden g Parcel E, R.L.S. # 1149 Re: 3041 Brighton Boulevard and 3046 Brighton Commons Applicant not present. Discussed briefly - 2 separate matters. Hanson moved and Weiland seconded a motion to table to end of agenda. The vote was unanimously in favor. The Planning Commission took the following action later in the meeting: Hanson moved and O'Donnell seconded a motion to recommend the approval of the transfer of R.L.S. # 1149, Parcel E, to Lot 25 and S. 1/2 of Lot 26 providing Lot 11 and other 1/2 of Lot 26, Block 15, Arden are combined; recommendation of approval based on Bischkes getting the approval of all affected property owners in writing. The vote was unanimously in favor. 3. Rezoning from Residential to Commercial - 2300 Driftwood Lane Part of Lot 5, Block 5, Skarps East Lawn Weiland moved and Hanson seconded a motion to move to end of agenda. All in favor since applicant not present. The Planning Commission took the following action later in the meeting: O'Donnell moved and Hanson seconded a motion to recommend that Lot 5 in its entirety be zoned multiple zoned and used as a buffer between commercial and residential zones and City Attorney be asked for an opinion as to whether or not Mrs. Overby needs a special use permit or whether use is grandfathered in. The vote was unanimously in favor. Sign Variance - Alterations by Carol, 5307 Shoreline Boulevard Lots 1, 2 & 3, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F - Carol Hallin was present. Discussed size of sign requested - excessive for size of building. Hanson moved and Weiland seconded a motion to grant a sign 6 foot by 32½ inches. The vote was unanimously in favor. Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 1981 - Pa 2 5. Variances - Lake Front, Street Front and Side Yard - 2957 Island View Drive Lots 4, 5 & 6, Block 23, Devon Weiland moved and Hanson seconded a motion to move to end of agenda. All in favor since applicant ill and not present. The Planning Commission took the following action later in the meeting: Hanson moved and O'Donnell seconded a motion to approve request for addi- tion to principal use, but to table to February 23rd meeting the deck pro- posal pending more information. The vote was unanimously in favor. Side Yard and Lot Size Variances - 5543 Bartlett Boulevard Part of Lots 8 & 9, The Bartlett Place Mrs. Gierman was present. Weiland moved and Hanson seconded a motion to recommend accepting the request for addition recognizing the non-conformancies. The vote was unanimously in favor. Sign Variance - Westonka School of Dance,-2361Wilshire Boulevard Lots 29-36, Incl., Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F Marge Hoelmatz and Dennis Oas were present. O'Donnell moved and Weiland seconded a motion to allow sign size given place- ment on east side of building at N.E. corner at main floor level permanently affixed to building. The vote was all in favor except Hanson. Reason for nay vote: Hanson feels size excessive - could be scaled down and serve same purpose. Sign Variance - The Wood Smith's, 5241 Shoreline Boulevard Lots 7, 20, 26-35, Incl., Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit F Kenneth Vistad was present. O'Donnell moved and Weiland seconded a motion to approve a sign that is com- patible with and no larger than Sally's sign on front of building. The vote was unanimously in favor. Subdivision of Land - Final Plat~- 2900 Block on Grove Lane Lot 54 and Part of Lot 46, Auditor's Subdivision 168 Ron Gehring was present. Hanson moved and O'Donnell seconded a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the following stipulations: 1. That Lot 8 front and have egress on the cul-de-sac~and that 30 foot set- back be maintained from both the cul-de-sac and County Road 110; and that portion of unopened Grove Lane be considered the side yard with a 10 foot setback required. 2. That a drainage plan be submitted for approval by the City Engineer ensuring that drainage will be to the right of way on Grove Lane. 3. That a 10 foot utility easement be maintained on all properties. 4. That the existing structure on Lot 4 either be removed or brought up to code within two years. An appropriate bond would be required. 5. That the 10 foot right-of-way between the street edge and the lot lines be properly improved. 6. Park dedication be waived in view of the fact that the owner has over Planning Commission Min~Jll~S January 26, 1981 - Pa~lJ~3 the years in 3 separate dedications given land to the City. 7. That Block 1 be added to the legal description. The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. 10. Discussion - Townhouse Ordinance Discussed briefly the square footage requirement for townhouses and the possibility of recommending a lesser requirement. Weiland moved and Hanson seconded a motion to adjourn. All in favor, so adjourned. Attest: AGENDA FOR THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 26, 1981 Minutes of the December 8, 1980 Planning Commission meeting. BOARD OF APPEALS I. Dale Radi - Snyder Drug, 2321 Commerce Boulevard Lot l, Auditor's Subdivision 167 - Map 4 Parking Variance (Applicant has requested a delay on this) Herbert & Betty Bischke Re: 3041 Brighton Blvd. & 3046 Brighton Commons Lots 11, 25 and 26, Block 15, Arden - Map 12 Subdivision of Land Bernice I. Overby, 2300 Driftwood Lane Part of Lot 5, Block 5, Skarps East Lawn - Map 5 Rezoning from Residential to Commercial Carol L. Hallin, 5307 Shoreline Boulevard Lots 1, 2 & 3, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F Sign Variance - Alterations by Carol - Map 5 o Ronald J. Norstrem, 2957 Island View Drive Lots 4, 5 & 6, Block 23, Devon - Map 15 Variances - Lake Front, Street Front and Side Yard Phil Gierman, 5543 Bartlett Boulevard Part of Lots 8 & 9, The Bartlett Place - Map 8 Side Yard and Lot Size Variances Marge Hoelmatz, 2361Wilshire Boulevard Lots 29-36, Incl., Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F Sign Variance - Westonka School of Dance - Map 5 Kenneth E. Vistad, 5241 Shoreline Boulevard Lots 7, 20, 26-35, Inc., Block l, Shirley Hills Unit F - Map 5 Sign Variance - The Wood Smith's Anthony L. Wick/Ronald Gehring - 2700 Block on Grove Lane Lot 54 and Part of Lot 46, Auditor's Subdivision # 168 - Map 9 Subdivision of Land - Final Plat lO. DISCUSSION - Townhouse Ordinance CITY OF HOUND Date: From: To: January 22, 1981 Building Inspector Planning Commission Subject: Board of Appeals - January 26, 1981 Dale Radi (Snyder Drug) Delayed upon request. Herbert & Betty Bischke ~ Combination & Subd. RLS 11~9 Parcel E Combination and subdivision as per the enclosed, Proposed subdivision of platted Lots 11, 25 & 26, Block 15, Arden wguld meet subdivision require- ments for square footage per site. However, due to a technicality of the setbacks, the garage now exiwting on Lot 25 and Southerly 1/2 of 26 would have a deficiency of 1,6' sideyard. Lot 11 and Northerly 1/2 of 26 would give that property 6,000 sq. ft. but not a very lucerative construction site for a garage. However, splitting the three lots into proposed sub- division would give us a continuity to the zoning ordinance of which, at this time is more important than the nonconformancy of the structures. Regarding the spliting of the RLS 1149 Parcel E, refer to the City attor- ney's opinion. Bernice Overby ~ Rezoning See enclosure of City Manager"s letter to Bernice Overby. Carol L, Hallin - Sign Applioation The proposed location is the rental space within the Hole In One Bake Shop, previously rented by a Health Food Store. The sign. 8 foot in length appears to be rather large and does not have any consistency to the size of the rented space, Ronald J. Norstrem - Lake front variance 14.8', side yard 3.8~, str front variance 17" for accessory bldg. garage. In conversation with Nordstrem, sometime in the future, the nonconformancy of the existing structure will in all probability be remedied by the construction of a new garage. The request is for an addition to the principle structure which will require a lake front variance of 1418 feet as proposed by the enclosure. This is the last structure on buildable land on the westerly end of Island View Drive and I cannot see where this proposal and nonconformancy would be detrimen- tal to either the City or the zoning ordinance. Phil Gierman -.Nonconforming use, side yard deficiency requiring variance of 1.2' Lot undersized, lot size deficiency is 343.12 feet. Evidently when this lot was created by combination and subdivision, we were told the structure was allowed at a 5' side yard, at the time of the orj,ginal construction of the house. This could,all probably Be the area zoned A-2, 6,000 sq, ft. of which would require a 6' sideyard. Proposed addition is the side opposite the deficiency sideyard. I can see no problem in allowing this nonconformancy structure to expand. How- ever, I do have reservations of any and all nonconforming uses but as you look at the Certificate of Survey, of which shows the abutting property structures, there appears to be no immediate hazard relating to fire safety or health and welfare of the area. Board of Appeals - 1-25-81 continued page 2 Marge Noelmatz - §ign appl|c~tlon 3 x 12 Ft - 36 sq. Ft. I would say that the proposed sign, 12 feet in length is excessive for the intention of the use. Kenneth E. Vistad - Sign application 4 x 16 ft = 64 sq. ft. This sign is excessive, should not be allowed, nomenclature not needed. Anthony L. Wick/ Ron Gehring New subdivision Proposed subdivision looks good. The buildable area of Lot 8, abutting the Bartlett Blvd.,'County Road 110 may be somewhat restrictive. Would like to have Planning Commission consider establishing a setback of buildable area for Lot 8. As yet there is no park dedication money allocated for, We were told by the applicant that this dedication fee was in l~ieu of lands given to the City for the purpose of creating the cul de sac at the southerly end of Grove Lane. In all documentation that both the City Engr. and the City has there has been no provision for the allocation of oark land or money dedica- tion. As per letter f~om Anthony Wick dated 10-23-78, provisions for the cul de sac did not include park land stipulation. Also would like to have the City Engr. opinion if a storm tube was installed or is necessary in the area of Lots 6, 7 and 8, which directly affronts the cul de sac. Also. stipulate that the two story frame house on Lot 4 to be removed and replaced with a new structure at the time that 75% of the land for the project is developed. The contractor to provide the City with either a Letter of Credit or cash adequate to cover the cost of removal of the existing structure. HT/dd Henry Truelsen ¥II ~PPLICATION FOR VARIANC VILLAGE OF MOUND NAME OF APPLICANT HERBERT & BETTY E BISCHKE ADDRESS 311 0hua Ave Apt 12 C Honolulu 96815 Hawaii INTEREST IN PROPERTY Fee owners 808-922-1133 TEL. NO. FEE OWNER(ifotherthanapplicant) ADDRESS TEL. NO. ADDRESS OF PROPERTY 30~6 Brighton Commons LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Registered Land Survey #11~9 Parcel E ZONING REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN REQUIREMENT FOR FRONT YARD REAR YARDi IACCESSORYBUILDINGI I LOTSIZE SIDE YARD I OTHER(describe) [ REASON: REQUEST TO CHANGE THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT USAGE FRON: Lot 11 Block 15 Arden 30~1 Brighton Blvd TO: LOT 25 and ½ of Lot 26 Arden 30~6 Brighton Commons (Attach a survey or scale drawing showing the location of the proposed building in relation to lot lines, other buildings on the property and on adjoining properties and streets.) ] 1980 E BZSC APPLICANT /,~' ~ ~~' , ~ A DDRE~ DATE Novembe~ ~th ~80 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: DATE COUNCIL ACTION DATE RESOLUTION NO. A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE APPLIED FOR WITHIN 1 YR. FROM THE DATE (31:: THIS RESOLUTION OR IT BECOMES NULL AND VOID. Herb Bischke 3~10hua Ave ~2 C Honolulu 96815 Hawaii City of Mound 53~1Maywood Road Mound 55364, ~nnesota Attn: Mr Leonard Kopp, Dear Mr. Kopp, Thank you very much for your kindness and cooperation and help in helping us to wtraighten out our mistake. We humbly apolQgize for the problem it has caused. It was not intended that way. We have signed our willingness to conform and it is herewith enclosed. As mentioned in the enclosed letter or consents, we have to pay the Hegre's $8,000 to accomplish this.. an additional amount which Flavin indicated he couldn't afford to pay at the time he bought the house at 3041 Brighton Blvd Lot 11 Blk 15 Arden: In order to comply with the city codes and resolve the matter, I have agreed to buy back the lot and give it to the Flavins FRti~ OF CHARGE .... Flavin has a Brother in Law attorney... Robert Standke in Excelsior who greedily wants the Tract E additionally.., free ef charge:It was never offered for sale to the Flavins nor could they have afforded it. My only obligation to the Flavins and to the Village is to comply with the Codes and to make the property at Lot ll Blk 15 Arden comply and be marketableZ Standke hah done Title Search for the Flavins at the time of purchase and the restrictive covenants didn't come to light untill about a year later to them nor to us. This caused the problem. We sold the house to the Flavins for $53,900 on the i lot. VA and we paid the costs of a mortgage. Now, of caurse, it will be $45,900 even though he has a $50,900 VA Mortgage. The property is now worth $$61,9OOwith the ~ of lot 26:We have suffered more the plenty with all this. Flavins wanted us to buy the house back from them for $78,000 .... a 825,000 profit on a old house and then to buy the ½ lot back from Hegre for an additional $8,000 or now a price of $86,000 .... Totally impossible. Unless interest rates and our economy changes, we'll Join the "brcadlines" by mid-summer. We have experience~ a horrible financial disaster. I would like to suggest that Flavins signature not be required to consumate co~plying with Mounds lot code requirements. We, the Bischkes, are willing to meet your requirements and have so stated and would like to$ beleive that we can finish this without further hardships. The Hegre's are also willing to cooperate~. Flavins have no interest in Tract E of R.L.S. 1149 other than UNKNOW~ to all of us that it had been designated for useage with Lot 11 Block 15 Arden during the time that the Irvines owned the property. It had never been represented as being any part of that property. Flavin knows this and openly admits and adheres to this but the Attorney Brother in Law is trying to steal it. A copy of the Consent letter has been sent to each of the affected property owners-- including the Flavins even though I don~t beleive that they are an affected property owner. We sincerely trust that this will resolve the m~tter for which we give you~ our Thanks~ _ S2fncerel,,y~ ~ . NOA30 ~ ,ioI~ 0 ~OC~ll 'ON , x3s3-1001t',l~;o ;.;..; Plat of Survey for Herbert E. Bischke of Lot ll, Block 15, Arden Hennepin County, 1-~innesota 0 Certificate of Survey: I hereby certiI'y thut this is a tru~ and correct represontaticn of 'a survey of the bouncaries of ~ot ll, F~lock '15, Arden,-and the location of all existing buildings thereon. It d~e~ not $mr~ort to show other improvements nr encroachments. Scale: 1" = 30' Date : 1('-12-78 o : Iron ~,~ rker Gordon R. Coffin Re£~.gi~o. 606A Alvin K. kehder Re&'. ~',0.132~5 J~o. nd Survei~'ors and Planners ~ng ~ke~ ~nneso~ Ce'rtifica~e of Survey: I hereby certify-that this is a true and correct representation of a surv. ey of the boundaries of Lot I1, an~ the North half .of Lot 26, Block 15, Arden, and the location of all existing buildings thereon. It does not purport to show other improvements or encroachments. Scalez 1" = 30' Date : 10-12-78 o .' Iron mmrker Gordon R. Coffin Reg. Nc. 6064 Alvin R. Rehder Reg. No.13295 Land Surveyors and Planners Long Lake, Einnesota t CLAYTON L. LI, IrEVIrR[ J. DENNIS O'BRIEN JAMES D. LARSON HERB;'RT P. LEFLER JEFFREY g. STRAND THOMAS D. CREIGHTON LAW OF.rICES Lr-FEVERE, LEFLER, PEARSON, O' BRIEN & DRAWZ I100 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 5,5402 TE. LEnHONtr (61Z) 333-0543 July 10, 1980 BROOKLYN CENTER OFFICr5 161Z! s61- 3:,00 .// .,CHARD J. scH,£Fr~R ;:.. Mr. Herbert E. Bischke 311 Ohau Avenue, Apt. 1203 C Honolulu, Hawaii 96815 Dear Mr. Bischke: It took some time for your letter of May 27 to arrive since the address used was incorrect. I have also been accumulating information relating to your letter of May 27. It is now my understanding that you were the owner of Lots 11, 25 and 26, Block 15, Arden. It is my further understandina that in the past these lots had been divided so that the legal descriptions were as follows: Parcel 1 - Lot 25 and the South Half of Lot 26, Block 15, Arden. Parcel 2 - Lot 11 and the North Half of Lot 26, Block 15, Arden. These two legal descriptions have been properly established in the past and in that case each of the two parcels contained~.6,000 square feet of land which is required by the zoning ordinance. It is my further understanding that when you sold, you ~ook it upon yourself to convey Lot 25 and all of Lot 26, changing the two legal descriptions for these two parcels, which in effect would make Parcel 1 8000 square feet and Parcel 2 4000 square feet. You recorded documents at the courthouse without obtaining approval of the City of Mound. Those documents were then transmitted to the City to see that compliance had been made with local ordinances and to allocate the property taxes between the two parcels. The City has refused to approve this division because you have not complied with the require- ments of our local ordinances requesting a division of these parcels. You have rather taken it upon yourself to put.them back into a status which existed a number of years ago wherein Lot 11 was an individual parcel. I am. sorry I cannot be of assistance to you in this matter. You have unilaterally decided to reallocate property divisions in the City and as a result have created two parcels, one of which no longer e LAW OFFICES L£FEVE , LEF'LER. PEA'RSON. O'BRIEN & DRAWZ Page 2 Mr. Herbert E. Bischke July 10, 19 80 complies with the City Code. 'The only way this can be approved or the tax allocation be changed is with approval of the City Council. Mr. Kopp has, I think, been honest with you in indicating that he doubts if the Planning Com~ssion or the Council would approve your proposal because it creates an undersized lot out of what had been a lot which complied with the zoning ordinance. If I understand your argument in the letter of May 27, it is that you are merely returning to what this property was a number of years ago. It is unfortunate but that is exactly what the City Council is trying to prevent in that it is working to take these undersized lots and put them together so that they meet the new zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance has been in effect since 1945 and it has been a continual goal for the City to combine properties so that they meet the ordinance and are not non-conforming. Your action has .created. for the owners of Lot 11 a non-conforming parcel which means in part that if the house burned down, the owner of that property could not rebuild. I would like to think that what you have done you did believing it to be practical, even if you did not know it was illegal. The record indicates that Mr. Kopp had told you time after time that you could not do what you were proposing to do and you merely ignored his advice and alleged that people at the state and county told you it was possible. It is unfortunate that the county accepts deeds for recording contrary to express statutory prohibitions, and the action which was taken is directly contrary to Minnesota Statutes 462.358, Subdivision 4, of the state statutes and in violation of Chapter 22 of the City Code. Lot 11 was at one time non-conforming but had been brought into conformance when it contained the North Half of Lot 26. I enclose herewith an application for you to complete and transmit to the City for consideration by the Planning Commission and the Council. Mr. Kopp has advised you I believe openly and honestly that he does not believe that the application would be approved. Approval would be one of the solutions to your immediate problem, but it creates substantial problems for the owners of Lot 11 which is then placed in a non-conforming situation and would then be a piece of non-conforming property which would have to be brought into conformance in case of expansion or rebuilding. The second LAW OFFICES L~FEVEF~IE, LEFLIEF~, PIEAF~SON, O'BfRIEN & DIqAWZ Lot 3 Mr. Herbert E. Bischke July 10, 19 80 solution to the problem is for you and the current owners of Lots 25, 26, and 11 to rework your arrangement so that the descriptions contained prior to your illegal conveyance would revert to ~:. conformance, and this would mean that the owners of Lot 11 would also have to own the North Half of Lot 26. I am sorry I cannot be more helpful, particularly in lieu of the very kind things you said about me in your letter. I do believe the City is acting with integrity ~.and trying to make some sense out of platting which took place in the last 1800s and early 1900s. I hope you will be understanding of their goals in this regard. To assist you, I am enclosing an ..application for you to complete and forward to Mr. Kopp, but as he has indicated, we are not encouraging that as a manner of solving the problem, as it merely creates new problems for the owner of Lot 11. CAP: ih ' ~ Enclosure cc: Mr. Len Kopp, City Manager V~y truly ¥~s City Attorney City of Mound ,, ~ ~~ Herb ~ ~ 311 Ohua Ave Apt 12C · ~ Honolulu 96815 Hawaii LeFevere~ Lefler~ Pearson ~'Brien & Drawz ~} ~~ ~-~~~ ',00 First National B_~ Bldg [ ~ '~*~., ~t t~~se!~ p~em with the s~e of Lot 11 Block 15 of A~en to Ke~n Fla~n~co~ of the purchase agre~ent is enclosed alo~ with a co~ of the clos~ stat~ent, s~vey, certificates of title etc t~ ~lp sh~ light on the matter. ~ ~Y ~LY ~ WITH YOU ~D ~E COUNCIL OF MOU~ IN ~ ~ OF ~N D~Y, H~N DIGNITY. .IF A~ STI~ ~STS.., IN T~ N~ OF JUSTICE.. IF A~ STI~ ~ISTS A~ T~ SP~IT OF ~N COMPASSION ..... ~ WANT ~ ~OL~ ~IS PROB~.... ~LY ~ FOR' ~N C~PASSION A~ CONSID~TION......OT~ T~N "~". We receg~ze the ~st~es. ~e ~ntention~... f~ly ~aware of the restrictive covert ~g~ing Register~ ~d $~vey 11&9 Parcel E. Wheh we ~ught the ~rcel title se~ch ~d Title insurance did not turn up the covenants ~ so we were tot~ ~aware when we se~ t~ ~t ~1 Block 15 of A~en to Ken~n Fla~n. Now that we ~ve recog~zed the e~r~ we ~ve offer~ to buy the house back and cerrec~t the errer, and haws ~d a proffessio~ s~vey ~ apprais~ of the pro~y which turns up to be about $60,~0 for the pro~rty~ t~ Flatus want $80,~ for the pro~rty a~ t~s is absu~. If, ~ the ~ndness ~d ~sion of your hea~ you c~ gr~t that the usage of Regestered Survey ~1~9 ~t E be tr~sferred to the usage of ~t 25 ~ the ~ of ~t 26 of A~en~ then we wi~ endea~r te combine lot ~ Block 15 A~en ~th the No~h ~ of ~t 26 to c~p~ ~th No~s relation of 6~ ~ Ft for a ~t, a~ rediculous as it Mayer ~esson look~ at the situation ~d concurred how r~iculeus a situation it is~ Be aH of the ~tter of the ~ ef ~t 26 "A~ it ~y"... we'll settle that to the satisfact ion of ~ cen~...~ At thi~ ~ ~ H~LY ASK FOR YOU ~ G~NT T~ C~NGE OF USA~ OF P~CEL "E"~~T 11 B~K 15~ ~T 25 and ~ of ~T 26 A~ w~ch is wit~ the sco~ ef the co~ente of t~ ~ve~ nor is the request ~reasonable~ nor should such request be ~reaso~b~ wit~eld~ A FO~L ~T IS ~ITH ENC~S~. Note in the content~ here~th enel~s~ t~t the ~t or Parcel E of Registered survey at one oZ wit not A~en... T~m was the B~ther-~i~ter atrovent f~m which we bought.'~~ ~~ Register~ ~ Sudsy 11&9 Parc$1 E and the ~ of Lot 26 were ~ OF~ F~VINS .... A~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~D ~ ~~D. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~T ~ ~RE IN ~ ~~ OF ~ ~ P~ ~ AP[OR~O~ .... A~ ~EY U~~D... ~ F~IS~ S~YS ~ T~ OF ~T ~CH ~EY ~IS~Y ~UGHT. ~ ~S ~ NO MIS~P~TATION ~R ~VE ~EY B~EN C~G~ FOR A~THING ~EY DID ~T ~EI~. We are to~y shocked ~ dis~yed at the i~o~tion bei~ print~ in the local ~r of Mound...the def~tion ef c~racter of the Bisc~e~s in ~waii ~d chuckling ower the tricks p~l~ on Mo~d a~ f~ther f~m ~o~e of the Area t~t tell us that ~ Kopp is out to get the Bisc~es ~d that it is a ~o~ '~o~" aro~d the area. is disturbing... I ~we never b~n ~sres~ctf~ to ~ Kopp or ~ of ~e m~bers of the co, il even though at t~es I felt ~sh~ by the things they did. I beleive that they are jealous of the fact t~t I werked ~ and enJey~ so~ success in t~ area of Maybe it will please ~ Kepp ~ t~ Co,ell to ~ow t~t the Bisc~es are OUT OF MO~Y ~d ~g in ~ econo~ t~t is a total disaster. If you t~ ~is is f~y.... ase don~t....I ~v~ to ~w~i for erie reason... ~ wifes Health. Her health t ~prew~ b~tnanci~ ~m BROKE. .... ~... FI~NCIA~Y DISABLEn. I ho~ you can understand what I'm trying to say to you....PLEASE, IN THE NAHE OF AiRIGHTY GOD, DONtT SIT VENGEFULLY BACK AND IGNORE THE REQUEST. Mr L~vesson will support the truth of the matter. KE¥IN FLAVIN IS USING A BROTHER-IN-LAW LAWYER to pour HIS WRATH AND VENGENANCE KINDLF. n BY THE ACTIONS OF MR KOPP AND MOUND UPON US. Rest assured that your letter of July 26th 1980 to Mr. Kopp along with our letter went nowhere than in Mr Kopps drawer. WA HAVE NEVER HEARD ONE WORD FROM HIM .... I understand that Standke has conferred with ~/~ you... He is Kevin Flaw"ins Brother in Law. WE WANT DESPARATELY TO RESOLVE THE MATTER, BUT IT HAS BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND ANYONE WILLING ~ 1. J ~ C'~'OPERATIVE- When we sold the house to Kevin Flavin... He told us that he had little or no money and was planning on getting married. We went along with him putting down time of signing the Purchase Agreement. WE, THE ROTTEN BISCHKES, PAID $1800 for KEVIN FLAVIN TO GET A G.I. LOAN.... THE BISHCKES PAID THE POINTS A~D BROUGHT THE HOUSE UP TO GLI~ STANDARDS.... FOR HIS BENEFIT,, NOT OURS... WE FURTHER BROUGHT A SURVEY TO MOUND AND OBTAINED A VARIANCE Am A BUILDING PERMIT .... o GRANTED .... FOR THE SPECIFIED IMPROV~T..... THE BISCHKES DID THIS FOR THE FLAVINS- Price of the House $53,900.... out of which we put in a new furnace and central Air~ A new floor in the basement and a number of other things, likewindows, etc....NOW A YEAR AND A HALF LATER WE SHOULD PAY THE FLAVINS $28,000 PROFIT BECAUSE THE CITY OF MOUND WON,T GRANT A HOMESTEAD CREDIT AND WON,T GRANT THE VARIANCES WE HAVE REQUESTED... HOW IN THE NAME OF HUMAN DEC,NC! CAN WE, THE BISCHEES, RESOLVE A MATTER WHEN WE AP~, BUFFETTED FROM EVERY SIDE .... THERE IS NO WAY ~T CAN BE RESOLVED UNLESS SOMEOHE CAN BE ',HUMAN,, ....... PLkASE STOP AND LISTEN ~0 MY PLEADINGS .... WE WANT TO BRING A~ EQUITABLE END TO THIS HORRIBLE PATTERN O~~ VEN~ANCE . HAD WE COMMITTED SOME ATTROCATY, IT WOULD BE UNDERSTANDABLE, BUT A SIMPLE ERROR AND.NO WAY TO CORRECT IT" WE WILL CONTINUE TO TRY TO MAKE EVERY HUMAN EFFORT POSSIBLE TO MAKE lot of Arden~ Mound MEET YOUR CODES BY RE*ESTABLISHING THE ½ of Lot 26 along with lot 11 Block 15 Arden of Mound. IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THIS WE NEED TO BUY THE ½ Lot of 'Lot 26 Back from the NegreSs and sacrifice it ay some price to FLAVINS; I ~RE WE CAN DO THIS WE ~ TO HAVE THE PARCEL E OF REGISTERED~RVEY ! 1~9 CHANGE~FRO_~ IT~PRESENT USAGE AS STIPULATED IN THE RESTRICTIVE COVENAN~E USED WITH LOT 2~-~ ½ of Lot 26 Block 15 of Arden, Mound. THIS PIECE OF LAKESHORE--IS SOLD TO HEGRES..ooNOWHERE IN OUR PURCHASE OF THE PARCEL E, TITLE SEARCH , TITLE INSURANCE OR ANYWHERE DID THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT COME TO LIGHT. IT HAS ALWAYS BEhN TAXED AS A SEPARATE PARCEL° TO THE BEST OF OUR UNDERSTANDING, THERE WAS NO STRINGS ATTACHED. KEVIN FLAVINS W~ATH AND VENGE~ANCE IS THAT THE HOUSE ON LOT "25 and ½ of 26 is rented to Colored Eolks. In our society, Discrimination Laws do not allow any preference as to race, color or creed or national origin. For us to be further buffetted by Attorney Standke and his Brother in Law Flavin is a further injustice and fSrther supported by the actions of Mound and Hennepin Countys Attorney with whom I~m told that you and Standke have conferred as to this matter° So now we have a matter that is now further muddied by Racial Discrimtnationo... handled by Standke, Attorney... in behalf of Kewtn Flavin, his brother in law and then leading further to "mud Slinging" at this Bischke~s in the area of Mound. Written up in the Mound paper... Copy sent to us amd further Phone calls from the Area advising of the situation. The Horror of it all is that it can be fueled to go further.....FROM THE TINY ACORN THE MIGHTY OAK TREE GR~ ::: I WOULD LIKE TO RF~.w:IVE THAT WE CAN ALL HANDLE THIS SITUATION AS MATURE MEN AND BRING IT TO A FAIR AND ~QUITABLE SOLUTION~ AND CONCLUSION. At this point, it is not within the realm of Justice for Mr Eopp to have a voice in th~s matter because of the malicious attitude that he has expressed around Mound in that he is going to~get the Bischkes.y! This is the word that comes back to us even here in Hawaii. This is really bad. I had written a letter of apology to Mr Kopp for m~ error in going to the County Finance Director regarding this matter, but it fell on deaf ears~ it is absolutely impossible and frustating to try to work anything out with people with that type of attitude and especially in public office. Lets see if we can't bury the hatchet and resolve this matter. / Herb Bitc hke CITY OF MOUND APPLICATION FOR REZONING F~: $_25= 00 ! LOC~TION OF THZPROPERT¥ TO BE =ZONED ZOHING REQUEST: FROM P~ASON FOR ~ZONING ~QUEST: ~/~-. ~. .-, IS THERE A PETITION ATTACIIED? YES NO__~__ Address ~-', -~ ~ ~, J ' Tel. No._~ Applicant's Interest in Property State why this rezoning, if granted, would not be contrary to the general purpose and intent of the ordinance to secure public health, safety, general welfare, and substantial justice. Residents and owners of property within 350 feet: OEO 2 3 198L) December 10, 1980 Mrs. Bernice Overby 2300 Driftwood Lane Mound, MN. 55364 Dear Mrs. Overby: In reply to your letter of December 1st, we have asked the Attorney to give an opinion of the status of your property. His opinion is quoted below: I'This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of November 18, 1980 con- cerning Lot 5, Skarps East Lawn. You indicate to me that the property is currently in the A-1 residential zone and that the owners indicate to you that they have had apartments (you do not say how many apartments) in the home for 25 years. You have also sent me copies of the 1938 and 1945 zoning maps wherein it appears that the property was zoned commercial and that it has had a residential zoning since 1961 or 1962. You ask can it be sold as a multiple dwelling? Does the home exist as a non- conforming use? :~ Len, at the time the property was zoned A-1 residential the use of the property as it then existed could be maintained as a non-conforming use but could not be expanded and is subject to all of the provisions of Section 23.20 of the City Code. The whole intent of the non-conforming use section of the zoning ordinance is to allow the property owner to maintain what he has, but not to perpetuate it and to phase it out over a period of time. The owners should be advised that they are a non- conforming use, that nothing can be done to expand or extend the use and that the goal of the zoning ordinance is to have the property converted back to a use which is consistent with its zoning. If the property owner advertises this as a multiple dwelling, they would also have to advise the prospective purchasers that it is non-conforming and that the goal of the zoning ordinance is to return the property to a single family status." I think his reply is self-explanatory. You can sell this property as a non-conforming use as it exists. If you wish the property rezoned, it will be necessary to file an appli- cation for rezoning which would first be considered by the Planning Commis- sion. The Planning Commission recommendation (for or against) the rezoning Letter - Mrs. Bernice Overby December 10, 1980 - Page 2 would go to the Council who would call a public hearing. The next Plan- ning Commission meeting is January 29th and your application should be in by January 15th. We are enclosing an application for rezoning. A fee of $75.00 should accompany the application. , I want to emphasize that rezoning may or may not be granted after goi~ng through all this,.but it is the only way you can find out for sure. Sincerely, Leonard L. Kopp City Manager LLK/ms Encl. APPLICATION FO~ARIANCE CITY OF MOUND FEE $ ~// ZONING ~ / / .//' . APPLICANT ~- ~x//f-~-6f~'z';~'~' PROPERTY PLAT g -1. 0 L o PARCEL / , Telephone , o~ 5 ~~~~~ ~--~%~ .¢ N~be~ ~-/Y/~DDITION INTEREST IN PROPERTY ~ FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) ~ Address Telephone Number VARIANCE REQUESTED: NOTE: FRONT [ ] ACCESSORYI l YARD FT. BUILDING FT. SIDE . YARD I FT'I LOT SIZE I FTj REAR I FT.'1 LOT SQ. YARD FOOTAGE 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 ~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. ./ A building permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the -.~ouncil.,resolution or variance granted becomes null and void. -Variaf~ces are not ~x~ansferable. __ . . /- APPLICANT , DATE Signature PLANNING COMMISSION RE COMMENDATION DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO.. DATE * non- conforming us e To WhOm ~ may concern: We, at the Hole In One Bake Shop do approve of Carol Hallin~s purposed mZ~,n to be effected on our building at 5509 Shoreline. $~ncerel¥, i/OLE IH ,,,,-.. APP LI CA TION FOrA RIANCE CITY OF MOUND APPLICANT Address q~7 INTEREST IN PROPERTY FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Addre s s ¢A ]~NCE REQUESTED: RONT [ . .~ | ACCESSORY [--~L YARD /y, 6" FT.[ BUI_I~ING! SIDE YARD] FT-I LOT SIZE NOTE: FT.] FT.[ YARD FT. FOOTAGE N. C. U.* or OTHER (describe) REASON FOR REQUEST:(~¢c~o~._ ..... FEE ZONING PROPERTY ADDRESS LOT _~- J'--- ~ BLOCK ADDITION ~ Telephone Number 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 ~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. "A building permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the : counc, il ~esolution or variance granted becpmes null and void. }o33'~ variances are ~~le.,_._- .// I~1 I~PLICANTk-~_~,~/~J~.~J ! ~~ DATE ~ /~~ 8~ Signa~e PLANING '~~SSION RECOMMENDATION DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO., DATE *non- conforming use OF PROPERTY OF PLAT OF SURVEY " ' - ' . -~ '] ;i' "::';'- -=''~-- r-. .. ',,,{ -,. .--- -',.,..:' !- . - ' ~ ' ' .... - -:' . '~'X. ' .'", ,= 'X ,1,.'~4'%-. ~'?i~" · ~.~.::~.-';~ .:' . \ . . ..~x, ,-~~;.,~..~_.....___.._ _ .. ...'_- ::-' ~'":i ;i';i' ""---T -' "" .'" - ~'' ' -: .... - · .'::'- ~.. - .... ~. 'L .'-~ ~ - . ..... \ ~ , · _...~':-~ -~. .. '"r' : . . ~ ' - ':-· ~-, .... ' .... ' -~~~ i-- _ '~ _-2.:..': ~'----~, ,:;".~'; ~:.:'~-' :, :- .-..- --- ' ./"-~ ....... :..~....-,,- . , ~ /~~...' ~ -' '- :..- _;:., .- =.. :~.'. .::..= . .. . ~ ...'' __,- A/I//VxK"r:~ ~, . ~,...:..,j ..[?.:.~.;._.....,.a~.,,..:~,..; ~ ..~ ~ .:..,1 ..... . ; '' '..':'- '..~-~-. .. -.4' ].'-' i' C~-R'I'IFICATE 'OF LOCATION 01"' BUILDING ~ ~-r,.: :.. -~:=~;L; ~..._~..~.~j,~ ~ ~2 'T ..... ~"~- ":" CERTIFICATE OF SLr~VEY,i on ' 19 7-~. ' l'h~e~v': ....... -' ' ' ..... or ~repared by me or. repor~ wa~ p~epared that Re istered La. my direct Iarn a dui under State of ;or under ]a~w~ RESOLUTION NO. 75- 373 RESOLUTION ALLOWING VARIANCE FOR LAKE FRONT SET BACK ON THE COMMONS ( C onditi onally) WHEREAS, the c~ner of Lots 4 - 5 - 6, Block 23, Devon has requested an 8 foot variance for a deck and that said deck protrudes 1.5 feet into the commons,and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that a Building Permit be obtained for this work, and I~EREAS, all construction is to be on private property, and V~HEREAS, no enclosure of this deck be allowed at any time. N~W, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, MI~ESOTA: That a variance for lake front set back on the Commons be allotted providing that all construction be on private property and that no enclosure be allowed at any time and all other requirements are met. Adopted this 2~rd day of September, 1975 APPLICATION FO rARIANCE CITY OF MOUND NAME OF APPLICANT ADDRESS J/c~-~/~ /A/~ PLAT PARC~.L T e 'e P h°n~A~/22 -/t- / ( ' Nmber ADDITION INTEREST IN PROPERTY /w.~~ FEE OWNER (if other than applicant)_ Address Telephone Numb e r VARiANCE R~QUESTED: NOTE: FRONT [ FT.[ ACCESSORY[ ] YARD BUILDING F T. SIDE YARD /. ~ FT.[ LOT SIZE-- ~~/~r' REAR LOT SQ. YARD FOOTAGE2~__~- ~ q 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. i~ ]~-~ b~iTdin~: permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the ~[~cil resolution or varianc~ranted ~comes null and void, f / ~ I ~~ces'are not transfe~eT~ % 4~- ~. :' . :]' Signa~re~ . PLANNING COMMISSION RE COMMENDATION DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO.. DATE *non- conforming us e 'e~uolauuIM a~q aaddfl aq] pu~ joa~aq~ ]aaj OI ~sa~ aq~ £HMDXM ~ ~o~ NOIZdI~DS~ 7VD37 Map 5 APPLICATION FO~ARIANCE ' FEE $__ ~. 0{) Comme rci a 1 CITY OF MOUND ZONING / PROPERTY OF / ^s- APPLICAN~//~Z ~Z~~~' P~T ~ PARCEL Q ·, 29-36 Telephone ~' ~~'S~~ ........ . _ ~~ ......... nlrley Hills unit FEE OWNER {if other than applicant). Telephone Addre s s Number 9o00-9700 3 VARIANCE REQUESTED: NO TE: FRONT YARD FT.I ACCESSORY ~ B UI LDING SIDE YARD I FT.JLOT SIZE [ FTJ REARI 1LOT SQ. YARD FT' FOOTAGE N. C. U.* or 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. OTHER (describe) REASON FOR REQUEST: /: ?,, A'~buiiding permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the '~'cou~nCil resolution or variance gra~ted becomes null and void. ~ 6 ~9~iances are no~??f?%.able/~_ .~/ _ ~. ~y~ PLANNING COMMISSION RE COMMENDATION DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO DATE *non- c onforming us e APPLICATION FO~ARIANCE CITY OF MOUND Map 5 ( Z~' FEE $ ZONING 25.00 Commerc i a 1 PROPERTY ADDRESS NAME OF Telephone Q/~ N~ber~- ~ ~1 ~ ADDITION PLAT PARCEL /3 -//7 -gl 2 ~-,~3~ BLOCK INTEREST IN PROPERTY FEE OWNER (if other than applicant),, Addre s s Telephone Number VARIANCE REQUESTED: FRONT jl ACCESSORY YARD FT BUILDING SIDE I YARD FT. LOT SIZE REAR l [ LOTSQ. YARD FT. FOOTAGE N. C. U.* or OTHER (describe) REASON FOR REQUEST: .-~ ;c~_ NOTE: 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 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. L.~:~--~"/j?~..~---'~[]bull~i~~ permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the . z%q .. councit:Y&solutioff or vaginae granted becky's null and void. t PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO., DATE *non- conforming use APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND LAND FEE OWNER PLAT PARCEL Location and complete legal description of property to be divided: oo31 To be divided as follows: (attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number) A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR: New Lot No. Reason: From Square feet TO Square feet {signat~ Applicant's interest in the property: 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 O) ,. >::~ "': .......... 3~s January 26, 1981 TO: FROM: RE: The City Manager City Planner Newhouse Builders Addition I. Subdivision Design The proposed plat is designed in a straight forward, basic approach which conforms with Mound's minimum lot size, street access, setback and minimum lot widths in an A-1 district. The eight lots are all equal to the 10,000 square foot mini- mum with five lots providing more than the 10,0OO square feet needed. The 60 foot lot width is equally meet by all lots sufficient to meet code. II. Public Improvements Public sewer, water and street are in place and consistent with the unit allocations of assessment levy. Similar with other recently submitted plats, the City should stay consistent in requesting or not, curb cuts and bituminous apron installation in land subdivision. Be aware that the 10' R/W between the street edge and lot line is City property and it is in the City's best interest to insure the developer prop- erly improves this service access. III .Determination of Proper ~rontages It is the City's understanding that the driveway installed coming off the Grove Lane cul-de-sac is for Lot 10 of the Seifarth's Mound Bay Park Subdivision. The positioning of the barriers on Bartlett Boulevard prevent through traffic. Consistent with this plan, Lot 8's frontage is recommended on the cul-de-sac. Lots 3 -7 are also clearly fronting off Grove Lane. Lots 1 and 2 will front off Beachwood Road. Please notice Lot l's sideyard setback at 30' along Grove. This is good design and planning. Lot 8's building setback along Bartlett Boulevard being a County Road, should be at 30 feet. This still allows an adequate building site for Lot 8. RE: Newhouse Builders Addition - Page 2 January 26, 1981 Havin9 the preliminary plat referencing the setbacks on all lots, similar to the graphic expression used on, for example, Lot l, is recommended. Please note the rear yard setback is at 15 feet while the easement line is at !0 feet. IV. Exls..t|ng Structure on Lot 4 and Need for Fillln~ The house on Lot 4 is positioned to follow the setback regulations. The Planning Commission should be made aware of future plans for the house. Lots 8 and 7 need filling in rear portions for a level building pad. Likewise, plans for proposed filling of portions of these or other lots should be made aware to the Planning Commission. V. Park Dedication With the Assessor's value on the land placed at '$50,000, a 10% park dedication fee in lieu of land dedication is $5,000. VI Recommendations. The Newhouse Builders Addition Preliminary Plat as proposed is a good submittal. The basic design and development follows Mound's subdivision and zoning ordinances. I s~re no major problems in reviewing the plat. These points should be kept in mind in re- fining the plat towards a final plat submittal being summarized from above. a) Expression of lot setbacks on rear lot lines and Lot 8 along Bartlett. b) Engineers input and recommendation on need for curb-cuts driveway apron installation. This policy needs clarification on this plat as well as any submittals in the future. c) Naming the legal description of the Addition by adding to the title "Block 1" d) Advising the developer of his park dedication obligation. Charles E. Riesenberg ~ January 23, 1981 .~3-, MAY','(OOL) ~OA,' MC)UFID, MI~,;t,'~.~'~©TA 553¢-: (612) 472-115,: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: The Planning Commission The City Hanager Variances Attached is a copy of an article on issuance of variances. The Planning Commission has always tried to find that a hard- ship existed. Sometime past, the Planning Commission used a set of criteria for determining hardship. (Copy attached;) The attached article was furnished by Mayor Lindlan. Le~6n~'i.-~d ~'L -- Kopp LLK/ms Zoning Code The zoning code is a set of regulations and performance stan- dards aimed at guiding the orderly development and use of land within Orono consistent with the goals of our Comprehensive Plan. An attempt is made to balance existing land use against ideal situations. The code is the law. Variance A variance is the procedure established to modify the strict enforcement of the letter of the law. A variance may be issued by the City Council upon finding that a unique situation exists, that strict enforce- ment would cause an undue hardship, and that the end result would still be within the intent of the Comprehen- sive Plan. A Hardship must be demonstrated .b~cant. Tn~hip must bb unique to ~ land in question, or to a small area, it cannot be a common situation. The hardship must run to the land. Examples are steep slopes, lakes or wetlands, large trees, existing structure locations, and unusually shaped or sized properties without adjacent vacant land. A variance'cannot be issued to satisfy the esthetic or economic desires of the applicant; to simplify design or construction; to affect any building code requirement; to permit any land use not allowed within that zoning district; when the requested use can be located somewhere on the property without a variance; or if the result will in any way affect the public health, safety or general welfare. All variance requests are read by the Planning Commission after notice of the request is mailed t(~_ nearby property owners~. Variances ma~ be granted providing that: 1. The application for any variance shall be made in writing and address?d to .the Village Planning Commission and the Village Council and shall be submitted to the Village Clerk. 2. There~are special circumstances or conditions affecting said proDerty, such that the strict'application of the provisions of the ordinance(s) would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land. 3- The variance is necessary for the preservation of and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 4- ?he granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the other property in the territory in which said property is situated and will not have an adverse affect upon traffic or traffic safety. 5- The pro'posed project will constitute a desirable and stable community development. 6. The proposed project will be in harmony with the adjacent areas. 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota February 5, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-56 SUBJECT: Preliminary Report - County Road llO Attached is a copy of the subject report wherein it is estimated the $177,515 plus a possible $16,595 of the estimated $292,000 cost to the City of County Road # 110 can be assessed. According to the report an 80 X 100 foot lot would pay $1,142. This com- pares to $3,900 for the same size lot in the 1980 Street Improvement Pro- ject. The estimated costs are: Curb and Gutter Driveway Aprons Storm Sewer Water Services (if needed) Sewer Services (if needed) $5.10 per foot 32.20 per square foot .048 per square foot 400.00 per service 450.00 per service If the Council wishes to assess the new sidewalk, it would be 1.80 per square foot If the Council wishes to assess this project, the next step is to call for a public hearing of all properties involved. Suggested date is March 24th. L. ~opp 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota January 22, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO 81-38 SUBJECT: Watermains and Lights - County Road llO Attached is a letter from the Engineer outlining the City work to be done on Commerce Boulevard. It is recommended the Council officially authorize the watermain work on County Road 110. Also the Council should authorize the electrical work on Commerce Boule- vard. Incidentally, there has been no discussion of how the electrical work will be financed. This will be on the February lOth agenda. ~-~-eonard L. Kopp r'McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. , CONSULTING ENGINE[RS ! LAND SURVEYORS ~ SITE PLANNERS January 16, 1981 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Mr. Leonard Kopp City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject: City of Mound County Road 110 Watermain and Lights Job #4730 Dear Mr. Kopp: When Hennepin County improves County Road 110 from Bartlett Boulevard to the north Mound City Limits, the City of Mound plans to install a 10 inch watermain from Grandview Boulevard to Auditors Road. This line will replace an old 6 inch line which has had many breaks in recent years. In 1968, a 10 inch watermain was installed on County Road 110 from Bartlett to Auditors Road. The old existing 6 inch watermain was left in place and the services in this section of street are still connected to the 6 inch line. The county is lowering the street grade as much as 1-1/2 feet for much of this area, which would result in freezing problems if something isn't done here. We would recommend that the services in this area be lowered and connected to the 10 inch line, and that the old 6 inch line be abandoned. The one other area where watermain work is required is for approximately 500 feet in front of the Grandview Apartments. The county will be cutting up to 2-1/2 feet off the summit of a hill here. This watermain and services should be insulated to prevent freezing. A rough estimate of the cost of all the work previously described is $140,000. The county will install new wiring and concrete bases for the street lights. The city has to remove the existing standards and reinstall them on the new bases. Minneapolis - Hutchinson - Alexandria - Granite Falls printed on recycled paper Mr. Leonard Kopp January 16, 1981 Page Two The county would ordinarily do this work as part of their contract; however they feel that some of the standards are in such poor condition that they cannot take the respon- sibility for taking them down and putting them on the new bases. I have talked with Bob Shanley on this work. He says the city doesn't have the right equipment to do the work themselves. He also agrees that four or five standards should be replaced. It is our recommendation that the city take bids on this work including the replacement of defec- tive standards. If the council agrees that this work should be done, the next step is to authorize preparation of plans and specifications for the work. The project should be bid at the same time the county takes bids on their work. If you have any questions on this, please advise. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Lyle Swanson, P.E. LS:sj 2-10-81 CITY OF HOUND Hound, Minnesota February 3, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-49 SUBJECT: Hardrives' Request for Retainage Attached is a copy of a letter from Hardrives requesting their re- tainage be dropped to 5%; it is now 10%. Also attached is a copy of a letter from the Attorney who agrees that the State Statutes now authorize what Hardrives is requesting. Hardrives also states that they will be asking soon to deposit securities for the remaining 5%. It is recommended reduction of retainage be authorized and a resolu- tion authorizing the Clerk-Treasurer to pay the amount. H January 20, 1981 Mr. Leonard L. Kopp City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Mn. 55364 RE: 1980 Street Improvements Dear Mr. Kopp: As you may know, Chapter 464, Minnesota Session Laws 1980 provides for reduced retainages and the use of securities in lieu of retainage. The law applies only to contracts entered into on or after July 1, 1980. It reduces retainage from 10% to 5% on all municipal improvement, municipal state-aid streets and county state and highway projects. In addition, the contractor can deposit bonds or securities with the contract- ing agency or in any Bank or trust company and then have his retainage re- duced by an amount equal to the value of the securities. We hereby request that the retainage be reduced to 5% on subject pro- ject. We will be contacting you in the near future to exchange bonds or securities for the balance of the retainage held. Thank you. Very truly"yo~O[s, · ~f' : ~ " Wayne Recht~ CrediY Manager HARDRIVES, INC. cc: Mr. Lyle Swanson - McCombs-Knutson Assoc., Inc. WR/cm ,~. THO MAS WURST GERALD T. CARROLL CURTIS A. PEARSON THOMAS F. UNDERWO0r', ALBERT FAULCONER ~ JAI4ES D. LARSON JOHN W. WOOD, JR. LAW OFFICES WURST, CARROLL & PEARSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 554.02 January 26, 1981 TELEPHONE (612) 338-8911 Mr. Leonard L. Kopp City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Retainage Dear Len: This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of a letter to you under date of January 20, 1981 from Hardrives, Inc. regarding the 1980 street improvements. He cites Chapter 464, Minnesota Laws of 1980 as authority for what they propose. The legis- lature approved this change which was recommended by the contractors. I think it is unfortunate that the League of Municipalities did not have input into this legislation. One of the requests in the letter is that after the retainage is reduced to 5% they will be depositing with the City bonds or securities instead of cash. I enclose herewith a proposed assignment form which should be included when that is requested. I am also enclosing a copy of Chapter 464. CAP:ms Enclosure Ver~y truly yours, Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney / Ch. 4~4 LAWS ol MINNIC~()'I'A Iol I*~() _ / 32q ('IIAI'TER 46-1,~S.l".No. 1665 ,,tit act reblttltR hJ ptthllc (Olllrat'lW i;rtn'bJlll~ It~r I, oL'rc*x pavmetllq': tlllthtffi:lll.[' ~Cmms 161.322: 162.04: Ih2. lO: and 429041..~'uh,ltvi~'ion 6. BE IT ENACTED 1'15' 1'111. 1.1.(;ISI.ATtIRE ¢)F TIlE S'I'ATF ()F MINNE.q()TA: Section I. 115.71| PUBI,IC ('ONTR.~('TS: SE('t'RITY FOR COMPI,E- IllIN ¢}1.' I'I,;RI:I)RMAN('I5: DI,:I.'INITIt}NS. Nubdtvi,,ion I. For Ihe imrpoxc,, o[ ',ections I to 4 unless Ibc conlexl clearh' ]utlicalc,, otherwise, the terms dC[uled in ~ [cction have the incltnml/s ,given them Subd. 2. "Public contracl" means any purchase, lease or sale by u public aecncv of persona! property, public improvements or services, other than aeree- ments which ute exclusively for personal services. Subd. 3. "l'uhlic aecncv'* or ~publw conl~;iClill~ ;t~cnc)" nle:ln~, i~l~' cnlcr into ~uhlic contracls. Subd. 4. "Public improvenlcnt" nlcau~ any con,,IrUClio~l of improxemenls on real property o_[ highways by or for a pubhc a.enc~. Subd. 5. "Retainaee" means the difference IX'lween the amount earned by the contraclor on u public COlltract ami Ibc ilnlollnt _Lpllid Oll thc COlltr;icl bv the [mblic contracting a~cnc}'. Sec. 2. 115.72] I'RO(;RESS PAYMENTS ()N I'IdlH,IC ('()NTRAC'I','q; RETAINAGE; INTEREST. Subdivision I. I lnlcss the lerlns of the contr:lcl provide otherwise, a public contracting aecncv shall make progress payments on a public contract fo_~r a public improvelnent monlhh' as the work progresse~ Payments shall be based upon estimates of work completed as approved by the public contracting agency. A progress payment shall not be considered acceptance o_[r approval of anv work or waiver of any defects therein. Subd. 2. A public contractin, aecncv may [e,,erve as relam;lec Irom any progress paymenl o~2 ;j public conlr;icl I'or ;i lmblic ijnl)lOVeluclU ~111 ;~n~(}lml nol Io exceed five percent of the payment. A public aeencv may reduce the amount of thc retainage and may eliminate retainagt: on any monthh' COlll[ilcl pawncnl if, m th~ agency's opinion, the work i~ progres~.i~ satisfactorih. Sec. 3. [15.73] AI,TERNATIVE F()RM OF RETAINAGE. Subdivision 1. At tile option of Ihe coutrachu, ret;mi;igc shall be accordance with this section. Subd_____: 2._:. Thee contractor may dcposil bomls or securities with Ibc public contracting a~eucy ()~ lid uny ball~ ()~ Ii'us~ ~yl;lll~' hi be hchl in lieu of cash relainage for the beuefit of the public cootrucliug agencv. In thai event th~.public Changes or additions indicated by underline deletions by strikeo'a*, 330 LAWS of MINNESOTA for IqS0 Ch..1~ ;,.~ency ~hall reduce Ih__Ee relaina~'e_in __an amounl cqu!ll lO lhe val,e of the ~ and sccurilie~ and pay Ibc amounl of Ihe r~duclion lo lhe conlraclor. the bonds or securities shall be pavalqc Io thc contractor ils il accrues~ Subd. 3. Bonds and securities deposilcd or acquired in lieu of relaina~e~ i~cr,niued I,x~ sul,divisio~ ~ shal~ b~ o1~ i2 cha,acler iq~proved by the slale ~ surer, inch,din~ bill 11Ol limited ~ Bills. ccrlificalcs, notes or bonds of the United S/ales: ~ Oilier obli~ali(ms of Ihe tIniled Stales or its a~encies: ~)_~Oblicali°n~ .... of any coq~oralion ~vhollv owned by lhe federal ~ lilt'Ill; Of ~ ludcl~lcdncss of Ibc Federal Nalional Mortgage Association. Subd. 4. If Iht public imencv incurs addilional costs as a resuh of I~ e~rcise of Ihe option describc~l i~ lhi~ sccfion~ ~1~ a~cucy may recover th~ ~ from lhe COnlraclor by reducine lhe fh~al pavmenl due under lhe conlracl. work on lhe conlracl proercsses, the a~encv shall, u~m demand, infor~ COlllraclor o[ all accrued cosls. Sec. 4. 115.741 Sccmms I~o 3 9pplv It~ al~ public conlracls cxce~ ~ conlracls in which rcccipl of federal financing is condilioned on adherence (crms and comlilions which arc inconsistent with sections i to 3. Sec. 5. Minucsola SlillUlcs 1978. Stol;on 101.322. is amended Io read: 161.322 PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO CONTRACTORS. When contract for lhe construction, improvemem, or repair of any Irunk highway been emered into by Ibc commissioner of Ilallxl~rtatioll O[ the slate Miflllcsola. and Ihe work provided for in the conlracl has been in all lb;ap completed to the satisfaction of the commissioner or his a~ent except for release of sureties, in accordance wilh the conlracl, by the person with whom t~ commissioner has contracted, herein termed the contractor, unless final estimate for the work is made wilhin ~) days after the contractor has so completed work. he shall be entilled to receive interest al the tale ~ four percen~ ~ ~ equal to the monthh' index of long term United Slates bond yields for the ~ prior to the month in which this obligation is incurred from the dale of the expi~ lion of thai ~) day period upon all amounts fmalh' determined Io he due him which were not paid prior to Ibc expiration of Ihill period, lo be paid in lhe manner as. and u[ the lime of. the final paymem under thc coutract. The ~ requirement, and the mlcrcsl provisions provided for herein, shall not apply delay is caused by the contractor; nor shall the t~) day requirement apply contracts over ~ (w~ million dollars if the contract provides specifically Dr a different period of time in which lo make such final esti~nale. Sec. 6. Minnesota SlaluleS 1978. Section 162.04. is amended to read: 162.(M LIMITATION ON PAYMENT OF ('ONTRACT I'RICE. Whenes~r the constr.ction or imlu-ovemcnl of any county slate-aid highway is to be d0~ Changes or addilions indicated by underline deletions by ~tr!!:eee~ contract. by feder: Ihe conti the wort thereof. further a lccomme be relca~ protect ti lawful fo contract0 Value o{ without; amount ( monthly complete, past due United $~ lion is in imi~sed lesuh o( I Ibc contn 16-: ever the , done by ¢ or in par, agree in ti' of the va monthly t contract l: more corn the retain~ are not re contract. ! the city It limitations monthly e~ the city. ! contract W of the valu simple init index of 10 which this Interest sit withhold a delay is ~ Changes 370 I.A\\'S iff MINNF. Sf)TA I'or 331 (tmltact. and the construction or impr(wemenl is n(~l financed in wh(d¢ or in part · c %ork [rt.u lime lo lime aCltlaJlv c<,uldclcd ;~x ~lh~wn by nlOlllhJx ['~lilllalC~ tunher a~ree t~a~ when Ih~' wc)rk ix ~1 9~ pcrccill or mo]'¢ completed ttp, m ~ released as thc con]ltv b()ard dclerminc~ arc m~l rcqui~cd h, hc i'Cl;liucd pmlecl Ih~ eounlv'~ inlercxt m complcli(m ~ff thc t'oillr;icl, lit xnt'h c;ixe il xh;dl b~ful for the connlv auditor lo i~LmC a w;irralll iiii lhe cotmlv ll'C;l~UrCl- lo Sal~c oi Iht work so c(mlplelcd ;mil spccil'icd iii Iht engineer's lu{~nlhlv am()unl duc and payable under Ibc Icrms of Ibc C~lllraCl x~ithiil ~11 dilvs ol a completed sh;dl oblig;lle thc cotmlv Io p;l~' h~ Iht COllll;ICl(Ir simpIt' intel'eM on thc past due inllonlll al ail ailntlaJ r;ste ella;il l(~ thc motlthlv index of IOl]~ term United Stales I~tmtl yicltlx for thc m(mth prior Io Iht mtmlh itl which Ihi~ obliga- tion is incurred plus an additi(mal one percent per illliltlnt. Jlllcrcsl shall ilot im~)setl with respect to ally alllonnl which a Ct}tUllY ill;iV legally withhold its a [esuh ol' hrcach of ctmtract t)r ()thor coutractual cl;tiilL or if Ih¢ dch~x' is caused by Sec. 7. Miilncsota Statutes 1978. Section 162.111. is amcildcd Itl read: 162.111 I,IMI'FATI()N ON I~AYMENT ()F CONTRACT I'RICES. When- ever the conslruclion or improvenlelll of any municip;ll SlalC-aid slrc¢l is lo be dOIl¢ I1V contract, aild thc conMrliclion or illTpr()vcmenl is not financed m whole or in p;srt hy [cdcral aid hi?hw;~y m~,lcy, Iht ~ovcrnin~ h~dv ~d' thc city shall agree in Ibc conlHicl Io pa~' Iht ctmtractor an a111o11111 Illll t'xccetling ~1 q~ percent 0f lhe vahl~ of Iht work Ir&mi lime lo Ihuc :~cluallv c~mqdclcd, as sh~wn by monlhly esliillales lhereof made by lhe engineer of Ihe cily on Ihe I~asis conlract prices, inld shall further isgrce Ih;il x~hcn Iht wL,k is ~1 ~)~ pcrccnl more compleled upon the recommendation of Ihe cily engineer such portions of lhe relained price shall be released as lhe ?overning ~x' of the cily dclermines are nol required to be retained lo prolecl lhe city's inlerest in completion of the cofltracl, In snch case it shall be lawful fc~r the appropriale disbursing officers of Ihe cily lo pay lhe coillraclor ail anlotml coilsislent wilh Ibc above prescribed limilati(ms of Ihe valilc of Iht w~l-k s~ c~m~l~lclcd ;md specified iii Ibc cngiileer's monlhlv cslimalC willi()ul ;llhswimcc of a cl;dm Ihcrefor by Iht ~{WCl-ilin~ body lh¢ city. Failure to pay any amount due and payable under thc Icrms of Iht c(mtracl wilhin 311 days ()f a m(mlhly eslima~c or ~1 days idler the final estimale o[ the value of the work ctm~plclcd shall obli~;~lc Ibc CilV Io pay Io thc conlraclor simple interesl on the past due amounl at an annual tale equal lo the monthh' index of long term United States htmd yields f(~r the month prior lo the monlh in which this oblig:ltion is incurred plus an additional one pcrcem per annum. Inlerest shall not be imposed wilh respect to ally amounl which a city may legally wilhhold ils il resuh nf breach of conl[;~cl ~)r ~)lhcr t-onlraCluill claim, or ii lhe delay is caused by lhe conlractor. (~hanges or additions indicated by underline deletions by .' "-sl-r4l+eo~ 332 LAWS ot MINNESOTA lot lUSll Ch. ~61 Sec. 8. Minncsola Statutes 1978. Section 429.1}41. Subdivision 6, ~ amended to read: Subd. 6. PERCENTAGE PAYMENT ON ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE, II case the contractor properly performs the work, the council shall, from month 10 month before completion of the work, pay him not to exceed ~0 9_~5 percent of tl~ amount already earned under the contract, upon thc estimate of the cnt2incer ~ other competent person selected bv Ibc council, and thc contn,ct shall so'pr0~kle~ and shall further agree that when'the work is ~-I 95 percent or more complct~ ulx)n thc rccommcndz,tion of thc engineer such port-~'ons of the retained price ~ be released as the governing body of the municipzilitv determines :Irc not requin4 to be retained to protect the municipality's interest in satisfactory completion 0~ the contract. Failure to pay any amount due and payable under the terms of tl~ contract within 30 days of a monthly estimate or 90 days after the final estimm of the amount earned shall obligate the municipality to pay to the contra~ simple interest on the past due amount at an annual rate equal to the montl~:' index of long term Ilnilcd SI:tics I~md yields for thc month prior lo the month i~ which this obligation is incurred plus an additional one percent per annu~ Interest shall not be imposed with respect to any amount which a municipali~ may legally withhold as a result of breach of contract or other contractual claim o._~r if the' delay is caused by the contractor. Sec. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE. This act is effective July 1. 1980 and ~ to all public contracts entered into on or after that date. Approved April 3. 1980 CIIAlrI'ER 465--S.F.N0. 1679 /itt act rt'htlitlg Itt Irut~.s'lu~rltttioni lu'rmilliu,~ cerluitl etCml}thttl5 fronl mt}/~ currier reporting rcqltir('lnettlxi rcquit'itl,~ drtrcr qltalificulio~l.s utld saf?ly rcquireme~ for certain carriers; creating a .s'ingh' mmual reaewal date .h~r bohh'rx of multck pennies; permitting issuance of "flouter" identification cards to motor carriers; clari~vi~l enforremcnt powers; mnending Minnexota Sttttuhts' 1978. Sectitm~' 221.031. Subdivisi~ I; 221.131: 221.221; and Minnesota Statutes. 1979 Supplement, Section 221.011, Subdivision 22. BE IT ENA~ED BY TIlE LEGISLATURE OF TIlE SLATE OF MINNESOTA: Section !. Minnesota Statutes. 1979 Supplement. Section 221.01 I. Subdis3 sion 22. is amended lo read: Subd. 22. "Exempt carrier" means any carrier exempt from this chapter. 0r exempted from any other law or rule by thc commissioner or commission. ~e following arc so exempt except as otherwise specifically provided in clause ~: Changes or addilinn~ intlicaled by umlcdmc dclcliuns by slri[e~mt' " (al Any s'~dius from his ~'ithin such arJ described area· hnprint his nar! cab of his truck (b) Any ~ his home post I Ih'elihood and under provisio~~ · crvice shall mt' (c) Any l for transportinI' in the transpor: or from viner harvesting, cat rutabagas from including but n: term shall also.. thc pursuit of I porting his owsi in the transpot~ r'ative evergreet the products a~ e_xcept that th'I their own p____~. reeistered for ~ to thee require'. ~ to driver o~r-,erations and. Id) An)' .~d within an ~ (el Am. gravel, bitumitt a place of gal office or a 50, roads and str~, (0 An~ federal govcrt goods for the required by la Changes or 3t.$' , Ir.~provemcnt Project ASS1GNMEN'F OF .%ECURITIE?, A~; COI.I.A'['I(RAI. TO TIIE CITY OF MOUND IN I.IEII O1.' RETAINAGE UNDER A PUBLIC CONTRACT WHEREAS, the City of improvement contract with of , and Mound has entered into a public undo r date WHEREAS, under the terms of said contract the City is to retain ~percent as the difference between thc amount cart. ed by the contractor on a public contract' and thc amount paid on tke contract by the City, all of which is referred to as retainage, and WHEREAS, the aforementioned contractor has exercised its option under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 15.73 to deposit with the City for tl~c benefit of the City, bonds or s,_'curi, t[e.< to be held by the City in lieu of the cash retainage called for in the contract, and WHEREAS, an assignment of said securities is necessary to protect the public interest and to allow the Cit'y to cash or collect on said securities for the benefit of the City or any subcontractors, materialmen, suppliers or others entitled to monies from the contract; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City releasing thc cash retainage held under a contract dated , (hereinafter called the Contractor- Assignor) hereby transfers, orders and assigns to the City of the securities described below: Title, Series Maturity Denomination Serial No. Sccurittt,~ except interest on the aforementioned bonds or securities which shall be payable to the contractor as it accrues. 1. Rights of Assignee. Thc Contract6r-Assignor hereby specifically authorizes the City of Mound to cash, pledge or receive any and all amounts which may become due or payable from the aforementioned securities as thc City may, in its discretion, feel necessary or advisable to protect the public interest and to carry out the terms of'Improvement Contract No. 2. The City is not required or obligated in any manner te cash or to present any claim or to take any other action to collect or enforce payment of any amount or amounts which may be or ~hich may become due or payable under the aforesaid securities. 3. The Contractor-Assignor agrees that the City may use any and all monies received by virtue of this assignment necessary to carry out the obligations of the Contractor-Assignor under the improvement contract and the plans and specifications for said con- tract. The City does agree that any residue which ma}' remain after payment of all claims, obligations or liabiliti~s of the Con~ractor- 6ssignor as paid by the City or to others making claim under the contract, shall be paid by the City to the Contractor-Assignor, its executors, administrators or assigns. 4. The Contractor-Assignor further represents to and agrees with the City that it will at any time, upon thc written request o£ the City, execute and deliver any additional documents required by the City and will do anything necessary for the purposes of carrying out this assignment which may be requested by the City in order to perfect this assignment. 5. The Contractor-Assignor hereby warrants that they are legally competent to make this assignment and that they have not trans- ferred, assigned or encumbered any of the aforesaid securities or any rights or interest therein or thereto and that no proceedings bankruptcy, insolvency or other action at law or in equity which would affect the title to the aforedescribed securities is now pending against the Contractor-Assignor. 6. The covenants, representations and warranties 'ol.-- the Contractor-Assignor herewith shall inure not only to the benefit of the City but to its successors and assigns and to any other party may have rights under the contract between thc Contractor-As:;ignor and the City of Mound. 7. It is the responsibility of the Contractor-Assignor to deposit with the City of Mound new securities satisf.~ctory the City to replace any securities or bonds coming due under this assignment. The new securities shall be delivered to the City before any maturing securities or bonds are released. The Contractor- Assignor hereby agrees to hold the City harmless as it relat.:s to anv loss of interest or failure on the part of the Contractor-Assignor to deposit new security for any bonds or securities which have maturcc~. It is the intent of this section Io place dir~,cl:ly upon thc 2ontrac~,~ Assignor the responsibility to collect interest on the securities and to deposit with the City new securities and to execute a new assignment, before release of these securities which are placed with the City in lieu of retainage. 8. Upon completion of all the contractual terms, the City of Mound hereby agrees to release the aforedescribed securi~[e~ to the Contractor-Assignor in accordance with the terms of the contract and'specifically as it relates to retainage. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Contractor-Assignor does hereby execute this Assignment of the aforedescribed securities to the City of Mound this day of , 19___ Contractor-Assignor DATED: By Its -4- 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota January 30, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-39 SUBJECT: 1981 Insurance The Council tabled consideration of Council Memorandum 81-32, 1981 Insurance, until the February lOth meeting. The proposals are as follows: PROPOSALS FOR CITY INSURANCE Property & Liquor Workmen's Liability Liability Compensation R.L. Youngdahl & Associates Earl Bailey, Agent (4) (Includes Fire Station & Addn. $40,997. (1) $39,386. League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust Local Insurance Committee $40,705.(2) Not~ ~ ~,~ .' Qu6ted $38,011. m $41,412. $5,842.(3) $44,700.~- ~"~' Note l: Note 2: Note 3: Note 4: Liquor Liability included and estimated at $5,842. - last year's premium. The agent recommends that "due to Mound's past claims history under Liquor Liability, I strongly recommend that you leave this coverage with your current Insurance Companies with myself as agent of record" Does not include dram shop - add at least $5,842.00. The Local Committee recommends their liability package and the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for Workmen's Compen- sation with $5,842 for Liquor Liability - this amounts to $85,265. The Youngdahl bid is all or nothing - Liability, Liquor and Work- men's Compensation which totals $80,383. 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota February 3, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-50 SUBJECT: Cemetery Lot 24, Graves 7 & 8, Division A In 1940 (the City took over the cemetery in 1944), Edna Schwartz pur- chased the subject graves and buried Edward Schwartz in Grave 7. The records show that Carl E. Johnson was already buried in Grave 8 at the time Mrs. Schwartz purchased the graves. Johnson was buried in January of 1938. Mrs. Schwartz is looking for a grave for herself. It is our suggestion a grave for her be made in the walkway as shown below. ~iv|~i~n A ! ! 8 Ft. Walkway 1 .... ~(' ~' Lots 8 - 1 Mrs. Schwartz will be at the February lOth Council meeting. A resolution authorizing the grave site in the walkway for Mrs. Schwartz is requested. cc: Mrs. Schwartz 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota January 29, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-45 SUBJECT: Fire Relief 2% Insurance Refund Attached is a copy of a letter from the Fire Department objecting to an attempt to have the Legislature to reallocate the 2% insurance premium. They have also attached a proposed resolution. This will be on the February 10th agenda. cc: Fire Chief D. J. Carlson 31,1 January 23, 19~1 l'ound City Council 5341 Maywood Road .'~ound, Minn. 55364 Dear Council M=mb~rs; Th~ L~,agu= of '.{unici~ral~ti~s has propos=d a r~solution to real!ocata the 2 ~ fire insurance pr~m~.um state aid. The Mound Volunteer Fire Department is oupos=d t~ the adoption of such a pro[osal and we would like the :~ound City Council pass a solution to this end. The 2 :~ insuran:ce promium state aid is us=d to fund our pension b~n~.fit pro~'ram and reallocation of a portion or all of this money could j~opard~ze our ability to maintain adoquata pension b~n~fits to attract qualified volun- teer fire fighters. Attach=d is an example of a resolution that th~ Mound Fire D~partm~nt woul¢] 1~ k~ tho Youmd City Council to adopt. Pl=as~ notify fha fir~ d~partm~nt wh=n this it=m will be discuss=d at a c~ty council m==ting. Sinc~rely, David J. C~rl[~son Mound Vol. Fir~ Eept. R~liof Association Secrotary/Treasurar The City of Round d~sir~s ts maintain a comp=t~nt, qualifiad volunt=~r f-"re d~partnent and r~cogniz~s the ne~d for a s:und p~nsion b=nefi~ profram to attract qualifi~.d volunteer fir~fighters. Th~. 2,~ insuranc, p~'~mi~ state aid available under O Statutes ~9.021 and 6~.0~1 Is imlortant in maintaining an actu- arilly sound pension banefit program for the Round Volunt~.er Fire D~partment. Allocation of a p:rtion or all of the 2~ in- suranc~ prer!mm state aid funds to purposes other then maintain- ing th~ fire d.partment's p=nsion b~n~.fit pro,ram may jeopardize th. Associati~n's financial ability to improve pension and other b~nefit levels nec~.ssary to continue to attract as well as retain qualified volunteer firefight~rs. Therefore, th~ city council for the City of }~ound is opposed to any proposal introduced b~fore th~ ?.~nnosota Lo~islature which would oliminate the =xclusiv~ allocat~on of the 2~ insuranc~ pro~.:ium stat. aid to the Nound Volunteer Fire D. partment describod in Hinn~sota Statut=s C~apt~r 69.021 and 69.031. 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota January 30, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-41 SUBJECT: Liquor Ordinance Roger Rager of Rager's Pub has asked if the ban on pool tables in establishments with liquor licenses can be amended. Section ll.15 reads as follows: SECTION 11.15 Conditions of Operation and Restrictions on Consumption. a. No pool or billiard table shall be kept in the dispensary or any rooms connecting therewith; nor shall any one on such premises keep, possess or operate on such premises or in any rooms adjoining or connected there with any slot machine, dice or any other gambling device or permit the same to be so kept or used. No gambling shall be permitted on such pre- mises, nor shall any person of a known immoral character or any disor- derly person be permitted on such premises. b. No other business than the sale of liquors shall be carried on by the dispensary or by any person employed therein during the time so employed. c. No liquor shall be sold to a person who is in an intoxicated condition. d. No liquor shall be sold to a minor. e. No person shall be permitted to loaf or loiter about the dispensary habitually. (Ord. 41 - 4/28/1941 & Ord. 273 - 9/17/1970) The Attorney was asked if the pool-billiard table prohibition was a State Re- quirement or was this something the Council required. The Attorney's repJy is attached. It seems that the Council can modify the ordinance if they so desire. If the Council wishes to modify the ordinance, it is suggested they investigate the number of licenses that can be issued. At the time the ordinance was estab- lished, the Council could not issue more than 3 licenses and if they did, they would have to give up the municipal off-sale. There has been several changes in the liquor legislation since the first passage and possibly more than three licenses can be issued. If the ordinance is to be changed, we should also check the investigation fee. $100.00 is too small a fee; it should be a $500.00 minimum. This will be listed for discussion on February 10th. cc: R. Rager 3 A.THOMAS WURST GERALD T. CARROLL CURTIS A, PEARSON THOMAs F. UNDERWOOD ALBERT FAULCONER :D~ JAMES Do LARSON JOHN W. WOOD, JR. LAW OFFICES WURST, CARROLL & PEARSON MINNEAPOLIs, MINNESOTA 5-~40:~ January 21, 1981 TELEPHONE Mr. Leonard L. Kopp City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Ray Rager Request for Ordinance Change Dear Len: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of January 9, 1981 indicating that Ray Rager is thinking of applying for a liquor license and he also wants the intoxicating liquor ordinance changed. Your question to me is, "Can the council, if they so desire, amend Section 11.15 of the City Code to delete the prohibition against pool or billiard tables." I have reviewed the statutes and find no requirement which would prohibit a pool or billiard table. I do call to your attention that intoxicating liquor licenses are essentially issued only to hotels and restaurants. I believe it was the desire of t~e~-i~-y~Co-~h-di!--~h~-~h~--d~f~inally enacted the intoxicating liquor ordinance to try to control liquor and in effect to prohibit the sale of on-sale licenses unless it was in conjunction with a hotel or restaurant operation. Our ordinance in Section 11.50, Subd. 2, indicates that on-sale licenses be issued only to hotels and restaurants and further limits the number of on-sale licenses to three. I guess the council would have to consider from a p--b~~~d~t whether they consider pool and billiard tables to be synonymous with the operation of a hotel or restaurant liquor license. They do have the authority to make the change and they will have to decide if that is necessary. CAP: ms i_~y truly yO~urs, urtis A. Pearson City Attorney 2-10-81 CITY OF HOUND Mound, Minnesota February 2, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-48 SUBJECT: Bids - Sale of Two Motor Vehicles On January 30, 1981, the bids were opened on the sale of the two motor vehicles. Bidder Naomi Carlson, Excelsior Kilgore Siding Company, Mpls. Wm. Voss, Plymouth Chas. Hartmann, Dassel Kevin Cronin, Shorewood Linda Adamson, Dassel Hollander Auto Parts, Shakopee They are as follows: 1978 Concord - Tan Ser. # H12800024 $2,010. $1,O00. $1,255.50 $2,600.00'~ $95O.OO 1978 Concord - Brown Ser. # H12800026 $2,010. $2,O63. $1,ooo. $650.00 ~'e~nard L. Kopp 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota February 6, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-58 SUBJECT: Request for Use of Community Center Attached is a copy of a letter from the E1Shaddai Church requesting to use the Community Center on a long term basis. The request is for use on Tuesday, Thursdays, Fridays and Sundays. At present, we have a group using the building the third Thursday and another group using it the second Saturday of each month. The E1 Shaddi Church will be at the February lOth meeting to discuss this. The Park Commission has not been contacted on this since they meet on February 12th. We are sending them copies of this memorandum. LeOna~rd L.-Kop~ ' Z ' cc: Park Commission 1786 SHOREWOOD LN. MOUN D, M N. 55364 Feburary 5, .~ 9 8 .~ Dear Mr. Copp, We at this time are tn desperate need of larger facilities for our school and church. We have been looking for some time and have not been able to find anything tn the city o~ Mound. We have rented the water works building in the past on a part time basis, but found this extremly difficult tn carrying out all our church functions. We would like to r.ent or lease the Depot from the city of Mound either on a short term basis or long term. Our basic reauirements at this time are: A place for our school· I st. grade thru. ~ 2th. Estimated ]7 children. A meeting room for our church functions, meeting on Monday- Youth- Group· Tuesday- Prayer group. Thursday- Prayer group. Friday- Prayer meeting . Sunday- Fegular services. All of these reauirements can be meet by a large .~ room building with bath- ro.oms. The Depot would work perfectly. Please contact us as soon as possible. 472-4] 40 x/te_spectffully yours, ~-___.~,,~,~e.~~ ~/, ~.~ ?.- _: Paster David S. Norton E1 Shaddai Church 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota February 2, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-47 SUBJECT: Bingo Permits The American Legion Post # 398 has requested permission for Bingo permit for three dates in 1981 - February 28th, April 4th and November 14th. They request that the bond and fee be waived. Leonard L. Kopp 3- 3 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota February 5, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-54 SUBJECT: Bingo Permit - Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church has requested a permit to Play Bingo on Thursday evenings in 1981 and also four Saturdays (dates to be determined at a later date) from 8:30 P.M. to 10:30 P.M in their School Cafeteria. They ask that the fee and bond be waived. 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota February 2, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-46 SUBJECT: Renewal - Gambling Permits We have received renewal applications for Gambling Permits from the American Legion Post # 398 - Minnetonka and from Chamberlain Goudy VFW Post # 5113. Copies are attached. The permit period for an annual permit is from February 1st to January 31 of the next year. ,,Leonard L. Kopp CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota APPLICATION FOR GAMBLING PERMIT $15.00 Single Permit AMERICAN LEGION POST .~3.98 Name of organization MINNETONKA ' · , 9333-WILSHIRE BLVD. Address MOUND, MINN. , a VETERANS organization, hereby applies for a ANNUAL annual/single occasion gambling permit. Date to be used FEBRUARY 1 TO JANUARY 31,198~. Phone Number of Organization ~.72-9582 ~72-~37~ Date Organization was organized 191~O Purpose of Organization TO AID THE VETERAN AND HIS FAMILY Type of Gambling to take place: Paddlewheel Yes No Tipboard Yes No Raffle Yes \? No ?, Location of Gambling: Address:.. 2333-W~LSHIRE BLVD. MOUND Name of Building Owner THE AMERICAN LEGION Is the building owned or leased by the organization Date ownership was acquired ._!961 If leased, expiration date of lease (Copy of lease must accompany application) Gambling Manager: Name of Gambling Manager J~ROME HED MINNETONKA'PQST #398 OWNED Home address ~296-OLIVE AVE. WAYZATA 55391. . Home Phone ~-933~ Is Gambling Manager an active member of organization YES (Required) Date membership acquired 1965 Is Gambling Manager paid by the organization for handlin9 the gambling ~O (The answer to this question must be no - Sec. 43.40) Amount of bond furnished by Gambling Manager ~10~OOO .... ~ame of Company furnishing Bond ~A~ITOL INDEMNITY COR~, agree to file a copy of the bond with the City Clerk. (At least $10,000.) and we Name of Bank where gambling--funds will be kept STATE BANK OF MOUND ACCOUNT NO. O~3L903 MINN. FEDERAL ACCOUNT NO. 09-3-504913 ..... STATE BANK OF MOUND 023-903 8ank Account Number for 9stub! in§ funds NINN. FEDER^L 09-3-50~913 Are funds in the above account mixed with other funds (AnsweF must be "No") NO AGREEMENT The NINNETONEA POST #398 hereby agrees that if the license herein Name of Applicant is granted that the NT~N~N~A ~OS? ~tq8 will save the City, its officers Name of Applicant and agents harmless against any claims or actions and the cost of defending any claims or actions arising out of or by reason of the granting of the license or the conduct of any of the activities authorized by the license. It is further agreed that monthly reports shall be furnished the City by the Gambling Manager as directed in the ordinance and the ~TNN-~yl~F~r~ ~nqm #398 Name of ~-p~l'i~a~~ hereby authorizes the Bank named above as the keeper of gambling funds to allow the City access to the figures and activity of account number 023-903 O9-3-50~'913 above. listed Signed by authorized Officer of Organization Date The above application is made on behalf of the ]VIINNETONEA FOST ~.398 and all information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date S i gnature Title Annual Licenses: Expire on January 31 of each year. Fees are not prorated for licenses purchased after February 1. $15.00 Single Permit CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota CATION FOR GAMBLING PERMIT Name of organization - - Address' for. a , , annual/single occasion , a ~'.~,.~'~"~_~,~,~'~_~ organiza'tion, hereby applies gambling permit. Date to be used Phone Number of Organization Date Organization was organized Purpose of Organization, Type of Gambling to take place: Paddlewheel Yes No.. Tipboard Yes ~ No Raffle Yes ~c No Location of Gambling: Address: ~S~ Name of Building Owner 3 .... Is the building owned or leased by the organization Date ownership was acquired / ~'70 If leased, expiration date of lease (Copy of lease must accompany application") Gambling Manager: Name of Gambling Manager Home address ~ ~'yJ~- E4 ~"~ 0~-~ F~-~TM [~a Home Phone ~ 7~- ,~,~7~ Is Gambling Manager an active member of organization ~ ~ (Required) Date membership acquired ~ ~ Is Gambling Manager paid by the organization for handling the ~ambli.ng .~ (The answer to this question must be no - Sec. 43,40) A~unt of bond furnished by Gambling Manager~O~ ~ g~, (At ~ame of Company furnishing Bond ~/~ Z~ F/~/,'~ ~ agree to file a copy of the bond with~e City Clerk~. - ~ Name of Bank where gambling least $10,0OO.) and we funds will be-kept 3¢£ (2) Bank Account Number for gambling funds ~'~ ~ - Are funds in the above account mixed with other funds (Answer must be "No") AGREEMENT The ~,'/'f~'~,l P~ '~ '"~.."~,,.~//~ hereby agrees that if the license herein Name of AppI i cant is granted that the ~ ~ ~ ~ ~3 will save the City, its officers Name of Ap~l i cant and agents harmless against any claims or actions and the cost of defending any claims or actions arising oet of or by reason of the granting of the license or the conduct of any of the activities authorized by the license. It is further agreed that monthly reports shall be furnished the City by the Gambling Manager as directed in the ordinance and the Name of Applicant hereby authorizes the Bank named above as the keeper of gambling funds to allow the City access to the figures and activity of account number 0 ~/~ listed above, Signed by authorized Officer of Organization The above application is made on behalf of the ,,~, F~J,. '~-~ 5'T ~"/73 and all information given 'herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. - /g~a~ture Annual Licenses: Expire on January 31 of each year. Fees are not prorated for licenses purchased after February 1. 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota January 29, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-43 SUBJECT: Tax Forfeit Land Conservation List The Conservation List of Tax Forfeit Land for this year consists of 11 lots as follows: PID PLAT PARCEL LOT BLOCK SUBD. 1. 24-117-24 44 0175 37730 8450 2. 19-117-23 32 O136 38010 2985 3. 13-117-24 12 0141 62200 4625 4. 13-117-24 12 O142 " 4650 5. 13-117-24 12 O143 " 4675 6. 13-117-24 12 O149 " 4825 7. 13-117-24 12 O150 " 4850 8. 13-117-24 12 O151 " 4875 9. 13-117-24 12 O152 " 4900 10. 13-117-24 12.0110 " 0525 ll. 13-117-24 12 Ol16 61580 0725 B 3 22 & 23 12 7 8 8 8 ,, Point 9 8 " " 15 8 " 16 8 " " 17 8 " " 18 8 " " 6 2 Woodland Point 7 2 Arden Wychwood Woodland Take for Street Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Undersized Dreamwood Undersized It is recommended Lot B, Block 3, Arden, be kept for street purposes. It is recommended Lots 22 and 23, Block 12, Wychwood be left for sale at the auction. It is recommended Lots 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17 and 18, Block 8, Woodland Point be kept for wetlands. It is recommended Lot 6, Block 2, Woodland Point and Lot 7, Block 2, Dreamwood be held off sale because they are undersized. The following action is requested: 1. A resolution declaring the entire list non-conservation land. 2. A resolution requesting that Lots 7,8,9,15,16,17 & 18, Block 2, Woodland be given the City for wetlands. 3. A resolution requesting Lot 6, Block 2, Woodland Point and Lot 7, Block 2, Dreamwood be held off sale since they are undersized. 4. A resolution requiring that Lot B, Block 3, Arden, be given the City for street purposes. 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota January 29, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-42 SUBJECT: Tax Forfeit Land - Lot 4, Block 14, Mound Terrace The owner of Lot 3, Block 14, Mound Terrace would also like to acquire Lot 4, so he can build a dwelling on the high ground of the two lots. The City has taken Lot 4 for wetlands, but can relinquish it if they wish it to go back on the market. If the City wishes to sell the land, they should decide at the February 10th meeting so the lot can be listed on the next sale. cc: Paul Koosmann 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota January 29, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-44 SUBJECT: City Owned Land The City owns a 3 acre triangular piece of ground north of the railroad tracks behind the sewer plant. One of the local residents has indicated he would like to buy the property to build a home and a pole barn in order to store his truck, etc. and has asked if the City would like to sell the land to him. The land is zoned light industrial. The proposed rezoning would bring it back to residential. At times, discussion has been held about building the street garage on this property. Does the Council wish to consider selling the property? If there is serious consideration on selling the property, the first thing that should be done is to get an appraisal. This will be listed for discussion on February lOth. 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota February 3, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-53 SUBJECT: Use of Public Buildings The Mayor has suggested a temporary committee be established to study and make recommendations for the use of the City owned buildings and at the same time study the present fee structure and made recommenda- tions. It is suggested that such a committee be appointed by the Mayor or the Council and it be made up of one member of the Park Commission, one member of the Planning Commission, one Council person and 3 or 4 citizens with the Mayor serving as an ex officio member. If such a committee is formed, it should be established by resolution and their recommendations are not binding on the City Council. Leonard L. Kopp 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota February 5, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-57 SUBJECT: Request for Parking Variance Farrell J. Paasch, 1587 Gull Lane, has requested permission to park a car on the street. The Public Works Director recommends denial of the request per his memorandum attached. Leonard L. Kopp ' ~' ! 3¥0 INT M; ;JECT: Leonard Kopp Public Works Director Parking Variance DATE February' 5 1981 The Public Works Department recommends denial of this variance request. This is a duplex with two garage Stalls for each side. One stall has a pickup that has no doors and is being worked on. One other, stall has a car that is covered by boxes and obviously not being used. Two stalls are being used by vehicles and two cars were parked outside. One has not been moved since before the snow of January 31. If the other stalls' are in use and all parking spots outside are in use as the person states, then his vehicle must be the ninth vehicle at this location. I don't feel that'it is the City's job to give them parking in this type of situation. Respectfully,. Robert Shanley Public Works Director RS/jcn Ci%y of Mound VARIANCE REQUEST, OFF STREET PARKING ORDINANCE ONE - Home ~ ?~ ~/¢~/~ Business ADDITION 'PX. APPOINTMENT TIME FOR ON SITE INSPECTION L~ORAM OF LOT - Use reverse side of this request: A eM, P,Me E~t~RKS & RECOMJ~ENDATIONS BY INDIVIDUAL MAKING INSPECTION 33? 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota February 5, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-55 SUBJECT: Delinquent Utility Bills Attached is a list of past due water and sewer accounts. These accounts are over six months past due and should be turned off for non-payment. In order to turn off the water, the Council should hold a public hearing. A suggested date for the public hearing would be Febru- ary 24th. Leonard L. Kopp \ ~" Account 33-418-2617-41 33-439-2431-61 33-439-4510-51 33-439-4750-71 33-439-4907-31 33-442-4416-91 33-442-4424-31 33-443-4541-41 33-406-4660-41 33-463-4739-01 33-466-4937-31 33-472-4555-11 33-475-4610-71 33-475-4650-31 33-475-4679-21 33-478-2854-71 33-484-3341-21 33-484-5034-11 33-487-4873-11 33-521-4631-41 33-527-4712-91 33-530-3121-81 33-530-3126-71 33-554-4065-71 33-569-4882-21 33-572-4872-71 33-575-4901-71 33-581-2873-81 33-587-2944-41 33-599-4781-31 33-620-3154-81 33-620-4556-31 33-620-4828-61 33-623-5238-11 33-641-5220-11 33-641-5251-61 Delinquent Utility Bills Over six months arrears Amount $9O.74 9O.48 96.30 129.63 62.04 69.35 172.44 72.02 36.85 143.33 126.5o 75.08 119.88 91.8o 54.22 95.4o 123.o6 117.67 68.95 6O.58 66.17 146.51 124.65 82.58 49.86 93.92 52.92 39.90 62.14 48.90 114.88 51.54 89.85 79.74 82.58 105.88 $3,188.16 2-5-81 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota February 3, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-52 SUBJECT: Police Reorganization The Council has indicated they wish to discuss Police Reorganization at the February lOth meeting and it will be on the agenda. The Manager and Acting Police Chief made their recommendations in Information Memorandum 81-3 (Copy attached). 33& CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota 1-13-81 January 8, 1981 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 81-3 SUBJECT: Police Reorganization The Council has discussed plans for reorganization of the Police Depart- ment. At the last meeting, they asked that we meet with the Sergeants and report their findings back to the Council. We met with the Sergeants and it was their feeling that reorganization and signing the contract were two different things. It was their feeling that if they could have their choice: 1. The contract would be signed. 2. That reorganization should be held off until after the appoint- ment of a new City Manager and a new Police Chief. It was brought up in the meeting that last year's contract is in effect until a new one is agreed on, therefore, they felt the contract should be signed. Reorganization Reorganization of the Police Department as I see it, should be around the problem we work with today and it would seem that the department should have a Police Chief and two Sergeants. This could give a supervisor on each shift except when they have days off, vacation or are ill. However, this might not give an investigator as we now have. Savings in doing away with Sergeants is not as great as you might believe: Patrol Officers receive Detective Sergeant (under the new Contract The other 2 Sergeants $1,948 per Month Difference 2,360 per Month $412. 2,250 ea.per Month 302. each Per Month Savings - Total $1,016. Per Year Savings $12,192. ' If you do away with Sergeants completely, you will save about 1/2 a patrol- mand and then you are without an investigator. If one of the patrolmen is made investigator, you have to subtract $125.00 per month or $1500. Your savings is then $10,692. Also, by going to two Sergeants, you then could possibly be losing local investigation. Does the Council wish the City to continue doing its own investigation providing we have enough budget? INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 81-3 Police Reorganization - ~age 2 It is recommended that the current contract be signed. That reorganiza- tion be left to the new Chief. This would keep two Sergeants and the present Acting Chief until that time. The Acting Chief was asked for reorganization recommendations and a copy of his report is attached. L. Kopp '' January 7, 1981 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mr. Leonard Kopp - City Manager Sgt. William Hudson - Acting Chief Police Department Reorganization Recommendation Having myself bring forth recommendations to you, the city manager, at this particular time in reference to certain needs of the police department, expecially supervisory staff, is difficult at best. I express this due to recent council action in an attempt to abolish all police department supervisory positions, excluding the chief, due to budgetary considerations. I also feel that there are two other major items that ought to be taken into consideration at this time as it applies to reorganization or restructuring of the Mound Police Department: 1. Your recent resignation and the hiring of a new city manager by May l, 1981. 2. The chief of police resigning and the hiring of a new chief of police shortly after the city manager's appointment. Any reorganization at this time, I feel, would be premature and not done with the city's best interest at hand, nor of the police department's. I say this because any reorganization or restructuring without input from the new city manager and the new chief of police may not coincide with their management philosophy and could hinder their management style, policies, and objectives. I feel the present status, as applied to the organization of the Mound Police Department, should be maintained at this time until the appointments of the new city manager and the new chief of police are made. By cutting all supervisory positions which have been maintained for more than eight years, there will be a savings of not quite $11,000 on salaries for the year 1981. This figure is based on the difference between the top patrolman and sergeants pro- jected 1981 contracts. By saving $11,O00 you are, in effect: 1. Eliminating positions and chances for advancement for officers within the Mound Police Department. The elimination of positions will affect a patrolman's incentive once he or she realizes there is no chance for advancement and rewards for a job well done and would simply put in his or her 40 hours a week. Leonard Kopp Jan. 7, 1981 Page Two 3. There will be a higher turnover rate due to employees moving on after certain experiences are gained. 4. Positions that do become available will not draw quality applicants due to lack of advancement potential. 5. With no supervisors, quality and quantity of work cannot be insured nor can department rules, regulations, and policies be insured. Patrolmen are not going to, on a day to day basis, make supervisory decisions on technical and legal issues where they know they will be held responsible and may suffer the consequences. According to American's For Effective Law Enforcement, a nationally known organization, there are three main reasons why law enforcement officers and cities are being sued today. They are: A. Negligent appointment B. Negligent retention C. Negligent supervision I honestly feel that the reasons I have stated above in addition to many more not mentioned, by far outweigh the $11,000 savings to the budget when all things are considered, especially when liability is taken into consideration. The budget for 1981, for the Mound Police Department, which was submitted to the council and approved in its entirity, did have organizational structure of 1 chief, 3 sergeants, 7 patrolmen, and 2½ civilians. The thing that is having the greatest impact costwise on the budget for 1980 and 1981 is the number of officers and amount of time they have been placed Injured On Duty, we have not had sufficient personnel to cover their absences and overtime has had to be paid out and laid-off employees retained. The amount of man hours spent on Injured On Duty and sick leaves amount to that of 2 men for a full year. The amount of time on holidays, vacations, IOD, sick, and training, amounted to 3.6 men for a full year. With the present structure as I have it; I can give supervision 18 hours per day five days a week, and l0 hours a day two days a week during critical periods of time. During other times, a supervisor is on call with a pager. With a supervisor on duty, he will be the second officer on duty also and will, in addition to his supervisory duties, perform as a backup and answer calls. The super~isor as acting chief will perform the chief's ~uties along with his investigating duties and training duties and will also perform backup when available. Leonard Kopp Jan. 7, 1981 Page Three The above structure is giving the department two men on the majority of the time during critical periods and supervision that is also needed, barring there is no more IOD's. I have contacted all the officers in the Mound Police Department at a departmental meeting and all officers stated that supervision is needed on the street during their shifts. I have contacted the following departments and found that: Orono Police Department is responsible to a population of ll,O00, has 13 men which includes 1 chief, I assistanct chief for 1981, and will be looking at an additonal supervisor in 1982 or, if performance levels drop or service levels drop before, they will look for an additional supervisor in 1981. South Lake Public Safety, which is responsible to a population of 10,000, has 12 men which includes i chief, 2 sergeants, 1 investigator, and 8 patrolmen. 3. West Hennepin Public Safety, which is responsible to a population of 4,000, has 7 men which includes 1 chief and 1 sergeant. Wayzata Police Department, which is responsible to a population of approximately 37,000, has 7 men which includes 1 chief and 1 authorized sergeant. 5. Minnetrista, which is responsible to a population of 3,000, has 5 men which includes 1 chief. 6. Medina Police Department, population unknown, has 4 men, 1 of which is a chief, however, they do not have 24 hour coverage. Mound, which is responsible to a population of 10,000, with an 11 man department which includes 1 chief, 3 sergeants, and ? patrolmen, taking into consideration duties performed, I feel has a just organizational structure. I feel that under our present structure, as of now, we can efficiently operate and provide services to the city until the new city manager and chief of police is hired. Respectfully, "'~S~/~K. William M. Hudson, Acting Chief {~5~nd Police Dept. WH/sh 2110-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota February 3, 1981 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 81-24 SUBJECT: Maple Plain Sewage The Metro Council or Metro Waste Commission has made three recom- mendations on what to do with Maple Plain's sewage as soon as their treatment plant is removed. Presently the effluent is going into Painter's Creek and then into Lake Minnetonka. D. Trippler, a former Mound resident is on the Metro Task Force considering this and has asked what Mound's position is on the way this is handled. The three are: 1. Most expensive - A full gravity main through Orono. e Next most expensive - A main carrying the effluent to the Minne- trista interceptor on # 110 at Painter's Creek, thence to Mound pumping station. 3. Least expensive ~ A force main taking the effluent into Orono. Orono opposes 1 and 3 above. Mr. Trippler wishes to know what the Mound Council's opinion is regarding the three alternates. 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota February 3, 1981 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 81-25 SUBJECT: Police Chief Selection To date (2/3/81), twelve applications for the Police Chief position have been received. The Council asked for a time table for selection, but made no determina- tion on whether the present manager or the new manager should make the selection. Therefore two time tables appear below: Present Manager Making Selection 1. Acceptance of resumes close March 1. 2. March 1 to March 6 - Make selection of those to be interviewed. 3. Manager choose oral interview panel and establishes interviews of several candidates on 21st or 28th of March. 4. In the week following conduct physiological tests of leading two or three candidates. 5. Have leading candidates take physical examination. 6. Make selection - April. If New Manager Makes Selection Steps 1 and 2 would be the same. Step 3 would be completed except the new manager would establish date for oral review board. Selection could be made within 4 to 6 weeks after the new manager is on board. 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota February 4, 1981 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 81-26 SUBJECT: Assessments on School Property The 1980 Street Construction will bring street assessments on many School properties. Attached is a letter from the Engineer explaining what will happen if the storm sewer assessment is followed in the case of the School (the old school downtown). CONSULTING ~NGINE£RS I LAND SURVEYORS O S~TE ?LANN R5 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 3anuary 30, 1981 Mr. Leonard Kopp City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota Subject: City of Mound School Street Assessments 3o0 #5248 Dear Mr. Kopp: The School District has asked for the pending street assessments on their property. The school district was assessed $103,536 for storm sewer on the Old High School property in 1974. The street assessment policy provides that past storm sewer assessments be deducted from the street assessment. If this policy is applied to the Old High School Rroperty, the 1980 street assessment would be $21,689. If the storm sewer costs are deleted from the project and only the street costs are assessed with no credit for past storm sewer assessments, the assessment for the Old High School Rroperty including the arena site would be $68,414. I would recommend that the Council look at this before we submit a pending assessment to the School District. Yours very truly, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. Lyl'e Swanson, P.E. LS:jl Minneapolis - Hutchinson - Alexandria - Granite Falls printed on recycled paper 3.t7 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota February 5, 1981 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 81-27 SUBJECT: Tax Forfeit Land Policy Attached is a first draft of proposed legislation and a proposed County resolution. I have been on a committee discussing this since the County wanted to change the policy last summer. This proposal policy is close to what we are doing now and I feel it will work out. If the Council has any suggestions, they will be appreciated. IBIT i ¥... TAX FORFEITED LAND PROPOSED LEGISLATION Amend Section 282.01 by adding a new subdivision to read: Subd. 7a Alternative sales procedure. Land which has limited utility and marketability because of inadequate size, irregular shape, unique location or other unique conditions may be exempted from the public auction sale provisions in this chapter. If the county auditor is of the opinion that another method of sale wil.1 encourage the approval of sale of these lands bS the municipality..gnd promote their return to private ownership, he maS sell by an alternate procedure pursuant to this subdivision, provided that all owners of land adjoining the parcel to be sold are given reasonable notice of sale and opportunity to purchase. Sales may be conducted by sealed bid or by other means as selected by the county auditor and may be restricted to adjoining landowners. In no event shall the land be sold for less than the appraised value. There may be conditions attached to the sale pursuant to section 282.03. This subdivision shall be liberally construed to encR.ura~e the sale and utilization of tax forfeited land, rid the land of nuisance and dangerous conditions, and correct zoning violations. Drafted by: Department of Property Taxation Hennepin County December 23, 1980 dRAFT RESOLUTION NO. The following resolution was offered by WHEREAS, numerous requests have been received for private sale or conveyance of tax forfeited land to municipalities and other governmental subdivisions of the State, and WHEREAS, no established written policy exists on this matter, BE IT RESOLVED, that it is the general policy of the Hennepin County Board to encourage the return of tax forfeited lands within the county to private ownership and the tax rolls, provided that governmental subdivisions are not discouraged from acquiring those lands which are suitable for conservation and recreational purposes or direct public use such as streets and roads. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that tax forfeited land will be conveyed to governmental subdivisions without monetary consideration if: 1. The land is to be used for parks, wetlands, trailways, open space, streets, roads, rights of way and public access, or 2. The land is valued at the receipt of application at $1,000 or less per parcel at current values, or an equivalent value as indexed at ten percent per annum hereafter, regardless of public use or purpose, and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that except as otherwise provided in this resolution, tax forfeited land will not be conveyed to governmental sub- divisions unless the current appraised value is paid, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that an application shall be required to request private sale or conveyance without payment, and the application shall be accompanied by a resolution of the governing body specifying the public purpose or intended public use for which the tax forfeited land is being acquired. An application will not be considered unless received at least ten days prior to the first publication of the notice of public sale of the subject property, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the acquisition of tax forfeited land for resale by a governmental subdivision (except Housing and Redevelopment Authorities and other governmental subdivisions of the state expressly authorized by law to resell, lease or transfer property) shall not be deemed to be a public purpose per se. Private sale will not be authorized unless it can be clearly shown that resale is for a public purpose, and xAFT Resolution No. (continued) DRAFT BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the purchase price at private sale may be paid over a three-year period commencing on date of sale if the governmental subdivision has budget or levy limitations that do not permit cash purchase. Interest shall be payable at the rate prescribed by law for sales to the pubic of similar property, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that municipalities are urged to judiciously exercise their legitimate rights of disapproval of sale and classification of tax forfeited land in the context of this resolution, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 282.03 this Board will impose reasonable conditions on sales to the public to limit the use of the parcels sold and to limit amount of public expenditures that may be made for the benefit of the parcels when such action will encourage municipal approval of sale, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board supports legislation that would permit counties to sell certain unique tax forfeited land by means other than public auction to avoid abuses that have occurred in the past, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that an application to repurchase shall be given preference by the County Board over a pending application for transfer or for private sale filed by a municipality for the same property, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that on a showing of unusual circumstances and hardship the Board of Commissioners may, by specific resolution, approve a variance to these provisions. GWP:jmg 12/23/80 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota February 5, 1981 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 81-28 SUBJECT: M.SoA. - Bonds Ernie Clark has revised the bond schedule for the M.S.A. bonds to reflect the bids on Tuxedo and Three Points Boulevards as well as the cost of County Road # 110. A revised schedule is attached. Ernie will be in attendance at the February 24th meeting. -Leonard L. Kopp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota February 5, 1981 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 81-29 SUBJECT: Parking by Old High School Attached is a proposed resolution drafted for the School Board's consideration. Probably this will be the basis of discussion at the Monday evening's meeting. d L. KoPP PROPOSED RESOLUTION I~{EREAS, Independent School District.~277 has sold to I.Testonka- 0rono Sports Center Association, Inc., a parcel of land in the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Town- ship 117, Range 24, Hennepin County, ~-~innesota, on which said Associatioa is erecting a sports arena, and ~.KqER~AS, the size of said parcel is insufficient to provide parking for the public, and ~HEP, EAS, the School District owns and maintains a parking lot im~nediately adjoining the arena which is expected to accomodate the arena parking because the arena will mainly require parking at. times when said parking lot ~ould otherwise be underutilized, and I,K-iE?,EAS, future use of the present school buildings may put addi- tional demands upon parking facilities in the neighborhood, and I~EREA$, the school owns a playground area ir~ediately to the west which, due to soil conditions, is better suited for future parking than for future building purposes, NOW ~{EP~FOP~, be it hereby resolved by the School Board of Independent School District ~277 that it communicate with the City of l~und as follows: 1. It is recognized that a parking problem will likely develop in the future. 2. That it pledges the cooperation of the School District to the City of I~iound in alleviating future parking problems created by the existence of the sports arena and the school, facilities. 3. ~at it will not for the next four (4) years place improve- ments upon said playground that will be valuable enough to be a deterent to the dedication of its use for future parking. 4. That while it does not foresee a time when the football field or the baseball field ~ould be available for parking, it does believe that it will be feasible in the future to reconstruct the softball fields at other city or school district o~.~ed sites ~hich would make available approximately three (3) acres for potential future parking. 5. That it is possible that the kindergarten will be moved to some other location in the future thus releasing an addi- tional 6/10ths of an acre for potential future parking in the area presently being used for a kindergarten playground. DRAFTED FOR SCHOOL BOARD BY: Roger Reed & Don Brandenburg 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota February 6, 1981 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 81-30 SUBJECT: Cab Service The Town Taxi has discontinued its licenses with Mound since the new cab started running in Mound. The Mound cab operates from 6 A.M. until midnight. There is a woman on Dutch Lake that needs a ride to the bus depot at 5:30-5:45 each morning. The Mound cab tried to help her, but found it too difficult to operate the changed hours with only one passenger. A driver from the Town Taxi lives in Mound and starts to work .in Wayzata in time to pick up the lady on Dutch Lake. However, he doesn't want to invest in a license for one passenger. The Mound cab made the arrangements with Town Taxi and is in favor of them picking up this lady. Under the circumstances we have just ignored the lack of a license by Town Taxi. If there is no objection, we shall so continue. Leonard L. Kopp February 3, 1981 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: The City Council Mayor Lindlan Committee Assignments of the present City Manager Presently the City Manager holds Council appointments to the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) The Cable T.V. Committee, and as a City employee is on a committee for the A.M.M., The League of Cities and is a member of the Board of Directors of the Suburban Public Health Nursing Service (SPHNS). If, after retirement, the Manager has some sort of City title, he could continue most and maybe all of these assignments. It is suggested he be given some sort of City title so his experience will be of use to the City on these committees and boards. Presently I am the representative to the Suburban Rate Authority and the Manage~ the alternate. The Manager has been elected to the Execu- tive Board of the SRA for 1981. It is suggested that the Manager be made the representative and the Mayor, the alternate to SRA. Leighton Lindlan Mayor LL/ms ATTORNEY AT LAW 1503 WASHINGTON AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55454 612/340-9323 3 February 1981 Mary Marske Mound Village Office 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Professional services performed by Timothy L. Piepkorn for the City of Mound for the month of January 1981: 1. January 12th: Prepared Formal Complaint 2. January 13th: 3 pre-trials; 2 court trials 3. January 20th: Conference with witness; calls to witnesses 4. January 22nd: 5. January 26th: made calls 6. January 27th: court trials 7. January 29th: Prepared 6 formal complaints Reviewed files; wrote letters; 7 pre-trial conferences; 3 Prepared 3 Formal Complaints Hours 1.50 3.00 2.50 4.25 2.50 6.50 3.25 23.50 Total Owing (15 hours at $300, 8.50 hours at $30/hour) $555.00 ATTORNEY AT LAW 1503 WASHINGTON AVENUE SOUTH MINNE:APOI_IS, MINNESOTA 55,45,4 612/340-9323 3 February 1981 Mary Marske Mound Village Office 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Professional services performed by Timothy L. Piepkorn for the City of Mound for the month of December 1980: 1. December 2nd: 1 court trial 2. December 4th: .3. December 6th: citizen 4. December 9th: 5. December 16th: court trial 6. December 22nd: 7. December 30th: 6 pre-trial conferences; Prepared 1 Formal Complaint Meeting at Mound office with Jury Trial 8 Pre-trial confe~ces; 1 8 letters to witnesses Prepared 5 Formal Complaints Hours 4.0 1.25 1.O 1.75 6.0 2.25 5,OO 21.25 Total Owing (15 hours at $300 6.25 hours at $30/hour) $4~7.50 CITY OF ~OUND Mound, M~nn~sots Month of Janu~r_Z_1981 Monthly Activ{ty Report of Street Deu~rtment & Shop ........ T~is ' Lsst ' This Yes-~-- To Date ,, Work Units Month ,. Month to Date L~I ~no .. ~,~o. .~ /~ '~ ' / . . .... 3/~ CITY OF ROUND ' A MOUND, ~',INNESOT ~ONTH OF~ Monthly Activity Report of Weter Department This Last This Year L~st Year m Nork Units .... Ronth ,, Month to Date _ t_~~__ m ! Surb Box CITY OF ?,DOND MOUND, NINNESOTA PPge "' ?.Ionth of Monthly Activity Report of %~ater Department - This Last This Year Last Year Work Units Month Month to Date to Date o. Times Checked Pum~ #! ~ 20 2'a ~ 'I [o. Times Checked ~mo ¢2 - [o. Times Checked t ~.,~' I / ". /I ..... CITY OF Mound, M{nnesota Month of Monthly Activity Report Sewer Depsrtmcnt This Last This year Last Y~ Work Units Month Month %o Da%¢ %o Da{ .dmi ni stretion #600 ' I · 'l , I I ,I MO~H OF ~ CITY OF MOUND MOUND, ~,5~N~OTA MONTHLY ACTIVITY KEPORT OF LIQUOR DEPARTKENT SALES MOUND OFF S~LE: THIS MONTH LAST MONTH 77, THIS ~AR L~ST YEAR Co~psrison of Monthly S~les MI>~TES OF MOUND ADVISORY PARK CO~DiISSION MEETING January 8, 1931 Present: Hal Larson, Jon Lynott, Toni Case, Douglas Anderson, Cathy Bailey. Citizens present: Lorraine Jackson and her daughter Beth. Meeting was called to order by Chairman Larson. Minutes of December llth meeting were presented, Jon mentioned that on the Recreational Committee Report the date was suppose to be 1-22-81 instead of 1-27-80. Also in regards to the warming house will be at the new site of the ice arena. First Item on agends was election of Chairman. Jon monimated Hal. Seconded by Toni, Douglas called for the question, Unanimously approved. Vice Chairman - Hml nominated Cathy Bailey, Bal stating Cathy has been on the board for a long time, Toni closed nominations, seconded by Douglas. Unanimously approved. Cathy will also be in charge of calender. Committee Chairmen and members were tabled as Park Commission is four members short, asked that Mayor and Council give the Park Commission some assistance on this. Two suggestions were made for new members: Ben Withart and Bob Flaten. Toni Case is continuing her term. City Mmnager's Report: ..Mr. Kopp left a message about Rager's Pit Stop Pub wanting to put up a business dock. Due to no dock inspector and City manager not being present it was tabled until the Febuary 12th meeting, for lack of information. It is requested that the dock inspector be present for the Febuary 12th meeting. Park Director's Report: Not present. Council Representative's Report: not present. Hal questioned the vacating of the unnamed street from Denbigh to Stratford, Resolution 80-441 in City Council minutes of December 2, 1980. The Park Commission "STRONGLY" recommends to the City Council that they deny the vacation for reasons given: 1. Whereas the Long Range Park Plan is nearing completion. Whereas all accesses are of great value to all the citizens of Mound particularly the residents of Avalon Addition, who would lose the use of Stratford Lane as a commons. 3. k~ereas this would set a bad precedence for future vacations. Cathy made motion, seconded by Toni, Cathy called for the question. Unanimously - approved. The next meetin~ will be a discussion meeting scheduled for January 22, 1931 it will deal with the Recreational Co~itte of Ueston~ Community Services. Lorraine Jackson mentioned that her daughter Beth would be'interested in joining the Park Commission in August of 19Sl. Cathy asked about getting grant for downtown beautification. Jon asked why no skating rinks at Island Park Playground. Hal explained that due to not much snow, which is needed for banking the rinks, Chris hasn't been able to get one started. Motion made by Cathy, seconded by Jon to adjorn until the next scheduled meeting. jcn January 29, 1981 Leonard L. Kopp, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 300 Metro Square Building Saint Paul, Minnesota §$101 Telephone 612/291- 6359 RE: Review of City of Mound Comprehensive Plan Received on January 7, 1981 Metropolitan Council District No. 16 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8562-2 Dear Mr. Kopp: The Metropolitan Council received from the City notice that the Comprehensive Plan for the City has been submitted for review under provisions of MS 473.858. The Council has made preliminary examination of this plan and finds that the pre-review procedural requirements of the Planning Act appear to have been met. With this finding that these require- ments are met, the Chairman has ordered that the review of the _ plan be commenced by the Council. A copy of that order is enclosed which commences the review as of January 23, 1981. A determination of the adequacy of this plan for review purposes has not been made at this time. This determination will be made in accord with provisions in the Local Plan Review Procedure, and if inadequacy is found, the City may request the review provided in Section 2.6 of the Procedure. If the Council finds that the plan submitted is inadequate, notice will be given to you within 30 days from the commencement of this review. Sincerely, · /'~ John Rutford ~/ Referral Coordinator JR:vv Enclosure cc: James Daly, Metropolitan Council District 16 An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County O Carver County O Dakota County 0 Hennepin County 0 Ramsey County 0 Scott County 0 Washington County METROPOLI TAN COUNCIL ORDER FOR COM~ENCRMENT OF LOCAL COMDRR~RN~IVR DLAN RRVIEW CITY OF MOUND PURSUANT TO METROPOLITAN LAND PLANNING ACT METROPOLITAN COUNCIL REFERRAL FILE NO. 8562-2 Having determined that: The City of Mound has submitted a comprehensive plan program for its jurisdiction to the Metropolitan Council, and J The governing body has requested that the Metropolitan Council review the comprehensive plan pursuant to authority contained in Minn. Stat. 473.858, and e The submission received from the satisfies the requirements for commencement of review set forth in the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, Minn. Stat. 473.175 and 473.858 and the Council's Review Procedure. It is hereby ordered that the Metropolitan Council's review of the City of Mound Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, Stat. 473.175 and 473.851 through 473.872 be commenced on January 23, 1981. Said review shall be conducted in accord with the provisions of the above referenced statute and the Metropolitan Council's Review Procedure. Charles R. Weaver, Chairman Metropolitan Council ~MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DIS~CT L.M.C.D, MEETING SCHEDULE February.., 1981 Wednesday Saturday Thursday Saturday Wednesday Saturday Monday Wednesday 2- 4-81 2- 7-81 2-12-81 2-14-81 2-18-81 2-21-81 2-23-81 2-25-81 Public Hearings: Quiet Water Requests 7:30 p.m., Spring Park City Hall (4349 Warren Ave.) West Point/Big Island Harrisons Bay Point Coffee Cove (Bridge to Fagerness Point) Seahorse Lagoon Harrisons Bay (East of City Beach) Special Meeting: Water Structures & Environment Committee 7:30 a.m., Park Bench Eatery, Spring Park LMCD Lake Lovers Ball 6:30 p.m., Lord Fletchers of the Lake Executive Committee 7:30 a.m., Park.Bench Emtery, Spring Park Public Hearings 8 p.m., Spring Park City Hall (4349 Warren Ave.) Lakeview Restaurant New Dock License Martin & Son Boat Rental New Dock License Sailors World New Dock License & Variance Shorewood Yacht Club New Dock License & Variance Windward Marine, Inc. New Dock License & Variance Water Str~ctures & Environment Committee 7:30 a.m., Harts Cafe, Wayzata Lake Use Committee 4:30 p.m., LMCD Office, Wayzata Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors 8 p.m., Tonka Bay Village Hall 4901Ma'nitou Road (County Road 19) 2-2-81 Independent School District No. 277 WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 5600 tynwood Boulevard Mound, Minnesota 55364 SCHOOL BOARD MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 12, 1981 (To be approved 2-9-81) ATTENDANCE/ LOCATION COMMENTS MINUTES APPROVED FINANCIAL REPORTS PERSONNEL ACTION ESEA, TITLE IV CONTINUED At 8:09 p.m. the meeting was called to order in the lecture hall of the Westonka Community Center Building. Present were School Board Members Fred Bame, Patricia Chelberg, William Goblirsch, Robert Howells, Gary Mayer, Phyllis O'Malley, and Peggy Tuttle; Superintendent Dale Fisher; and representatives of the staff, community, and press. The student liaison was absent. Chairman Mayer greeted the audience, encouraged board members to attend the Minnesota Assn. of School Business Officials' seminar, and invited comments from the audience. No one asked to address the school board, and members commenced with the regular agenda items. School Board Clerk Patricia Chelberg moved that the school board approve as presented the minutes of the regular school board meeting of December 8, 1980. Howells seconded the motion which was approved unanimously by roll call vote--all members were in attendance. O'Malley seconded the motion by Chelberg that the school board approve as presented the current financial documents and Treasurer's Report indicating present balances,°i~cluding bills paid after the last board meeting; and approve the payment of current bills and claims and routine transfer of funds for budget maintenance.* No members were absent, and all responded aye to the roll call vote, to approve the motion unanimously. Tuttle and Goblirsch tied in seconding the motion by Chelberg that the school board approve the personnel transactions recom- mended by the superintendent on this date.* Roll call vote: Aye - Bame, Chelberg, Goblirsch, Howells, Mayer, O'Malley, and Tuttle; Nay - None; Absent - None. Motion adopted unanimously. Howells seconded the motion by Chelberg that the school board declare its intention of developing projects to expand and improve the educational programs by various means which con- tribute to meeting educational needs of the district, and authorize the superintendent to execute and file application for and in behalf of the school district, and otherwise to act as its authorized representative in state and federally funded programs (ESEA Title IV). Discussion continued until 8:28 p.m. when the motion was adopted unanimously by roll call vote; no members absent. School Bo~ Minutes - 2 - Jan. 12, 1981 MEDIA DEPT. PRESENTATION Lavonne Swenson, spokesperson for the district media department~ introduced the representatives from each division, who gave an enriching and revealing report of the comprehensive services now provided through their offices. Discussion included listing of improvements desired, preparation for movinq to the revised organizational structure in 1981-82, procedures for textbook selection, and efforts to stretch the shrinking library dollars. Members asked numerous questions and thanked the representatives for apprizing the board about their department. ITEM DEFERRED The agenda item on regional financial information (Item 6) was deferred for discussion at the study session (Monday, January RECESS 26, 1981). The meeting recessed for about 15 minutes at 9:06 p.m. 1981-82 BUDGET ALLOCATIONS Assistant Superintendents Erwin Stevenson and Donald Brandenburg utilized an overhead projector to display the tentative budgetary allocations for 1981-82 licensed and non-licensed personnel, including comparisons with the prior year and implications for the future. CHEMICAL HEALTH POLICIES Bame seconded the motion by Chelberg that the s. chool board adopt Policy 5140-2~on "Chemical Health Promotion and Chemical Abuse Prevention" and confirm previous policies for a triad of official district policies on chemical health issues as follows: 5140-1 5140-2 4160-1 Student Assistance Program Chemical Health Promotion and Chemical Abuse Prevention Employee Assistance Program. During the discussion O'Malley moved that the school board waive the usual practice of the second and third readin§~ of policies to enable adoption before the February deadline to receive aid for inservice training. Turtle seconded the motion which was approved unanimously by roll call vote; all members were present. Review continued, with input frem Chemical Dependency Coordinator Charles Peterson. At 10:13 p.m. a roll call vote was taken, as follows: Aye - Bame, Chelberg, Goblirsch, Howells, Mayer, O'Malley, and Tuttle; Nay - None; Absent - None. Motion adopted unanimously. STUDENT DISCIPLINE REVIEWED Board members and administrators reviewed the updated bus rider discipline regulations and procedures with disruptive students in the classroom. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM At 10:32 p.m. the superintendent presented the affirmative action policy and program requested by the.school board in the preceding meeting. No action was taken. (The chairman will send the docu- ments to the school board contract negotiator.) Members asked for clarification of a number of information items in the agenda. By unanimous consent the meeting adjourned at 11:01 p.m. Gary K. Mayer School Board Chairm.an Patricia C. Chelberg School Board Clerk * Complete documentation will be include in the permanent minute ~fices ~ h~rle$ I~. Riesenben~ ober~ $. Ch~Ise~,AICP February 2, 1981 Leonard Kopp City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Leonard: Please accept this letter as notice to the City of Mound of my firm's reorganization. All new work performed by me here- after will be with my reorganized firm of PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. In the reorganization, Gunnar has moved back to Northfield. At our Minneapolis office, a consistency in staff and professional services is maintained. Respectfully submitted: Charles E. Riesenber9 CER/ks Sexton Building Suite 535 529 South Seventh Street = Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 · 612-332-4166 Planning and Development Services Inc. CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota 2-10-81 January 29, 1981 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 81-22 SUBJECT: Manager and Police Chief Selection Attached are copies of ads for the above positions. 1. Ads to appear in the League of Cities magazine. 2. Ad that appeared in the Minneapolis Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press. 3. Ad that appeared in the International City Management Newsletter. To this time, we have received 10 Police Chief applications and four City Manager applications. The I.C.M.A. Newsletter came out on January 26, 1981 and the first four applications were received on January 29, 1981. CITY MANAGER, Plan B City. Population 9200. Salary open. 4 persons holding position since 1949. 5 member Council. $2.7 Million Budget. MA degree or equivalent preferred with 3-5 years progressive municipal government experience. Send resume to City Manager, P.O. Box 348, Mound, Minnesota. POLICE CHIEF The City of Mound, Minnesota is seekin§ applicants for position of Police Chief. 11 Man Force - 1 Community Service Officer. Popu- lation 9200. Applicants must have extensive law enforcement experience. College preferred, but applicants with extensive law enforcement experi- ence and demonstrated supervisory ability and administrative ability will receive equal consideration. Submit resume no later than March 1, 1981 to: City Manager, City of Mound, P.O. Box 438, Mound, Minnesota 55364. ~-Minn~apolls Tribune t ~ln., Jan. 18, 1981 PI~CIST ' fllmc~J to wurk 4 fln~e~ weekly terild. Excelenl salary and LaCe)ua Luthm'en HO~MIM ' bum Av L.~.rMae Wi Fdlflrnt EaUn~lm Drug, ~M~ Ful time Ix)slIM aveilalNe, 3-11 - e,-a,-o.,w,~, w,. -.. s.~ '. ~7 M~. ~ ~ K- I roundly, multi hlndicl~ped W ~ ~IM MM~. ~ experience. C~ticl ~ "~ ~ ~ Homew~d~c ~A .~ M ~ n~ e~. ~Av.N. ~. T~ ~ ire ~ PLANNER H " (TRANSPORTATION} ProfessloMI piannlne I~slllon In ~he sPecJ~ erel o~/ranspe~a- IKe~ as Trm, u~MIon Mengge- ~enl, Intorovt~M~ L ~n~yL nMo eW~K:~ W/2 M yeir~ In Tren~purlaflon Plln- /ting, er · Masler~ Mgrge In $1uWes or RMated nam & lyf M Pllnn~ng/Re14erch. Exc. ~o.bY Jnf~ CoM1 House, 51S Ro(:~eillc, Mn SS90! (.f07) 1333 EQ. O~x)rlunUy EmMoym' ASSOCIATE PI. ANNER: FIMd Manner Io ~ with c~,mlles & F dtJe~ Requfres BS or BA In Manning & 3 Yrs axgeeleflce Or eqLdvnlerd. Local I~annlng parlance Prnfarrad. S1S,g73. S4J4~nlt resume tw Jiin. 23, Io: Wes1 C4~tral Wise. RegJ(xtal Planning Comnds3Jo~ 124-1/2 Grnh4m Avenue~Eau CJaire WI s470~i Pl~ner.~' ~power Experienced person, Should have · minimum M 1-2 ye-,rs It 1~45t T Y~iir ext)er~e~c~ with Mlnpowiir/CETA Progriims. Profw_ges',~n with IraMing, ax- e, lance end capabilitY In rMaf- M:I public Manning nree~ Salary range $ t 4,000-nj t7,000 ~l~no bac~,gn)und nnd axl)e~'- ~ resume ID Execu- five Director, 7-We~l RegloM! Devela~mnat Commission, 2700---15t $~reet Nurth, SL Cloud. /VLN 5~301. Position closes Jenu- m'Y 31, $~t. An Equal O~-tu- nlty EmamYe'. EN6DEBUN61 UNTEN urltk~$ i~1 M'e'v~tlY~ r~ncL Engineering De;rea hosDilai exJ~'~elY31 highly de~r- s4tnrY ex~c~flom ind resume Io if~Noymem Mflc~ ur cliff Y32- ~1 fur ~ Inhx~athxi. &50Q Exce~dur Bird I:~ Box St..Loul~ P~rk~ MN 55426 Equal C)s~x~%,~ty En~toyeT PLASTICS ISm M3~rntlon of o(~r new in~:* pe'w~ we ~-k wi~ hive ii I year ~etu~ exl~rlence. c~ne m41nt~i4nc~ expes'Mnce al/~o helMul. We ~ · stirring wage & excellent be~e- fll/~ We ern n conmany cornmll~ ted th expanding our Inlectiae mak~ing eaerMlon. Tn flm:l ~ llx)u~ this position alii us. Meis~ give Kavln &~-G,ralh · m q Dewmc. I~1! Wafliice Road EQuil Opp. E mploye~ PLUMBER ~ - k) My of KU~ cern ~alJe~ lrNf- benefit pec~e. Far m~)nt- I ~l~l~tJ~M ~ C~mm~nHy SerYlci' Officer. &~lu~&~F~u~ I PoPulltlon 1241. Appllclnls Now h ~ ~ M ~ il ex{~ lw ~eM ex- Ex~ ~ ~ ~ ~y ~ sfi~ ~I~ C~ · . INTEDCIKUIIS Progressive printed cir- cuit manufacturer ha9 opezdng for i~Y/~r~ on 1~ s~fL ~en~ p~ fe~ We o~er a 4 w~ ~ ~nefi~ ~d top ~py. Apply ~ ~mn ~ Printed Circuits, Inc., 1~ W~ ~ Bl~n~ " .PEINTINGP E . ... 0P ATOR ' He e gGTO (ulfldor Perfecfor Run rM abo~e ~'ess M'Mt- munlcMlo~s. ~ Rinulremenrs M' iqutvalenl ~ work exa~'Jem:~ 3-5 yelrs pre~s m)Mlflae exPerMm:~ with · ml~ of I ~ oPerat- Ing ~ HekMeix~ GTO phases of negeth~ sh'We~ng & re'ess plain m'el~rMkm. geeing lind dles~ e(~nes, generators and CO.rOI SYS- lenu. C~n~en~llon S~Jlry cornn~mutMe wilh L.]bM'nl benefit Joyce D. Fuller ],t00 ?3rd AY. NE Mp]s. IVY. 55~32 PRU~u~G BINDERY .: .h0ducfi0nC0ntTd E·ra $1L~00 ~ INs faU OrOW- CMIIrM US Jag I m~ system Fei Pd. Tm Gladltsch 33S-I131 ELLS I1~ Plymouth Bldg S5402 T-2 · to$20,OOO~feeDcl? ' . g. JperYl~e eisemb4ers '1~ Snu'th ~ nxpM' ~ Jot) s J4. Rog Iii c'rl-2'L37. M~STERSON PERSONNEL PROC)UCTION PLANNER Fur pro~lJve,. NOb qu~l~Y 11111o lrldl sho~. GraMS: .arl~ exper ur education nec. For ~'omM cxmsldeeiit',no can Dave P;ODUCTION C( i0L CLEK ~or entry MYM pet*-,on to PrOCe~ land entur 0el~i'~T)enfaJ Mil. I OffiCe experie~e~ data ~ ur CRT desJrlab4e. Exc~q company I~nefl~ Clll Par~)nnM 371-041! PRODUCTION - with n~c2~w-y, re)ply ~-3 ~ Jarn~ C]rc, 81oon~lngfon P 0 /JU J. YST $26,(X)0 N~ec~ PTOgrammer wlrn large IBM curn~ter In Twin City nra&, Know CO6OL Earn s2k~0/y~ + profit share +. fee Pd. Cl~ conflde~flM IM' them aTn_~Mher EDP M)ening$. Jo4M Tom Glad~f~c~ 335-1131 ,~ ou~ ed under Cm'nputer~ ContTM Deta CYbe~elrch Ram~Y Courtly Execuflw O~- reclur for coordir4tJ(xI & poW:y & r,r~gram ~an~lng & meal I$ IheY rl~iitl I0 C~mIMI Jt~t~ & Con'aclmn3. h3 2 ~ a,Jv~:ed m~neg~lll pr~411 urg,enizafion ur Futurn Incrno~es ~ no cM34n~e per/urm~m:e avek~- flea./~xlrnum ~aJarv-of '"feb'- , ph~m 2~2-L1A1 ur-2~-4115 ur whim, NL Woodrlch, Rem-.ey C(mnfY ExeCutive Dir~:foc'$ flc~, Su,e 31g,, Courf Hour. Equal (~. Em4Moym' M/F IOSL .O. . ' Miff. 4 '(TS IBM gAL, Prell1 DJ- ; fiction, Codin~ OesWn etc. Cia# ; Cuurnornla ~,4~rch, Fe~ P~ 141~, F~le BIs.,oM'4e, M6-,I~G PROGR~M~.R OPPORTUNITY, ht'~h growth dlvlll~ firm. 3 Io 5 yr$ exp. · 14L O~/VS], CoOol, CIC$. Con- Mar~al: SJ NE, ,~pl$ MN SS413. 612) 3~9-~t0 Prn r, mm .r/. $19,3;I to t24,9'J4. This VOlvll: designing proorlmk ~x ~/~ ~1~ exi~ ~rlms ~1~ ~t~: ~ ~. K~ M I~& JCLA~ C~r~ E. ~ ~ ~a~n SL. ~dl~ ~L A~II~ A~ Programmer O~r Dim ~oce~.~Ao mt~t I~ currently see~ing ~ea. ~w~d Ed ~ ~x 4~ · ~ Pa~, ~ $51~ -' PROGRAMM[R Repul~lc AJrflng~ curre~tty h~ on opPan;ng lot In IXP~'MncI~ COBOL prngren~mer. 1-3 Years of TSO, i/v~S ur SlTUCh~ed cod- lng It preferred. RePubhc offers excMle~d lng 5.a~,ary nnd ~Iandl~ fits IflcluC;the medical/denial/ health/viXen Im.urance tlrerngm pl~n end ma~v Interastecl and mJMl~ed cJndl- diitl'~ ~hauld tmn(:l lett~* of Intr~- duC~Q~ ur re-~Jn~ I~. · . UBUCAfl NB 754)0 Alrllr~ Drlv~ JWflnenpo4~$, MN PROGRANV~ER ~-3 Yiiars expM'~')ce In flmlnc~M & marketing am:Mcatkx~.L Conven~rd N. w1~J'ban DALE TILE CO~RPANY 5~3-M31 ARar__~ Jehn~on Progriimmer$ Fee Positions in Management NEW VACANCIES RECOGNIZED MUNICIPALITIES Boonville, Ho. (7,000) - Sa1. $20-$25,000. CA; 5 persons holding pos. since 1970. $2 mil. budg.; 80 employ. Req. deg. in pub. adm. or rel. fld.; min. 3 yrs. prev. exp. des. Fu11- serv. city except elec. util. Resume & sa1. req. to Hayor Charles R. Persinger, 6th & Spring Streets, 65233. Concho Valley COG, San Angelo, Tex. (125,O00) - Sai. nego., $25-$35,000. Exec. dir.; I person holding pos. since 1968. Req. deg. in pub. adm. w/min. 5 yrs. prof. exp. in regl. cncl., 3 in supv./adm, pos. or MPA w/3 yrs. exp.; rel. deg. accept, w/appro. exp. Cncl. serves 13 ch. Admin. CETA, area- wide agcy. on aging, 208 water qual., crim. justice, A-95, alcholism.& tech. asst. Resume to James F. Ridge, 50002 Knickerbocker Road, 76901, by 2/18/81. Mark env. confidential. Grants Pass, Ore. (14,5381 - Sal. nego., pres. $36,228 + ben. pkg. CM; 7 persons holding pos. since 1946. Appt. by 8-mbr. cncl. elected at large on a nonpartisan basis for 4-yr. overlapping terms. $15.3 mil. budg.; 137 employ. Req. deg. in pub. adm. & CM or asst. exp. Resume incl. refs. to Mayor & Council, City of Grants Pass, lO1N.W. 'IA" Street, 97526, by 2/14/81. RC Green Tree, Pa. (5,700) - Sal. $21- $26,000 + ben. BM; 4 persons holding pos. since 1964. $1.5 mil. budg. Pref. MPA & min. 3-5 yrs. mun. exp. Resp. for admin., pub. wks., recrea., ping. & zoning. Residen. & maj. comer, dev. Resume attention of Mr. A. J. Prince, Manager Search Committee, !101 Green- lawn Drive, Pittsburgh, Pa., 15220, by 2/28/81. RC '-,.~ Hound, Minn. (9,248) - Sal. nego., pres."~~ $35,000. CM; 4 persons holding pos. since 1950. Appt. by 5-mbr. cncl. $2.8 mil. budg.; 41 employ. Des. MA or equiv, deg.; min. 3-5 yrs. prog. mun. mgr. exp. Resume to City; Manager, 5341Maywood Road, 55364, by 3/15/81.[ ~ South Central Ozark Regl. Ping. Comm., ~ West Plains, Mo. (IO0,4921 - Sai. $20-$23,000 + ben. Exec. dir.; 1 person holding pos. since 1967. 13 employ. Req. deg. in ping. or tel. fld.; MA pref.; exp. des. Resp. for budg., supv. & implem, progs. & serv. for 7-Ch. region Resume to City Administrator, City of Mountain Grove, P.O. Box 351, Mountain Grove, Mo., 65711, by 3/15/81. West Columbia, Texas (4,000+) - Sal. nego. dep. on qualif. & exp. CM. $1 mil. budg. ; general law city. Resume w/qualif., educ., pets. data & sal. req. to Mayor M. A. Brooks, P.O. Box 487, 77486, 713/345-3123. NONRECOGN I ZED MUNICIPALITIES **Branson, Mo. (3,000) - Sai. open. CA. Appt. by mayor & ~-mbr. cncl. elected on a nonpartisan basis for 2-yr. terms. $1.8 mil. budg.; 30-50 employ. Pref. deg. in pub. adm. & loc. govt. exp. Resume to Mayor Royce Helwig, i14 West Pacific, 65616. **Buckeye, Ariz. (3,500) - Sal. nego., $20-$25,000. TM. Appt. by 7-mbr. cncl. Des. deg. in pub. or bus. adm. or rel. fid.; pub. util. exp. des. Resume to Mayor John B. Hawley, P.O. Box 157, 85326. **Hopatcong, N.J. (15,6OO) - Sal. Iow to mid $2Os. BA; I person holding pos. since 1978. Appt. by mayor & 6-mbt. cncl. elected at large. $3.5 mil. budg.; 1OO employ. Pref. deg. & 4 yrs. exp. or MPA & 2 yrs. exp. Resume to Mayor Donald Martin, Municipal Building, River Styx Road, 07843. Mark env. confidential. **Kodiak Island, Alaska (12,3041 - Sal. dep. on exp. BM. Req. deg. in bus. or pub. adm.; min. 5 yrs. mun. govt. or rel. fld. exp.; knowl, of Alaska Statutes (Title 29) req. Resume to Clerk, P.O. Box 1246, 99615, by 2/27/81. **Mt. Sterling, Ky. (6,0001 - Sai. nego. CA. Des. deg. in pub. adm., poll. sci. or bus. mgr. + loc. govt. exp. Util. are not a resp. of pos. Contact mayor's office for complete job descrip. Resume to City Clerk, 40 Broadway, 40353, 606/498-3785. **Ocean Beach, N.Y. (5,000 seasonal) - Sal. nego., $25-$35,000, incl. hsng. CM. Appt. by 5-mbr. cnci. $1 mil. budg.; 12 employ. (30 summer). Des. water, sewer, pub. wks., budg., pub. adm. exp. Resume to Mayor Thomas J. Schwarz, 919 Third Avenue, 35th Floor, New York, N.Y., 10022. **Telluride, Colo. (1,O431 - Sal. nego., commens, w/exp. & bkgrd., pres. $25,500. TM; i person holding pos. since 1978. Appt. by 7-mbr. cncl. Home rule mun. Req. strg. budg. & risc. bkgrd. & prey. mgrl. exp. pref. Resp. for supv. day-to-day oper. Ski area. Resume to Mayor, Town Hall, Box 397, 81435, by 2/2/81. PREVIOUSLY LISTED VACANCIES Arizona: ~lagstaff (35,OOO) 1/12/81. California: Baldwin Park (50,538) 1/12/81; Fremont (131,4861 1/12/81; Imperial Beach (22,OOO-~/15/80; La Palma (16,O0---~0~ i/12/81; Lomita (20,29411/12--i~7~-i; Pacifica C 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, M~nnesota January 30, 1981 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 81-23 SUBJECT: Passenger Cars & Pickups One Councilman has requested a report on the number of passenger vehicles owned by the City. Attached is a list of cars the Police have. Building Inspector has a car. In addition, the The Public Works Department has: Street Department - 3/4 ton pickup and a 4 wheel 3/4 ton Water Department - 2 step vans Sewer Department - 1 Vega wagon plus a pickup Parks Department - 1/2 ton pickup and a 1 ton truck O: ROM: ,UBJECT: I )TEROFFICE MEI Leonard Kopp - City Manager Sgt. William Hudson - Acting Chief of Police Department Vehicles DATE The department has, at this time, the following vehicles: 4 - 1980 Chevrolet marked police cars 1 - 1978 Concord unmarked (investigator) I - 1977 ½ ton truck (animal warden vehicle) 1 - 1955 3/4 ton civil defense/rescue/reserve 'truck 1 - 1978 Chevrolet (Reserve marked vehicle..used by police r.~eserve o~) 2 - 1978 Concords unmarked (to be sold per 1981 budget) One of the current marked vehicles is to be designated as chief's vehicle. "t~. W~illiam Huds~ tound Poi ice Department leasue of minnesoCs oities January 23, 1981 TO: Mayors, Managers and Clerks FROM: Donald Slater, Executive Director RE: League Building Progress Report The 1980 League Convention meeting in Duluth unanimously directed that the League proceed to build'its own headquarters building in St. Paul. Since then, Minnesota cities have been considering the question of how to finance the construction of a permanent home for the League. The League Board of Directors, after reviewing the responses from cities throughout the state, concluded that there was a broad base of financial support for construction of the proposed project and voted unanimously to proceed with the project. In considering the financing plan for the League construction project, the Board made several adjustments. These changes were necessitated by virtue of the fact that the cost of borrowing money -- interest rates -- have gone up considerably after the initial calculation of the project costs and also because of a more defined construction package. The Board accepted the commitments of cities who selected the single payment option -- one-time, lump sum payment -- the five and ten year payment schedules as well. Twenty year payment schedules, however, will not be possible. At the time of the regional building financing survey, the proposed financing plan contemplated a 20-year payment option. Further refinement of the overall costs of the project, but particularly re- calculation of the projected interest costs from the regionally anticipated 8 3/4% to a more realistic level of over 10%, made it financially impossible to offer the 20-year payment option. The Board of Directors concluded that those who had selected the 20-year option desired to pay over the longest time available and, therefore, moved those cities to the ten year option. Those cities who did not respond to the financing survey, will be treated as paying over the ten year period as well. Given the present design, bid, and construction schedule, invoices will be mailed to each member city in February for their share of the project. The first payment will be due July 1, 1981. Recapping the Board's decisions: 1. As a result of the member city's unanimous approval at the June convention, the League has been proceeding with the building project and construction will begin early during 1981 for occupancy in early 1982. 2. Cities who committed themselves to one-time paymen~t~ five-year payment, and ten,year payment will be billed on that~----~ lf\~ , '_ (OVER.). ,:~._~"' 300 hanover building, 480 oedar street, saint paul, minnesota 55101 (812) 222-2861 MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DIST~T REGULAR MEETING TONKA BAY VILLAGE HALL December 10, 1980 The regular meeting of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District was called to order by Chairman Paurus at 8 p.m. on Wednesday, December 10, 1980 at the Tonka Bay Village Hall. CALL TO ORDER Members present: Richard Garwood (Deephaven), Jerry Johnson (Excelsior), Robert Brown* (Greenwood), David Nixon (Laketown Township), Robert Pillsbury** (Minnetonka), David Boies (Minnetonka Beach), Norman Paurus (Orono), Robert Naegele (Shorewood), Frank Hunt* (Spring Park), Ed Bauman* (Tonka Bay), Richard Soderberg (Victoria), and Robert Slocum (Woodland). Communities represented: Twelve (12). *Arrived late as noted. **Left early. ATTENDANCE Johnson Moved, Garwood Seconded that the minutes of the October 22, 1980 meeting be approved. Motion, Ayes (9), Nays (0). MINUTES Boies Moved, Johnson Seconded that the Treasurer's Report be approved. Motion, Ayes (9), Nays (0). Garwood Moved, Boies Seconded that the bills be paid. Motion, Ayes (9), Nays (0). TREASURER'S REPORT LAKE USE COMMITTEE: Pillsbury reported that Ed Monteleone appeared at the committee meeting for the Hennepin County Public Works Department to review its Lake improvement program for 1981, 1982, and 1983. Monteleone reported that if costs continue to rise it may necessitate some delay in this program, e.g., the 1981 Coffee Channel maintenance may need to be delayed until 1982. He also suggested that any rocks causing boat damage should be brought to the attention of the Water Patrol for marking or removal. COUNTY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM ROCK REMOVAL The'county-i-s considering'a-proposal-which would provide-a~fourth-criteria for determining county participation in channel maintenance. Under this proposal 15 additional channels would be considered for at least partial maintenance - six are known to fit the proposed criteria (including Manitou, Crabapple, and Wayzata). The District will be advised of any modification of the county policy affecting these channels. The committee reviewed and accepted the District dredging policy report. The committee reviewed the ~ecommendation of the Watershed District on the tree cutting model ordinance and requested that the ordinance be amended to COUNTY' ' CHANNEL MAINTENANCE POLICY LMCD DREDGING POLICY TREE include these recommendations for review of the committee at its next meeting. ORDINANCE The committee reviewed and set a public hearing on February 4, 1981 at the Spring Park City Hall for the following Quiet Water requests: by Betty Prince for West Point/Big Island; by Fred Bethke for Harrisons Bay Point; by petitioners for extension of Coffee Cove Quiet Waters; by Seahorse manager for its lagoon; and from Bud Skoglund for the south shore of Harrisons Bay. QoWo REQUESTS The Quiet Water policy review and the Grays Bay Slow buoy review were combined for continued study and for development of criteria for Slow buoy placement. LMCD Board Minutes December 10, 1980 Page 2 The District was advised by the Public Works Department that responsibility for buoy placement will be put under the Sheriff's office effective 1-1-81 under new state legislation; the budget now provided by the Public Works Department may be transferred to the Sheriff. BUOY PLACEMENT Pillsbury reported that the committee accepted the report of the recent survey which was conducted to determine the possibility of establishing at least one pumpout station on the main Upper Lake. A1 & Alma's and Howard's Point Marina have tentative plans to provide such a service for 1981. PUMPOUT SURVEY The committee reviewed the proposed Code amendment requested by the Water Patrol dealing with winter vehicle impoundment, and recommended the first reading. It was read. Modifications were made to incorporate Sec. 4.60(c) of the LMCD Code (impounding disabled watercraft or operators) and to include unattendance between one-half hour after official sunset and sunrise. CODE AMENDb~NTS: Nixon Moved, Johnson Seconded to accept the first reading of the winter vehicle impoundment proposed Code amendment, as amended. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0) (Bauman having arrived). WINTER VEHICLE IMPOUNDMENT The committee reviewed the Code amendment providing for noise testing at LMCD testing stations, and recommended the first reading. It was read. Nixon Moved, Pillsbury Seconded to accept the first reading. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0). NOISE TESTING STATION Pillsbury reported that further committee discussion centered around the best method to establish a working station for noise testing that would be effec- tively available when needed. The original safety testing station (established earlier by the District) was to be operated on a voluntary basis under an agreement-~etween-the-Water-Patrol"~nd~-the Coast Guard--An0xiti~ry-and-M±nnetonka- Power Squadron, but this facility has not been utilized to date. Alternatives considered to the noise testing station included the possibility of the Water Patrol operating the station at Spring Park, or that the LMCD establish a station operated by its inspector. The discussion of other questions (con- cerning the determination of whether the proposal is discretionary, whether it should be tied to a decibel rating, the consideration of add-on signs at accesses, and the setting up of a measured mile) was continued. At the committee meeting the Water Patrol distributed the September 30 activity report which indicates that patrol activity is up considerably during 1980; at the Board meeting Sgt. Peterson gave a comparison with previous years. Lt. Eidem of the Water Patrol was introduced to the Board. W.P. REPORT The committee reviewed special event permit applications for broomball courts at Mai Tai and at Lord Fletchers, and recommended approvals. Bauman Moved, Johnson Seconded (1) that the Mai Tai request for a broomball court north of its dockage for the 1980-81 winter season be approved; and (2) that the renewal of Lord Fletchers of the Lake's broomball court (pro- viding for two extra courts if needed in the Lord Fletchers lagoon) for the 1980-81 winter season be approved. Motion, Ayes (11), Nays (0) (Hunt having arrived). SP. EVENT PERMITS: MAI TAI & LORD LMCD Board Minutes December 10, 1980 Page 3 The committee reviewed the special event permit application of Bob Krig, Lions Club member in charge of the Excelsior Lions' annual fishing contest scheduled for Sunday, January 18, 1981. The committee had recommended the permit to the Board for approval - it considered requiring a $1,000 cleanup bond because of the heavy debris in the area reported in past years. After the committee meeting a letter by KrUg was ]received indicating that Lions Club members have cleaned up and replaced ice chunks after previous ice fishing contests, that the Lions initiated the Boy Scout Cleanup program in the south shore area and maintained it for many years, and that any serious litter problems have been caused by other activities on the Bay. Bauman Moved, Nixon Seconded that the special event permit application by the Excelsior Lions Club for an ice fishing contest Sunday, January 18, 1981 be approved with the following stipulations: (1) that inspection be required before and immediately after the event, and (2) if cleanup isn't effective or adequate, a cleanup bond may be required next year. Motion, Ayes (11), Nays (0). Pillsbury reported that the Mai Tai Restaurant indicates that after last year's litter problem of plastic containers collecting on the bottom of the Lake, and the resulting request of the District concerning testing the use of floatable drink containers, the restaurant has switched to using white styrofoam goblets this past season. Apparently this has eliminated the problem - along with providing extra disposal containers, and regular policing, the use of styrofoam seems to be very successful. Bauman Moved, Johnson Seconded that the committee report be accepted. Motion, AYes (11), Nays (0). DESIGNATIONS:--~Hunt Move~, Nixon Seconded that'the LMCU~fficial'depository for 1981 be designated as the Wayzata Bank and Trust Company, reaffirming Resolutions 32 and 33; that Mr. Boies has disclosed his interest with this bank, and that there are no objections to such a designation. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0), Abstains (1), Boies abstaining. Pillsbury Moved, Johnson Seconded that the LMCD official newspaper for 1981 be designated as the Sun Newspaper, and that publications be submitted to The Laker, The Maverick and the Minnetonka Sailor for information purposes. Motion, Ayes (11), Nays (0). ALTERNATES: The Board reviewed the request by the City of Shorewood that a provision be made for member municipalities to appoint an alternate director with voting privileges in the absence of the appointed director, and that said alternate be an elected official. Nixon Moved, Brown Seconded that a "proxy" (alternate) vote be unacceptable. Motion, Ayes (8), Nays (4), Boies, Garwood, Hunt and Naegele voting Nay (Brown having arrived). SP. EVENT PERMIT: LIONS CLUB ICE FISHING LITTER DESIGNATION~ DEPOSITORY NEWSPAPER BOARD ALTERNATES LMCD Board Minutes December 10, 1980 Page 4 WATER STRUCTURES & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE: Brown reported that the committee reviewed deicing permit applications and recommended approval; the District received several more applications between the committee meeting and the Board meeting. Brown Moved, Bauman Seconded that the following deicing permit applications be approved subject to (1) that no permit be issued until the installation passes inspection, (2) that the reflectorized sign notice be included with the permit, (3) that each permit stipulate that all deicing must be contained within the dock use area, and (4) that'ten-day notices be given to abutting neighbors: Advance Machine Co. Sheldon V. Brooks Dennis Carlson Clay Cliffe Curly's Minnetonka Marina William J. Duma Gayle's Marina Corp. Howards Point Marina, Inc. Dennis Johnson George R. Johnson Minnetonka Boat Works (Wayzata) Minnetonka Boat Works (Orono) Minnetonka Yacht Club Roy J. Moravec North Star Marina, Inc. Virgil Osmonson Steven Pauly Rockvam Boat Yards, Inc. Surfside, Inc. Dave Taylor Tonka Bay Marina Tonka Corporation Rodney Wallace City of Wayzata Wayzata Yacht Club Windward Marine, Inc. James I. Wyer Motion, AYes (12), Nays (0). Brown reported that the committee reviewed a list of dock license renewal applications and recommended most of them to the Board for approval upon receipt of the village certificate. The committee also set a public hearing for January 14, 1981 at the Excelsior City Hall for two 1980 dock licenses (Greenwood Marina, and an amendment for Mai Tai which might now be considered a new application for 1981), for two 1981 new dock license matters (Dennis Boats and Excelsior Bay Associates for the former Pivec property), and for Michael Arvidson's DUA variance rehearing. The committee reviewed the boat license and owners list for boats to be stored at the Warner multiple dock in Minnetonka Beach. Frank Warner appeared at the committee meeting advising the committee that he stores different antique boats at different times during the summer, rotating storage between his dockage at this location, at his storehouse in Tonka Bay, and at the shop in Bloomington. He currently has listed 25 antique boats which may be stored at the dockage during 1980 or 1981. He has also allowed a neighbor regular storage at the docks for a number of years, and this past season has allowed temporary storage to his son's friend for a disabled boat. Even though the facility was not fully utilized during 1980 due to weather conditions, he expects to use all 11 slips in 1981. DEICING PERMITS DOCK LICENSES LMCD Board Minutes December 10, 1980 Page 5 The committee discussed inspection reports during 1980 which indicate that at least two boats were stored for non owners, that the use of at least one slip was undetermined, and that three other slips remained vacant. Since the village has been concerned about the commercialization of this facility for a number of years, the District should consider providing space for four antique boats for Frank Warner, and a space for each of the two other involved property owners (i.e., his mother, Mrs. K. B. Yerk, and his brother, H. David Warner). The provision of six slips in this location would meet the LMCD 1/50' standard. The committee recommended that the 1980 multiple dock license application of Warner, Yerk and Warner, with the submitted usage list, be approved for six slips. Brown Moved, Hunt Seconded, that the application be held; after dis- cussion Brown withdrew his Motion, Hunt his Second. Paurus Moved, Bauman Seconded that the Warner application be tabled until the next Board meeting to permit additional review by Frank Warner. Motion, Ayes (9), Nays (3), Brown, Johnson, and Nixon voting Nay. Brown reported that the committee reviewed the Hartmann variance application with the applicant, his attorney, and the attorne~ for the neighbor. Hart- mann had requested a modification to provide a 20- eastward adjustment of the lot line with his neighbor, Pluhm (to provide for a change in Hartmann's dockage and a new slip for storage of a sailboat) rather than the 10° variance previously recommended by the committee. After discussion the committee recommended the 10° variance, as before. Brown Moved, Garwood Seconded to accept the committee recommendation of 10° on the Hartmann variance matter, and that the Order be prepared. Motion, Ayes (12), Nays (0). The committee reviewed the legal and chronological reports on the questions as to whether or not the District Code provides for the grandfathering of commercial docks as they exist in the 100' to 200' area, or provides for the grandfathering of the commercial DUA between 100' and 200'; Code amendments to clarify the situation were also reviewed. The committee accepted the analyses showing that the intent of the District was to grandfather existing commercial docks in the 100' to 200' area only, and not the DUA to 200', and forwarded the reports to the Board. Brown Moved, Paurus Seconded to (1) accept the analyses, and (2) to further identify that the grandfathering of commercial docks applies to length and not to DUA. Motion, Ayes (11), Nays (1), Naegele voting Nay. The reading of the Code amendment clarifying that aspect of the Code was read. Bauman Moved, Hunt Seconded (1) to accept the first reading of the proposed ordinance clarifying the intent of the Board on grandfathering existing com- mercial docks in the 100' to 200' area only, and not the DUA to 200'; and (2) to remove the Howards Point Marina application from the table. Motion, Ayes (11), Nays (1), Naegele foting Nay. WARNER 1980 DOCK LICENSE HARTMANN VARIANCE COMMERCIAL GRANDFATHER CLARIF & CODE AMEND~DZNT LMCD Board Minutes December 10, 1980 Page 6 Discussion continued regarding the implications of the above Code clarifi- cation on the 1981 multiple dock license application by Howards Point Marina for expansion beyond the 100' area. Further consideration of the expansion applied for would require length and setback variances under the LMCD Code. LMCD attorney expressed that even tho there should be a fairness to an ap- plicant who has worked with the City of Shorewood for nearly two years to meet the requirements imposed by that City, there must also be a fairness to the public and to the LMCD Code. Brown Moved, Hunt Seconded, that a public hearing be called if the Howards Point Marina applies for a variance, and that any further variance fee be waived. Motion, Ayes (11), Nays (1), Naegele voting Nay. Bauman Moved, Johnson Seconded that the committee minutes be accepted. Motion, Ayes (12), Nays (0). OTHER BUSINESS: Slocum Moved, Johnson Seconded, that special contributions receive emphases during the 1981 Save the Lake fund campaign. Motion, Ayes (12), Nays (0). Johnson Moved, Pillsbury Seconded that the LMCD annual dinner be held Feb- ruary 12 at Lord Fletchers of the Lake as the Lake Lovers Ball. Motion, Ayes (12), Nays (0). The Lutheran Brotherhood safety film, Water - the Timeless Compound, has been reserved for the LMCD meeting in February. Councils from the member munici- palities will be invited; this may necessitate holding our February meeting at a larger hall. Johnson will give a review of the water conference when the summary is ready. The Surface Use Management study being prepared by the Coast Guard will use the LMCD as its model for a review of boat-related safety activities. ADJOURNMENT: Paurus Moved, Brown Seconded at 10:55 p.m. that the meeting be adjourned. Motion, Ayes (11), Nays (0). HOWARDS PT .MARINA VARIANCE SL CONTRI- BUTIONS DINNER ADJOURNED Submitted by: Jerry Johnson, Secretary Approved by: Norman W. Paurus, Chairman CURTIS A. PEARSON THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD ,JOHN W, WOOD. ~Jl~. LAW 'OFFICES WURST. CARROLL & PEARSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 January 29, 1981 TELEPHONE Mr. J. Gregory Murphy George M. Hansen Company 175 South Plaza Building Wayzata Boulevard at Highway 100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 Re: Mound Audit Dear Mr. Murphy: Len Kopp of the City of Mound advises me that your firm has been employed by the City of Mound to conduct an audit for the year 1980. By letter dated January 5, 1981, you have requested certain information from me as City Attorney regarding pending or contemplated litigation in which the City of Mound is involved or represented in any way. I want to preface my remarks and my report by stating that during the year a number of people threatened litigation against the City, but most of these threats do not turn into reality. I also want it understood that a number of lawsuits and claims for damages are handled by the City's insurance company and the litigation in those cases is conducted by insurance company lawyers rather than the city attorney. I do not envision out-of-pocket losses to the City as a result of that type of litigation because the City carries sufficient insurance coverage to protect us in the event of an adverse verdict. I will review for you litigation currently being handled by me and this office as of December 31, 1980. The cases and their summary are as follows: 1. Thomas v. City of Mound and City of Mound v. Thomas. This case is now in arbitration. We have had four days of trial and this will resume on February 10. The amounts in dispute are roughly $75,000 to $100,000 since there has been a partial settlement during the past year. Any award to the contractor should be covered by retainage being held by the City and I do not anticipate any general fund responsibility for the case. WURST, CARROLL & PEARSON Page 2 Mr. J. Gregory Murphy January 29, 1981 2. Robert Udell v. City of Mound. This consists of a summons and complaint filed by the property owner. This was referred to in our letter to you under date of January 14, 1980. They have asked for damages in the sum of $20,000. The City has answered the complaint and will defend the lawsuit vigorously. There has been no substantial action during the past year. 3. Ellora A. Perron v. City of Mound. This is litigation com- menced against the City and numerous other defendants including the former City Attorney (prosecuting), a police officer and a citizen of Mound. This was reported to you on January 14, 1980. There has been no substantial change except that the Aetna Insurance Company has now filed a motion attempting to extract itself from the lawsuit. 4. McCarthy v. City of Mound. This is an appeal from special assessments levied against certain property in the City of Mound for watermain installation, the total assessment being $4,250.94. This was referred to in our letter of January 14, 1980, and we have had no contact from the plaintiff's attorney during the year. He still has the City's check but is unable to get any assistance from the plaintiff. We are continuing this case in a hold position and there is no extensive liability to the City. 5. Elm v. City of Mound. There are two cases, one of which alleges damages as a result of storm water and this is being defended by our insurance company. The second case relates to an alleged error in checking special assessments. This has been referred to our in- surance company and carries a maximum liability of $2,500 to $5,000. 6. There are several special assessment appeals from street work constructed in the City in 1978 and 1979. These are being handled in due course and sufficient funds would be in the bond fund to handle these matters. 7. Voorhees v. City of Mound. This is a case where the City was involved only because we have an alleged public road across a strip of property where there is no easement. The City is between two property owners and litigation exists between them concerning the roadway and the city's issuance of a permit. We are involved, but the potential liability appears to be rather minor. the ,2 7 WURST, CARROLL & PEARSON ' Page 3 Mr. J. Gregory Murphy January 29, 1981 In addition to the above specific claims, we have actions against parties for hazardous houses and we have numerous claims which have passed through our office during the past year. We also refer you back to our letter of January 14, 1980, as we have had no contact with any of the claims listed on the bottom of page 3 and on page 4 of that report. The following additional claims have come through our office in the year 1980. a. Reliance Insurance Companies v. City of Mound. This related to a demand on their part to obtain certain records from the police department. The City did not contest it and the matter is settled. b. Claim of Robin Swenson in the form of a letter under date of March 24, 1980, which serves as a notice of claim. c. Claim from attorneys representing R. J. Segner under date of April 23, 1980. I believe this is being litigated but it is being handled by our insurance company. d. Marie Amidon v. City of Mound. This is being handled by the Forum Insurance Company which is a subsidiary of Montgomery Ward which is representing the City. The claim was filed under date of January 30, 1980. vehicle. DuWayne Terlinden. This is a minor claim for an injured It has been referred to the insurance company. f. Vanecek v. City of Mound. This is an allegation filed in behalf of these claimants on September 9, 1980, by attorneys claiming personal injury by plaintiffs because of road defects. No litigation has been filed and if it is, it will be referred to the City's insurance company. g. Notice of claim by Michael Dahl Nelson, Marilyn Nelson, Francis Nelson and Allan W. Lamkin under date of September 30, 1980, relating to a school bus accident, wherein there is a claim that the City did not properly maintain a safe road. We have had no further information on that and if a claim is filed, i~ will be turned over to the road contractor and/or the City's insurance company. WURST. CARROLL & PEARSON Page 4 Mr. J. Gregory Murphy January 29, 1981 h. Miller v. Huesmann and City of Mound is a case which is in litigatio~ and our defense is being handled by the firm of Faegre & Benson who represent our insurance company. There has been some minor activity during the past year, but I do not know its status. i. Claim under date of October 6, 1980, by Dennis J. Orke resulting from a bicycle accident and alleging that Mound failed to prohibit the operation of bicycles on a pathway and as best I can tell from the claim, the person was a pedestrian who was struck by some other party riding a bicycle. We have received a notice of claim, and if litigation is con~nented, it will be referred to the City's insurance company. To the beSt of our knowledge, this is a complete and up-dated summary of our current claim situation. CAP:ih cc: Mr. Len Kopp, City Manager Ve~ trul~y~_, City Attorney 'CITY' All Citi~ HONTH DOmber, YEAR 1980 I. GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY THIS THIS YEAR LAST YEAR /~CTIVITY MONTH TO DATE TO DATE Hazardous Citations 85 3,360 - ' Haza rd cus Warnings 27 276 - Non-hazardous Citations 86 1,176 4,997 Non-hazardous Warnings 91 706 - Parking Citations 81 860 - DWI 12 167 82 Over .10 BAC 8 102 - ProperLy Damage Accidents 18 202 280 Personal Injury Accidents 3 70 68 Fatal Accidents 0 1 3 Adult Felony Arrests 3 116 214 Adult Misdemeanor Arrests 33 242 - Juvenile Felony Arrests 2 85 213 Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests 6 61 - " Part I Offenses 39 824 1,175 Part II Offenses 45 506 - Medicals 28 340 252 Animal Complaints 81 1,114 1,834 Other General Investigations 884 13,665 9,588 TOTAL !,532 23,873 18,706 -l- ,~,~.--, O combined with symbol of same type up thru April 1980 III. OFFENSE ACTIVIT' SUMMARY PART I CR~E$ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 O ~ O ~ Felonies ~omici~e Rape , , ~obber~ A s sault ~a rcen~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 2 Vehicle Theft A~son Misdemeanor · PART II CRIMES S.i_~_pi e Assault ~ & Counterfeiting Fraud Embezzlement Stolen Pro e rt_p~L~[- Vandalism Weapons Prostitution & Commercialized Vice Sex Offenses Narcotic drug laws Gambling Offenses against familK & children Driving under the influence Liquor Laws Public Peace Ail other offenses TOTAL 12 12 2 7 4 45 6 TOTAL PART I & PART II CRIMES II. PROPERTY LOSS/~COVERY SUMMARY All Cities Bikes Boats Clothing Currency, ITEM notes, etc. S TO LEN $ 100 571 200 RECOVERED $ 795 rewelry & precious metals Guns Home Furnishings Radio & Electronic equipment Vehicles & vehicle equipment viis cellaneous TOTAL 750 700 772 2,545 2,913 $9,551 149 5 59 $] ,oo8 City' All Ci Month Dece 19 80 CI TA TIONS Adult Suv. DWI or OUI 12 More than .10 % BAC 8 Careless Driving Reckless Driving Driving. After Susp. or Rev. 8 Open Bottle Speeding 67 No DL or Expired DL 10 Restriction on DL 1 Improper, Expired, or no plates Illegal Passing 47 Unsafe Passing Stop Sign violations Failure to Yield Illegal Equipment Unsafe Equipment 4 23 H & R Leaving the scene Illegal or imp[oper lane usage Illegal or unsafe turn Over the center line Ille,gal Parking 94 Ore rtime Pa rking Dog ordinances Derelict autos Miscellaneous tags , 8 TOTALS ! 290 6 3 WARNINGS Traffic Equipment Animals Trash Other TOTAL 40 2 89 4 1 6 I 7 CITY HONTH PORT ~ber YEAR 1980 I- GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY THIS THIS YEAR /~TIVITY MONTH TO DATE Hazardous Citations 43 2,043 Haza rd oJs Warnings 21 174 Non-hazardous Citations 61 587 Non-hazardous Warnings 61 426 Parking Citations 69 501 DWI 6 88 Over .10 BAC 4 52 Property Damage Accidents 10 96 Personal Injury Accidents 1 31 Fatal Accidents 0 0 Adult Felony Arrests 3 73 Adult Misdemeanor Arrests 14 134 Juvenile Felony Arrests 1 56 Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests 4 46 Part I Offenses 26 509 Part II Offenses 30 333 Medicais 14 207 Animal Complaints 58' 773 Other General Investigations 598 9,326 TOTAL 1,027 15,445 'J- ,-T;~,~,--, O combined with symbol of same type up thru April 1980 LAST YEAR TO DATE 3,010 51 138 3O 135 149 75O 168 1,310 6,050 il,792 III. OFFENSE ACTIVIT~UMMARY ~ PART I CRIMES ~ = ~0 u IO ~ ~ Felonies Misdemeanor Adult ~uv. Adult Juv. Homicide Rape Robbery , . A s sault Burglary Larceny ,,. 22 22 Veh{cle Theft ~rson , :PART II CRIMES S.impie Assauit 1 4 2- "5 Forgery & Counterfeiting F rand l Embezzlement Stolen ?roperty ,, Vandalism lO ] 9 Weapons ., , Prostitution ~ Commercialized Vice Sex Offenses Narcotic drug laws I 1 _. 1 I Gambling ......... Offenses against family, St children,. ., Driving under the influence 6 6 6 Liqu,or Laws ,. Public Peace 6 6 4 3 All other offenses 3 ,5. 2 TOTAL .31 TOTAL PART I & PART II CRIMES 57 I 56 7 3 I 14 4 , y Month November, 19 80 CI TA TION$ Adult Suv. DWI or OUI More than .10 % BAC Careless Driving Reckless Driving Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding No DL or Expired DL Restriction on DL Improper, Expired, Illegal Passing Unsafe Passing Stop Sign violations Failure to Yield or no plates Illegal E quipment Unsa£e Equipment H & R Leaving the scene Illegal or improper lane usage Illegal or unsafe turn Over the center line Illegal Parking Ove rtime Pa rking 1 32 1 1 ~ ordinances Derelict autos Miscellaneous .tags TOTALS WARNINGS Traffic E__q_u_[pme nt 62 Animals Trash Other TOTAL PUBLIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 348-3848 [B¢~,p~r 348-3163] FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 27, 1981 HENNEPIN A citizens' group charged with recommending solid waste- disposal and transfer-station sites will present a progress report on its work to city councils throughout Hennepin County during February. The group of 80 includes members of the general public and representatives of cities, environmental and public-interest groups, service organizations, and companies which represent all solid-waste interests in Hennepin County. The group hopes to meet with all city councils by the end of February. The purpose of the process is to select five candidate disposal sites in the county by June 1, as mandated by the state Waste Management Act of 1980. Four of the sites are to be for municipal solid waste and the fifth is to be for construction and demolition debris. If the county fails to choose the potential sites, selection will be made by the Metropolitan Council. One million tons of solid waste are generated each year in Hennepin County, and nearly all of the waste is buried in landfills. According to projections, existing landfills in the Twin Cities metropolitan area will be filled by 1987, and space in Hennepin County's two remaining sites will be exhausted by 1985. - more - ~77 site-selection process/2 Hennepin County is studying resource-recovery technologies for solid waste and expects to adopt a resource-recovery plan this spring. However, even with the most efficient recovery system, there still would be a need for landfills. Representatives of the siting group will tell city councils about the site-selection process being used by the county and present the group's first report, which includes siting parameters and criteria. The parameters are designed to exclude certain locations from the search area. (Example: A landfill, excluding buffer zone, shall not be less than 1,000 feet from a stream.) The criteria, including technical aspects, socio-cultural factors, cost, efficiency/energy use, operational aspects, and future use, are factors to Re applied to evaluate and.rank sites within the search area. The group has assigned numerical weightings to the criteria, establishing the relative importance of each. Hennepin County hired Brauer and Associates, of Eden Prairie, to develop the citizen-participation process. The county also hired a technical consultant, Henningson, Durham.& Richardson, of Minneapolis, to apply the group's findings to identify and rank potential sites. The group will select the five landfill sites required by state law in April and recommend them to the County Board. The group also will select transfer station/processing/recovery sites since they are integral parts of any future system. - 30 - Li MINNETONKA CONSERVATION ICT AGENDA Regular Meeting, 8 p.m., Wednesday, January 28, 1981 TONKA BAY VILLAGE HALL 4901 Manitou Road (County Road 19), Tonka Bay 0 Call to Order Roll Call Minutes: December 10, 1980 Treasurer's Report A. Monthly Financial Report B. Bills Committee Reports A. Water Structures & Environment Committee (1) Public Hearing Reports: a) Walden b) Excelsior Bay Associates c) Howards Point Marina d) Mai Tai (2) 1980-81 Deicing Permits (3) 1981 Dock License Renewals (4) 1981DMA Permits (5) New Dock Licenses for Public Hearings (6) Variances for Public Hearings (7) 1980 Dock License Review: Warner (8) DUA: 4-Boat Allotment Review (9) Other B. Lake Use Committee (1) Special Event Permits: Advance Machine Skating Rink (2) Tree Cutting Model Ordinance (3) Q.W. Policy Review (4) Q.W. Buoy Placement Criteria (5) Noise Testing Station (6) Noise Add-On Signs (7) Measured Mile (8) 1981 County Lake Maintenance Program (9) Water Patrol Report (10) Other Code Amendments A. Winter Vehicle Removal (2nd reading) B. Noise Testing Station (2nd reading) C. Commercial DUA Clarification (2nd reading) Other Business A. Upper Watershed Project B. Combined Interest-Checking Account C. Other 8. Adjournment 1-23-81 2-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota January 22, 1981 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 81-19 SUBJECT: Special Assessment Policies Attached is a copy of the criteria the City Council uses in applying special assessments to property for street construction. These policies have been developed by the Council over several years wherein they have tried to apply some equal principles when charging property owners benefits for special assessments on street construc- tion. -leOnard L. Kopp ' In 1976 the City adopted a street improvement assessment policy under Resolutaion No. 76-77. The assessment criteria is as follows: 30 percent of the total cost to be assessed based on front footage. Corner lots shall be calculated to include all front footage (front and sides). All lots shall be deemed to have at least a minimum of 40 front feet. be 30 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be based on tn. square footage of the property to be assessed. 40 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be based on a unit basis. Since 1976 the City Council has added the following refinements to this policy. Triangle Lots - lots that form a triangle on two streets are to be assessed for footage on the long side only. Nultiple units other than duplexes are assessed on the basis of 3/4 unit per each residential unit in the building (Example: a 50 unit apartment is assessed for 37.5 units plus footage plus area). City of Mound August 19, 1980 Page Three 0 e 10. 11. 12. Lots that front on a County Road and a street improvement will be assessed on the same basis as other lots except that the units and square footage wiii be reduced by 50 percent. Area of land formerly commons and now under private ownership, to be assessed as part of the private property. Large parcels (a number of combined lots) to be assessed one unit, plus area and footage. Two separate parcels under the same ownership will be assessed 2 units, plus area and footage if they both have enough area to qualify as buildable sites under the present zoning. 'Single lots under separate ownership from adjacent property that do not meet the area requirements for a buildable site will be assessed only area and footage. Properties abutting alleys that are bituminous surface only, with no curb and gutter, to be assessed the same as any other property except the front footage will be reduced by 50% with a minimum of 40 lineal feet. Properties which have the garage located across the street from the house will be assessed on tn, same basis as other lots except the parcel in which the garage is located will not receive a unit charge. Lots that front on a street to be improved and which previously paid a full assessment on another street improvement project will be assessed for the footage only with no minimum. Parcels which do not abut a street improvement project but received benefits from the construction will be assessed for the project. Lots that are adjacent to a 12' wide bituminous street installed for city purposes which front on another street in the project will not be assessed for footage on the side street. Triangular lots that are combined with a rectangular lot are to be assessed for footage on the long side of the triangular lot plus the footage of the remaining lot or lots. City of Mound August 19, 1980 Page Four 13. Duplexes are to be assessed on the basis of 2 units plus area and footage, with a minimum on the footage of 80 feet. 14. Lots that have streets on three sides are to be assessed for footage on the long side anO the average length of the other two sides. 15. The cost of driveway entrances over 12 feet wlde are assessed directly to the property owner. 16. Commercial or industrial property get 1-1/2 units. 17. Credit is given for past storm sewer assessments except that when credits exceed the assessment no assessment will be levied and no assessment paid. 18. There is a maximum of 250 feet and 25,000 square feet per residential parcel. 19. Storm sewers are assessed as part of the street improvement and these assessments are included in the unit, square footage and frontage charges. CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota January 23, 1981 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 8]-20 SUBJECT: S.R.A. Visit to Metro Sewer Plant On Thursday, January 29th, the Suburban Rate Authority is going to make an inspection of the Pig's Eye Sewer Plant. ~' I intend to go on this tour. If some Councilmembers would like to attend, they are welcome to go with me. The attached letter tells about the tour and, since I am driving, you can ride with me if you wish. Call either Marge or myself early next week if you wish to go. Leonard L. Kopp ' ~ ' TO: SPA MEMBERS SUBSECT: SEWER RATE STUDY COMMITTEE DATE: Jan. 21, 1981 Members and other municipal officials and staff members are invited to take an inspection tour of the Pigs Eye Metro Sewage Treatment Plant on Thursday, January 29th. There will be a short outline of the processes; financing and other interesting features in the Administration Building at 1:00 p.m. A tour of the plant will start at about 2:00 p.m. Purpose of this tour is to acquaint mmmbers and other interested persons with the improvements now under construction and with the various treatment processes used. One meeting of the corm~ttee has been held at which discussion took place on methods 'for accomplishing the purpose of studying sewage rates. Several con- ferences have been held by the chairman with other professionals familiar with the operation and financing problems. A general plan of action is suggested: Purpose: Investigate possible meanS for reducing the cost of sewage disposal and treatment through the MNCC as reflected in their billings to municipalities. Possible Methods: A. Employ a rate study firm to completely analyze operations and financing of capital expenditures. B. Organize a committee of municipal officials and employees familiar with various operations, who would contribute expertise in own field. C. Some combination of A & B. Possible Subjects for Study by Committee: A. Operating efficiency--utilization of manpower, administrative, technical, maintenance operations. Bm Wage rates--comparisonwith municipal pay scales--use of professional negotiator's advice, municipal managers' expertise. (M~CC payrolls have increased from $11.7 MM to $17.3 MM in two years.) Financing costs--bonding schedules--preparation of a financial statement and balance sheet for M~CC to show status of funds, use of funds, sources of income and allocation to operation or construction or debt Service; reliance on future federal and state grants. D. Treatment standards--possible relaxation to allow less stringent effluent requirements. E. Status of storm-sanitary sewer separation program, need for additional separation, effect of federal and state standards on program. F. Future construction program, prediction of reserve requirements, possibility of "taking a rest" for a few years. G. Rate comparisons with other similar districts, where available. H. (Other) CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota January 22, 1981 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 81-21 SUBJECT: Open Meeting Law The Attorney has furnished us with copies of the Attorney General's opinion on open meeting. Attached are copies of the Attorney General's Opinion of October 28, 1974. ~Leonard L. Kopp · .' 'c. ~ 4~.! '/05 (.]~73 :,].,)., ~..[ ..~.~ ],r,~..~: ' ,, ,: .... " Offi J.a] r0:,:,t:[nc~ a]~(l c.ven if by law even zf J.~ J.~ net: Jnf .... ~ ., ~; ~; . ~l)joc~ dj. scubas;ed doe:-~ not m)p(:a~, at th,.-: ~ '~' to call {o).' f~'~'~'] ..... ,~- ~"of ~: .... '"'""~" .... council I-~:;,~ ~-cview ac~ dincu:;~; appS_icatio:'~?. =~ule meeting where: (].) ~ ' '~r~: for city positions. (2) City m:-ma~/c~r pre:,cnt.~: backUround infu:,-m- at:ion on rauntcJ!)al ~aa:tt,-:r~ an~ l:~ul~:b:~'F 'c::.:c}:ar~l~ views oil ,. l.,o~,,,)c.;., qath~!r ~oc:Lsl]y ~l: ---~'~au~-ai'~t o:c hcm:~ and at {3) ..... ' --~ . diucuss municipal maliic:~- ~uch. a.~: whet;liar council should place mor¢: e,.~ph~...ts on the develo:):.~ant o~. park and ccz'eation fac . I.._l,,goz s discus' (~) ~-' -.. ., wheti~er cer~:a:L~% ztoi':~3 should be pl~,~.r~ on of future council mectin{l. October 28, 1974 63-a-5 (Cr.Ref. 125a-14 471-e, ].61a-16(b)) Clayton L. LeFevere, Esq. Richfield City Attorney 1100 First National Bank Building Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Dear Mr. LeFevere: In your letter to Attorney General Warren Spannaus, you request advice with respect to Minn. Stat. § 471.705 (1971), as amended by Minn. Laws 1973, ch. 680. That statute, commonly called the "open meeting law," provides in part that: Except as othe~vise expressly provided by statute, all meetings, including executive sessions, of . . . the governing body of any school district however organ- ized, unorganized territory, county, city, village, town, borough, or other public body, and of any committee, sub- committee, board, department or commission thereof, shall be open to the public. You state that a number of questions have arisen concerning the extent to which city council members may consult with one another outside of a formal council meeting without transgressing the open Clayton L. LeFevere, - 2 October 28, 1974 meeting law. You present different factual situations involving gatherings of city council members and, with respect to each, ask substantially the following QUESTION Does each of the following described situations constitute a "meeting" which is required to be open to the public by Minn. Stat. ~ 471.705 (1973 Supp.)? 1. A quorum of three or more members of the five-member council gather at a time established at the informal re- guest of the city manager, mayor or one or more council members. All council members are asked to attend but the public is not notified. The gathering does not purport to be and is not intended to be an official council meeting. It is held at the city hall in an office or conference room. It may be held in advance of a regular council meeting and, if held during the dinner hour, those in attendance have a lunch. The purpose of the gathering is'to review written applications from persons interested in appointment to the city's advisory boards and com_~issions. The agenda of the forthcoming council meeting includes the matter of appointments to such commissions. The council members discuss the contents of the applications and their re- action to the applicants but do not undertake to arrive at a consensus or to take formal action by vote. 2. The circumstances in which the gathering is held are the same as those described in the first paragraph of Sit- uatioo One, supra. The reason for the meeting, however, is to permit the city manager to give background inform- ation to'the members of the city council on certain aspects of the city government. Some of the topics will be on the agenda of a future council meeting. The other topics do not appear, at the time, to call for formal council action but could possibly call for. action in the future. The council me.~ers express ideas and opinions on the matters in question, but do not undertake to arrive at any con- sensus and do not take any action. It is understood that the same background information will be presented if the matter arises at a formal council meeting. Clayton L. LeFevere, ~. - 3 October 28, 1974 3. Three or more members of the council gather privately. The gathering is impromptu, or at the invitation of one of the council members, and all members are welcome to attend. It occurs at a public restaurant or at a council member's home. It is not intended to be for the purpose of discussing city business but is intended to be a social or other "non-city" occasion. Members of the general public have not been invited. The conversation at the gathering is, for the most part, social or othe~4ise unre- lated to city affairs. However, at some point, a conver- sation occurs on a city matter which may or may not arise at a future council meeting. For example, the. subject could be whether or not the council should consider placing greater emphasis on the development of park and recreation facilities in the following year. The council members discuss the matter but do not attempt to arrive at a con- sensus. 4. The circumstances in which the gathering is held are the same as in Situation One, Two or Three. The matter discussed, however, is whether certain items should be placed on the agenda of a future council meeting. 5. The circumstances in which the gathering is held are the same as in the above four situations, and the subject matters on which views are exchanged are the subject matters in those situations. However, only two of the five council members are present. OPINION Since its enactment in 1957, the open meeting law has been the subject of a series of interpretations by the courts and by this office. Because the law does not define the term "meeting," we have heretofore construed that term on a case-by-case basis. We will attempt in this opinion to provide guidelines applicable to a variety of situations. In construing the law, we must rely upon the law's express Clayton L. LeFevere, ~. - 4 October 28, 1974 language and the legislature's purposes in enacting it.1 Those pur- poses are threefold. First, the law is designed to assure the public's right to be informed of what business is being considered, by whom, to what extent that business is discussed, and the factors that form the basis for determinations which are ultimately made. See Channel 10, Inc. v. Ind. School Dist. No. 709, Minn. , , 215 N.W.2d 814, 821 (1974); Op. Atty. Gen. 161-A-16(b), Nov. 20, 1957. Second, the law recognizes that decisions are best reached after free and open discussion, debate and clash of opinion. Op. Atty. Gen. l~l-A-16(b), Nov. 20, 1957. Finally, the law is intended "to prohibit action being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to . . . detect improper influences." Lindahl v. Ind. School Dist. No. 306, 270 Minn. 164, 167, 133 N.W.2d 23, 26, (1965), The basic question presented here is whether the open meeting law encompasses the deliberations of public officials as well as their formal acts such as voting. Council members may deliberate on governmental business in different ways, such as by exchanging views among themselves or by receiving reports or statements of fact or 1We recognize that arguments can be made that some public busi- ness might be better conducted if an element of confidentiality is permitted For example, it is difficult not to sympathize with a council's desire for confidentiality when it wishes to inquire into 'a municipal employee's personal problems which may be affecting his job performance. It is also possible that the total elimination of confidentiality may cause greater delegation to non-elected employees and thereby result in greater concentration of decision-making auth- ority in those employees. Nonetheless, we have no authority to re- cognize exceptions not provided by statute. Clayton L. LeFevere, 5- - 5 October 28, 1974 opinion from consultants, administrators, employees or private citi- zens who appear at council sessions, tn Sacramento ~ewspa~.er Guild v. Sacramento County Rd. of Supervisors, 263 Cal. App. 2d 41, 69 Cal. Rptr. 480 (1968), the court, in discussing an open meeting law which was applicable to a public body's "deliberations" and "actions," stated: To "deliberate" is to examine, weigh and reflect upon the reasons for or against.~he choice .... Public choices are shaped by reasons of fact, reasons of policy or both. Any of the agency's functions may include or depend upon the ascertainment of facts .... Deliber- ation thus connotes not only collective discussion, but the collective acquisition and exchange of facts pre- liminary to the ultimate decision .... 263 Cal. App. 2d at 47-48, 69 Cal. Rptr. at 485. That court concluded: There is nothing in the [Open Meeting] Act to demarcate a narrower application than the range of governmental functions performed by the agency .... Recognition of deliberation and action as dual compo- nents of the collective decision-making process brings awareness that the meeting concept cannot be split off and confined to one component only, but rather compre- hends both and either. 263 C'al. ADp. 2d at 47, 69 Cal. Rptr. at 485. It is our opinion that the open meeting law must be interpreted as applying to deliberations as well as formal actions. It is clear that, as a re's'ult of a council's deliberation, it may make determin- ations rejecting some possible courses of action and selecting or refining others. The process of selection, rejection and refinement is the essence of municipal decision-raaking. Even if no formal action is taken on a matter and even if any determination is made later at a formal meeting, it is the deliberation which forms the foundation for the council's discharge of its duties. Clayton L. LeFevere, - 6 October 28, 1974 That deliberations are included within the coverage of the open meeting statute is also illustrated by the fact that the legis- lature has expressly made the law applicable to committees and sub- committees. It is generally the function of such bodies to delib- erate on certain matters and report to the Darent body since they generally do not have the power to take action. The inclusion of committees and subcommittees in the law indicates that the legisla- ture has determined that deliberations be open to the public. Further supDort for the conclusion that deliberations are subject to the open meeting law is found, in Channel 10, Inc. v. Ind. School Dist. No. 709, supra, wherein the court reviewed a number of situa- tions which the plaintiffs alleged were in violation of the open meet- ing law. Some of these situations involved deliberation but little or no action.2 The court concluded that none of those meetings should 2Those situations presented were as follows: (3) On February 10, 1970, a majority (six 6f nine) of the board members held informal discussions in a coffee room immediately before a previously announced meeting in the regular meeting room. Presumably they discussed the subject matter of the announced meeting, which was being held to consider the future employment of a human rights director. (4) An-unannounced gathering of eight out of the nine members of the board was held in June 1971 in the board chairman's home, at which time discus- sion and expression of views occurred on at least two topics of major interest--construction of walkway over a highway to a new high school and offering a new con- tract to the superintendent of schools--and an informal vote was taken on the latter topic. (5) On June 29, 1971, a majority met in the regular meeting room to discuss the highway overpass. (~) At 5:30 p.m. on Aug- ust 9, 1971, prior to the regularly scheduled meeting of Clayton L. LeFevere, ~.. - 7 October 28, 1974 have been closed, with the possible exception of a portion of one not relevant here. 215 N.W.2d at 828. See also Times Pub~ Co. v. Willfams, 222 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1969). Finally, if a gathering to deliberate rather than to take action were deemed not to be a "meeting," the public might be denied its right to know exactly what business is being considered and the reasons why particular determinations are made, and municipal issues might ultimatelv be resolved without free and open discussion, debate and clash of opinion. We also point out that the fact that a particular gathering does not purport to be and is not intended to be an official council meeting does not remove it from the requirements of the open meeting law3 and the fact that some of the subjects do not at the time of the gathering appear to require formal council action is of no con- sequence. We note, for example, that public officials often receive suggestions from many citizens on a variety of topics. It would be inconsistent with the purposes of the open meeting law if members of 2 (continued) August 10', 1971, the board held a session not announced to the public and discussed, among other things, rural busing, the closing of an elementary school, a special education program at a new high school, and the present lawsuit .... (9) On October 11, 1971 the board held a closed meeting, expressly barring the press. The chair- man stated after the meeting that its purpose was to discuss "personnel matters." 215 N.W.2d at 819-20. 3See footnote two and accompanying text. Clayton L. LeFevere, - 8 October 28, 1974 a public body could gather privately and discuss the merits of citi- zens' suggestions or their own proposals simply because the subjects do not appear to require formal council action in the immediate 4 future. Turning to the facts presented, in each of the first four situ- ations there is deliberation involving a quorum of the council on a matter within the council's official duties or powers5 and in none is there a combination of factors which in our opinion would even arguably remove the gathering from the mandate of the law.6 4We note, however, that it has been said that "a 'strict social get-together' at which there is no discussion or consideration of 'any matter proper to a public meeting'" is not the kind of gather- .ing which section 471.705 requires to be open to the public. See Channel 10, Inc. v. Ind. School Dist. No. 709, supra, 215 N.W.2d at ~ g~tnote ~ an---~ accompanying text. 5Such matters might be termed "municipal matters." We note that in Times Publishing Co. v. Williams, 222 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1969), the court said that a meeting is an asse~_~ublage of a public body at which any discussion, deliberation, decision or formal action is to' be had, made or taken "relating to, or within the scope of, the official duties or affairs of such body." Id. at 474. 6 It is possible, of course, that some type of gathering of a quorum would not be found to be violative of the law. For example, three members who are together may make a momentary, insubstantial comment or two'on a municipal matter, and it might be shown that the exchange had no effect on any subsequent deliberation or action of the council. In some cases, of course, it will be a somewhat diffi- cult judgment as to whether the comment constitutes a deliberation or has had any subsequent effect. While in some cases it might be found that the law was not violated, it would nevertheless seem risky for public officials to participate in this exchange or those in com- parable circumstances. We note that the court in City of Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1971) acknowledged that not all discussions between Clayton L. LeFever~sq. - 9 October 28, 1974 In the first situation members review and discuss applications for appointment to certain positions, in the second situation members receive statements or reports from the city manager and express opinions on'the matters, in the third situation members hold a dis- cussion on a city matter such as whether to place greater emphasis on the development of park and recreation facilities, and in the fourth situation members discuss whether certain items should be placed on the agenda. In the fifth situation, two members of a five member council deliberate on a matter within the council's official duties or powers. To consider a deliberation involving two members of the five member council as significantly different from deliberation of a quorum would be to establish an artificial distinction. For example, since a quorum can usually conduct business, less than a quorum could adopt or defeat certain proposals. Similarly, less than a quorum could defeat proposals which require a two-thirds vote of the council. In any event, the purposes of the law could be as effectively _ 6 (continued) public officials outside of a formal meeting are prohibited, but said that: The evil of closed door operation of government without permitting public scrutiny and participation is what the law seeks to prohibit. If a public offi- cial is unable to know whether by any convening of two or more officials he is violating the law, he should leave the meeting forthwith. Id. This seems to be a wise admonition. Clayton L. LeFevere, Esq. - 10 October 28, 1974 subverted by a gathering of two members as by a gathering of three, four or five of the members. For example, if two members privately deliberate on a municipal matter, the public might not have an oppor- tunity to know their reasons for favoring rejection, selection or refinement of a course of action, and decisions might ultimately be reached without free, full and open discussion. In City of Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1971), the court stated that "an informal conference or caucus of any two or more members permits crystallization of secret decisions to a point just short of ceremon- ial acceptance." While determining whether a gathering of less than a quorum constitutes a meeting is a more difficult question than that where 7 a quorum is involved, we are compelled to conclude that each of the gatherings between two of the five members as described constitutes a meeting. These gatherings, as many others where less than a -quorum of a public body meets, might well subvert the law's purposes just as effectively as a deliberation between a quorum or more, and 7A quorum of a public body may conduct a variety of official business pursuant to statutory or charter authority and, since the law applies to "all meetings" of the "governing body," a gathering of a quorum where municipal matters arise can readily be found to be a meeting of the governing body. Clayton L. LeFevere, Esq. - 11 October 28, 1974 there is no combination of factors which in our opinion would remove the gatherings from the mandate of the law. We trust that this opinion will provide guidance in applying the open meeting law to the many factual situations which arise. Very truly yours, WARREN SPAN~AUS -- Attorney General THO~AS G. MATTSO~ Assistant Attorney General WS :TGM:bw O~EN MEETING LAW: IICIPAL COUNCIL: Gather~ of municipal council where consu ~nts present.reports and~opinions on matters within council's official duties or powers, or where council members study and discuss such matters, constitutes a meeting which mu~t be open under Minn. ~tat. ~ 471.705 (1973 Supp.). Adequate and timely Dublic notice must be given of muni- cipal council meetings. Sullivan v. Credit River Township, Minn. , 217 N.W.2d 502 (1974). Where all council me~')ers are of same Dolitical party, a "political caucus" gathering of council men~ers to discuss municipal matters is a meeting which must be.open. October 28,.1974 Duane E. Woodworth, Esq. Dakota City Attorney 33 South Walnut La Crescent, Minnesota 55947 471-e (Cr. Ref. 63a-5, 125a-14, and 161a-16(b)) Dear Mr. Woodworth: In your letter to Attorney General Warren Spannaus, you present substantially the following FACTS Dakota, a statutory city, is in the process of developing a comprehensive plan for ~uiding the physical, social and economic development of the city as authorized by municipal planning statutes. The council therefore meets with various consultants who present their reports and opinions on specific topics and who are questioned by the council members. The council al. so has informal group sessions without the consultants present to study and discuss a variety of proposed ordinances, such as those rela%- inq to planning and zoning and the subdividing of land. These gatherings are held, as a matter of conven- ience, in the home of the mayor, who is a member of the council. No roll call is taken and no minutes are kept, votes cast, or decisions made. You then ask substantially the following QUESTIONS 1. Must advance notice be given to the public of the time and place of the gatherings described in the facts? a~I Aq poz~u60~oa KIssaadx~ e~ s~e~ as~q~ ~o Xu~ qBnoq~I~I · UaD 'A~%~ 'do uI .i's~amod xo.s~np iP~o~o s%~ u~q~ Xq p~z~oq~n~ Kissaadxa s~ I~ounoo ~ qo~q~ ~a~ ~ ~o -uoo ~q~ pu~ 's~ou~u~p~o ~u~uu~id ~.o~u~ oq X~oq~n~ K~o~nqP~s siiounoo i~d%o!unm 's~o~a oq~ u% p~s s~ sP '~OI~%pp~ 'I~ounom Xq uo~P~aq~Iap P u~aq s~q alaq~ 'ps~uasaad uo~Pn~s u~ 'snqA 'suo~ssas I~DunoD gU ~PaddP oq~ s~aqTo pup ~ g~q~ papnIDuoD am 'uo~u~do gPqg uI '~A6I 'SE '~DO · K~ 'do u~ paaap~suoD pu~ g0£'I£~ uo~sas u~ pasn s~ u~sg .-s~iqnd aq~ o~ usdo aq IIPqS. papTAo~d ~ISsa~dx~ as~.~aq~o s~ ~daDxa ~q~ ~a~d u~ ssp~Ao~d '089 'ZA6I sa~ 'uu~N Kq papuam~ s~ '(If6I) 50A'IA~ S 'g~S 'uu~H 'I NOINIdO 'uodn ~D~ 7ou gnq ,ssnssTp o~ snDn~D X~d ~A6I '8E ~ 'q~oapooM 'H au~no Duane E. Woodworth, - 3 October 28, 1974 63-a-5, Oct. 28, 1974, we noted that in some circumstances where a municipal matter momentarily arises when council members are to- gether it might be found that the law was not violated, but clearly 2 no such circumstances have been presented here. The question of notice of meetings was considered in Sullivan v. Credit River Township, __ Minn. __, 217 N.W.2d' 502 (1974), where the Supreme Court held that advance notice must be given. In that case, a town board met three times, without notice to the public, to consider and act upon a private citizen's proposal to convert certain farm land into a sanitary landfill. The court stated: The critical question is what constitutes a meeting open to the public, as required by the statute. It is the judgment of this court that a meeting of which the public is unaware is not such a meeting. To constitute ~~ting, there must be adequate, ~¥ no~lce to the ~ubl~ ~' t~]e ti~%e ai]d D~ta---~e ~.~~~n~. ~'-~e statute itself uoes not exDressly require such auvance l(continued) included, such as the council's consideration of citizen complaints or suggestions. See generally Op. Atty. Gen. 63a-5, Oct. 28, 1974, at p. 8. 2We stated: For example, three members [of a five member council] who are together may make a momentary, insubstantial comment or two on a municipal matter, and it might be shown that the exchange had no effect on any subsequent deliberation or action of the council .... While in some cases it might be found that the law was not violated, it would nevertheless seem risky for public officials to partici- pate in this exchange or thos~ in comparable circumstances. Id. at p. 8. Duane E. Woodworth, Esq. - 4 October 28, 1974 notice to the public. However, the general rule of stat- utory construction is that every statute is understood to contain by implication, if not by its express terms, all provisions necessary to effectuate its object and purpose. 17B Dunncll, big. (3rd ed.) S 8949; 82 C.J.S., Statutes, ~ 327. . . In reaching this decision, we do not hold that such notice must be given for regularly scheduled meetings of public bodies if the times, dates, and locations of such regular meetings are available to the public upon reason- able inquiry. Mot would we require additional notice for any meeting which is adjourned to a specific time and place. We do hold that public notice is required to be given for all special meetings, including the type involved~ in this case, except, as noted below, those called for emergency purposes where the giving of such notice is impractical or impossible. The timeliness and mode of giving public notice may be left to the reasonable discretion of the governing body. Notice in a newspaper is not essential; it may consist of a posted notice at certain predesignated locations, such as the.public hall or other locations determined by the governing body, so long as the public has a reasonable opportunity to be aware of the places in which such notices will regularly be posted. In all cases, notice of the meeting may be dispensed with in a situation which requires i~umediate emergency action. In determining what constitutes, such an emergency, the governing body should be guided by considerations of whether the situation calls for immediate action involving the protection of the public peace, health, or safety. See, 56 Am. Jur. 2d, Municipal Corporations, ~ 353, 354. (Emphasis added.) Since the gatherings of the city council are not regularly scheduled meetings and since "immediate emergency action" is not "required," the mandate that adequate and timely notice be given Duane E. Woodworth, Esq. - 5 October 28, 1974 must be honored.3 Your first question is therefore answered in the affirmative. 2. We'ass~e that %he "municipal matters" discussed in the "political" gathering are matters which are within the council's of- ficial duties or powers, such as those referred to in question no. 1 or in Op. Atty. Gen. 63a-5, Oct. 28, 1974. If so, the gathering is essentially identical to a formal council meeting for purposes of the open meeting law. See generally Op. Atty. Gen. 63a-5, Oct. 28, 19'74. Exclusion of such a gathering from the requirements of the open meeting law on the ground that it is not a "council meeting" would "exalt artifice above reality and . . . deprive the statutory pro- vision in question of all serious purpose." See Gre~elverin , 293 U.S, 465, 470 (1935). We therefore answer your second question in the negative. Very truly yours, WARREN SPANNAUS Attorney General WS:TGM:bw THOMAS G. MATTSON Assistant Attorney General 3We also point out that in Quast v. Knutson, 276 Minn. 340, 341, 150 N.W.2d 199, 200 (].967), the court concluded that "[t]o meet [the] statutory requirement it is essential %hat such meetings be held in a public ~lac___~e located within the territorial confines of the school district involved." (Emphasis added.) 102 State Capitol Buildi~ St. Paul, Minnesota 5515~ 296-2591 For Immed~a~.~ Relea..~e '.tober 28, 1974 Attorney General Warren Spannaus ruled today that the Minne- sota Open Meeting Law prohibits public officials from discussing government business at private meetings and social functions. "It is our opinion that the Open Meeting Law must be inter- preted as applying to deliberations as well as'formal actions," Spannaus said in the far-reaching ruling. "The process of selection, rejection and refinement is the essence of municipal decision-making. Even if no formal action is taken on a matter and even if any determination is made later at a formal meeting, it is the deliberation which forms the foundation for the council's discharge of its duties."- The Minnesota Legislature passed the Open Meeting Law in 1957 and expanded and toughened it last year. The law requires all meetings of public bodies and their committees and subcommittees to be "open to the public," and advance notice of the meetings must. be given. The law applies to councils and boards of 'cities, townships, schools and counties as well as to state agencies. A $100 penalty is imposed for violation.of the-law, and a third violation can result in suspension of'the official. Spannaus reviewed the purposes of the law in his ruling. He said the law: · ASSURES the public's right to be informed of w~at business is under consideration and the reasons for decisions which are made. REC0SNiZES that decisions are best reached after free and open discussion, debate and clash of opinion. '- PI~)I{I~ITS %he t~k~ng of action at secret m~eetlngs becsuse the public would be unab]T.e ~o detect improper infl nces. Deliberation, Spannaus said, includes an exchange of views by public officials and receipt of reports or statements from consul- tants, administrators, employees or citizens. Spannaus .said gatherings covered by the Open' Meeting Law include gatherings at which members of public bodies: REVIEW and discuss applications for appointment to govern- ment positions. RECEIVE statements or reports from the city manager and ex- press 'opinions on the matters. HOLD a dis6ussion on a city matter such as whether to place greater emphasis on the development of park and recreation facilities. DISCUSS whether certain items should be placed on the agenda. Spannaus said the Open Meeting Law is usually applicable to gatherings of less than a quorum as well. "To consider a deliberation involving two members of a five-member council as significantly dif- ferent from a deliberation of a quorum would be to es'tablish an arti- ficial distinction," Spannaus said. "The purposes of the law could ~e as 'effectively subverted by a gathering of ~o members as by a gathering of three, four or five members. The Open 'Meeting Law may also apply, Spannaus said, to dis2 -cussions of municipal business in closed "political caucuses" of public officials. The Attorney General said he recognizes that "arguments can be made" that some public b~~ ~ass might be better conducted if an element of confidentiality i~ permitted. " "F, or. example," he Said, "j.t is diffJ, eult not to sym. pathJ_ze with a council's desire~r confidentiality when 'ishes to inquire into a municipal empl0yee's personal problems, which may be affecting his job performance. It is also possible that the total elimination of confidentiality may cause greater delegation to non-elected employees and thereby result in greater concentration of decision-making authority in tl~ese employees." "Nonetheless," Spannaus said, "we have no authority to recog- nize exceptions not provided by statute." Spannaus said the Open Meeting Law might not apply to a gathering at which officials "make a momentary, insubstantial comment or tw~" on a government matter. ~Fnile noting that in some cases it might be found that the law was not violated, Spannaus cautioned that it would nevertheless "seem risky for ~ublic officials to participate in ~his exchange or those in comparable circumstances." spannaus made his .ruling in opinions issued to Clayton L. LeFevere, attorney for the City of Richfield, and Duane E. Woodworth, attorney for the City of Dakota~in Winona County.. R 0 !1E R T .!. T E N N E~ ~ .'qc nat or 561h Senate ()~1 icc: 309 Statc Capi~o~ St. Paul. Minncsota 55155 (612) 296-8885 (.v l Senate State of Minnesota January 19, 1981 Mr. Leonard Lo Kopp City Manager, City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Kopp: At the January 15 meeting of the Hennepin County Legislative Delegation, my Senate colleagues elected me chairman for the 72nd and current session of the Minnesota Legislature. As matters of local concern relating to bills this session come to your attention, please feel free to contact my office, Room 309 State Capitol. This session looks to be another busy and productive year. Following is a list of our delegation officers and our staff contact person. Senator Robert J. Tennessen, Chairman Room 309 State Capitol, 612/296-8885 Senator William Luther, Vice Chairman Room 203 State Capitol, 612/296-8869 Senator Bill Belanger, Secretary/Treasurer Room 129 State Office Building, 612/296-5975 Stuart Markoff, Staff Liaison Room 309 State Capitol, 612/296-0282 Sincerely Robert 3. ~tate ~e~ato~ RJT/lm cc: Senator Pillsbury COMMIITEES · Chairman, Commerce · Judiciary · Finance · Rules · Member: U.S. Privacy Protection Study Commission LA~MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DIS PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE QUIET WATERS REQUESTS Notice is hereby given that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District will hold a public hearing at the Spring Park City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue, Spring Park at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 4, 1981 in the matter of requests to establish Quiet Waters (QW) in the following areas: (1) to extend the existing QW northward along the west shore of Big Island in LMCD Area 25 (Lafayette Bay); (2) to establish QW around Harrisons Bay Point in LMCD Area 15 (Harrisons Bay); (3) to extend existing QW in Coffee Cove westerly to a line between Fagerness Point and Park Lane (Spring Park) extended in ~MCD Area 19 (Coffee Cove); (4) to establish QW in the Seahorse lagoon at the southwest end of Area 16 (Jennings Bay); and (5) to establish QW along the south shore of Harrisons Bay east of the city beach in LMCD Area 15 (Harrisons Bay). 1-19-81 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND Dec. 1980 INCOME STATEMENT 1980 1979 Income Off Sale Expense Cost of Goods Sold Current Y-T-D $74,674 $759,181 57,499 584,570 GROSS PROFIT 17,175 174,611 Current Y-T-D $58,168 $651,395 44,790 501,574 13,378 149,821 Operating Expense Personal Services Supplies Prof. Services Communications Insurance Utilities Repair & Maint. Rent Other Contr Serv. Depreciation Other Subtotal OPERATING INCOME Other Income Interest Refunds Miscellaneous Subtotal 5,966 487 6O 8~ 37O 675 71,323 2,672 1,615 ~14 7~812 5~206 1,464 8,848 1,731 6 2,O63 7~227 6o,741 2,630 830 2 62 792 600 7,200 617 4,991 322 2,130 675 7,702 1'45 380 4,560 3,850 160 8,174 108,208 9,OO1. 66,4O3 (472) (5,679) 68 808 (404) (4,871) NET INCOME 8,597 61~532 2,390 10,843 95,346 2,535 54,475 2,535 54,532' MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND CITY OF MOUND BALANCE SHEET Dec. 1980 Assets Current Assets: Cash on Hand Cash in Bank & Investment Loan to General Fund inventory Prepaid Expenses Total Current Assets Fi xed Assets: Furniture Equipment Fixtures Accumulated Amortization Leasehold Improvements Accumulated Amortization Net Fixed Assets Other Assets: TotaJ Assets 925 154,462 1;667 84,/681 11,139 41,011 (35,817) 6 ~-901 (5;300) 5,194 1,601 252,874 '6,795 Liabilities Accounts Payable Trade Sales Tax Payable Accrued Expenses Cash Over or Short Total Liabilities 19,584 2,944 130 '(645) 22,013 Equity Fund Balance Transfers Out Net Income Suspense Total Equity 172~024 (101,337) 61~-532 ~105.437 237~656 Total Liabilities & Euqity .$259,669 2¢'/'