The URL can be used to link to this page

82-01-26 CITY OF MOUND Hound, liinnesota MOUND CITY COUNCIL January 26, 1982 City Hall 7:30 P.M. 1. Minutes of January 12, 1982 Meeting 2. Public Hearing's a) Rezoning application for 2900 Highland Blvd. from R1 to R4. b) Deliquent Utility Bills 3. Approval of Maintenance Permits - Waurika Common Mr. & Mrs. Richard C. Jacobson Mr. Lowell Swenson 4. 1982 Insurance Quatation for Supply City Insurance. 5. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present (please limit to 3 minutes) 6. Water Report,.Well etc. George Boyer (report included but not numbered) 7. Application for Gambling Permit, 1982 American Legion Port #398, Minnetonka 8. Application for Entertainment Permit, 1982 Ragers Pub - for singer & small back up group Pg. 122-131 Pg. 132-143 Pg. 144 Pg. 145-152 Pg. 153-173 Pg. 174-175 Pg. 176 9. Set date for 1982 Board of Review, Tuesday, June l, 1982 10. Appointment of Finance Director Treasurer 11. Payment of Bills 12. Response to City of Orono Comp Plan Mayor Lindlan 13. Information/Miscellaneous a) 1982 Amm. Legislative Policy Addendum b) Lake Minnetonka Area's Mayor's Meeting c) 1982 Planning Program in City of Mound d) Police Communications Meeting e) Copy of Engineering Agreement, McCombs-Knutson f) Cable T. V. Report g) Mound Retail Council Minutes h) Letter from Paul Pond i) Thank you to Diane Arneson for donated picture frame j) Alternative Draft Wetlands Ordinance k) Legion Gambling Report 1) Status of Miller CondemnatiOn Suit m) Weekly Suit - Alice R. Gensler vs City of Mound n) Minnehaha Creek Watershed District o) Westonka Public Schools Minutes Pg. 177 Pg. 178 Pg. 179 Pg. 180-197 Pg. 198-201 Pg. 2O2-205 Pg. 206-207 Pg. 208-224 Pg. 225-226 Pg. 227-228 Pg. 229 Pg. 230 Pg. 231-236 Pg. 237 Pg. 238-241 Pg. 242-245 Pg. 246-249 Pg. 250-251 Pg. 121 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 9 January 12, 1982 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 12, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. Those present were: Mayor Rock Lindlan, Counciimembers Pinky Charon, Robert Polston, Gordon Swenson, Donald Ulrick. Also present were City Manager, Jon Elam; City Attorney, Curt Pearson; Police Chief, Bruce Wold; Park Director, Chris Bollis; City Clerk, Fran Clark; and the following interested citizens: Mr. & Mrs. Patrick Sheehan, Gary Paulsen, Mary Campbell, Mr. & Mrs. Leslie Jensen, Duane Schaller, Lyle Enger, Mary Pauly, Jean Braatz, Gladys Watson, Delores Maas, Mrs. Gilman, Orv Fenstad, Tom Watson. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. MINUTES The Minutes of the January 5, 1982, Regular Council Meeting were presented for consideration. $wenson moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of January 5, 1982, Regular Council Meeting as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. REVOCATION OF VARIOUS CITY LICENSES - MOUND LANES The City Manager explained that this was to be a due process hearing allowing the owner of Mound Lanes to show cause why the City should not revoke various City Licenses. Since.the service of the papers on the owner to show cause, the bowling alley has been sold to two other people, Mr. Charles E. Carlson and Mr. Lyle S. Enger. The Police Dept. has done an extensive background search of the two new owners and cannot find any reason not to issue new licenses to these people. Mr. Clarence E. Ferris's Attorney today submitted an Affidavit stating that he no longer will be involved in the management, will not have any employment with the bowling alley and will have no financial dealings with the bowling alley except that Lyle Enger and Charles Carlson are obligated to make installment payments to him pursuant to the terms of their contract for deed. Also submitted was an Affidavit from Lyle S. Enger stating that he isin partnership with Charles E. Carlson; that Ferris will have no connection with the bowling alley; that he is presently married to Ferris's daughter but separated from her; that they are planning a dissolution of their marriage and she has nothing to do with the bowling alley. Mr. Ferris has turned in his licenses to the City. The City Attorney advised asking for comments from the public. The Mayor asked if anyone would like to comment during this due process hearing on the bowling alley. There were no comments. 'The City Manager recommended issuance of the Licenses to Enger and Carlson. Councilmember Swenson pointed out that the bowling alley is open tonight and has no licenses. The City Attorney advised acting on the new licenses. Councilmember Ulrick asked if the Council could approve the licenses with contingencies? The City Attorney stated it was not a good idea. Ulrick said he had been approached by some members of the community to ask this. 10 January 12, 1982 Polston moved and Swenson seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #82-15 RESOLUTION TO GRANT NEW LICENSES TO LYLE S. ENGER AND CHARLES E. CARLSON FOR THE MOUND LANES The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIAL USE PERMIT - ARCADE The City Manager explained that Mr. Watson came in and met with the Building Inspector. The Building Inspector went to the Arcade and inspected the premises and has gone over her recommendations with Mr. Watson. The City Manager then read the resolution that was prepared by the City Attorney at the last meeting giving approval with stipulations. Councilmember Ulrick stated that he still has seen no drawn plans for the Arcade and that is what he wanted before voting on the issue. He felt that since a plan was not present then all the suggestions in the Building Inspector's Memo should be done and included in the conditions of the Special Use Permit. Mayor Lindlan and Councilmember Polston agreed. Ulrick asked Mr. Watson if he thought he could comply with the recommendations of the Building Inspector by the February 1st date that is in the resolution. Mr. Watson replied that he could. Councilmember Polston voiced concern over the several violations of the original Special Use Permit. Councilmember Ulrick stated that he felt the Council's responsibility is the safety and welfare of the general public and that the same emotional mothers who were here last week advocating the Arcade would be equally emotional is there was a fire or explosion in the Arcade and children were killed or injured. Councilmember Swenson felt that the Building Inspector was at the Arcade and gave recommendations and now this matter should be an administrative problem and handled by the Crty Manager and Building Official. Mr. Watson stated that all he wanted was a clear picture of what the Council wanted him to do and he would take care of it. The Mayor asked Watson if he would be agreeable to the extra conditions in the Building Inspector's report. He replied yes. Watson also explained the three violations of the original Special Use Permit and apologized. He felt they were minor violations. Councilmember Ulrick moved and Polston seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #82-16 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ARCADE (TOM WATSON) WITH STIPULATIONS Councilmember Ulrick then read the resolution prepared by the Attorney and added 8 points from the recommendation submitted by the Building Inspector. Discussion by the Council then followed. The Mayor then asked if anyone, on the Council, would like to amend the resolution changing the date of Watson's compliance from February 1, 1982, to a later date in order to give Mr. Watson more than 18 days to comply. 11 January 12, 1982 Councilmember Swenson moved and Mayor Lindlan seconded the following amendment to resolution #82-16 changing the date of compliance from February l, 1982, to March l, 19~2. The vote was 3 in favor with Councilmembers Polston and Ulrick voting nay. Motion carried. The Mayor asked for a vote on the original Resolution #82-16 as amended. Councilmember Ulrick asked for a Roll Call Vote. The Roll Call vote was 4 in favor with Councilmember Polston voting nay. Motion carried. Councilmember Ulrick wanted the record to show that he voted in favor but with due reservations and that he will be the maker of a motion to revoke this Special Use Permit if compliance is not completed by March 1, 1982. Councilmember Polston wanted the record to show that he voted nay because he feels anytime the Council issues any kind of Special Use Permit, the minimum safety standards for fire protection and for the health, safety and welfare should be met before the Special Use Permit is issued. Mayor Lindlan stated that he voted in favor but it was one of the hardest votes he has ever given because he doesn't believe a person should be allowed to go into business just anyway he wants to not taking into consideration the laws of the City. COMMENDATIONS The Mayor read the proclamations for the two retiring Park Commission Members, Jon Lynott and Hal Larson and presented them with their plaques. The entire Council thanked the 2 for their dedicated service to the community. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS BY CITIZENS PRESENT The Mayor asked for any comments or suggestions from the citizens present. There were none. TAX FORFEITED LAND - LIST 661 NC The City Manager explained that this list of 5 parcels was forfeited to the State of Minnesota for non-payment of real estate taxes. We need to record an easement on parcel 1 before releasing it to the County. He is recommending that the City retain parcels 2 and 3 as part of the wetlands preservation and letting parcels 1, 4 and 5 go to public auction. This would then get 1, 4 and 5 back on the tax roles and the maintenance of these lots would not fall back on the City. Councilmember Polston asked if the adjoining property owners, to these parcels, have been notified so they could purchase them. The City Manager explained that he will contact the adjoining property owners and see if they would like to purchase the parcels. But, this is rather futile because the County is not allowing the City to take the land and then turn around and selllit. So the only thing he can do is notify the adjoining owners that this property will be coming up for public auction. Councilmember Charon moved and Swenson seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #82-17 RESOLUTION TO RECORD EASEMENT ON PARCEL 1 RETAIN PARCELS 2 AND 3 AS WETLANDS AND LET PARCELS 1, 4 AND 5 GO TO PUBLIC AUCTION - LIST 661 NC The City Attorney then pointed out that in letting parcels 4 and 5 go for public auction when they are undersized lots and cannot be built upon, January 12, 1982 may be buying a lawsuit. This could happen if someone buys this lot at public, auction, comes to the City for a building permit and we tell him he cannot build and that the land is useless, he can then turn around and sue the City and force us to condemn the property and pay him for it. The City Manager stated that we just can't keep accumulating land. That takes the land off the tax roles and we end up paying the assessments against the property. The City Attorney stated that we have asked for legislation that would ask the County to allow the City to continue the way we have been with respect to the City selling land that does not comply with our Zoning Ordinance and not have it be sold at public auction. Councilmember Ulrick moved and Polston seconded to amend Resolution #82-17 retaining parcels 4 and 5 and not putting these two parcels up for public auction. The Roll Call vote was 3 in favor with Councilmember Swenson and Mayor Lindlan voting nay. Motion carried. The vote on the original motion for Resolution #82-17 as amended was 4 in favor with Mayor Lindlan voting nay. Motion carried. STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION The City Manager explained that the Planning Commission recommended denial of this vacation. Their basis for denial was the City Engineer's letter stating that if Brighton Blvd. were upgraded to MoS.A. standards sometime in the future, this property would be needed to widen the road. The City does own other parcels along Brighton for this reason. Councilmember Swenson moved and Charon seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #82-18 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENY THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION REQUESTED BY DUANE SCHALLER The City Manager pointed out that Mr. Schaller is entitled to a Public Hearing on this vacation before a decision is made to approve or deny the request so he is only asking the Council to set a date for the Public Hearing. Councilmember Swenson withdrew his motion and Charon withdrew her second of Resolution #82-18 denying the request. Duane Schaller was present and explained to the Council his reason for asking for the vacation and what he wants to do. He had a map of his proposal. The Council asked the City Manager to check with the City Engineer and see exactly how much of this 30 foot right-of-way the upgradeing of Brighton Blvd. would require. Councilmember Swenson moved and Ulrick seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #82-18 RESOLUTION TO SET THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION REQUESTED BY DUANE $CHALLER FOR FEBRUARY 9, 1982, at 7:00 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 13 January 12, 1982 HIGHLAND PARK - PLAN AND DESIGN Ms. Mary Pauly and Ms. Delores Maas were present and presented what the Highland Park Development Committee has come up with in regard to plan and design for Highland Park. They have sent out survey sheets to the residents of Highland Park and came up with the following priorities: 1. Tot Lot 2. Slide and Sewer Pipes 3. Tennis Court 4. Basketball Court 5. Shelter Chris Bollis, Park Director, was present and explained that he has let this Committee do alot of the ground work in developing their plan and feels they have done an excellent job. The Council asked about funding for this project. Chris replied that the Committee was only concerned with planning and not funding. The funding would come later after a plan was adopted. There appears to be some private funding but the main funding would have to come from the City since all Grant Funds seem to be drying up. The Mayor explained that the 1982 Budget is already set and operating and there is no money available this year, but with some long range planning maybe in 1983 or 1984 some money could be allocated. Ms. Pauly and Ms. Maas stated that they understood and were not asking for an instant park to appear. They realized it was a fews years off. They are looking for support for their plan. The Council complimented the people involved on the Committee for their fine efforts. Councilmember Ulrick moved and Polston seconded a motion to support the Highland Park Committee in the development of Highland Park and the priorities they have established and this should be put in the long range plan. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. REMOVAL OF A HAZARDOUS DWELLING The City Manager explained that this assessment against Lot 9, Block 24, Shadywood Point should have been certified this last Fall but was an oversight on the part of the staff. A resolution is needed at this time. Councilmember Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #82-19 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING ASSESSMENT TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR FOR REMOVAL OF A HAZARDOUS DWELLING ON LOT 9, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOOD POINT (PLAT 61980 PARCEL 9040) PID #13-I17-24 1~ 0091, INCLUDING ALL COSTS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. L.M.C.D Orv Fenstad, Mound's representative to the L.M.C.D., was present to answer any of the Council's questions. The Council thanked him for attending this meet ing. 14 January 12, 1982 The Mayor asked if 0rv felt there was still a need for the L.M.C.D? Mr. Fenstad answered, yes definitely, that the L.M.C.D. is the only controlling body on Lake Minnetonka and if the lake is misused and not controlled it will become a dead sea like it almost became before the L.M.C.D. The Council explained that now Mound has its own Dock Inspector and is policing itself, has adopted all of the L.M.C.D. Ordinances and feels that $7,O00. in dues to the L.M.C.D could be better used elsewhere. Mr. Fenstad passed out a copy of the legislative law on the L.M.C.D and pointed out Section 11 which deals with the dissolution of a lake conservation district and reads, "A lake conservation district may be dissolved by the decision of the governing bodies of three-quarters of the municipalities in the district. The decision of a town shall be made by the board of supervisors of the town." There are 15 communities in the L.M.C.D. The Council questioned the cost of staffing the L.M.C.D. Mr. Fenstad replied that there is one administrator at $32,O00./year, 1 secretary full time and 1 dock inspector. He stated that the L.M.C.D's greatest cost was legal fees. Mr. Fenstad stated that the Save the Lake Organization contributes alot of donations to the L.M.C.D. Mr. Fenstad complimented Mound on their efforts to handle its own problems, but commented that Mound is unique in having a supervisory person to handle any problems. Counciimember Polston stated that it is not his intention to down the L.M.C.D. but that we have to do away with overlapping layers of government. He would like to check with the other 14 communities and see if we can al-1 work together and do it for less money. The L.M.C.D. should look at their cost effectiveness in this time of financial crisis and turn more responsi- bility over to the individual cities. Mr. Fenstad replied that he has polled the other members of the L.M.C.D. and 2 would probably follow Mound, 2 maybe, and the rest are for keeping the L.M.C.D. Councilmember Polston moved and Swenson seconded a moti.on directing the City Manager to write a letter to the other 14 communities and ask if they favor restructuring or reevaluating the L.M.C.D. Councilmember Ulrick felt that writing a letter to poll the other communities would be a waste of time and money when they have already been polled. Mr. Fenstad stated that the crux of the problem is the Legislature. He felt that the only way to do away with the L.M.C.D. is legislation. The Council opinion was that the L.M.C.D. was originally setup to do a specific job and that it has done that job. 'Now it is time to turn responsibility over to the communities. The vote was 4 in favor with Councilmember Ulrick voting nay. Motion carried. KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS PROCLAMATION 15 January 12, 1982 The City Manager explained that the Knights of Columbus has asked for permission to solicit contributions for the mentally retarded on April 30, May 1 and May 2, 1982, in the downtown area oF Mound. They have also asked the Council to formally proclaim those three days as "Tootsie Roll Days". Councilmember Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #82-20 RESOLUTION TO PROCLAIM APRIL 30, MAY 1 AND MAY 2, 1982, AS "TOOTSIE ROLL DAYS" IN MOUND The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MINNEGASCO FRANCHISE ORDINANCE The City Manager presented the proposed ordinance that he and Jim Larson, City Attorney have put together to submit to Minnegasco and would like any suggestions the Council may have for additions. Councilmember Ulrick felt that sentence #1 in Section 3.2 should read, in part, after "obtained a permit" the addition of "and payment of fee". The City Manager and the City Attorney advised that a separate ordinance covering all utilities for underground digging should be adopted if the Council choses to charge a fee for the permit. This fee would then cover staff time and inspection time before and after the digging. Councilmember Polston felt that Section 5 was a good section because it gives the City recourse. The Council directed the City Manager to submit this proposed Franchise Ordinance to Minnegasco with one change: (sentence #1 to read) Section 3.2 Street Opening. The Company shall not open or disturb any street or public place for any purpose without first having obtained a permit and paid such fees as declared by Ordinance, to do so from the proper City officials. LOTS 13A AND 13B, BROOKTON ADDITION The City Manager explained that the City has received a Quit Claim Deed from Mr. Sears of Sears Imported Auto, on Lots 13A and 13B, Brookton Addition. It is obvious to see why he does not want the lots, because there are $14,750.91 worth of assessments against these lots and they only have a value of $500.00 each. They are very low lots and do not appear to be buildable lots. The question is does the City Council want to accept these lots as a gift. The concensus of the Council was to accept the lots and see if there is something we can do with them. Councilmember Ulrick asked if the City could waive the assessments so prospective buyers would want to do extensive filling, of the property to make it a buildable site. The City Attorney explained that assessments cannot be waived and if these are unbuildable lots, maybe they should never have been assessed to begin with. Councilmember Swenson moved and Polston seconded the following resolution. ~6 January 12, 1982 RESOLUTION #82-21 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM SEARS IMPORTED AUTO FOR LOTS 13A AND 13B, BROOKTON ADDITION The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT OF BILLS Councilmember Swenson moved and Ulrlck seconded a motion to approve the payment of the bills as presented in the amount of $60,861.13, when funds are available. Roll Call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. REVISED BUDGET FIGURES The City Manager explained that the Finance Director would like the Council to approve the revised Budget figures as they have been revised downward since they were originally adopted in September, 1981, Resolution #81-301. This should be done for the Auditors. Councilmember Swenson moved and Charon seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #82-22 RESOLUTION REVISING THE 1982 BUDGET AND SELF- SUPPORTING FUND EXPENSES ADOPTED IN RESOLUTION #81-301 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. SIDEWALK SNOW BLOWER/SWEEPER The City Manager reported that the City has found a sidewalk snow blower/ sweeper that will take care of the new sidewalks in town. It is capable of working on a 5' sidewalk. He is looking for a motion to advertise for bids. The money for paying for this machine would come from the Equipment and Capital Outlay Fund. Councilmember Polston moved and Swenson seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #R2-23 RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS ON A NEW SIDEWALK SNOW BLOWER/SWEEPER WITH BIDS TO OPEN FEBRUARY 9, 19R2, AT 10:00 A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION AND MISCELLANEOUS The City Manager briefly went over the following information items and provided back-up material for the Council to go over. 1. A Revenue Sharing Bulletin from the Revenue Sharing Advisory Service. 2. A letter from theMetropolitan Council confirming the adoption of the Mound Comprehensive Plan and their recommendations. 3. A letter from the City of Minnetrista's Attorney asking for another resolution stating opposition to the location of a solid waste sanitary landfill (site M) in the City of Minnetrista. Councilmember Ulrick moved and Polston seconded the following resolution. 17 January 12, 1982 RESOLUTION #82=24 RESOLUTION OPPOSING LOCATION OF A POTENTIAL SOLID WASTE SANITARY LANDFILL (SITE M) IN THE CITY OF MJNNET~JSTA The vote was unanimously in favor. HotJon carried. 4. A letter from the City of Spring Park agreeing with the Mound City Council's decision not to go thru with the Spring Park/ Mound Water Connection over the Black Lake Bridge. 5. The L.M.C.D. meeting schedule for January, 1982. 6. The gambling reports from the VFW. 7. An Action Alert from the League of Minnesota Cities - subject State-Local Financial Crisis (information Meetings Scheduled). 8. Articles from the St. Paul Pioneer Press and the Minneapolis Tribune on the finances of the State. 9. Legal papers served on the City by Margaret Vanecek for an accident that happened during road construction in 1980. These papers have been forwarded to the City Attorney and the City insurance company. 10. A memo listing the appointments remaining in effect for 1982. CABLE TV The Council discussed the development of a City Cable TV Committee that would get a package together, get a plan going and then asking the other cities if they would like to tie in with us. The City Manager has been in contact with Mr. Tom Creighton who was the professional advisor for Shorewood in their development of a Cable TV plan and he would be willing to work with us. The City Manager suggested that on this Committee there should be 5 members, 1 ex officio member from the School Board, 1 ex officio member of the City Council and the City Manager. Councilmember Charon moved and Swenson seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #82-25 RESOLUTION CREATING A CITY OF MOUND CABLE TV COMMITTEE AS PER THE MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION, DROPPING OUT OF THE WESTONKA CABLE TV COMMITTEE AND AUTHORIZING A REIMBURSEMENT OF MONEY TO SPRING PARK AND ST. BONIFACIUS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried STREET LIGHTS - DOWNTOWN Councilmember Polston asked why all the lights are not lit yet. The City Manager explained that everything is being done that can be done to get all the lights lit. Polston also mentioned that there are several of the old lights that are still lit. Manager will ask N.S.P. to turn off the'extra lights. Councilmember Swenson moved and Polston seconded a motion to adjourn at ll:30 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. City Manager City Clerk /2~) biLLS ....... JA:;UAk,¥ ~2, 1~82 David Boyd 25.00 Blackowiak & Son 62.00 Bryan Rock Products 69.61 F.H. Bathke 13.80 Bowman Barnes I !6.55 Coast to Coast 68.13 Continental Telephone 800.21 Egan McKay Elec. 227.43 Glenwood Inglewood 56.00 Eugene Hickok 951.00 Geo. M. Hansen Co. 2,800.00 Henn Co. Fire Chiefs Assn 10.00 Interntl Conf. Bldg Offic. 60.00 Lake Mtka Conserv. Distr 1,998.50 League of MN Cities 150.00 Illies& Sons 1,430.25 Metro Area Mgmt Assn 5.00 MN State Fire Dept Assn 90.00 Lake Region Mutual Aid 10.00 Minn Comm 28.50 Marina Auto Supply 471.13 C.S. McCrossan 1OO.O0 Minnegasco 2,534.49 Wm Mueller & Sons 768.12 N.W. Bell 60.30 Document Section 16.00 City of Mound 56.00 Metro Waste Control 841.50 Navarre Hdwe 227.82 N.S.P. 5,218.41 Planning & Devel. Serv 728.00 Timothy Piepkorn 825.00 Robt Ptacek 25.00 Police Officers 7@150. O0 1,O50.O0 ½ '82 unif allow Police Supervisors 2@340.00 680.00 '82 un|f allow Nels Schernau 9.68 Spring Park Car Wash 71.07 Sterne Electric 538.00 State Bank of Mound 10.30 Thurk Bros. Chev. 87.35 Widmer Bros. 506.00 Ziegler, Inc. 447.47 Total Bills 24,243.62 LIOUOR BILLS Blackowiak & Son Real One Acquisition Regal Window Cleaning Bradley Exterminating Mtka Refrig. Kool Kube A.J. Ogle, Inc. Butchs Bar Supply Coca Cola Bottling Day Dist. East Side Bev. Gold Medal Bev Happy Tyme Home Juice City Club Dist. Midwest Wine Co. The Liquor House Pepsi Cola Pogreba Dist Thorpe Dist Griggs, Cooper Johnson Bros. Liq Old Peor:ia Ed Phillips Total Liquor Bills 32.00 675.00 10.75 19.00 32.45 89.90 2,67O.40 326.20 212.45 3,O97.30 3,520.46 118.45 266.40 53.06 3,216.65 1,327.26 1,315.01 170.25 3,O35.25 4,323.75 3,135.48 3,582.91 2,457.68 2,929.45 36,617.51 GRAND TOTAL--ALL BILLS 60,861.13 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-~155 January 21, 1982 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: JON ELAM, CITY MANAGER I think the enclosed application for rezoning provides us both alot of potential and alot of hassel. My hope with the application was that it could be the vehicle by which the neighbors to the rezoning site and the developer might get together and discuss in great detail the site, its options and potentials. I had hoped for this because, as you will see Tuesday, there is a great deal of resentment and outright hostility toward the Dunkley's by the neighbors and thus that being the case you would think any reasonable proposal would be acceptable to what the Dunkleys are doing with the land presently. That hope on my part didn't materialize. Several neighbors have come out against it unilaterally and there doesn't appear to be any middle ground. Thus from a raw political standpoint it would seem crazy that any of you would vote in favor of the proposal. I think t~re is another side of it and that is that we do have a reasonable pro- posal that can be sca]ed down from 24 units to say 12. Each will be sold for $130,000 plus. Thus greatly strengthing the tax base of the neighborhood. Even better, I think is the potential esthetic improvements it would bring. As much as I hate to say that stretch of houses around the park and along the lake down at least 5-6 houses from the Day Care Center is very dense, most around park are old cabins and we have a couple of the biggest junk yards in the whole city. Thus I've said my peace, you might as we~l follow Curt's advice which says if you rezone a property without meeting one of two criteria that you've opened the door for uncontrolled rezoning. These criteria are 1) we are correcting an error or 2) we are reflecting a major change in the neighborhood. Neither one of these obviously is happening in the High]ands, thus we might as well follow our fearless legal leader. JE:jn CITY OF HOUND Hound, HJnnesota NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 23, "ZONING", MOUND CODE OF ORDINANCES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on January 26, 1982 at 7:30 P.M. at the City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, the Mound City Council will hold a hearing on the proposal to amend Chapter 23, Mound Code of Ordinances, entitled "Zoning", by removing from the Residential R-1 District and adding to the Residential R-4 (Multi-Family) District, the following described property: That part of Block I lying North of a line across Block 1 parallel with North line of Block 2 and the same extended from a point in the West line of Block 1 distance 10 25/100 feet Northerly from the Northwest corner of Block 2, "Minnesota Baptist Summer Assembly" - PID # 23-l]7-24 41 00]7 (Also known as 2900 Highland Boulevard in the City of Mound) All persons appearing at said hearing will be given an oppor- tunity to be heard. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk January 20, 1982 TO: FROM: RE: Jon Elam, City Manager Jan Bertrand Rezoning Application for 2900 Highland Boulevard The rezoning request for 2900 Highland Boulevard has received pre- liminary review by the Planning Commission on December 14, 1981. The Dunkley Investments presented an apartment building concept for the site with approximately 2.3 acres of land with a density similar to a multi-family district. To be consistent with the recently adopted Zoning Ordinance, I would recommend denial of the request. The zoning district surrounding the site is R-1. Please kee~ in mind any precedence we would set for future requests of this type. Jan Bertrand Building Official JB/ms 6/82 CITY OF MOUND APPLICATION FOR REZONING NAME OF APPLICANT Dunkley Investments 1750. First Bank Place East ADDRESS Pillsbury Center, 200 S. Sixth St. Minneapolis,'Minne~ota 56402 IX)CATION OF THE PROPERTY TO BE REZONED TELEPHONE Highland Boulevard 339-1290 Ih&t"part et SiOck"l ~ying'North qt a ~ine ZZ.'U teet north and LEGAL DESCRZPTION parallel with the north line of Block 2 and extending from the West line of Block I to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, "Minnesota Baptist Summer Assembly", according to the recorded plat thereof. ZOr;ING }rEQUEST: FROM Ri TO R4 REASON FOR REZONING P. EQUEST: insufficient response to current use as a Day Care facility; to provide additional housing opportunities for the City of Mound. IS THEP~ A PETITION ATTACHED? YES NO X ~,~ ~ .: ..... ' Signature of Applica ~ '3~~ i ~ .... /Agent for Qwner [~ ~ Address1750 First Bank Place Eas~, Pillsbury Center, 200 S. Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 Tel. No. 339-1290 Appltcant'S'-I~erest in Propert~ OWNER 6th St. 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. lh'e rezoning would provide a permanent use of the subject property that is conducive to the adjacent land use and requires no major changes in utilities, roadways, traffic patterns or surrounding areas. Residents and owners of property within 350 feet; Planning Commission Reco~ndation: That this site be approved for the R-~ zon~n§. Date December 14, 1981 Council Action 12-22-81 (Res. 81-402) Set the date for public hearin~ for Jan. 26~1982 at 7:30 P..M ..... Resolution No~81-402 Set date of Public Hear|ng on Rezonln~Date Dec~ 22., 19~1 for January 26,.1982 ...... Resolution No. HINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF December 14, 1981 Present: Chairman Russell Peterson; Commissioners Roy O'Donne11, Margaret Hanson, Michae! Var9o, Frank Weiland, Stan Mierzejewski and Gary Paulsen; Council Repre- sentative Gordon Swenson; City Manager Jon Elam; City Building Inspector Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Jan Bertrand, the new City Inspector, was introduced to the Planning Commission. MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 30, 1981 were presented for consideration. Hanson moved and Vargo seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the November 30, 1981 meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Rezoning Request from R-1 to R-4 for part of Block l, Minnesota Baptist Summer Assembly Linda Schroeder representing Dunkley Investments (owner of the property) ex- plained that the reason for investigating uses of this site was that the market on the daycare center is not providing the number of students they had anticipated. They have been looking at various concepts to redevelop this site and came up with the proposed condominiums as one of the most viable uses. Advantages would be control of traffic; the accesses would be limited to two; work with a courtyard and get into broken terracing on lake side; each unit would have a view of the lake. They looked into the number of units they could comfortably get on the site without a negative impact on the neighborhood. Are looking at having natural berm and the garage area shielding parking area. Three levels and 4 condominiums to each unit--all owner occupied. It would be a high quality development which would seem to fit in with the neighborhood and make the best use of the site. Jerry Mess- man of Zack Johnson Associates explained the architectural concept for the proposed condominiums; also showed a comparison drawing of the site with 6 single family units. Feels the concept they have come up with would work better than a number of single family homes on this property. Single family sites would require more breaks for access to the street; garages would be on the street; topography lends itself to building into the hillside which probably would not be done as much with the single family home. It was brought out that the tax base for the development would be increased about 145%. Fire Department would have access between buildings in case of a fire. They will need to check with the Watershed on soil erosion, etc. and the L.M.C.D. for the amount of dockage allowed and the use of the lake. Ms. Schroeder commented that they know the concept is not acceptable for straight R-4 zoning; conditional use permit will be needed to build the condominiums; asking for approval of the rezoning as Step 1. O'Donnell moved and Vargo seconded a motion to recommend to the Council that this site be approved for the R-4 zoning and that the Council move toward a public hearing on the change. The vote was: O'Donnell, Vargo, Weiland, Mierzejewski and Peterson in favor; Hanson and Paulsen, against; with Swenson abstaining. Motion carries. Reasons for the nay votes: Paulsen - have a fundamental dis- like for spot zoning; think it should remain in single family zoning. Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1981 - Page 2 Hanson feels that as a group, the Planning Commission has not put in enough effort and study on this matter; not ready to make a recommendation on whether or not property should be rezoned. Side Yard Variance for Garage at 1673 Canary Lane Lots 6 and 7, Block 5, Dreamwood Applicant could not be present at this meeting and had called asking that this be considered at a January meeting. City Inspector explained that the new garage would have to have a minimum 5 foot separation from the existing detached garage. Talked of asking if the existing garage could be relocated and the proposed new garage be built only 18 feet wide; then a variance would not be required and property would meet the zoning code. Discussed new "Zoning Ordinance" briefly. On Page 42 (Section 1620.7 Subsection 5K4)---add "more than" three (3) stories shall be equipped with at least one public elevator. All in favor of the addi- tion except Paulsen against. Building Inspector would like addition to Section 1716.3 of parking areas for improved circulation plan and easy flow for the Fire Department. o Street Right-of-Way Vacation (Part of Lots 20,21,22 & 23, Block 26, Wychwood) Applicant, Duane Schaller was present. City Manager explained that the 30 foot wide strip on these lots was taken when they were tax forfeit for future widening of Brighton Boulevard to MSA standards. Other land on Brighton Boulevard has also been acquired. Mr. Schaller is hoping to have 20 feet of the 30 foot right-of-way vacated and to build a horseshoe drive on these lots with enough area left for a duplex to be built at some future time on Lots 21 and 22. Also would like to acquire City owned Lot 14 and part of Lots 15, 16 and 17 as a future building site which would access off the horseshoe drive from Lot 20. The proposed duplex would have tuckunder garages. Vargo moved and Weiland seconded a motion to recommend the denial of the right-of-way vacation requested. All voted in favor of the denial except O'Donnell. O'Donnell does not think it is feasible to have a 60 foot MSA street here as too many houses would have to be torn down. The Planning Commission reviewed letter to be sent to Hank Truelsen. It was agreed to change phrase in letter to read, "a rather rustic cabiny looking community" Letter was then signed by Commissioners present. ADJOURNMENT Weiland moved and Hanson seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. All in favor, so adjourned to the next meeting which wil'l be January ll, 1981. Attest: December 8, 1981 Mr. Jon Elam City Administrator City of Mound 5341Mayrood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Highland Boulevard Property/ Dear Mr. Elam: Enclosed we submit our application for re-zoning of the above noted property. In addition, I have enclosed copies of the architectural concept for use by the Planning Commission in their review. Pursuant to our conversation with Rob Chelseth, we now understand that the re-zoning and conditional use will be handled as separate issues and we will proceed with the request for conditional use upon approval of the re-zoning. We look forward to presenting our concepts to the Planning Commission on December 14th. We are hopeful that their input will aid us in the successful completion of this project. Sincerely, Li'nda J. Schroeder Agent for Owner P.S. We are submitting the list of residents within 350 feet under separate cover. LJS/kh encl. ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT/HIGHLAND BOULEVARD CONDOMINIUMS rchitects / Planners The basic unit design is intended to appeal to the young professional couples and the older couples gen- erally beyond child-raising age. Each unit is planned to have a view of the lake, private outdoor space, and semi-private entrances. The building units will take advantage of the site's topography in order to main- tain a low profile and fit within the existing tree cover. The single family scale architecture was used in efforts to provide maximum neighborhood compatibility. The site's streetscape is intended to be landscaped berms which will screen the backs of the garages and parking areas from the public right-of-way and adjacent park. The use of smaller scale building components offers a greater opportunity to respond to the site's natural topography and vegetation. By slightly de- pressing the building into the hillside and varying the roof lines, the new construction will better harmonize with the existing architectural character of the neigh- borhood. The building concept was developed to provide the opportunity for passive solar advantages and to utilize the site's topography so as to eliminate the need for elevators. ,~KIPLING IHOLT LA. ; K A Y 0 /~to .© · _ HC-1233 PROPERTY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE A-60$ GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS~ MN 55487 OWNERS LIST I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ON THIS CERTIFICATE ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRE- SENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS TNII DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE NE#NEPIN COU#TT FINANCE DIVISION, TO THE lEST OF NY KNOII~LEDGE AND BEUEF. LIST SIZE. 2JO / NE#MEPIN CO. DATJ"~?-~FINANCE DIVIIION_/pi.,_,~,~. TAX PAYER / FEE OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS ID MAILING ADDRESS wu~f? brinkalt ~q/sAp~z~ru~c~ q~/F& ~qr ,, ,, ,, ,r SHpE Own ¢ r V~rhomas 8 Lorrie Daniels, 5~01 Bartlett Blvd. ~ Gordo~ Farmer, 3004 Highland Blvd. PID 23-117-24 42 0006 23-117-24 41 0009 Account # 33-406-2620-31 33-424-4738-41 33-439-2431-11 33-439-4724-21 33-439-4910-81 33-457-4513-11 33-463-4626-91 33-466-4861-51 33-466-4937-31 33-484-3134-11 33-487-4873-61 33-500-4440-41 33-530-3121-81 33-542-4827-41 33-551-3086-91 33-554'3065-71 33-578-2871-81 33-587-3068-11 33-596-4618-31 33-596-4908-81 33-599-4700-31 33-620-3154-81 33-620-4884-91 33-620-4936-71 33-623-5326-41 33-638-3301-71 33-647-5217-41 33-650-4766-51 Delinquent Utility Bills Amount $ 71.51 58.56 55.76 54.01 65.96 68.80 110.78 79.44 81.57 86.56 67.43 75.69 55.79 143.99 74.89 42.30 46.56 34.84 85.62 128.06 43.00 70.92 68.16 78.10 84.86 46.51 38.99 72.90 $2066.30 1-21-82 MOUND ADVISORY PARK COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 1982 Present: Vice Chairperson Cathy Bailey; Commissioners Pete Ward, Lowell Swenson; Toni Case, Phyllis Jessen, Cheryl Burns; Council Representative Pinky Charon; Dock Inspector Don Rother and Secretary Marge Stutsman. Commissioner Andy Gearhart was absent and excused. Also present were Mr. and Mrs. Richard Jacobson of 1543 Bluebird Lane. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of December 10, 1981 were considered. Ward moved and Swenson seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the Park Commission meeting of December lO, 1981 as presented. The vote was all in favor. ~- SWENSON AND JACOBSEN REQUESTS FOR MAINTENANCE PERMITS "FEE-'(hair decided that since both maintenance permit requests were similar and in the same area, they be considered at the same time. Commissioner Swenson withdrew from participation on this item as one of the maintenance permits was his. Chair commented that the flow chart had been developed so action taken would be equal for everyone. She then reviewed the steps on the flow chart as they applied to these two requests. With this type of shoreline, one can.walk on top, but can not walk along bottom by lake; there is no way to get to the lake without stairway. The Richard Jacobsens and Lowell Swenson were made aware that if their requests were granted (Permit grant up to 5 years renewable), they would be responsible to build and maintain the stairways for the use of the general public as well as for themselves and that they would have to meet the building code. Ward moved and Burns seconded a motion to recommend to the Council approval of the maintenance permits for the stairways as requested. The vote was all in favor. No voting was Swenson. ITEM 3 - ELECTION OF OFFICERS dessen reported that their Committee nomination was for Cathy Bailey and Cheryl Burns to be Co-Chairpersons. Nominations from the floor were called for; none were forthcoming. Vote was taken and all were in favor of Cathy Bailey and Cheryl Burns for Co-Chairpersons. ITEM 4 - APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEES The following committees were set up and members volunteered or were appointed: Calendar Committee - All commissioners to be involved as this will be a short one time committee to work out calendar for year. Long Range Planning Committee - most important committee and Chair would llke all members to serve on this committee. Main purpose of committee is to get a Long Range Plan for Parks to the Council. It was suggested that a Long Range Sub- committee be set up to work out a presentation back to the Park Commission for the whole committee to act on. Mound Advisory Park Commission Minutes January 14, 1982 - Page 2 Long Range Planning Sub-Committee - Phyllis Jessen (Chair), Pete Ward and Cathy Bailey. Dockage and Buoys - Pete Ward (Chair) Land Use Committee - Pete Ward (Chair), Andy Gearhart, Lowell Swenson and Toni Case (Committee of Ward, Gearhart and Swenson has been looking at public lands to see what might be sold in order to build funds for other works they'd like to see done) Recreation Committee (also will include report on Trails) - Cheryl Burns and Cathy Bailey Highland Park Committee (perhaps commissioners to be appointed would serve on this) ITEM 5 - Miscellaneous Reports Council Representative Pinky Charon reported on various items discussed by the Council, among them were: l) The problem that the City might encounter (as pointed out by the City Attorney) if undersized tax forfeit lots are allowed to be sold at public auction and purchaser wants to build on the lot, 2) Council took certain tax forfeit land for wetlands, 3) The Highland Park Plan was accepted by the Council and 4) The City will probably get some revenue sharing monies. Ward asked that Park Commission be kept informed when the City gets any public property so they can update maps. Ward reported that Commissioners had all received a notebook and a set of maps to start making a workable reference. His Committee is recommending all Park members be provided with copies of certain materials such as flow chart, etc. and that at the next meeting everyone color code their maps. Ward reported that the Land Use Committee has been looking at the City owned land (has covered about 95% of Three Points area and most of west side of City); are looking for parcels that can be sold to finance Park planning and they will come back with their recommendations. The Park Commission discussed trying to meet just once a month; it was thought by concentrating their efforts, as much could be accomplished at the one meeting. Adjournment Burns moved and Jessen seconded a motion to adjourn to the next regular Park Com- mission meeting February llth, 1982. All in favor,.so adjourned. lC.I~ : ~:~OIJ..DV qID.~if£O 'U£VG ~z/~ 'uo!qmnzq£uo.o az!aoqqne oq panss! q!~gd ~o idc3 :.~e~f pua qquom ¢s3~ 3I Z2an.3 -~naq$ ao qu~,'L~^oadm! 's!q3 3o uo!qonaqsuoo arq ~z!aoqqne oo, p~nss! q!~lzz'd e se,.'.! . MOISIAIGHflS suommo3 ao spuel D!Iqnduo quzm~AoadmI ao ~anqona~s e 30 ~s~ quasoad ~qq 8u!nu!quoO V.[O.~9 N MIH t]MflOH dO A£ID 7 I I I I I I I / : ~./OIJ.:)V ~.,q..'~£.CO 'quama^oadm! /aanqonaqs 6u!qs!xa 50 sqdea~o3oqd 'IIaqap uo!qoas $6oz pue ilea 'uo~q~^ala ep!s pue quoz$ 'ueid aooI$ 'ueId .uo!qepuno$ noqS 'quzma^oadm! ao aanqonaqs aq~ $o quaqxa pu~ aanqeu aqq aqea!pu~ oq I!aqap pue ~q!JeIo qua{oI3$ns ~o suo!qeo!$!oads pue sueId ~o ~as auO 'am~s $o uo.~qe3ol puc qua.,aAoadu~z /~anqonaqs aq~ $o suo.~suam!p ~u!noqs .aleos oq uncap ueld ~oid auO -f 'uo!qonaq£uoo oz!aoqqne oq p~nss! q~L~md 20 £do3 'I -onaq~ ao qu~,m~^oadm! s~.qg ~o uo!qonaqsuoo ~qq ~z~.aoqqne o% p~nss! q!ma~d e se,.'.1 . :m~q7 qs!I ~s~z: $I Zsuom~ao3 zo spueq o!Iqnduo ~anq~naqs ao qumm~^oadm~ u~ aaaR nor oG suommo3 ao spueq D!Iqnduo qu~m~^oadmI ao ~anqonaqS e $o ms~ qu~s~jd sqq 6u!nu!quo3 £INH~d ~3NVM~£NI~R ON~O;'I 'dO AAID s%o~o, ra~X. . e c>?.,1 ~uo,i CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 LEGAL NOTICE SOLICITATION OF 1982 CITY INSURANCE COVERAGE The City of Hound hereby officlallyrequests quotations for coverage of all city insurance business from February l, 1982 to January 30, 1983. Quotations are due in the City Office, 5341Haywood Road, Hound, Hinnesota, no later than January 19, 1982, at 10:O0 A.H. A copy of the required coverages for city buildings and equipment is available at the Hound City Hall 5341Haywood Road Hound, HN. 55364 472-1155 c/o the City Hanager Judith Fisher, Acting City Clerk PUBLISH IN THE LAKER December 22, 1981 and January 5, 1982 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 5,5364 (612) 472-1155 January 19, 1982 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: JON ELAM, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: INSURANCE QUOTATIONS We have now received the 1982 insurance quotations. Only one person bid on the package, Earl Bailey. He held this years contract and I think attempts to serve us very well. He has explained in the attached letter his recommendation to accept the Home Insurance Company quotation. As far as budget dollars go, the package is excellent. I had budgeted through all the funds insurance costs in 1982 of $108,597. The total cost of this package is $82,928., a difference of $25,669. JE:fc eric. R.L. YOUNGDAHI. & ASSOC., INC. 3131 F£RNBROOK LANE · PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5,.,.~.44 ! · PHONE (612) 553 January 21, 1982 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Jori: Please find enclosed Mound's proposal for the upcoming years insurance. I'm happy to inform you that we have been able to again reduce the overall costs of the City's property and casualty insurances. This is mainly being done due to the favorable claims experience the City has had in the past 12 months. A reflection of a good, strong management. For the renewal we have updated several insurance values and included items that were heretofore uninsured. These positive changes are a direct result of the meeting we had with the various department heads, which you initiated. When looking at the bottom line figures of Home and the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Truct (LMCIT), it appears that the league has the more favorable rates. But this is NOT the case. Let's break out the proposal into 2 comparisons, using the subtotal of Sections I= X as the "Package", and the Workers Compensation figures as the second. When you look at the 2 "Package" figures, you'll see that Home is lower by $ 1,388.00 · These are the most important figures to compare because they contain all of the different lines of insurance except one. The one premium left out of the "Package" is the Workers Compensation and as we already know, the Workers Compensation rates for the various job classifications are controlled by the state. Thusly, the gross Workers Compensation annual premium WILL be the same, no matter what insurance company you take it out through. So why is the League's Workers Compensation quote lower? Because the League is a self insured trust, not an insurance company. The League must still charge the state controlled rates, which will produce the same gross premium as an insurance company, but the state allows them to deduct, up front, the anticipated "dividend" they expect to be able to pay their members at year end. This "dividend" for the upcoming year is 18%, and pertains only the the Workers Compensation premium. Home's dividend last year by comparison was 33%, and pertained to ALL lines of insurance, not just Workers Compensation. Insurance companies cannot deduct their dividends up front though, like a Trust can. But when you consider the net cost of Homes Workers Compensation it will be several thousand dollars less than the Leagues. Home this year is offering an interest free monthly pay planto Mound, which I think is fantastic. It will be on a 25% down basis and the balance in 9 monthly installments. In summary, it is my strong recommendation that we renew these property and casualty policies with Home this year due to the tremendous difference in net cost between it and any of it's competitors, the monthly pay plan, the fact that Home increased coverages and still lowered premiums below last years level and to keep the continuty of coverage. Thanking you in advance, I am, Respectfully, Earl Eo Bailey EEB/sh Enclosure CITY OF MOUND SU~4ARY OF COVERAGES DECEMBER, 1981 CITY OF MOUND LOCATION 1. Pump House ~/1 - 2321 Marion 2. Pump House #2 - Commerce Blvd. 3. Pump House ,, 3 - 2355 Chateau 4. Elevated Water Tank W/Well #3 5. Pump House #4 and Pump House #7 6. Pump House #5 - 4461 Wilshire 7. Pump House #6 - 2415 Wilshire 8. Fire Sirens & Towers 4845 Cumberland & 5503 Shoreline 9. Village Hall - 5341 Maywood Road 9a Property of Others 10. Fire Station - 2415 Wilshire 11. Village Garage - 4845 Manchester 12. Water and Street Office - 4845 Manchester 13. Playground Buildings & Equipment 14. Park & Cemetary Equipment 15. Water Tanks & Controls 16. Storage Building - 2232 Commerce 16a Property of Others 17. Community Building - 5801 Bartlett * Sub Total 18. Liquor Store - 2324 Wilshire Blvd. (Reporting Form). * Combined Total = $1,939,432 + $323,505 = $2,262,937 BUILDING $ 22,097 $ 8,791 $ 28,512 $126,522 $106,920 $ 44,312 $ 94,921 $ 12,236 CONTENTS -0- $438,372 $$7,900 -0- $10,000 $374,242 $23,400 $ 77,576 $20,600 $148,619 $14,600 $ 11,642 $156,400 $ '~1,426 $ 605 $221,681 -0- $133,888 -0- -0- $10,000 ~ 87,674 -0- $1,939,432 $323,505 -0- $135,000 COVER_ACES PROPERTY A. Building & Contents 1. Perils Insured Against a. "Ail Risk", Subject to Company Forms b. $100.00 Deductible c. Replacement Cost d. Blanket Coverage e. 90% Co-Insurance f. See Attached Schedule B. Contents @2324 Wilshire Blvd. 1. Perils Insured Against a. "Ail Risk", Subject to Company Forms b. $100.00 Deductible c. ACV d. Monthly Reporting Form e. 100% Co-Insurance $2,262,937 $135,000 II. BUSINESS INTERRUPTION A. Loss of Earnings 1. At Location 2324 Whilshire Blvd. 2. 25% Monthly Limitation 3. "Ail Risk", Subject to Company Forms 4. No Deductible $65,000 III. CRIME A. Insures money against actual disappearance, distruction, or wrongful abstraction. 1. Location - 5341 Maywood Road a. Loss Inside Premises b. Loss Outside Premises 2. Location - 2324 Wilshire Blvd. a. Loss Inside Premises b. Loss Outside Premises 3. Depositors Forgery $19,000 $ 3,0o0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 COVEraGES con't IV. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY A. Limits of Liability 1. Bodily Injury 2. Property Damage $500,000 $100,000 Premises Medical Payment 1. Each Person 2. Each Accident $ 1,000 $~5,ooo C. Premises/Operations 1. Auto Garage @ Lot #3, Block #20, Island Park a. Based on 3,582 Square Feet 2. Auto Parking Lots~ a. See Attached Schedule 3. Office Building a. Based on 2,070 Square Feet 4. Office Building -a. Based on 9,000 Square Feet ~ 5. Retail Store a. Based on 2,730 Square Feet 6. Building not Occupied by Insured (Lessor's Risk) a. Based on 544 Square Feet 7. Boats/Canoes For Hire or Premises used for Storage a. Based on 2 Units 8. Non-owned Boats a. Based on 2 Units 9. Cemetary a Based oni0 Acres 10. Parks or Playgrounds a. Based on 5 Acres 11. Playround Equipment including Wading Pools a. Based on 1 Unit 12. Swimming Pools or Bathing Beaches a. Based on 1 Unit 13~ Storm or Sanitary Sewers a. Based on 35 Miles 14. Vacant Land a. Based on 450' of Frontage 15. Streets, Roads, or Highways a. Based on 39 Miles 16. Automobile Parking Garages or Lots a. See Attached Schedule of 14 Locations COVERAGES con't IV. C0}~REHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY con't D. Manufacturers/Contractors 1. Firemen a. Based on $55,000 Payroll 2. Municipal Employees a. Based on $6,600 Payroll 3. Policemen a. Based on $287,000 Payroll 4. Waterworks including Completed Operations a. Based on $79,000 Payroll b. The "Explosion, Collapse, & Underground Exclusions are Deleted 5. Sewer Cleaning a. Based on $71,000 Payroll 6. Street Cleaning Including Completed Operations a. Based on $110,000 Payroll 7. Additional Insured/Burlington Northern 8. Personal Injury 9. Broad Form Property Damage 10. Contractual Liability (See Specific Form) , E. Products Liability 1. Water Works a. Based on 663,000 Gallons 2. Liquor Store a. Based on $825,000 Sales UMBRELLA LIABILITY A. Limit of Liability B. Self Insured Retention $1,000,000 $ 10,000 VI. AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY & PHYSICAL D2J~AGE A. Liability 1. Limits of Liability a. Bodily Injury b. Property Damage c. Personal Injury. Protection d. Uninsured Motorist e. Hired Automobiles f. Non-owned Automobiles $500,000 $5OO,OOO $20,000/10,000 $50,000 $5OO,OOO $500,000 //_,/ COVERAGES con't AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY & PHYSICAL DA}~GE con't B. Physical Damage 1. Comprehensive 2. Collision C. See Attached Schedule of Vehicles No Deductible $100/500 Deductible VII. LIQUOR LIABILITY A. Limits of Liability (Combined) 1. Each Person 2. Each Accident 3. Loss of Scrvices 4. Aggregate B. Insurance Carriers 1. Occidental (Primary) 2. Bellafonte (Excess) a. $400/400/400/400 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $700,000 VIII. PUBLIC OFFICIALS ERRORS & OMISSIONS A. Limit of Liability B. Deductible $1,000,000 $1,000 IX. INLAND MARINE A. Contractors Equipment 1. Varying $100 + $500 Deductibles B. Radio Equipment C. Perils Insured Against 1. Fire 2. Vandalism 3. "Ail Risk", Subject to Company Forms 4. $100.00 Deductible $269,630 CO%~RAGES con' t IX. INLAND MARINE con' t D. Miscellaneous Property Floater 1. 2 - 1980 Yamaha Mopeds 2. 1964 Lun Boat, 7 1/2 H.P. Sears Motor, 1968 Balcc Interceptor Trailer 3. Perils Insured Against a. Fire b. Vandalism c. "Ail Risk", Subject to Company Forms d. $50.00 Deductible, Per Occurrence 4. 12' Alunmcraft Row Boat 5. 14' Alumacraft Row Boat $600 $700 $300 $500 WORKER' S CO~ENSATION A. Based on Payrolls & Population 1. VolUnteer Firemen 2. Municipal Employees 3. Park Employees 4. Policemen 5. Street or Road Construction 6. Waterworks Operation 7. Sewer Cleaning 8. Liquor Store 9. Clerical 10. Auto Repair Shop ($30.29) ($ 2.43) ($ 5.38) ($ 5.41) ($ 8.98) ($ 6.42) '($11.32) ($ 1.54) ($ .23) ($ 4.64) $ 9,980 $ 5,940 $ 53,843 $243,225 $ 95,556 $ 61,469 $ 53,872 $ 64,578 $154,415 $ 19,292 XI. EMPLOYEE DISHONESTY & FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND $100,000 SCHEDULE OF VEHICLES CITY OF MOUND Unit Vehicle 1. 1978 Chev. 1/2 Ton Pickup 2. 1978 Chev. Impala 3. 1978 AMC Concord 4. 1954 Dodge 3/4 Ton Pickup 5. 1980 Chev. Malibu 6. 1980 Chev. Malibu 7. 1980 Chev. Malibu 8. 1980 Chev. Malibu 9. 1973 Chev. Step Van 10. 1978 Chev. Van 11. 1970 Ford 1/2 Ton 12. 1974 Chev. Vega Express 13. 1970 Ford Trk. W/Flasher 14. 1957 IH #4 Pumper Fire Truck 15. 1950 Ford #6 Pumper Fire Trk. 16. 1969 Ymck #11 Pumper Fire Tr. 17. 1973 Mack #12 Pumper Fire Tr. 18. 1966 Chev. Sub. #9 Rescue Tr. 19. 1974 Chev. #14 Rescue Van 20. 1976 Ford Tanker 21. 1954 Dodge 3/4 Ton Truck 22. 1970 Chev. 3/4 Ton Pickup · 1978 Chev. Dump Truck Ser,# 6509 7304 4079 1138 8290 8186 8207 8573 7328 2792 0841 8866 3317 0769 0216 1139 1508 5528 0632 1709 1456 7412 3751 ACV Comprehensive Deductible -O- Ko Coverage --0-- --0-- --0-- --0-- --0-- --0-- --0-- --0-- --0-- --0-- --0-- --0-- --0-- -0- NO Coverage --0-- Collision Deductible $100 $100 $100 No Coverage $1oo $1oo $1oo $1o0 $100 $100 :$100 ~100 NO Coverage NO Coverage N~ Coverage $500 $500. No'iCoverage $ 00 Ssoo No Coverage $100 $100 SCHEDULE OF VEHICLES con't Unit Vehicle ACV Compreh~ ~sive Dec ~le 24. 1973 Chev. Dump Truck 25. 1978 Chev. Dump Truck 26. 1968 Chev. Dump 27. 1975 Chev. Pickup 28. 1975 Chev. 2 1/2 T. Dump Truck 29. 1975 Chev. 2 1/2 T. Dump Truck 30. 1975 Snow C. 2 Wheel Trlr. 31. 1976 Ford 3/4 T. Pickup 32. 1981 Sutphen Fire Truck 33. 1981 Ford 2 1/2 T. Truck 0589 0638 6813 8627 8033 0160 1500 9363 3010 5610 -0- No Coveral --0-- --0-- $5O Collision Deducti] $100 $1oo $1oo $100 $100 $1oo No Coverage $1oo $500 $1oo PARK 1. Island Park Playground 2. Chester Park 3. Pembrooke 4. Avalon 5. Tyrone 6. Wychwood 7. AVon 8. Carlson 9. Seton 10. Edgewater Tot Lot 11. Belmont Tot Lot 12. C~nterview Beach 13. Three Points Park 14. Three Points Beach 15. Erookton 16. Mound Bay Park 17. Highlands Park 18. Langdon Heights CITY OF MOUND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT $23,875.00 $ 1,725.00 $ 1,225.00 $13,725.00 $ 590.00 $ 1,7ti'00., $ O0 $ l,~Oo.oo $ 2,425.00 $ 1,o~o.oo $ 500.00 $15,250.00 $ 575.00 $ 3,725.00 $83,275.00 $ 1,975.00 $ 3,225.00 TOTAL $156,400.00 CITY OF MOUND Parking Lots - City leases from owners for Si/year and charges back for maintenance at year end. Needs to list business ~wners as additional insured. 1. State Bank of Mound 2. William R. Netka DBA: Netka's 3. Robert A. Lauer & Geraldine Lauer, H~sband & Wife 4. Harold P. Borg & Helene L. Borg, Husbi~nd & Wife 5. Medical Properties, Inc. 6. Mound Super Value, Inc. 7. Mound Dry Goods Company DBA: Longpre' 8. Koenig & Schwert in partnership consi ting of William R. Koenig & Richard Schwert 9. Koenig & Robin in partnership consist ng of William R. Koenig & James G. Robin 10. Eberhardt Company, Mound, Inc. CITY OF MOUND RADIO EQUIP~NT 2. Remote Rem-Con 747 @ $350.00 Each 2 G.E. Mobiles @ 800.00 Each 1 'Water Tower Antenna 41 Plectron Tone Activated Fire Dept. Radio Monitors @ 38 Motorola Pagers W/Chargers @ $644.00 Each 11 E.F. Johnson Model 558 Mobile Units @ $644.00 Each 1. E.F. Johnson Repeater Base Station 1o E.F. Johnson Mobile 6 Fire Mobiles @ $1,200 Each 8 %~F Police Mobiles @ $1,200 Each 4 Mobile Teleprinters @ $1,2001Each 4 Portable CB's 6 Portables @ $1,200 Each i 2 Nutone Pagers @ $150.00 Each 2 G.E. Mobiles Ser. No. 8460686 & S019827 10 Johnson Mobile Units @ $714.00 Each 1 Johnson Base Station 1 Antenna @ Fire Station 150' Cable 1 Power Pack Converter And Antenna 5 Portable Fire Radio's $ 7OO $ 1,600 $ 325 [98 ea. $ 8,118 $10,184 $ 7,084 $ 2,500 $ 585 $ 7,200 $ 7,200 $ 4,800 3,600 300 850 7,140 2,500 150 633 150 6,000, CITY OF MOUND SCHEDULE OF EQUI?MENT 1974 Cat Loader 920 - S#62K6735 1969 Cat Grader 120 - S#SN14K1983 1 V Plow 1969 Pelican-Elgin Sweeper 4 Swenson Truck Sanders @ $500.00 Each Snow Plows including Carriages & Quick Couplers 5 Frink @ $2,100.00 Each Pneumatic Packer - Pull Type 8000 Feet of 2 1/2" Hose @ $1.80 6000 Feet of 1 1/2" Hose @ $1.40 1200 Feet of 4" Hose Jari Cycle Mower 1 Gorman Rupp Portable Pump 1500 Watt Portable Light Plant 300 GPM Homelite Pump 2 Smoke Extractors @ $450.00 Each 4 Resuscitators~for Police Department 5 Inhalators for Police Department @ 2 Air Compressors & 2 Hammers 21 Scott Air-Packs @ $350.00 Each Each Resuscitator (Globe) for Fire Department 2 Resusci Annie (1 owned + 1 non-o~med @ $1,200 ea. 2 Resusci Baby (1 owned + 1 non-owned i@ $300 ea. 2 Portable Road Scales @ $300 ea. Amount o: $34,000 $33,000. $ 1,5oo. $15,000 $ 2,2o0 $10,500 Insurance 00 00 1,200.t)0 $14,400.30 8,400. ~0 5,400. ~0 250 )o 500.~ ,0 300.~ I0 650.( 0 900. ( 0 $1 l,OOO. 7,500. 7,350.0 450.0 2,400. Oi ' 600.0t 600.0t Deductible $500.00 $500,00 $lOO.OO $500.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100,00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $1oo.oo $100.00 $lOO.OO $1D0.O0 -$1oo.o0 '$1oo.oo SCHEDULE OF EQUIPMENT con't 1974 Paver - }tiller 708 1974 Brush Chipper - Asplund 2 Flexible Bucket Machines @ $1,000.)0 Each 1 Flexible Rodding Machine Mounted o~ 1970 Ford 1 Tank 1200 Gal. & Ford Engine & Pum 2500 Watt Portable Light Plant 2 Hand Mowers 1974 Ford Tractor :,~, 1970 Mars Broom 1974 Hay Mower 1974 Push Blade 1974 Hole Auger 1 Cat Wing Blade 4 Truck Wing Blades @ $2,000.00 Each 1 Roller-Steel Wheel W/Vibrator, Self Propelled 1 Transit - Sears 1 Street Sign Making Unit 1 Water Tapping Machine 1 Water Test Incubator - Precision Scientific 1 Hach Floride Tester Kit 1 Wallic & Tiernam - Clorine Test Kit 1 Rear Mount Grader Blade for Ford Tractor 1 Loader Bucket for Ford Tractor Hydraulic Mounted on 1970 Ford Amoun~ of Insurance ST , 300. 00 $~,200.00[ 000. O0 ~ 000. O0 000.00 $ 500.O0 $ 180.00 $5 800.O0 $1 2OO.OO ~3 500.00 $ oo $ O0 $2 !00.00 $8 )00.00 $2, .00 $ ~oo.oo $ oo.oo $ .oo $ 0o · $ 1 )0. O0 $ 4 )0.00. $1 4 ,o.oo Deductible $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $1oo.00 $1oo.00 $1oo.00 $100.00 $100.00 $10o.o0 $100.00 $1oo.oo $1o0.00 $1oo.o0 $1oo.o0 $100.00 $1oo.oo $1oo.oo $1oo.o0 $1oo.o0 $100.00 SCHEDULE OF EQUIPMENT con't 1 High Pressure Steam Cleaner 1 Homelite Blower (Air) 1 Automotive Garage Hoist 1 Electric Gate Value Operator Router GA-22 Heliflux Wand Magnectic Locat~ln Coats 10-10 Tire Changer Welder Busy Bee 180 AMP ARC Parts Washer Pressure Regulator for Torchas 300 lb. Compressor 3500 Watt Generator 2 Air Wrenchs Portable Grease Gun 4 Ton Floor Jack 1 Fisher Locator 1 Howard Turf-Blazer 60" Rotary Mower'! 1 1981 Elgin Street Sweeper TOTAL AMOUR of Insurance $ 600.00 $ 4oo.oo $4 500. oo $1 200.00 $3 000.00 $ ~25.00 $ 300.00 $ 35O. oo .$ lO0.00 $ L50.00 $1 oo $ ~oo.oo $ [75.00 $ LSO.O0 $ ~00.00 $ ,oo.oo $3 ~00.00 $53 00.00 $273, 30.00 Deductible $100.00 $100.00 $1oo.o0 $1o0.o0 $1oo.oo $1oo.oo $1oo.oo $100.00 $1oo.oo $1oo.oo $100.00 $1oo.00 $100.00 $i00.00 $100.00 $lOO.OO $100,00 $500.00 /7/ January 19, 1982 PREMIUM SUMMARY HOM~ EMCIT SECTION I - Property 7INCL. SECTION II - Business Interruption INCL. SECTION III - Crime INCL. SECTION IV - Comprehensive General Liability INCL. SECITON V - Umbrella Liability INCL. SECITON VI - Auto Liability INCL. SECTION VII - Liquor Liability INCL. SECTION VIII - Public Officials Errors/Omissions INCL. SECTION XI SECTION IX - Inland Marine INCL. SECITON X - Employee Dishonesty INCL. Subtotal of Premium - Workers Compensation Total Premium $41,381 $36,907 $78,288 INCL. INCL. INCL. INCL. INCL. INCL. INCL. INCL. INCL. INCL. $42,769 ~ 3_._~_zl 062 $73,831 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA SPECIFICATIONS FOR TEST HOLES EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES 545 INDIAN MOUND WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 FEBRUARY 1982 Notice of Letting Questionnaire Contractor's Proposal Agreement Instructions to Bidders Performance Bond General Conditions Technical Specifications Standard Plates TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa~e No. NL-1 - NL-2 Q-1 CP-1 - CP-3 CA-1 - CA-2 IB-1 - IB-4 PB-1 - PB-2 GG-1 - GC-15 TS-1 - TS-4 ~ hereby ce, t. ify that this plan, specification] o~ report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. George W. Boyer Registration No. 9581 City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Attention: Mr. John Elam, City Manager Gentlemen: We, the undersigned, do hereby certify that we maintain a permanent place of business; that we have had experience in constructing and performing the work as outlined in the Specification; that we have the necessary financial resources to properly execute the contract; all as required by the Specification entitled, "Test Holes," dated February 19U2, prepared by E. A. Hicko~ and Associates, Inc., Hydrologists-Engineers. As evidence Of our experience, we submit the following list of similar projects that we have performed within the last five years. Owner Location Description ,9~ Work Very truly yours, (Company Name) By Q-1 CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSAL To: Bidder's Proposal No. Date Gentlemen We have examined the Plans and the attached Contract Documents Agreement, Performance Bond, the General Conditions of the Contract, and Technical Specifications for Mound Test Holes, official copies of which documents are on file in the office of the City Manager, Mound, Minnesota and E. A. Hickok anG Associates. We have examined the site and investigated the conditions affecting the proposed work and this proposal is filed in complete acceptance of said conditions. We herewith submit the following schedule of prices for the various items included in the project, and, if awarded the contract, agree to sign the prescribed form of contract and furnish the required corporate surety bond within ten (10) days with the understanding that the Owner may retain the same for consideration for a period of thirty (30) days from and after the established date of receiving bids. We agree that the certified check accompaning this proposal shall become the property of the Owner to enter into written contract and furnish bond required within ten (10) days after such award. If awarded the contract, we agree to start and complete the specified construction in compliance with the terms stated in this proposal. We agree to accept as full payment for the work an amount equal to that stated in our bid proposal, in the manner prescribed in the Specifications. If awarded this contract, we agree to start work according to the following schedule: Start Work Complete Work It is understood that the final amount of the contract shall be determined by multiplying the final measured quantities of the various items actually constructed and installed by the unit prices stated therefore in the manner prescribed in the specifications. However, the low bidder shall be determined by adding the sums resulting from multiplying the quantities stated by the unit prices therefore. CP-1 QUOTATION FORM Item No. Units LoS. Each Description Moving all equipment and crew to and from Mound and for first setup, lump sum For additional moves of equipment and crew from test hole to test hole, per move Drilling, sampling and electric logging two (2) four-inch diameter test holes, estimated at 300 feet per hole, per vertical foot Unit Frice ( Per Move ) (Per Foot) Extension (x 1) (x 6o0) TOTAL PRICE CP-2 Wl~cre cl~l~g~.,~ in the work are ordered ~lvo[viiig woz'k for which ~hur~ [s n{~t unit price in tills proposal and wtl~u work [~ ord~r~,l to procreant on a cost. plus fee, $~Ch [~e s~ ~ b~ %. 1[ ti~e und~-uigned is notiffed within thiiyty (30) days aft~ submis:~i,.m of t_}~is prol,osal, he agrees to commence wo~k within d~tys {~f ~otification of acceptance and he agrees to guarantee completi~m of work in accordance with the special provisions, and to ent,.~' into a ~>olitract for the above work for the stated compen- sation in the form cont,~ined in the Specifications with necessary modifi,~at ions mutually ~greed to. Tile undersigned agrees, if awarded the contract, to furnish a performance and labor- and material payment bond satisfactory to the Owner of the project. No. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the receipt of Addendum (If none, so state.) Submitted by: (A Corporation) (An individual ) (A Partnership) Date: Address: Telephone No. By: Title: Remarks: The following statement must be signed by the Bidder. We have examined the site and investigated the conditions that exist. By Title Date (N-~-~-~ of Bidder'Y CP-3 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, Entered into on this day of 19 by and between the City of Mound, Minnesota, party of the first part, hereinafter known as and referred to in the Specifications as the Owner and of , party of the second part, hereinafter known as the Contractor. WITNESSETH: That the Contractor, for and in consideration of the payment or payments hereinafter specified and to be made by the Owner at the times and in the manner as herein set forth, hereby covenants and agrees to furnish and provide all materials and labor for every need and description and every other article or t~ing necessary and required for the work as shown on the Plans and Specifications entitled, "Test Holes," as prepared by E. A. Hickok and Associates, Inc., Hydrologists-Engineers, acting as and in these Contract Documents entitled, Engineer, which Specifications are hereby made a part of this contract. The Owner agrees to pay the said Contractor in current funds for the faithful performance of the contract DOLLARS ($ ), (this being the amount set forth in the Contractor's Proposal dated ), and to pay such sum at the time or times, and in the manner provided by said Specifications. The Contractor, in further consideration of the premises, for itself, its successors and assigns, further agrees to procure at its own expense, insurance in such sum as required by this Specification to a company or companies to be approved by the Owner which shall fully idemnify and save harmless the Owner against any and all liability of whatsoever nature as a result of injury to persons or damage to property, in any way arising out of, or in consequence of, the granting of this contract by the Owner to the Contractor, within the limits set forth in the General Conditions of the Contract, including requirements with reference to such insurance as provided by the Specifications. The Contractor also covenants and agrees that all said work and labor shall be done and performed in the best and most workmanlike manner and that all such materials and labor shall be in strict and entire conformity, in every respect, with the said Specifications and Plans, and shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the Engineer or duly authorized representative, and in case of said materials or labor shall be rejected by the Engineer as defective or unsuitable, then the said materials shall be removed and replaced with other approved materials and said labor shall De done anew to the satisfaction and approval of the Engineer without extra cost to the Owner. CA-1 TI,c ~'~{ ~,~cl~.,r fu[ther covenants and agrees tt[dt ll~ will com~c~c~ w~'k u[~,~ ~xecution of the contract. 1 t i s undcr:;too,~ ,~nd agreed that no claim for extend work done or mat. erials fu[~ished by the Contractor will be allowed by tile Owner except ~s [,~ovided herein, nor shall the Contractor do any work, or furt~ish any materials not covered by the Plans, Specificatioits d.~d this contract, unless such work is ordered in writing by the E,,gineer upon approval of the City Council. In event sh~ll the Contractor incur any liability by reason of any oral directions or instructions that may be given by the Engineer or authorized ret)resentative, nor will the Owner by liable for any materials furnis}~ed or used, or for any work or labor done, said materisals, work or labor are required of said Contractor written order as required above. Any such work done, or materi~l~ furnished by the Contractor without such written order first being given shall be at said Contractor's own risk, cost and expense, and he hereby covenants and agrees that without such written order, he shall .hake no claim for compensation for work so done materials so fur~ished. In case any questions or dispute arise between the parties hereto respecting any matter pertaining to this contract, or any part thereof, said questions and dispute shall be referred to the Engineer and his decision thereon shall be binding upon the parties hereto, provided said decision is in writing and signed by him. If there is conflict between the Specifications and this instrument, the Specifications shall govern. IN WITNESS WtlEREOF, the and said have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year fl}"~-q-~Jve written. As to A ( SEA L ) By Its By As to ( SEA h ) By By CA-2 !NHTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS [ Work to l,~ [~e~formed for the City o[ M0u~d, Min[~esmta which ~s the [~arty ¢~ the ~irst part in the aCCOll%[3anying contract. acting through it~ ~,dthouized representative. 2. A sel~al',~te colby of the Contractor's Proposal o~~ bidding blank is included in loose form in the front of this book. All proposals must be on these official blanks. Additional copies ,nay be obtained at tile office of E. A. Hickok and Associates, Inc., Engineer. 3. Alterations in bidding blanks made by the Bidder may cause ~ejection of the proposal by the Owner. 4. Definitions of Terms: In these Specifications and accom- panying Contract Documents the following definitions shall apply: OWNER City of Mound Mound, Minnesota 55364 ENGINEER E. A. Hickok and Associates, Inc. I NS P ECTOR The appointed representative of the Engineer assigned to detailed inspection of the work or materials therefore, and to such other duties as may be delegated to him in these SpeCifications. CONTRACTOR The party of the second part in the accom- panying contract for the construction covered by the Specifications or his authorized representative. SUB-CONTRACTOR The authorized representative of the Contractor, or the Sub-Contractor, having charge of the construction for said Contractor or Sub-Contractor. BIDDER Any individual, firm or corporation sub- mitting a proposal for all or part of the work provided for in the Specifications. SURETY The corporate body bound with and for the Contractor for the acceptable performance of the contract. PROPOSAL The written proposal, submitted by the Bidder in the prescribed manner, on the official Contractor's Proposal for the construction covered by the Specifications. IB-1 PLAN~ A~I drawings or reproductions of drawinqs t,urtaining to the construction or details ~£ the work included in the accompanying contract. SPEC I FICAT It)N~ All provisions and requirements contained t~erein together with all written or printed .~greements or memoranda made or to be made ~ertaining to the method and manner of performing the work or to the quantities and qualities of materials to be furnished under the contract. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS Contract documents include (1) all ordin- ances, codes and resolutions of the Owner pertinent to the execution of the construc- tion projects; (2) Notice of Letting; (3) these Instructions to Bidders; (4) the Contractor's Proposal, containing the written tender or bid of the Contractor; (5) the executed specific Construction Agreement; (6) Performance Bond; (7) the General Conditions; (8) Technical Specifications; (9) Plans; (10) the insurance policies of the Contractor per- taining to this project. 5. Examination of the Proposed Work. Bidders shall inform themselves concerning the conditions under which the work is to be ~performed, and examine the Plans and Specifications to make sure the requirements are fully understood. Failure on the part of the Bidder to ascertain all the requirements of the Plans and Specifications and conditions at the site of the work shall not constitute a basis for extra compensation. The Bidder is expected to base his proposal on materials and equipment complying fully with the Plans and Specifications and should his bid have been based on materials or equipment which do not conform, he will be responsible for furnishing material and equipment as specified, at no change in his bid price. 6. Sealed Proposals. Ail proposals shall be sealed in an envelope and addressed to the City Manager, Mound, Minnesota and delivered prior to the time in the Notice of Letting. 7. Signatures on Proposals. If the proposal is made by an individual, his name and post office address must be shown. If made by a firm or partnership, the name and post office address of the firm or partnership must be shown. If made by a corporation, the person signi,%g the proposal may be required to name the state under the laws of which the corporation is chartered, and the name, title, and business address of the executive head of the corporation. Anyone signing a proposal as agent may be required to submit satisfactory evidence of his authority to do so. IB-2 a stat,,,nent covct~l,l ~heir experience on similar work, a Ii. st o~ equilm,t.,nt whic}~ will t,e used on the proposed work all, t buch sta- 9. t<ctur,~ ,,~ Bittding Checks. Thc bidding chcck~ o~ ~li but the thrc~ lowest. !,idders shall be returned promptly. In no case will the biddin~I ,:t~ccks be held longer than ten ([0) days without writte{] permi~sio,~ of the Bidder, except that the bidding check o[ the Bidder to wlxom the contract is awarded shall be retained until he has entered iht,) contract and filed an acceptable bond. t0. Contract l{ond. The Bidder to whom the contract is awarded shall be t'.~quired to file a surety bond in a sum equal to the total amount ok the said contract. The surety bond shall be filed with the total amount of the said contract. The surety bond shall be filed with the City of Mound, Minnesota on or before ten (10) days after the award of the contract. Said bond shall pro- vide that the Contr~actor shall well and satisfactorily perform his work in complete ~ccordance with the Plans and Specifications therefore, and according to the terms and conditions of this contract, and also that said Contractor shall promptly pay all debts incurred in the prosecution of his work, including those for labor and material:~ furnished. Said bond shall, in all cases, comply with the l~ws of the State of Minnesota and shall be subject to the approval of the Owner. 11. Plans and Specifications. The Plans and Specifications prepared by the Engineer have been adopted by the City of Mound, Minnesota. They are a part of this contract and must be complied with unless modifications acceptable to the Engineer are agreed upon at the time (>~ construction. 12. Contract 0ocuments. Under paragraph 4, "Definition of Terms," hereof, a ~]umber of documents are referred to as part of the contract. It is hereby specifically provided that each of these documents is complimentary to the others and that all such documents are a part of the specific contract by this reference, as surt:ly and certainly as though they were set out therein in detail. 13. Time of Performing Contract. The work shall be completed as set forth in the Contractor's Proposal. 14. Payment of Contractor. The payment for work under this contract will be made by the Owner to the Contractor as specified in the General Conditions. 15. Payment ot Bills. Before any payment to the Contractor is made, satistactory evidence shall be filed with the Owner that the cost of all materials, labor, service or claims incurred by the Contractor in connection with the work, shall have been satis- factorily met. IB-3 lt~. Inter ~t, ~ ~.~tiOll of Contract Documont~;. 11 ,~¥ ~['son con- templ~tt ind sUt,mitt, il]q a bid for the proposed co,~t,~,,-t is in doubt aS to t.hu true m,',~ui[~g of any part of the Plans, :;pu,:ilications or reque:;l [~)~, al~ il~t-.ti)reLation the~eo[. The [),2rson ::{ul~,,titti~g the reque,.;t wi 1 I ~,~ [ t~pons [ble ~or its prompt ~1~1 ive~ y. Any inter[.)~'et~tiot~ ~)1 th{~ proposed documents wi] ~ be made ~)nly by dn addend~m duly i~.~ud. The addendum will be mailed or delivered to each p~t-s()n receiving a copy of said docume~ts and t,ecolne a legal bindi~.~d part the~,:of. 17: Failure to Execute Contract. Failure to file bond in the sum sp~cified, o~ to execute the contract within ten days from date oi award sh~l.l be just cause for the annulment of the award of the contract, [~ executed. It is understood by the Bidder that in the event of t t~e ~nnulment of the award ~f the contract, the amount of 'the ce~ tilled check may be retain{.d by the Owner as fixed and [.iquid~ted damages sustained by the Owner due to the delay and failure of the bidders to enter into contract. 18. Alterations in Bid. The Contractor's Propsoal shall be filed in ink or typewritten and any alterations or interlineations of the unit Prices shall be initialed by the Bidder. 19. Experie~ce and Equipment. The Bidders shall furnish references r, egarding his ability to construct a water main and bridge crossing [,y n~ming not less than fiw~ locations where he has successfully ~;onstructed similar projects at least five (5) days prio~ to th{. letting date, and submitted to the Owner and Engineer ~for their review. Along with this, the bidders shall also furnish a 1].~{t of the equipment to be ~]sed on the work including type, condition, age and location so that the Owner may inspe.ct same before awarding a contract for the work. IB-4 That Wu City o[ Mound, hc~,.~na~ter called the Owner, in thc rail and lust sum of tlnt ted States, ~c~ thd'-~y'~d'nt'-6f-v~[-c-h-~--~e-i-~' and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. The conditio~t of the above obligation is such that WHEREAS, the bounden principal has therefore on the day of , 19 , entered into a certain contract with the Owner, a copy ~'~ which Contract, together with its terms, covenants, conditi~)ns and stipulations is incorporated herein and made a part hereol as fully and amply as if said Contract were recited at length herein. NOW THEREFORI.;, i~ the above bounden Principal shall wel [, truly and faithkully perform said Contract and comply with all th~ terms and provisi~ns thereof and satisfy all of the obligations of said Principal arising thereunder including the matter of infringement, ir ,,~y, of patents and shall guarantee the main- tenance in good ,'trpair o~ said improvements for a period of one year a~ter tile cou,l~letion of the Contract and comply with all the covenants therein contained, and contained in the Specificatlons and other documents constituting a pa~t of said Contract required to be performed by said Principal in the manner and within the time provided in ~-;aid Contract, and shall full reimburse and repay making good any dc£ault and shall pay all persons who have contracted directl~ with the principal of labor and materials, if any, included in :.;aid Contract, then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwi:;c to remain in full force and effect. The said Surt:ty for value received hereby stipulated, agrees that no change, e~tension of time, alteration or addition to the terms o~ the Contract or to the work to be performed thereunder, or the Specificat~,)ns accompanying the same, shall in any way affect its obliga! tons on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any SucI~ ct~ange, extension of time, alteration or addi- tion to the terms of the Agreement or to the work or to the Speci f ications. PB-1 have ux~cnt cd tt,,~i~ l,L'~:~nts this ..... day of ........... , 19__. ATT E S T: It y ( Surety-~ (SEAL) By Agent ~ Surety~ (The Performance Bond must be signed with the full name of the Contractor. If the Contractor is a partnership, the Performance Bond must be signed in the partnership name by each partner. If the Contractor is a corporation, the Performance Bond must be signed in the corporate name by a duly authorized officer and the corporate name by a duly authorized officer and the cor- porate seal affixed and attested by the Secretary of the corporation. A typewritten copy of all such names and signatures shall be appended.) (The Per£ormance Bond must be accompanied by a power of attorney authorizing execution on behalf of the Surety and, jursidictions so ~equiring, should be countersigned by a duly authorized resident agent of the Surety.) PB-2 Article (;ENERAI, CONI)['~IONS OF THE CONTRACT l)~finitions: 'rile Contract I~ocuments include (1) all ordinances , COdeS and resolutions of the Owner pertinent to the execution of the const['uction project; (2) Notice of Hearing and Letting; ({) Instructions to Bidders; (4) Contractor's Proposal containing the written tender or bid of the Contractor; (5) the executed specific Construction Agreement; (6) Performance Bond; (7) General Conditions; (8) Special Conditions; (9) Technical Specifications; (10) Drawings; and (11) the insurance policies of the Contractor pertaining to this project. (b) (c) The Owner, the Contractor and the Engineer are those mentioned as such in the Agreement. They are treated throughout the Contract Documents as if each were of the singular number and masculine gender. The term Sub-Contractor, as employed herein, includes only those having a direct contract with the Contractor and it includes one who furnished material worked to a special design according to the Plans and Specifications of this work, but does not include one who merely furnished material not so worked. (d) Written notice shall be deemed to have been duly served if delivered in person to the individual or to a member of the firm or to an officer of the corporation for whom it is intended, or if delivered at or sent by registered mail to the last business known to him who gives the notice. (e) The term "work" of the Contractor or Sub-Contractor includes labor or materials or both. (f) Ail time limits stated in the Contract Documents are of the essence of the Contract. (g) The law of the place of building shall govern the construction of this contract. Article'2. Execution, Correlation and Intent of Documents: The appropriate Contract Documents shall be signed in quadruplicate by the Owner and the Contractor. In case the Owner and the Contractor fail to sign the General Conditions, Drawings or Specificatons, the Engineer shall identify them. GC-1 for by any one ~;~a[1 be as binding as if called tot by alL. 'P~e intention o~' the docum~nts is to include al l labor , m~te~-ial , qui.n~r~t an~t tr~'~st)ortation necessar~ ~or the pro,)et' execution ut he wot-k. It is llot i~tuRded, however, that ln~terial:~ ,~r work ,'~t covered by or p~'o[~e['ty i~lferable from any heading, bra,%ch, cldss or trade ok tl,e spcci~ictions shall be supplied unless distinctly so noted on the d~awings. Materials or work described in words which so applied h~ve a well-known technical or trade meaning shall be held to ~efer to such recognized standards. Article 3. Drawings ~urnished .by the Engineer: The drawings show plans of the work together with such details as can be conveniently shown. The work shall conform to such additional drawings as will be furnished from time to time during construction, including such changes of detail as the Engineer may consider necessary on account of conditions that are found to exist during the prosecution of the work. The Contractor shall check all drawings and shall be responsible for the correct fitting together and exact position of all parts of the work. All of the drawings form a part of these Specifications. A reasonable number of prints of all drawings and specifications as required by the Contractor will be supplied by the Engineer free of charge. Article 4. Drawings Furnished by the Contractor: The Contractor shall send to the Engineer four (4) certified prints of outline dimension drawings and all such assembly and detail drawings and diagram of materials, apparatus and equipme,]t furnished by him as are required to demonstrate to the Engineer that the provisions and intent of the Specifications are being complied with. The Engineer will return to the Contractor two (2) prints of each drawing marked with his approval; or request for cnanges, and the Contractor shall not proceed, except at his own risk, with the manufacturer of the apparatus or materials covered by a particular drawing until such approval is received. The Engineer shall have the right to require the Contractor to make such changes in design, as in his opinion are necessary to make the apparatus conform to the provisions and intent of the Specifications, without additional cost to the Owner. The Engineer's approval of drawings, or waiver of such appro- val or any changes in design made at the Engineer's request shall not in any way relieve the Contractor of the full responsibility of meeting all the requirements of the contract. It is agreed that the Engineer will return drawings with his approval or request for changes within seven (7) calendar days following their receipt. GC-2 Article !5.._ J_)<a_w_i_,~!s_._a_,~¥/_S_pecification$ of th~ Work: Thc C¢>~tract<>~- shall keep one copy of all drdwi~g~ a[]d Specifications o,~ the work. in good order, available to the. Engi~]eer a~%d t0 I~is rcp~'esentatives. Articl~ 6. Owne~-~!i_~p_~f__qDrawings and Models: Ail drawi,]gs, specifications and copies thereo[ £urnished by the Engineer are his property. They are not to be used on other work and with thc exception of the signed contract set, are to be returned to him o~% request at the completion of the work. All models are the property of the Owner. Article 7. Samples: The Contractor shall furnish for approval all samples as directed. The work shall be in accordance with approved samples. Article 8. Material~.~ Appl~gqces, Employees: Unless otherwise stipulated, the Contractor shall provide and pay for all materials, labor, water, tools, equipment, light, power, transportation and other facilities necessary for the exe- cution and completion of the work. Unless otherwise specified, all materials shall be new and both workmanship and materials shall be good quality. The Contractor shall, if required, furnish satisfactory evidence as to the kind and quality of materials. The Contractor shall at all times enforce strict discipline and good order among his employees, and shall not employ on the work an unfit person or anyone not skilled in the work assinged to him. Article 9. Royalties and Patents: The Contractor shall pay all royalities and license fees. shall defend all suits or claims for infringement of any patent rights and shall save the Owner harmless from loss on account thereof. He Article 10. Sur~gys, Permits and Regulations: The Owner shall furnish all surveys unless otherwise specified. Permits and licenses of a temproary nature necessary for the prosecution of the work shall be secured and paid for by the Contractor. Permits, licenses and easements for permanent structures or permanent changes in existing facilities shall be secured and paid for by the Owner, unless otherwise specified. GC- 3 ' The Co~tractt)t; shall give all notices and comply with all -- laws, ordinances, rules and regulations bearing on the conduct 0t the work as drawn and specified. If the Contractor observes that ~the drawings and Sl3eCifications are at variance therewith, he .. ~shall [~rompt]y ~totify the Engineer in writing, and any necessary changes shall be adjusted as provided in the Contract for changes in the work. If the Contractor performs any work knowing it to t~ contrary to such laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, and -- without such notice to the Engineer, he shall bear all costs arising therefrom. Article 11. Protection of Work and Property: The Contractor shall continuously maintain adequate protec- tion of all his work from damage and shall protect the Owner's property from injury or loss arising in connection with his contract. He shall make good any such damage, injury or loss, except such as may be directly due to errors in the Contract Documents or caused by agents or employees of the Owner. He shall adequately protect adjacent property as provided by law and the Contract Documents. He shall take all risk from floods and casualties of every description and make no charge for delay due to such causes. The Contractor has the priviledge of insuring in full or in part against all such losses or damages. The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions for the safety of employees on the work, and shall comply with all appli- cable provisions of federal, state and municipal safety laws and building codes to prevent accidents or injury to persons on, about or adjacent to the premises where the work is being performed. He shall erect and properly maintain at all times, as required by the conditions and progress of the work, all necessary safeguards for the protection of workmen and the public and shall post danger signs and lights warning against the hazards. He shall designate a' responsible member of his organization on the work, whose duty shall be the prevention of accidents. The name and position of the persons so designated shall be reported to the Engineer by the Contractor. In an emergency affecting the safety of life or of the work or of adjoining property, the Contractor, without special instruc- tion or authorization from the Engineer or Owner, is hereby permitted to act, at his discretion, to prevent such threatened loss or injury. Any compensation claimed by the Contractor shall be submitted to the Owner through the Engineer. The amount of compensation shall be determined by agreement or arbitration. Article 12. Inspection of Work: The Engineer and his representatives shall at all times have access to the work wherever it is in preparation or progress and the Contractor shall provide proper facilities for such access and for inspection. No inspector is authorized to change any provi- sion of the Specifications or Plans nor shall the presence or absence of an inspector relieve the Contractor from any require- nts of the Contract. GC-4 I~ the Specificdtior~s, the Engineer's instructions, laws, ordinances or any public authority require any work to be spe- cially tested or a~[~roved, the Contracto~ shall give the Engineer timely notice of tl~e readiness ~0r inspection, and ii the inspec- tion is by the Engineer, shall be promptly made, and where prac- ticable at the source of supply. If any work should be covered up without approval or consent of the Engineer, it must, if required by the Engineer, be uncovered for examination at the Contractor's expense. Re-examination of questioned work may be ordered by the Engineer and if so ordered, the work must be uncovered by the Contractor. If such work be found in accordance with the Contract Documents, the Owner shall pay the cost of re-examination and replacements. If such work be found not in accordance with the Contract Documents, the Contractor shall pay such cost, unless he shall show that the defect in the work was caused by another contractor, and in that event, the Owner shall pay such cost. Article 13. SuperintendenGe, Supervision: The Contractor shall keep on this work, during its progress, a competent superintendent and any necessary assistants, all satisfactory to the Engineer. The superintendent shall not be changed except with the consent of the Engineer, unless the superintendent proves to be unsatisfactory to the Contractor and ceases to be in his employ. The superintendent shall represent the Contractor in his absence and all directions given to him shall be as binding as if given to the Contractor. Other direc- tions shall be so confirmed on written request in each case. The Contractor shall give efficient supervision of the work, using his best skill and attention. He shall carefully study and compare all drawings, specifications and other instructions and shall at once report to the Engineer any error, inconsistency or omission which he may discover, but he shall not be held respon- sible for their existence or discovery. Article'14. q~gqgeS in thelWork~ The Owner, without invalidating the Contract, may order extra work or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from the work, the Contract sum being adjusted accordigly. All such work shall be executed under the conditions of the original contract except that any claim for extension of time caused thereby shall be adjusted at the time of ordering such changes. In giving instructions, the Engineer shall have authority to make minor changes in the work, not involving extra cost, and not inconsistent with the purposes of the project, but otherwise, except in any emergency endangering life or property, no extra work or change shall be made unless in pursuance of a written order from the Engineer stating that the Owner has authorized the extra work or change and no claim for an addition to the contract sum shall be valid unless so ordered. GC-5 The value ot any such extra work or change si,alt be deter- mined in one or mo,'e o~ the following ways: (a) By estimate and acceptance in a lump sum. (b) By unit prices named in the contract or subsequently agreed upon. (c) By cost and percentage or by cost and a fixed fee. If none of the above methods are agreed upon, the Contractor, provided he received an order as above, shall proceed with the work. In such case and also under Case (c), he shall keep and present in such form as the Engineer may direct, a correct account of the cost, together with vouchers. In any case, the Engineer shall certify to the amount, including 15% allowance for overhead and profit due to the Contractor. Pending final determination of value, payments on account of changes shall be made on the Engineer's certification. Article 15., Claims .for 'Extra ~Cost: If the Contractor claims that any instructions by drawings or otherwise involve extra cost under this contract, he shall give the Engineer written notice thereof within a reasonable time after the receipt of such instructions, and in any event, before pro- ceeding to execute the work, except in an emergency endangering life or property and the procedure shall then be as provided for changes in the work. No such claims shall be valid unless so made. Amticle ~16. .DedUGtions fo~ Uncorrected Work: If the Engineer and Owner deem it inexpedient to correct work injured or not done in accordance with the Contract, an equitable deduction from the contract price shall be made therefore. ArtiGle %7.' iDelays. 'and ExtenSion ,of Time: If the Contractor be delayed at any time in the progress of the work by any act or neglect of the Owner or the Engineer, or of any employee of either, or by any separate Contractor employed by the Owner, or by changes ordered in the work, or by strikes, lockouts, flood, fire, unusual delay in transportation, una- voidable casualties or any cause beyond the Contractor's control, or delay authorized by the Engineer pending arbitration, an exten- sion of time may be granted for such reasonable time as the Engineer may decide. No such extension shall be made for delay occurring more than seven days before claim therefore is made in writing to the Engineer. In the case of a continuing cause of delay only one claim is necessary. GC-6 If n(, schedule (,r agreement stating the dates ui~on which drawings shall be ~u~nished is made, then no claim f~ de.lay shall be allowed on account of failure to furnish drawings until two :eks after demand ~(3r such drawings and not then unless such .aim be reasonable. 'Phis article docs not exclude the recovering o~ damages for delay by either party under other provisions in the Contract Documents. Amti¢le 18. Corro~tion of Work Before Final Payment: The Contractor shall promptly remove from the premises all work condemned by the Engineer as failing to conform to the Contract, whether incorporated or not, and the Contractor shall promptly replace and re-execute his own work in accordance with the Contract and without expense to the Owner and shall bear the expense of making good all work of other contractors destroyed or damaged by such removal or replacement. If the Contractor does not remove such condemned work within a reasonable time, fixed by written notice, the Owner may remove it and may store the materials at the expense of the Contractor. If the Contractor does not pay the expenses of such removal within ten days time thereafter, the Owner may, upon ten day's written notice, sell such materials at auction or at private sale and shall account for the net proceeds thereof, after deducting all costs and expenses that should have been borne by the Contractor. ~rtic~e iI9.,, Correction,of ,Work Afte~ ~Final Payment: Neither the final certificate for payment nor any provision in the Contract Documents shall relieve the Contractor of respon- sibility for faulty materials or workmanship and unless otherwise specified, he shall remedy any defects with reasonable promptness. All questions arising under this article shall be decided by the Engineer subject to arbitration. Article ~20. iThe Owner's Right 'to'Do'WOrk: If the Contractor shall neglect to prosecute the work pro- perly or fail to perform any provision of this contract, the Owner, after three day's written notice to the Contractor may, without prejudice to any other remedy he may have, make good such deficiencies and may deduct the cost thereof from the payment then or thereafter due the Contractor provided, however, that the Engineer shall approve both such action and the amount charged to the Contractor. GC-7 Article 21. Owner's Ri(Iht to Terminate Contract: II the C¢)nt[-actor should be adjudged a bankrupt, or if he ohOUld make a general assignment for the benefit of his cre.ditocs, r if a receiver should be appointed on account of his insolvency, r if he should persistently or repeatedly re~use or should fail, except in cases flor which extension of time is provided, to supply enough p[-operly skilled workmen or proper materials, or if he should fail to make prompt payment to sub-contractors or for material or labor, or persistenly disregard laws, ordinances or the instructions of the Engineer, or otherwise be guilty of a substantial violation of any provision of the contract, then the Owner upon the certificate of the Engineer that sufficient cause exists to justify such action, may, without prejudice to any other right or remedy and after giving the Contractor seven day's writ- ten notice to terminate the employment of the Contractor and take possession of the premises and of all materials, tools and appliances thereon and finish the work by whatever method he may deem expedient. In such case the Contractor shall not be entitled to receive any further payment until the work is finished. If the unpaid balance of the contract price shall exceed the expense of finishing the work including compensation of additional management and administrative services, such excess shall be paid to the Contractor. If such expense shall exceed such unpaid balance, the Contractor shall pay the difference to the Owner. The expense incurred by the Owner as herein provided, and the damage incurred through the Contractor's default, shall be certified by the Engineer. Artiole .~2. Contracto~'.s Right.to.Sto~ Work or Terminate .ContraGt: If the work or construction is stopped under an order of any court or other public authority for a period of three months through no act or fault of the Contractor or of anyone employed by h'im, or in the event of a national emergency work or construction is is stopped, directly or indirectly, by or as the result of the order or action of any court of federal or state authority and the circumstances or conditions are such that it is and will be impracticable to proceed with such work or construction, then the Contractor may terminate the contract and recover from the Owner payment for work or construction executed and completed at that time. If no written notice has been given as hereinbefore provided, the question or questions in dispute shall be subject to arbitration. A~tiCle 23~ Contractor's .Liability'InSUranCe: The Contractor shall maintain such insurance as well as pro- tect him from claims under the workmen's compensation act and from claims for damages because of bodily injury, including death, which may arise from and during operations under this contract, whether such operations be by himself or by a sub-contractor or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them. GC- 8 Tt~e C,~nt~acto~ shall take out and maintain and cause his sub- contractors to take out and maintain throughout the construction period, insurance in the following minimum requirements: (a) Workmen's compensation insurance in any amount that meets statutory requirements to cover all employees who perform any of the obligations assumed by the Contractor under this contract. (b) Public liability and property damage liability insurance: limits for bodily injury or death not less than $250,000 for one person and $500,000 for each accident; for pro- perty damage not less than $500,000 for each accident during the policy period. (c) Automobile liability insurance on all self-propelled vehicles used in connection with the contract, whether owned, non-owned, or hired, public liability limits of not less than $250,000 for one person and $500,000 for each accident; property damage limit of $500,000 for each accident. Article .24.' Bond: Contractor before commencing work shall furnish Performance Bond for the full amount of the contract guaranteeing the comple- tion of the work and performance of the contract and the payment of all labor, materials and equipment which may become a lien against the property. Article 25.. , pamages: If either party to this contract should suffer damage in any manner because of any wrongful act or neglect of the other party or of anyone employed by him, then he shall be reimbursed by the other party for such damage, provided the Owner shall be respon- sible for and at his option insure against loss of use of any of this existing property, due to fire or otherwise, however caused. Claims under this clause shall be made in writing to the party liable within a reasonable time of the first observance of such damage and not later than the time of final payment, except as expressly stipulated otherwise in the case of faulty work or materials, and shall be adjusted by agreement or arbitration. The Contractor shall assume responsibility for all loss and damage caused by fire, windstorm, cyclone, tornado, flood or other casualty to material or equipment used in the construction of this project. GC-9 ~rticle 26. Neither t)}c iina], l-~ayment nor any part of the ret~i[~ed pe[-- {rage shall bec(~m{~ due until the Contractor, if requi~-ed, shall iver to the Owr~cr a complete release of ail liens at'ising OUt of the Contract, ~)r receipts in full in lieu thereo~, died if required in either case, an affidavit that so far as he has knowledge or information, the releases and receipts include all the labor and material for which a lien could be filed but the Contractor may, if any sub-contractor refuses to furnish a release or receipt in [~ull, furnish a bond satisfactory to the Owner, to idemify him against any lien. Article 27.. Assignment: Neither party to the Contract shall assign the Contract or sublet it as a whole without the written consent of the other, nor shall the Contractor assign any money due or to become due to him hereunder, without the previous written consent of the Owner. A~ticle 28.~ · iMutual Resp0ns~bili~.of.Contractors: Should the Contractor cause damage to any separate contractor on the work, the Contractor agrees upon due notice to settle with such contractor by agreement or arbitration, if he will so settle. If such separate contractor sues the Owner on account of any damage alleged to have been so sustained, the Owner shall notify the Contractor, who shall defend such proceedings at the Owner's expense, and if any judgements against the Owner arise therefrom, ~he Contractor shall pay or satisfy it and pay all costs incurred y the Owner. Ar~iG~e,29.'' separa~gicont~agto~s~ The Owner reserves the right to let other contracts in con- nection with this owrk. The Contractor shall afford other contractors reasonable opportunity for the introduction and storage of their materials and the execution of their work, and shall properly connect and coordinate his work with theirs. If any part of the Contractor's work depends for proper exe- cution or results upon the work of any other contractor, the Contractor shall inspect and promptly report to the Engineer any defects in such work that render it unsuitable for such proper execution and results. To insure proper execution of his subsequent work, the Contractor shall measure work already in-place and shall at once report to the Engineer any discrepancy between the executed work and the drawings. GC-10 Article 30. Sub-Co[~tractors: The Contractor shall, as soon as practicabl~ a~te[- tile ezecu- tion oS th~ col%tract~ notify the Engineer in writing Of the. names of the sub-contractors proposed for the principal parts of the work and for such others as the Engineer may direct and shall not employ any that the Engineer may within a reasonable time object to as incom~cte~]t or unfit. Afte~ the Contractor has submitted the list of sub-contractors and the change of any name of such lists is required in writing by the Owner, the contract price shall be incresed or diminished by the difference in cost occasioned by such changes. The Engineer shall, on request, furnish to any sub-contractor, wherever practicable, evidence of the amounts certified on this account. The Contractor agrees that he is as fully responsible to the Owner for the acts and omissions of his sub-contractors and of persons either directly or indirectly employed by them, as he is for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by him. Nothing contained in the contract documents shall create any contractual relation between any sub-contractor and the Owner. A~ticle 13i. ~ Relations of .thelCont~aCtor and Sub-Contractor: The Contractor agrees to bind every sub-contractor and every sub-contractor agrees to be bound by the terms of the Agreement, the General Conditions, the Drawings and Specifications as far as applicable to his work, including the following provisions of this article, unless specifically noted to the contrary in sub-contract approved in writing as adequate by the Owner or Engineer. This does not apply to minor sub-contractors. The Sub-Contractor agrees -- (a) To be bound to the Contractor by the terms of the Agreemtn, General Conditions, the Drawings and Specifications and to assume toward him all of the obligations and responsibilities that he, by those documents, assumed toward the Owner. (b) To make all claims for extras, for extensions of time for damages for delays or otherwise, to the Contractor in the manner provided in the General Conditions for like claims by the Contractor upon the Owner, except that the time for making claims for extra cost is one week. GC-11 (c) To be 1~)~,t to the Sub-Contracto~ by all tt~ obligations that the Owner ass[lined to the Contractor under the Agreement t General Conditions, Drawings, and Specifications and by all the provisions thereo~ c~ot-ding remedies and redress tO the Co~tracto~ from th~ Owltcr. (d) 'Po [?ay tile Sub-Contractor, upon the payment of certificates, the amount altowed by the Contractor, on account of the Sub-Contractor's interest therein. (e) To pay the Sub-Contractor, upon the payment o~ certificates, if issued otherwise than as in (d) so that at all times his total payments shall be as large in proportion to the value of the work done by him as the total amount certified to the contract as the value of the work done by him. (f) To pay the Sub-Contractor to such extent as may be pro- vided by the Contract Documents or the sub-contract, if either of these provides for earlier or larger payments than the above. (g) To pay the Sub-Contractor on demand for his work or materials as far as e~ecuted and fixed in-place, less the retained percentage, at the time the certificate should issue, even though the Engineer fails to issue it for any cause not the fault of the Sub-Contractor. (h) To pay the Sub-Contractor a just share of any fire insurance money received by him, the Contractor. (i) To make no demand for liquidated damages or penalty for y in any sum in excess of such amount as may be specifically named in the sub-contract. (j) That no claim for services rendered or materials fur- nished by the Contractor to the Sub-Contractor shall be valid unless written notice is given by the Contractor to the Sub- Contractor during the first ten days of the calendar month following that in which the claim originated. (k) To give the Sub-Contractor an opportunity to be present and to submit evidence in any arbitration involving his rights. The Contractor and the Sub-Contractor agree that -- (1) In the matter of arbitration, their rights and obliga- tions and all procedure shall be analogous to those set forth in this contract. Nothing in this article shall create any obligation on the part of the Owner to pay to or see to the payment of any sums to any sub-contractor. GC-12 Articl~ 52. E~,{ i ,~<,<~- ' s Status: 'l'l~u I'.'tl~lt[~,:t' r;l~a[I, have general sup~r-v is [on ~t~l,.l ~lit'uCtiOn o~ the w(3rk . Il,.· i:~ tll~ ~t,l<~nt o~ the Own~c o1%1 y to the *ex t~r'lt [~lfra- vided in thu Contr'act l),~cuments and when in special i~stances he is author'iz~l by the ¢)wt~er so to act, and in such ltd.%radices he shall ut)oil ~-~.~qu~.::~t, sh~)w the Contracto~ written authoL-ity. He has autho~'ity to stol) tile work whenever such stoppage may ~ necessary to insu~-~ thc l~['ot>c~r execution of the Contr.'act. As tile E~lgineer is, in the first instance, the interpreter of the conditi~),ls ~)~ tile contract and the judge of its i~rtformance, he shall side neither with the Owner or with tile Contractor, but shall use his powers tinder tile contract to enforce its ~aithful performance by both. In case of the termination of the employment o~ the Engineer, the Owner shall appoint a capable and reputable Engineer, against whom the Contractor makes no reasonable objection, whose status under tile Contract shall' be that of former Engineer; any dispute in conection with such appointment to be subject to arbitration. Article 33____/~. _.Engineer's .DeciSions: The Engineer shal[, within a reasonable time, make decisions on all claims of the Owner or Contractor and on all other matters relating to the execution and progress of the work or the interpretation of the Contract Documents. Article .34. Cash Allowan~ss: The Contractor shall include in the contract suni all allowan- ces named in the Contract Documents and shall cause the work so covered to be done by such contractors and for such sums as the Engineer may direct, the contract sum being adjusted in conformity therewith. The Contractor declares that the contract sum include such sums for expense and profit on account of cash allowances as he deems proper. No demand for expense or profit iher than those included in the contract sum shall be allowed. The Contractor shall not be required to employ for any such work persons against whom he has a reasonable objection. Article 35. Use of Premises: The Contractoz- shall confine his apparatus, the storage of materials and the ot)eration of his workmen to limits indicated by the law, ordinances, permits or directions of the Engineer and shall not unreasonably encumber the premises with his materials. The Contractor shall enforce the Engineer's instructions regarding signs, advertisements, fires and smoking. GC-13 'l'l~e Cont.~'~ct.~L- sh~[[ do all cutting, fitting o¢ patchi.ng ~is ~ork ~na~ ,,,a~ be required to make its several ~a['t.s com~ ~og ether propu~-ly and fit it to receive or be received by work other contr~cto¢'~ shown upon, or reasonably implied by the Drawings and Specifications for the complete structure and he shall make go,)d alter t~em as the Engineer may direct. Any cost caused by defective or ill-timed work shall be borne by the party responsible thereof. The Cont~acto¢ shall not endanger any work by cutting, digging or otherwise, and shall not cut or alter the work of any other contractor save with the consent of the Engineer. A~tiCle 37.. C_lea___n_in~ Up: The Contractor shall at all times keep the premises free from accumulations of waste material or rubbish caused by his employees or work and at the completion of the work, he shall remove all his rubbish and all his tools, scaffolding and surplus materials and shall leave his work "broom clean" or its equivalent, unless more exactly specified. In case of dispute, the Owner may remove the rubbish and charge the cost to the several contractors as the Engineer shall determine to be just. Article .38., , .Ap_j~ication~=_ .... for.Payments-. Unless otherwise agreed upon, or set forth later in this pecification, within the first fiteen (15) days of each month, the Owner will make partial payment to the Contractor for work done during the preceding month, on the basis of estimates thereof, certified to by the Contractor and approved by the Engineer, solely for the purpose of payments provided, however that such approval by the Engineer shall not be deemed approval of the workmanship o~- materials. Only ninety percent (90%) of each such estimate approved will be paid by the Owner to the Contractor prior to completion of the work. Upon completion by the Contractor of the work, the Engineer shall inspect the work per- formed and he shall so certify to the Owner and shall fully certify the balance found to be due to the Contractor, and the Owner will then pay to the Contractor all unpaid amounts to which the Contractor shall be entitled hereunder. No certificate issued, nor payment made, to the Contractor, nor partial or entire use or occupancy of the work by the Owner, shall be an acceptance of any work or materials not in accordance with this contract. GC-14 Article 40. Payment Withheld: The Engineer may withhold, or on account of subsequently discovered evidence, nullify the whole or a part of any certificate to such extent as may be necessary to protect the Owner from loss on account of: (a) Defective work not remedied. (b) Claims filed or reasonaDle evidence indicating probable filing of claims. (c) Failure of the Contractor to make payments to sub-contractors or for material or labor. (d) A reasonable doubt that the contract can be completed for the balance then unpaid. (e) Damage to another contractor, to the work, or to other property. (f) Failure to complete the contract within the time specified. When the above grounds are removed or satisfactory and adjustment made, payments of the balance due shall be made from the amounts withheld because of them. Article 41. Drawings: The following drawings are included as a part of these Specifications: 1. Location Map G¢-15 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 1.01 1.02 1.o3 1.04 1.05 1.o6 1.07 1.05 SCOPE OF WORK LOCATION BOUNDARIES OF WORK PROTECTION OF SITE AND CLEAN-UP LOGS OF DRILLING OPERATIONS WATER SAMPLES TEST HOLE CONSTRUCTION MEASUREMENTS AND PAYMENT TS- 1 SECTION I 1.01 SCOPE OF WORK Because of the uncertain geological conditions which may be encountered during this test hole program, it is difficult to predict how many test holes may be required. For bidding purposes, however, the Bidder shall prepare and submit a bid based on the drilling of two (2) four-inch diameter test holes. Only the best established practice of workmanship shall be used throughout the course of this work. The depth of the test holes covered in these specifications will be approximately 300 feet, more or less, from existing grade. All drilling operations throughout the course of this work shall be considered as a progressive program of testing and exploration of the underground conditions. The test holes shall be finished at the elevation and in the manner which is found by the Engineer to be most suitable for the purpose of water quality or other testing purposes. In the even~ that quantity and quality is desired to be tested at any depth less than 300 feet, the Contractor may be required to finish and develop the test holes at this elevation, however, he may be requested to continue his drilling operations to a greater depth or to pull back to some previous elevation nearer the surface. 1.02 LOCATION The proposed test holes will be located as shown in the location map. ~e exact locations will be as specified by the Owner's Engineer. 1.03 BOUNDARIES OF WORK The Owner shall provide land or rights-of-way for the work specified in this contract. The Contractor shall not enter on or occupy with men, tools, equipment or material any ground outside the property specified for use by the Owner without the written consent of the Owner of such ground. Other contractors and employees for agents of the Owner may for all necessary purposes enter upon the work and premises used by the Contractor, and the Contractor shall conduct his work so as not to impede unnecessarily any work being done by others on or adjacent to the site. TS-2 1.04 PROTECTION OF SITE AND CLEAN-UP Excepting as otherwise provided herein, the Contractor ~hall protect all farm crops, structures, pipelines, trees, shrubbery, etc., during the progress of his work; shall remove froin the site all cuttings, drillings, debris and unused materials, and shall upon completion of the work restore the site as nearly as possible to its original conditions. Water pumped from the test production wells shall be conducted to a place where it will be possible to dispose of the water without damage to property, recharge to the aquifer or the creation of a nuisance. 1.05 LOGS OF DRILLING OPERATIONS The Contractor shall at all times keep an accurate log of the location of the top and bottom of each geological formation encountered during his drilling operations. Samples shall be taken whenever the character of the geological formations changes, and never at more than five (5) foot intervals from the top to bottom of each test hole or well. Each sample shall be placed in glass jars, sealed in wax and clearly identified as to ~at depth it was taken from. These samples shall remain the property of the City of Mound, Minnesota. Each test hole must be electric logged. The logging device shall be capable of producing a spontaneous-potential curve and a single-point resistivity curve simultaneously on a continuous chart. Two copies of the complete drilling log of each test hole shall be submitted to the Engineer or his representative on completion of each test hole. 1.06 WATER SAMPLES The Owner shall at all times throughout the course of this work have the liberty of taking water samples from the test holes during the drilling operations. The Contractor shall furnish whatever assistance is necessary in order to secure satisfactory samples. The Contractor shall be required to suspend drilling operations as directed for such time as reasonable in order that various analysis can be made of the water samples. The Contractor shall be compensated on an hourly basis for such time if it is in excess of two hours. The Owner shall be notified whenever a change in water level occurs or whenever a distinctive change in formation is encountered so that there will be ample opportunity to take such samples as necessary in order to determine the various changes in the quality and quantity of the water. TS-3 1.07 TEST MOLE CONSTRUCTION Test holes shall be constructed by the Rotary Drilling Method. Test holes will be approximately 300 feet in depth, more or less, from existing grade, and shall be nominal four-inch (bit size no less than 5-5/U inch). Upon completion of the drilling of each test hole, the hole shall be electric logged. 1.U MEASUREMENTS AND PAYMENT All work acceptably completed under the contract shall be measured by the Engineer using standard units of measure. Payment will be based on the actual quantity of work performed according to the various classes of work specified in the contract. The Contractor shall accept the compensation as herein provided in full payment for furnishing all plant, labor, equipment, appliances and materials (except as otherwise specifically provided), and in performing all operations required in connection with the installation of various classes of work as hereinbefore specified; also for all costs arising from the action of the elements or from any unforeseen difficulties which may be encountered during the prosecution of the work and up to the time of acceptance. TS-4 Renewal £1TY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota APPLICATION FOR GAMBLING PERMIT $15.00 Single Permit JAN I 5 loF ""7-s* i,=O AMERICAN LEGION POST # 398 Minnetonka Name of organization , 2333 Wilshire Blvd. Address Mound~ MN. 55364 , a Veterans organization, hereby applies for a annual annual/single occasion gambling permit. Date to be used JNN, 317 1982 to JAN. 31, 1983 Phone Number of Organization ~72-9582 or ~72-&37& Date Organization was organized 1920 Purpose of Organization to assist veterans snd families and community servi ce Type of Gambling to take place: Paddlewheel Yes Tipboard Yes Raffle Yes Location of Gambling: No . '~ No Address: 2333-Wilshlre Blvd. Mound~ Minn. Name of Building Owner Am~rte~n Le~on Is the building owned or leased by the organization Date ownership was acquired 19 ~ / If leased, expiration date of lease (Copy of lease must accompany application) Gambling Manager: Name of Gambling Manager Jerome Hed 5536~, owned Home address 2296-Shadywood Road Wayzata. Mn.553glHome Phone ~7]-9~M~ Is Gambling Manager an active member of organization yes (Required) Date membership acquired 1965 Is Gambling Manager paid by the organization for handling the 9ambling no- (The answer to this question must be no - Sec. 43.40) Amount of bond furnished by Gambling Manager Name of Company furnishing Bond Capitol Indemnity Corp. agree to'file a copy of the bond with the City Clerk. (At least $10,O00.) and we Name of Bank where gambl lng funds will be kept St. bank of Mound acer. no. 023- 9O3 Minn. Federal acct. no. /TV (2) Bank Account Number for gambling funds 023-903 and 09-~-50~'913 Are funds in the above account mixed with other funds (Answer must be "No") no AGREEMENT The Amerle~n Lemlon hereby agrees that if the license herein Name of AppliCant is granted that the American LeGion 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 American LeElon Name of Applicant hereby authorizes the Bank named above as the keeper of gambling funds to allow 023-903 the City access to the figures and activity of account number 09-3_50~gl~isted above. Signed by authorized Officer of Organization Date' January 1~, 1982 Adjutant The above application is made on behalf of the Amerlcan Le~lon and all information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. January 1~, 1982 Date Signature Adjutant Title Annual Licenses: Expire on January 31 of each year. Fees are not prorated for licenses purchased after February 1. Fee $50.00 Annual Fee CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota APPLICATION FOR ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT (1) Name .~ ~, _~ .F .~./~ (2) Address ~_~. ~ Street ~,/~ ~ ~~hone No. ~--/~/~--'-- City State Zip (3) D~ anyone ?~er than above have financial interest in the business? ~ (4) Type of Entertainment (5) License to be applicable: From * If answer to Item 3 is "Yes", please list others having a financial interest in'the business on this application, giving name, address and telephone number. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 15, 1982 Mary Cronin, Mound City Clerk-Treasurer Donald F. Monk, County Assessor 1982 Local Board of Review Date Tuesday , June 1, 1982, Day of the Month Date Minnesota law requires that I, as County Assessor, set the date for your Local Board of Review meeting. After reviewing previous meeting days and your suggestions of last year, the above date was selected. I sincerely hope that it is agreeable with your council. As there must be a quorum, I would suggest that an informal review of your members with a request that they mark their calendars would be appropriate. Please confirm the date set out or call Bob Martin at 348-3046 with your alternate date by January30, 1982 , so that our printing order can be completed on time. We suggest starting times of 6:30, 7:00 or 7:30 p.m., but will discuss it with you if you wish a different' time. Your early completion and return of the attached tear off strip will be appreciated and we will send your official notice for posting as required by law. Municipality: Date: Time: Place: CONFIRMATION Confirmed by For selecting meeting dates in future years the following information will be helpful /77 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOC, D RO~D MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-~155 January 21, 1982 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: JON ELAM, CITY MANAGER In organizing the Finance Department a conflict between the State Statutes and the responsibilities they require for the City Treasurer's position and the actual responsibilities that I developed between Sharon Legg and Judy Fischer appears to have occured. To correct this and to make our responsibilities in line with what people are really doing. I would like to have a Resolution passed that would designate Sharon Legg Finance Director-Treasurer and Judy Fischer, Deput Treasurer. That should for once clarify the situation for everyone and to operate legally and administratively correctly. JE;jn u,LLb ..... j,-,l~U~itf z~, i~OZ Acro Minnesota 220.43 Air Comm 90.00 Ashland Chemical ]42.50 Amer. Nat'l Bank 86,385.00 Holly Bostrom 143.OO Jan Bertrand 26.35 Burlington Northern 533.33 Harley Cederstrom 20.00 Bill Clark Standard 5,037.56 Curtis 1000 34.39 Gary Cayo 48.74 Domtar Industries 895.06 Duane's 66 Serv. 65.00 Jon Elam 10.56 1st Nat'l Bank of St. Paul 114,288.25 1st Bank-Mpls 20,636.25 Gopher Sign Co. 27.23 Henn Co. Finance 297.05 Identi-Kit Co. 264.00 IBM 73.78 Jones Chemical 357.50 LOGIS 1,436.61 Iten Chevrolet 11,675.00 Mound Police Dept 22.07 McCombs-Knutson 6,928.00 MacQueen Equip 2,000.00 Henn Co. Chiefs PolicePTAC 220.00 MN Co. Attorneys Assn 25.00 Mary Helen Moeller 15.00 Munici-Pals 5.00 Minnegasco 3.50 Mound Super Valu 32.83 NW Nat'! Bank of Mpls 187,820.25 No Star Chapt I.C.B.O. 20.00 Northland Elec Supply 142.38 NSP 4,654.66 Barry Palm 27.42 Pitney Bowes Credit 26.00 State Treas. 321.68 Seton Service 36.30 Shepherd's Rug Rental 265.35 Western Area Widmer Bros. Xerox Ziegler, Inc. TOTAL BILLS Fire Train 1,241.00 2,392.50 665.72 45.52 449,617.77 aeeociation of 15oard of Direc,ors me~r. opo!~.~.gn Presi, e, munlclpalllle James I. Krautkremer Brooklyn Park Vice President Mary Anderson Golden Valley Past President January 13, 1981 Richard Asle~n Apple Valley Ro'nald Backes St. tau/sPark T0: AHi4 Member Cities William Barnhart FR0~: Vern ~terson Minneapolis GregBiees RE: 1982 AI'4H LEGISLATIVE POLICY ADDENDU~4 St. Paul BeaBIomquist The attached policies were adopted at a recent meeting of the AMM Eagan Hembership. These policies are additions and modifications to the }erry DuJgar complete AHH Legislative Program'which was adopted for the 1981-82 knoka Legislative Biennium in the Fall of 1980. The policies in the addendum are in response to and recognition 'of 1981 legislative action Laura Fraser and projected 1982 legislative action. Copies have been sent to your Lake Elmo Legislators. } an Haugen Shorewood Jack Irving NOTE: ~e request that the administrative official receiving Crystal this material make distribution to your mayor and city }ames Miller COU~Ci lmembers. MJnnetonka Thank you. William Sandberg North St. Paul Dennis Schneider Fridley James Senden New Brighton ]acqueline Slater Minneapolis VP/cr Thomas Spies B IoomingLon Robert Thistle Jan Rapids Executive D/rector Vern Peterson 300 hanover bid§.,480 cedar street, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612)222-2861 /~O a~eociafion of metro, potitan munic~palJtJee ADDENDUM TO POLICIES AND LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS 1981- 1982 ADOPTED BY THE ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP ON DECEMBER 30, 1981 300 hanover bldg. 480 cedar street, st. paul, minnesota 551 O1 (612) 222-2861 /a,/ PART I MUNICIPAL REVENUES AND EXPENDITURE9 Replacement Policy for IA and IB I-A LEVY LIMIT REPEAL The 1981 Legislature compounded the problems caused by lev~ limits for 1982 by expanding the law to apply to all cities in the state, by changing the base to which the present 8~ annual allowable increase applies, and by eliminating or restricting some of the previously allowable special levies. These changes have added unnecessary complexities to city budgeting processes and have caused serious budget problems in many cities. Furthermore, levy limits ultimately work against the interests of local taxpayers because the law creates an incentive for cities to take maximum advantage of the opportunity to make general or special levies. For example, the arbitrary decision in 1981 to create a new lev~ limit base effectively penalized those cities that were successful in holding down their pro- petty tax levies in 1981. History has now provided cities with numerous lessons teaching that cities which choose to lev~ less than the maximum allowed in a given year risk being later tied to unrealistic or artificial new limits for future budget years. The Legislature also repealed the levy limit law effective for taxes payable in 1983, but in 1982 will be studying the issue and considering re-enactment of lev~ limits in some form. The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities has consistentl~ opposed the lev~ limit laws in that they apply uniform statewide restrictions to cities and are too inflexible to accommodate the high rate of inflation, uncertainties in state and federal financial aids, an~ the diverse problems and circun~=~ances faced b~ cities throughout the state. Such laws are inconsistent with principles of local self- government and accountability. Neither do they recognize changing local conditions as to either expenditure needs or revenue sources. THEREFORE, THE AMM REMAINS STRONGLY OPPOSED IN PRINCIPAL TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDS THAT THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE TAKE NO ACTION TO RE-ENACT LEVY LIMITS in 1982 OR THEREAFTER. I-D-1 TAX EXEMPT PROPERTY One of the glaring inequities in the Minnesota tax s~stem involves the free local services that are provided to tax exempt propert~ owned b~ the state and by certain non-governmental organizations. It is widely acknowledged that such property benefits directly from governmental services such as police and fire protection and street services provided b~ cities and counties. However, since there is no legal basis for claiming reimbursement for the cost of such services, they are borne by the local tax payers. Furthermore, such property is concentrated in certain cities and counties resulting in a heav~ cost burden in certain parts of the state. THE ASSOCIATION BELIEVES THIS PROBLEM SHOULD BE CORRECTED BY ENACTING LEGISLATION REQUIRING BOTH THE STATE AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL OWNERS OF TAX EXEMPT PROPERTY, EXCEPT FOR CHURCHES, HOUSES OF WORSHIP, AND PROPERTY USED SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES BY ACADEMIES, COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES AND SEMINARIES OF LEARNING, TO REIMBURSE CITIES AND COUNTIES FOR THE COST OF POLICE, FIRE, AND STREET SERVICES, OR THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD CREATE AN ADDITIONAL PROPERTY CLASS AND RATE FOR ALL CURRENT TAX EXEMPT PROPERTY OTHER THAN THAT PROPERTY EXCLUDED FROM TAXATION BY THE /~, MT~IrC:nTA ~'n~C:TTTIITTn~ THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER PROVIDING REIMBURSEMENT FOR THESE SERVICES FOR ALL STATE OWNED FACILITIES, INCLUDING STATE UNIVERSITIES. I-D-6 RAILROAD PROPERTY TAXATION The existing system for taxation of railroad property is not consistent with the taxation of other commercial and industrial properties. The AMM recommends that a new system of property taxation be established which enables railroads operating in Minnesota to be taxed consistent with the taxation of other commercial and industrial properties. This system should contain the following features: ALL RAILROAD PROPERTY SHOULD BE ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSOR HAVING JURISDICTION AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. ALL NON-OPERATING PROPERTY SHOULD BE TAXED AND SHOULD INCLUDE ALL PROPERTY OTHER THAN OPERATING LAND AND OPERATING STRUCTURES AS DEFINED BELOW. NON-OPERATING PRO- PERTY SHOULD INCLUDE REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS LEASED OR RENTED OR AVAILABLE FOR LEASE OR RENT TO ANY PERSON WHICH IS NOT A RAILROAD COMPANY. VACANT LAND SHOULD BE PRESUMED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR LEASE UR RENT IF IT HAS NOT BEEN USED AS OPERATING LAND FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR PRECEDING THE VALUATION DATE. NON-OPERATING PROPERTY SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE LAND WHICH IS NOT NECESSARY AND INTEGRAL TO THE PERFORMANCE OF RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AND WHICH IS NOT USED ON A REGULAR AND CONTINUAL BASIS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE SERVICES. ALL OPERATING LAND (DEFINED TO MEAN ANY LAND WHICH UNDERkIES THE OPERATING STRUCTURES DEFINED BELOW AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY ADJACENT THERETO AND WHICH IS NECESSARY TO THE INTEGRAL PERFORMANCE OF RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION SERVICES) SHOULD BE TAXED AND SHOULD BE VALUED BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VALUE OF ADJACENT LANDS AND THE ZONING APPLICABLE TO ADJACENT LANDS. ALL OPERATING STRUCTURES (DEFINED TO MEAN ALL STRUCTURES OWNED OR USED BY A RAILROAD COMPANY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, FRANCHISES, BRIDGES, TRESTLES, TRACKS, SHOPS, DOCKS, WHARVES, BUILDINGS AND OTHER RELATED STRUCTURES) SHOULD BE VALUED BY THE ASSESSOR BY TAKING INTO CON- SIDERATION THEIR ALTERNATIVE USE, CONSISTENT WITH THE USES OF ADJACENT AND COMPARABLE STRUCTURES AND THE ZONING APPLICABLE TO ADJACENT STRUCTURES, IF NOT USED FOR RAILROAD PURPOSES. ALL OPERATING STRUCTURES EXCEPT RAILROAD BRIDGES, TRESTLES, TRACKS, DOCKS AND WHARVES, SHOULD BE TAXABLE. I-E ASSESSMENT EQUALIZATION Unequal property assessment, both within and among the various taxing jurisdictions, has been a concern of the legislature in past sessions due to overlapping tax levies by county, school and various special districts. For various aid formulas, the state has utilized sales ratios'as an offsetting equalizing factor so that distribution of aids will be accomplished on as fair and equitable basis as possible. ~e legislature has also adopted a penalty provision effective in 1983 based on coefficient of dispersion which is calculated from the sales ratio and has discussed penalty pro- visions based on the sales ratio itself. However, sales ratios individually and collectively are inherently flawed, inaccurate, and at best are only general indica- torse Many factors not associated with actual value of a piece of property can affect the sales price of that property. A farmer may buy a 40 or 80 acre parcel for well over 'market value' as an add on to a current farm and justify the cost by spreading the extra expense over the entire farm. A person with a very large down- payment or access to good financing may be able to purchase a house with a very low or non-existant underlying mortgage well under the 'market value'. On the other hand, someone with very limited downpayment may pay well over the market rate for a house with a high underlying assumable mortgage. Many other economic and personal reasons may enter into purchase price of property. Also, in many cases there just are not enough sales in a class of property to accurately determine a sales ratio in a given geographic area. Finally, to keep ratios from constantly jumping up or down from year to year and to level out statistically the activity, the Revenue Department disregards some sales that are out of line for various reasons and uses two year samples to create a ratio. At best, sales ratios and various statistics such as the coefficient of dispersion are only general indicators. They are tools to be used to determine cases of inconsistancy and provide a basis for constructive help to assessors. Imprecise sales ratios are generally in the ball park and com- puted in such a way as to be consistantly imprecise for all units. Therefore, as just one of several factors in aid formulas, they may be a necessary ingredient to provide as uniformily as possible an equitable distribution. However, because sales ratios and coefficient of dispersion measurements are imprecise and were basically developed as tools to determine general trends, they should not be used as precision measurements for penalties or bonuses. I-E-1 COEFFICIENT OF DISPERSION PENALTY THE AMM URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO REPEAL THE COEFFICIENT OF DISPERSION PENALTY PROVISION. IF THE LEGISLATURE DETERMINES A NEED EXISTS, THE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SHOULD BE MANDATED TO ORDER A REASSESSMENT OF AN AREA BY AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSOR IF THE COEFFICIENT OF DISPERSION INDICATORS FALLS TO SOME LEVEL BELOW N~TIONAL STANDARDS OF ACCEPTABILITY. THE COSTS OF SUCH REASSESSMENT S}IOULD BE BORNE BY THE RESPONSIBLE ASSESSING JURISDICTION. I-E-2 SALES RATIO EQUALIZATION Whereas, taxing units in the seven-county metropolitan area are subject (1) to certain area-wide levies and (2) to Fiscal Disparity allocations, it is necessary to ensure tax equalization among these various tax units. Therefore, THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD ENACT LEGISLATION WHICH MANDATES AT LEAST A 90% SALES RATIO FOR ALL CITIES WITHIN THE SEVEN-COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA, THE SALES RATIO SAMPLE TO BE EITHER DONE OR AUDITED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND REQUIRING THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SHALL MAKE AGGREGATE INCREASES IN THOSE CITIES BELOW 90%. ALL COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSIONER SHALL BE PAID BY THE ASSESSING JURISDICTION. THE SALES RATIO DETERMINATION FOR THESE PURPOSES TO BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF A 12-MONTH PERIOD SAMPLE, BEGINNING NO MORE THAN 18 MONTHS BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT DATE. FURTHER, THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD DEVELOP LEGISLATION TO ENSURE THAT SALES RATIO STUDIES AND CALCULATIONS CONSIDER ALL FACTORS OF SALES AND BE ACCURATE AS TO ACTUAL SALE PRICE UF PROPERTY. FINALLY, DUE TO INHERENT INACCURACIES IN SALES RATIO DATA AND CALCULATIONS, THE AMM OBJECTS TO SALES RATIO BEING USED AS A BASIS FOR PENALTY OR BONUS OF STATE AID FUNDS. I-F-1 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING Tax increment financing has permitted many cities in various parts of the state to define and carry out rehabilitation, development, housing, and economic development projects on their own initiative. It represents the most feasible and effective legal strategy which is currently available to cities in preserving and improving the physical and economic environment in their communities. THE AMM BELIEVES THAT PRESENTLY NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES ARE NECESSARY AND RECOMMENDS THAT NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES BE MADE BY THE LEGISLATURE UNTIL THERE HAS BEEN SUFFI- CIENT EXPERIENCE TO DETERMINE IF CHANGES ARE NEEDED. I-F-7 GRAVEL TAX The 1979 Legislature extended to all counties in the state the authority to levy a Gravel Tax of $.10 per ton on gravel extraction operations. The distribution by the county is as follows: 60% to the county road and bridge fund, 30% to the town road and bridge fund, and 10% to a gravel pit restoration fund. Ail monies are to be used on gravel haul roads. Because of the use of 'town' in the law, cities do not qualify for distribution, even though there are a great many active gravel pits in cities in the Metropolitan area. In fact, the vast majority of gravel mined in the metropolitan area is from cities. The Metropolitan Counties are beginning the tax in March 1982. Therefore, THE AMM REQUESTS THE LEGISLATURE TO MODIFY THE DISTRIBUTION TO INCLUDE CITIES. ALSO, THE LAW SHOULD SPECIFY DISTRIBUTION TO POINT OF ORIGIN COMMUNITY. PART II GENERAL LEGISLATION !I-A SHADE TREE DISEASE CONTROL PROGRAM The Legislature in 1977 made a major commitment to control Dutch Elm and Oak Wilt tree diseases. In 1979, the Legislature renewed its commitment and set a target level for grants to municipalities of 50~ for sanitation and reforestation. There is no doubt that the shade tree disease problem is continuing to spread throughout the state and will remain a major problem for cities in the metropolitan area for the coming several years. A-1 THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO CONTINUE ITS COMMITMENT TO SHADE TREE DISEASE CONTROL AND RE-ENACT THE PROGRAM WITH NO MAJOR CHANGES. A-2 THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD FUND THE GRANT PROGRAM AT A LEVEL SUFFICIENT TO ACHIEVE THE 50% SANITATION AND REFORESTATION TARGET LEVELS. A-3 THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD ESTABLISH A PATTERN OF APPROPRIATION FUNDING TO COINCIDE WITH THE LOCAL BUDGET PROCESS. FUNDS SHOULD BE ALLOCATED FOR A TWO AND ONE HALF YEAR PERIOD. A-4 IF STATE FUNDING CONTINUES SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW THE 50% LEVEL, THE AMM STRONGLY RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROGRAM CONTINUE TO BE VOLUNTARY IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA, AS IT HAS BEEN IN OUTSTATE MINNESOTA. II-R UNIFORM BUILDING CODE The 1979 Legislature virtually eliminated the use of the mandatory uniform State Building Code in outstate Minnesota b~ providing adoption b~ referendum on a count~ basis. Where elections have been held, defeat has been overwhelming. The code has been is effect in the 7-county metropolitan area for several years and has been accepted and appears to be working as intended. Some cities would like to see the standards increased, but recognize the necessity of a uniform code and have no major objections to its use. In fact, even though some legislators have discussed elimination of its use in the metropolitan area, there does not seem to be an~ objections to its use from public bodies, the private sector, or general citizenry. THE AMM STRONGLY OPPOSES ELIMINATION OF A MANDATORY STATE BUILDING CODE IN THE SEVEN-COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA. II-W CABLE COMMUNICATIONS Cable Communications, known more commonly as Cable TV, has become one of the most significant municipal issues of the day in terms of technological importance and public interest. Because of the vast communication potential in areas of life other than entertainment and because municipal rights of ways are needed to imple- ment cable communication systems, cities need to stay attuned to pending legisla- tion at both the federal and state level as well as being concerned with the -5- regulatory process. Currently 127 cities in ~3~e metropolitan area are involved cable in one way or another, ranging from 8 cities served to 21 cities making an initial inquiry into the process. The AMM makes the following recommendations: THE MINNESOTA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS BOARD THROUGH ITS RULE-MAKING PROCESS SHOULD ENDEAVOR TO MAKE THE FRANCHISING PROCESS AS EFFICIENT AND TIMELY AS POSSIBLE; THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE NO ROLE IN THE FRANCHISING PROCESS OR OPERATIONS OF CABLE TV, ITS REVIEW SHOULD BE ELIMINATED ENTIRELY; THE CABLE INDUSTRY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ADEQUATELY REGULATE ITSELF AND PROTECT THE CONSUMER BECAUSE OF THE EXTREME COMPETITIVENESS OF THE MARKET PLACE, THEREFORE, REGULATORY AUTHORITY SHOULD NOT BE LESSENED OR REMOVED FROM PUBLIC ENTITIES; THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD PROVIDE STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND PROCESS TO MAKE AVAILABLE CABLE COMMUNICATIONS TO PERSONS RESIDING IN MULTIPLE UNIT DWELLINGS AND MOBILE HOME PARKS; CURRENTLY ONE REGIONAL INTERCONNECT CHANNEL IS REQUIRED, HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE TECHNICAL POTENTIAL FOR EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT, AND PRIVATE SECTOR USES IN THE FUTURE, THE POSSIBILITY OF PROVIDING ADDITIONAL REGIONAL INTERCONNECT CHANNELS SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED BY THE STATE CABLE BOARD; FINALLY, BECAUSE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST BE INVOLVED THROUGH EMMINENT DOMAIN AND GRANTING OF RIGHTS OF WAYS, NEITHER THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD DIMINISH THE FRANCHISING AUTHORITY NOW VESTED WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING THE FEE REGULATIONS. II-X POLICE OFFICER ELIGIBILITY AND RECRUITMENT During the 1978 legislative session the Legislature adopted a uniform state licensing recruitment for police officers which is unparalleled in an~ other area of the United States. The requirements enforced by the Minnesota Peace Officer Standards & Training Board (MPOST) stipulate mandatory minimum standards for recruitment, training and conduct of police officers which significantly infringe on the preroga- tives of local government. In conjunction with establishing the POST Board and rules and regulations, the legislature also eliminated the former BCA schooling and training program for entr~ level police officers. The POST rules and regulations became effective July 1, 1979. Under these rules and regulations, any one interested in becoming a police officer must have two ~ears of law enforcement training after which the~ are given a written examination administered b~ POST. They are then required to take an eight week skill course. Five institutions are certified as meeting POST requirements for the 2 ~ear training in the metro area; Metro U, Lakewood Communit~ College, Inver Hills Community College, North Hennepin Community College and Normandale Community College. Under the present operation, completion of the skills level requirements can only be accomplished through full time day time attendance. In the two years since POST has been in effect, several problems have arisen. The first' of those problems deals mainly with the age and maturity of t~e applicant now being tested for the polioe officer position by metropolitan jurisdictions. Formerly that applicant was predominately a mid to late twenty year old applicant, many times possessing a four year degree, however, not necessarily related to the law enforce- ment area. Many applicants were individuals interested in a complete career change and often times older and of more mature character. The two year law enforcement degree requirement has now shifted that applicant to a much younger age group. Applicants who have entered the law enforcement program right out of high school generally, compared to the previous applicant pool, demonstrate a lack of maturity and people contact experience. In many instances this applicants' interest in police work is based on misrepresented ideas of what police work is really like. The second major problem with the present POST regulations is the full time eight weeks skill course process. This process makes it extremely difficult for an individual interested in a career change, while at the same time being required to work to support a family, to take the time off necessary to complete the skills training course. These two problems have significantly inhibited police agencies, particularly in the suburban areas, to attract a mix of qualified police candidates. Another problem is that minority enrollment in POST-certified schools is toolow to provide police departments with an opportunity to hire qualified minority group members as police officers. Under current POST rules and regulations, some cities may not be able to meet their affirmative action goals. The present regulations also effectively deny a police officer candidate the oppor- tunity to obtain or police jurisdiction the opportunity to provide on-the-job- experience and training prior to becoming a full fledged officer. This practice is followed in many other employment sectors through eitLcr an apprenticeship or internship program. It works to the advantage of both the employer and employee. The present system of certifying police officers in the State of Minnesota does not contain adequate flexibility to address on-the-job-training and ultimate certifica- tion through a one year apprenticeship or internship program in lieu of 2 years of formalized training. AS A RESULT OF THESE PROBLEMS, AMM RECOMMENDS THAT THE PRESENT POST RULES AND REGULATIONS BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR FOUR-YEAR COLLEGE GRADUATES TO TAKE AN EQUIVALENCY EXAMINATION AND UPON SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE EQUIVALENCY EXAMIN- ATION BE ELIGIBLE FOR HIRING AS A POLICE OFFICER WITH COMPLETION OF THE SKILL TRAINING ON A PART TIME BASIS. FURTHER, THE AMM RECOMMENDS THAT THE SKILLS TRAINING COURSES BE OFFERED THROUGHOUT THE METRO AREA ON A PART TIME BASIS AND THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ENTRY LEVEL POLICE OFFICER BE RE-EXAMINED THEREBY MAKING AVAILABLE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR APPLICANTS TO ASSUME A POSITION OF POLICE OFFICER WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT CERTAIN LEVELS OF TRAINING AND SKILLS MUST BE ACHIEVED WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME NOT TO EXCEED ONE YEAR PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION. THE AMM ALSO RECOMMENDS THAT STATE LAW BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE POST-CERTIFIED SCHOOLS TO DEVELOP A RECRUITMENT SYSTEM WHICH PROVIDES ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION OF MINORITIES AND THAT THE PRESENT POST RULES AND REGULATIONS BE AMENDED TO ALLOW COMPARABLE OUT-OF-STATE TRAINING COURSES AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR POST-CERTIFIED SCHOOL TRAINING. THIS SUBSTITUTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED ONLY IF THE CANDIDATE CAN PASS AN EQUIVALENCY EXAM AND THE SKILLS COURSE. -7- /88 II-Y UNIFORM INFORMATION PRACTICE Under the existing state law, it is necessary that the legislature continue to classify that city data, the release of which would adversely affect the public interest, the health welfare/or reputation of the data subject, or which would render unworkable a program authorized by law. As an alternative to this very specific method of classifying individual elements of data; THE AMM RECOMMENDS THAT THE LEGISLATURE ADOPT THE APPROACH TAKEN BY THE UNIFORM INFORMATION PRACTICES ACT, AS DEVELOPED BY THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS, AND AS MODIFIED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF CITIES IN MINNESOTA. THIS MODEL ACT WOULD PROVIDE INCREASED FLEXIBILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO THE GOVERNING BODY FOR MAKING DATA AVAILABLE OR NOT AVAILABLE AS WELL AS PROVIDE A SYSTEM LESS BURDENSOME TO ADMINISTER THAN THE EXISTING LAW. I I-Z OPPOSE INITIATIVE-REFERENDUM FOR ZONING ORDINANCES The Municipal Planning Act has been interpreted to allow for initiative and referendum (IR) in cities with charter provisions allowing for IR. There is evidence that this interpretation has interfered with cities' efforts to achieve their planning and development goals, particularly in the housing field in the metropolitan area. First, the statutory procedure on zoning ordinances provides ample opportunity for the participation of both the general public and individual property owners in decisions relating to zoning ordinances or the Municipal Comprehensive Plan. It is inappropriate to allow such a long deliberative process to be overturned by a relatively few voters who may have narrow interests in the issue. Second, the clear intent of the existing planning law is that zoning ordinances and amendments not be subject to IR. Without a clear uniform statutory procedure for the implementation of municipal planning, statutory and charter cities will be sub- ject to different procedures and the intent of the act will not be realized. Therefore, THE AMM SUPPORTS AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING ACT TO PROVIDE THAT ZONING ORDINANCES AND AMENDMENTS NOT BE SUBJECT TO CITY CHARTER PROVISIONS ON INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. PART HOUS I NG III-A-3 MANDATORY STANDARDS AND MANUFACTURED HOUSING THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD NOT PASS LEGISLATION WHICH SETS MANDATORY ZONING AND SUB- DIVISION STANDARDS OR WHICH REMOVES LAND USE REGULATION AUTHORITY FROM LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT. CITIES SHOULD RETAIN THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE LOCATION, SIZE, AMOUNT, AND TYPE OF HOUSING, INCLUDING MANUFACTURED MOBILE HOUSING, WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES. Mandatory, uniform land use standards for housing style and location would not be appropriate because of the great diversity among cities and differences within cities relative to state of development, topography, lot and dwelling sizes, the mix of housing values and costs, and the level of municipal services which are provided. Therefore, cities should retain the authority to regulate land uses, including the determination as to whether alternative housing, such as manufactured mobile housing, can be located in areas where other modes of housing have been established. Land use regulation is one of the tools cit~ officials need to protect the health, safety, welfare, and interests of the city's residents. Replacement Polics for III A-6, 9 and 10 III-A-6 AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR LOCAL HOUSING PROGRAMS CITIES SHOULD BE GRANTED SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY AND FLEXIBILITY BY THE LEGISLATURE TO CONDUCT HOUSING PROGRAMS THAT MEET THE DIFFERING ~EEDS OF DIVERSE CITIES AND THAT ENABLE CITIES TO COMPLY WITH THE METROPOLITAN LAND PLANNING ACT WHICH DIRECTS CITIES TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR LOW AND MODERATE COST HOUSING. CITIES SHOULD BE ALLOWED, IF THEY DESIRE, TO REQUIRE LOWER COST HOUSING IN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS AND TO REQUIRE THE DEDICATION OF LAND OR CASH FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE REQUIRED DEDICATION FOR PARKS. ALSO, CITIES SHOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DEVELOP HOUSING FOR MIDDLE AND UPPER INCOME PERSONS IF THAT IS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE A BALANCED HOUSING STOCK. There is a great diversity among the cities in the metropolitan area. Some cities need more housing for iow and moderate income persons while other cities need more housing for middle and upper income persons. Cities should have the authority to promote whichever kind of housing is within the public purpose and best interest of the city to do so. It is also important that state and federal agencies cooperate with cities in developing unique programs to meet the diverse needs of cities. Cities need to have more control over the cost of housing being developed if they are to meet the intent of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. In a practical sense, municipalities may be. able to require reduced cost housing currently, but it is preferable to have this authority specified by statute specifically. Dedication would provide land, or cash in lieu of land, for housing needs and is not intended to be in addition to parks dedication but a substitute for it if that would better enable the city to meet its overall needs. -9- PART IV METROPOLITAN AREA ISSUES AND CONCERNS IV-C METROPOLITAN COMPREHENSIVE GOVERNANCE STUDY The AMM is pleased that the Legislature has formed a Legislative Commission as suggested by the AMM to conduct a study of Metropolitan Governance. Substantial changes have been made to the structure of metropolitan governance since the basic structure was created in 1967. A thorough review is in order and has our support and cooperation. We hope that in developing its report to the Legislature, the Commission will conduct its operation in such a way to maximize the public input. THE AMM MAKES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMISSION IN CONDUCTING THE GOVERNANCE STUDY AND DEVELOPING A COMPREHENSIVE POLICY ON GOVERNANCE FOR THE METROPOLITAN AREA: THE SYSTEM OF REGIONAL GOVERNANCE SHOULD BE MADE MORE ACCOUNTABLE AND RE~PON$~VF TO RESIDENTS ~F THE METROPOLITAN AREA. THE SYSTEM/METHOD OF SELECTING METRQPOLITAN COUNCIL MEMBERgAND COMMISSION MEMBERS SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO IMPROVE ACCOUNTABILITY. ELECTED OFFICIALS OF LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT SHOULB NOT BE PRECLUDED FROM SERVING AS COUNCIL MEMBERS. The members of the Metropolitan Council are appointed by the Governor who is elected on a statewide basis and yet the issues involving the Metropolitan Council and Commissions are usually not debated as part of the statewide cam- paign. The Council members then in turn appoint the members of the MTC, MWCC and Parks and Open Space Commission. This system does not facilitate direct accountability of the policy-makers to those being governed. Elected officials from local units of government are eligible to serve on Commissions but not apparently on the Council. Elected officials could bring alot of practical experience to the Council. THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE, SHOULD NOT HAVE DIRECT OPERATING AUTHORITY. ADDITIONAL DIRECT OPERATING AUTHORITY, UNLESS PER- MISSIVE BY LOCAL OPTION (SUCH AS CHOICE OF CITIES TO JOIN HRA), SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED UNLESS AN OVERWHELMING NEED CAN BE DEMONSTRATED AND IT CAN ALSO BE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE ENTITY TO HAVE SUCH AUTHORITY. The present system whereby the Metropolitan Council establishes general policy guidelines and the implementation of the policy is left to independent commissions and existing units of general purpose government is preferable to the Council's getting more heavily into implementation and operations. This system provides a forum for discussion and input which might not be available if the Council becomes more of an operating body. AN EQUITABLE, TIMELY AND COST EFFICIENT SYSTEM FOR RESOLVING DISPUTES BETWEEN THE METROPOLITAN AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED. Local units of government are at a distinct disadvantage when disputes arise with metropolitan agencies. There is no real forum for local units to contest what metropolitan agencies dictate except through court action or possible legislative action. Both of which can be time consuming, costly and not appropriate for many disputes which arise. THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, IN EXERCISING ITS A-95 REVIEW AUTHORITY, SHOULD BE LIMITED TO JUDGING THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSAL WITH THE REGIONAL GOALS, PLANS AND POLICIES AND THE PROPOSAL SHOULD BE REVIEWED PRIMARILY ON ITS OWN MERITS AND THE COUNCIL SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO DOCUMENT ITS REASONS FOR CONSIDERING OTHER FACTORS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL. One of the most important powers of the Metropolitan Council is that of grant applications review and comment (A-95). While that power is obtained primarily from the federal government, the legislature should assure that the Council exercises this power in a constructive and sensible manner. We believe that there are three problems with the current exercise of this review power by the Council: a. The Council can require cities to do more than is required by law which can add to local costs. The Council can use its review authority to influence actions of cities in subject areas not directly and substantially related to the specific proposal. c. The Council can use its authority to get involved in the internal affairs of cities. THE TAXING AND SPENDING LIMITS FOR THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND COMMISSIONS SHOULD REMAIN UNDER LEGISLATIVE CONTROL. THERE SHOULD NOT BE A SINGLE, UNIFIED BUDGET FOR ALL METROPOLITAN AGENCIES WITH THE POWER TO RAISE TAXING RATES INDEPENDENT OF LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL. FURTHER, THE BUDGET ADOPTION PROCESS, AS IS CURRENTLY SPECIFIED BY STATUTE, SHOULD REMAIN AS IS UNLESS THE STRUCTURE AND INTERRELATIONSHIPS UNDERGO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE. There have been proposals and suggestions made that the Council be given the power to raise their taxes similar to the power which currently resides with general purpose units of government. Also that there be one combined budget for all of the Metropolitan Agencies under the control of the Council. Since the Council and Commission members are appointed and not elected, they should not be given independent taxing authority. One combined budget would tend to reduce visibility of expenditures and might lessen cost efficiency. THE STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENTS AND INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF THE REGIONAL GOVERNANCE SYSTEM ARE GENERALLY SATISFACTORY AS THEY EXIST CURRENTLY AND SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED EXCEPT THAT WE WOULD PREFER THAT THE METROPOLITAN HRA BE A SEPARATE ENTITY RATHER THAN THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL BEING THE METROPOLITAN HRA. There are problems of accountability and responsiveness of the metropolitan agencies to the residents of the metropolitan area as identified previously, but these problems would not be solved by structural changes. The existing arrangement is structurally sound to implement the regional authority and responsibility. While the current Metropolitan HRA arrangement seems to function well, the Council is sometimes, or potentially at least, competing for housing assistance funds with cities over which they have A-95 review authority and this is a potential conflict of interest. e A FISCAL NOTE SHOULD BE PREPARED BY THE METROPOLITAN AGENCIES FOR PROGRAMS, PLANS, PROJECTS, ETC. WHICH ARE ORIGINATED AT THE METROPOLITAN LEVEL AND HAVE A COST IMPACT ON LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT. FURTHER, IF THESE PROGRAMS, PLANS, PROJECTS ARE MANDATED ON LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT, THEN THE FUNDING FOR THE LOCAL COSTS SHOULD BE FUNDED AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL. Many directives are received from the regional level which have a cost impact on cities. Some have an obvious and direct impact and costs are identified and the impacts of others are more obscure and not identified. Due to the current cutback in pass-thru revenues at both the federal and state level and the severe levy limit restrictions, cities will not be able to fund the local costs of these programs, plans and projects. THE LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE SHOULD NOT UNDERTAKE THE LEVEL OF SERVICES STUDY AS SPECIFIED IN LAWS 1981, CHAPTER 250. The complexity of the issues involved in analyzing the assignment of governmental responsibilities to various levels of government would be so time consuming that the Commission would not have time to make any of the other assessments required by Laws 1981, Chapter 250. A less than thorough and complete examination of these responsibilities could be worse than no study. Replacement PolicS for II-N IV-N SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA The 1982 Legislature is faced with a number of bills and proposals dealing with the subject of surface water management. The AMM recognizes this as an important issue and one in which cities have a definite stake. While recognizing the importance of the issue, the cities have some specific concerns which must be addressed by any new legislation. A partial listing includes such items as funding, selection method for Watershed District Boards of Managers, dupli- cation and overlays of authority for permitting projects, status of existing joint powers commissions, process for solving inter-jurisdictional disputes, etc. While recognizing the need for comprehensive planning, the AMM believes that cities should retain the basic responsibility for surface water management as they are the level of government closest to the problem. Also, any legislation mandating surface water ~lanning or additional responsibilities on cities must include funding to carry out the planning and new responsibilities. Many watershed districts, joint powers commissions, counties, cities and towns have done a good job of dealing with surface water management issues and have the authority and ability to continue to do so in a cost effective manner. These existing mechanisms should continue to be used to the greatest extent possible to address surface water management problems instead of establishing a new system or creating new organizations. N-1 THEREFORE, THE AMM WILL SUPPORT CHANGES WHICH: - PROVIDE FOR MORE MUNICIPAL INPUT INTO THE WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS SELECTION PROCESS AND WHICH WOULD ASSURE MORE BALANCED GEOGRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION ON SUCH BOARDS. LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS WATERSHED DISTRICT MANAGERS. - PROVIDE INCENTIVES AND ENCOURAGEMENT TO MUNICIPALITIES TO PREPARE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS IN THEIR COMPREHENSIVE PLANS. - IMPROVE AND FACILITATE GREATER COOPERATION BETWEEN LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT IN DEALING WITH SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS. - INCREASE MUNICIPAL PARTICIPATION IN COUNTY WATERSHED DISTRICT OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS. - FACILITATE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF WATERSHED DISTRICTS ORGANIZATIONS OR JOINT POWERS COMMISSIONS IN WATERSHEDS WHERE NEEDED BUT WHERE SUCH ORGANIZATIONS DO NOT EXIST. - PROVIDE FOR THE PREPARATION OF A METROPOLITAN AREA SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WHICH CONTAINS ADVISORY STANDARDS, GUIDELINES, CRITERIA, ETC. TO FACILITATE AND ENHANCE THE PLANNING OF SUBREGIONAL AND LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT. - REVISE THE PERMIT PROCESS SO THAT PERMITTEE NEED ONLY WORK THROUGH THE MUNICIPALITY AND ALL OTHER UNITS INPUT THROUGH THAT PROCESS. N-2 CONVERSELY, THE AMM OPPOSES CHANGES WHICH: - IMPOSE ADDITIONAL MANDATES ON MUNICIPALITIES FOR SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING OR IMPLEMENTAiiON ACTIVITIES UNLESS FULLY FUNDED BY'STATE' RAISED REVENUES. - ESTABLISH A METROPOLITAN AREA WIDE AD VALOREM TAX TO PAY FOR SURFACE WATER MANAGE- MENT PLANNING OR PROJECTS EXCEPT FOR REGIONAL PLANNING OR PROJECTS WHICH ARE CLASSIFIED AS OF METROPOLITAN SIGNIFICANCE AS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH M.S. 473-173. - REDUCE OR SUBSTANTIALLY MODIFY THE ROLE PLAYED BY EXISTING MECHANISMS (CITIES, COUNTIES, TOWNS, WATERSHED DISTRICTS, JOINT POWERS COMMISSIONS) IN DEALING WITH SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS. IV-I HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE PLANNING AND DISPOSAL The problem of solid and hazardous waste disposal is one of the major environmental issues of this decade. Legislation addressing this problem, enaCted~in'1980 and amended in 1981, responded to most of the concerns of the Association and the Association supports the general goal of said legislation. Future legislation should enhance and not diminish emphasis on the following concepts: I-1 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL THE AGENCY OR AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING PLANS FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SHOULD FIRST IDENTIFY THE TYPES OF SOLID WASTE INVOLVED AND THE SOURCES OF THE SOLID WASTES. THE PLAN SHOULD GIVE FIRST PRIORITY TO ALTERNATIVE USE OF SOLID WASTES, EMPLOYING THE GENERATION OF ENERGY FROM INCINERATION AND RECYCLING. LANDFILLS SHOULD ONLY BE PLANNED FOR AND USED AS A LAST RESORT. SPECIAL EMPHASIS SHOULD BE MADE TO IDENTIFY THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF WASTE GENERATORS TO MINIMIZE SOLID WASTE AND MAXIMIZE ITS RECOVERY AND REUSE. -13- I-2 HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL A STATEWIDE PLAN FOR THE DISPOSAL AND REGULATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MUST BE DEVELOPED. HAZARDOUS WASTE MUST BE DEFINED AND THE SOURCES IDENTIFIED BY TYPE, VOLUME, LOCATION, AND GENERATOR. THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR GENERATION MUST BE INVOLVED IN SOLVING THE DISPOSAL PROBLEM. HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATORS MUST BE ENCOURAGED TO MODIFY PRODUCTION PROCESSES TO RE-USE OR RECOVER AS MUCH WASTE AS POSSIBLE AND TO USE LESS HAZARDOUS RAW MATERIALS IN THEIR PROCESS. HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATORS MUST BE REQUIRED TO HANDLE THE WASTES THAT ARE PRODUCED IN SUCH A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW THESE WASTES TO BE IDENTIFIED, COLLECTED AND RECYCLED, OR TO BE DISPOSED OF IN A TECHNOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND MANNER. DETER- MINATION MUST BE MADE OF THE TYPES OF DISPOSAL FACILITIES NEEDED, AND HOW MANY. SITE SELECTION RULES AND CRITERIA MUST BE ADOPTED PRIOR TO THE SITING PROCESS AND MUST BE SUBJECT TO EXHAUSTIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE RECOVERY AND/OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES. IF LANDFILLING OF VARIOUS TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BECOME NECESSARY, PRIME CRITERIA CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO GEOLOGICAL ACCEPTABILITY OF VARIOUS SITES AND TECHNOLOGICAL FAIL/SAFE DESIGN OF THE FACILITY. I-3 PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING PROCESS ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENTS, INCLUDING CITIES, TOGETHER WITH PRIVATE INDUSTRY, MUST BE ENCOURAGED AND ENABLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ENTIRE PLANNING PROCESS AND ALSO TO PROVIDE SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEMS WHERE FEASIBLE. BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEXITY OF DEALING WITH HAZARDOUS WASTES, A STATE AGENCY SHOULD HAVE THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR OVERSIGHT OF HAZARDOUS WASTES PROCESSING AND LANDFILL DISPOSAL FACILITIES, TO THE EXTENT THAT HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SOLUTIONS ARE NOT FORTHCOMING FROM PRIVATE INDUSTRY. I-4 INCENTIVES FOR HOST COMMUNITIES BECAUSE THE SITES FOR THE DISPOSAL OF SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE WILL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, INCENTIVES SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE STATE OR REGION TO THE HOST OF THE FACILITY. SPECIFICALLY, CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES TO THE HOST COMMUNITY FOR THE PROPERTY REMOVED FROM THE TAX ROLLS: THE HOST COMMUNITY SHOULD BE PROTECTED BY THE STATE FROM SEVERE LIABILITY PROBLEMS: PREFERENCE FOR THE CITY OR TOWN CON- TAINING A FACILITY IN FEDERAL A-95 REVIEWS CONDUCTED BY THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL: PAYMENT OF ALL COSTS TO SERVICE THE FACILITIES, INCLUDING THE COSTS OF ROADS, MONITORING, INSPECTIONS, POLICE AND FIRE, AND LITTER CLEANUP COSTS: PAYMENT FOR BUFFER ZONE AMENITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS: AND CITY OR TOWN CONTROL OVER BUFFER ZONE DESIGN. PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT, FINANCING, OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES IS ENCOURAGED. I-5 TIPPING CHARGES IF A MONOPOLISTIC CONDITION OCCURS IN DISPOSAL, THEN SOME MECHANISM SHOULD BE DEVELOPED TO REGULATE THE DROP AND COLLECTION RATES. -14- I-6 CLEANUP OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LOCATIONS THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD ESTABLISH A STATE FUND TO FINANCE THE CLEANUP OF EXISTING HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LOCATIONS AND FUTURE SPILLS OF TRANS-SHIPMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE, AND FOR THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF 'PROJECTS REQUIRED TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF POLLUTION EMINATING FROM HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LOCATIONS, SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS AND WASTEWATER SLUDGE DISPOSAL AREAS. THE STATE FUND COULD BE FINANCED THROUGH A SURCHARGE ON SOLID AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE DISPOSAL AND ON WASTEWATER SLUDGE, AS WELL AS THROUGH AMOUNTS COLLECTED BY THE STATE THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM FROM DISPOSERS OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES. LEGISLATION CLEARLY DEFINING THE LIABILITY OF DISPOSERS OFiHAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES SHOULD BE ENACTED. INNOCENT LANDOWNERS OF EXISTING HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LOCATIONS SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM LIABILITY BUT SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO CLEAN UP THE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE THROUGH FINANCIAL INCENTIVES. MUNICIPAL LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES FROM IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY IN OTHER THAN A STATE'I~RMITTED HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SITE, SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE AMOUNTS SPECIFIED IN THE MUNICIPAL TORT CLAIMS ACT. IV-L METROPOLITAN PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUNDING The 1974 Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Act which established the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space system provided state/regional fiscal support for acquisition and development of the regional park system. Funding for the operations and main- tenance of regional parks was and is the responsibility of the implementing agencies (counties and cities). This funding arrangement incidently was strongly supported by the metropolitan counties and the Metropolitan Council at that point in time. For a variety of reasons, some of the counties and cities that own and operate the regional parks believe that regional/state funding should now be provided for operations and maintenance. If the Legislature determines that state/regional funding is necessary for regional park's operations and maintenance, the AMM makes the following recommendations: - THE REGIONAL PARKS SHOULD REMAIN UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES. - THE STATE/REGIONAL FUNDS SHOULD BE IN THE FORM OF A CONTINUING REVENUE SOURCE NOT DEPENDENT UPON BIENNIAL LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION AND PREFERRABLY FROM A SOURCE OTHER THAN THE PROPERTY TAX. - A FAIR AND EQUITABLE FORMULA FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THE STATE/REGIONAL FUNDS SHOULD BE DEVELOPED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE FUNDING DECISION. IV-M IMPACT OF REGIONAL PARKS ON HOST COMMUNITIES The 1974 Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Act provided a "payment in lieu of taxes" to local units of government in a decreasing basis over a four year period. This "payment in lieu of taxes" was to lessen the immediate impact of property taken off the tax rolls for regional park purposes. However, no provision was made then or since then to mitigate the continuing cost impacts of a regional park on the host community. These impacts include such items as increased police and fire protection costs, street maintenance, litter cleanup, permanent loss of tax revenues, etc. THE AMM RECOMMENDS THAT THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL INITIATE A STUDY OF THE COST IMPACTS OF REGIONAL PARKS ON THE HOST COMMUNITIES. THE RESULTS OF THIS STUDY SHOULD BE FORWARDED'TO.THE LEGISLATURE ALONG WITH LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS TO MITIGATE THESE IMPACTS BY NO LATER THAN JANUARY 1, 1983. j~ ! -15- PART ¥ TRANSPORTATION V-H TAXI CAB REGULATION The Taxi Cab industr~ is currently licensed and regulated on a cit~ by cit~ basis with each cit~ providing its own set of fees and regulations. Recentl~ the Citizens League released a stud~ entitled "TAXIS: Solutions in the Cit~; A New Future in the Suburbs." This stud~ recommends much deregulation and transfers license authorit~ to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. One of the major thrusts behind the Citizens League proposal is to free up the taxi industry into a more competitive private business and attempt through this procedure to create a climate whereb~ cabs and cities could provide increased opportunit~ for rideshare programs and other vitally needed transportation opportunities, especiall~ in the suburbs. In addition, a bill has been introduced in the legislature transferring regulatory and licensing authority from cities to the MTC. However, neither the Citizens League document nor the bill addresses the complex problems associated with providing reasonable services to outla~ing areas or less desireable districts of some communities. Even if a degree of deregulation is advisable, some regulation will always be needed making it necessary to determine who and how to enforce such regulations. THE AMM URGES THAT AN IN-DEPTH STUDY OF TAXI CAB SERVICE AND PROBLEMS BE UNDERTAKEN PRIOR TO ADOPTING ANY CHANGE IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF TAXI CAB LICENSING AND REGULATION. -16- CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66*Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323*Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka LAKE MINNETONKA AREA MAYORS MEETING OF JANUARY 7, 1982 A special meeting of the Lake Minnetonka Mayors Association was held at 7:30 PM on Thursday, January 7, 1982, at the Orono City Hall, Orono, Minnesota. The following items were included on the agenda for discussion: 1. Cable TV The merits and problems of a consolidated cable TV service area for the Lake Minnetonka Area was discussed at great length. The primary advantages of a central system included economies in developing the RFP for a larger area rather than three smaller areas, the potential of getting better quality responses from bidders as a result of consolidation, and economies in operation over the next fifteen or twenty years of operating only one central station. Potential delays in the franchising process were sighted as the principal disadvantage of consolidation at this time, but it was suggested by Mayor Quest that perhaps the West and North Shore cable areas could join the South Shore area thus eliminating the need to start over at the beginning of the process and to more fully take advantage of the organization.existing in the South Shore cable area. It was suggested that perhaps the Lake Minnetonka cable areas could be reorganized by the State Cable Board to accomplish this with the minimum delays in the franchising process. This idea was supported by most of the Mayors present. The following motion was moved by Van Nest and seconded by Froberg: "To recommend that each City Council adopt a resolution that the South, West and North Shore cable areas be combined into one Lake Minnetonka TV Cable area and further, that the State Cable Commission be requested to reorganize the cable service area in such a way as to minimize any delay to the franchising process". 7 Aye, I Nay, I Abstain Shorewood voted against the motion indicating that they felt that it would delay the process of establishing cable TV for the City of Shorewood. The City of Wayzata abstained as they are presently in the process of publishing their RFP. BUILDING & ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE - 473-7358 · PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 2. Public SafetS Radio Frequencies Mayor Frober9 discussed the current situation relative to the con~nunication and dispatch services within Nennepin County. There are eleven centers for dispatch within the county consisting of Nennepin County Sheriff's Tower, City of Minneapolis, and nine independent dispatching cities generally consisting of first rin§ suburb communities. Mayor Froberg explained that Hennepin County Sheriff's Tower operated,with three, two-way frequencies serving thirty six municipalities with a total population of approximately two hundred and thirty thousand people representing 24.37% of the total county population and that nine two- way frequencies were utilized by the independent dispatching stations located in ten municipalities with a total population of three hundred and forty one thousand people consisting of 36.23% of the total county population. The problem at hand is that the three, two-way frequencies utilized by the county are overloaded because of the heavy load of traffic amongst the dependent communities and a desire by the county to have one or more frequencies released by the independent communities to help alleviate this problem. The ten independent municipalities are apparently not interested in relinquishing any of their nine, two- way frequencies and in addition, are pushing the county to require the thirty six dependent municipalities to pay the entire operating cost of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Tower which amounts to approximately Five Hundred and Sixteen Thousand Dollars per year through some form of user fee. The County Board Staff recommended last year that the County Board not establish user fees to defray the cost of operating the Hennepin County Sheriff's Tower, but Mayor Froberg felt that this issue would be before the Hennepin County Board again possibly as soon as 1983 or 1984. A copy of the information presented by Mayor Froberg is attached to these minutes for your information. 3. Proposed Solid Waste Disposal Site Mayor Van Nest .reported on the status of the Minnetrista Solid Waste Disposal Site indicating that the MPCA had found Minnetrista site to be intrinsically suitable and that Hennepin County would discuss the matter at a public hearing on January 18, 1982, at the Government Center. Mayor Berg reported that the Minneapolis Star had published an article indicating that the Hennepin County Staff was recommending five sites for solid waste disposal which did not include the Minnetrista site. Mayor Van Nest urged all of the Cities to adopt the proposed resolution objecting to the Minnetrista Solid Waste Disposal Site and forwarding a copy of these approved resolutions to Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. 4. Maple Plain Sewerage Treatment Plant Mayor Van Nest reported that the MPC was considering issuing a permit for the operation of the Maple Plain Sewerage Plant contingent that the plant would be phased out and closed by 1985 through the construction of an intercepter through the City of Orono connecting to the the metropolitan sewer system at the Long Lake Lift Station. A discussion was held pertaining to the merits of upgrading the Maple Plain Sewerage Plant as well as other alternatives to the construction of another intercepter in the Lake Minnetonka Watershed. Mayor Van Nest urged the other Mayors to continue to support a plan for the Maple Plain Sewerage Plant that will allow for consideration of other alternatives to the intercepter and for the immediate installation of phosphorus removal equipment to bring the affluent from this plant to the acceptable phosphorus standard of one milligram per liter. Inflow and infiltration in municipal sewer systems as well as in the Metropolitan Waste Control System was discussed. Mayor Rockvam commented about the inconsistent readings of a metering station in Spring Park by the Waste Control Commission, which has resulted in a much higher sewer bill for Spring Park than he felt was justified. It was desided that we would discuss this infiltration problem as well as our relationships with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission at our next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:15 p.m. The next meeting of the Lake Minnetonka Area Mayors being set for Thursday, March 4, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. at the Mound City Hall. Mayor, City of Orono Attachments: List of attendance Public Safety Radio Frequency Information Area Mayors Meeting January 7, 1982 Attendance NAME Brad Van Nest Glenn Froberg Ed Quest Rock Lindlan Dick Knapp Bob Rascop Jerry Rockvam Ed Bearg Bill Humphrey CITY Orono Tonka Bay Deephaven Mound Excelsior Shorewood Spring Park Minnetonka Beach Wayzata POSITION Mayor Mayor Mayor Mayor Mayor Mayor Mayor Mayor Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jon Elam, City Manager Rob Chelseth, City Planner 18 January 1982 Preliminary Budget and Work Program for 1982 Planning Activities in Mound Let me begin this response to your January llth memorandum by saying that my work experiences in Mound over the last year have been both enjoyable and enriching from a professional and personal standpoint. I look forward to the chance to continue working with the people of Mound. As you accurately noted in your analysis, work performed by the City Planner has been principlely in the area of planning and policy development. This is, as you say, as much the result of the force of events versus a pre- scribed program. Consequently, considerations for a 1982 Planning Program might best begin with a detailed listing of planned, anticipated and poten- tial planning activities facing the City in 1982 (see attached). After preparing this list and a companion analysis of funding sources, it is readily apparent that beyond the Downtown Study and CDBG Administration, all other planning activity will be funded through the General Fund ($6000). Four activities have been identified under "Planned Program Activities" for general fund support in 1982. It is assumed these items are "must dos" to be completed in 1982. In fact, the Zoning Ordinance is all but done. The wetlands code is well underway, and the other two (zoning forms and comprehensive plan revision) will soon be underway. Consequently half of the budget is proposed for work in this area. Anticipated Program Activities are largely administrative responsibilities; the amounts attached to them represent estimates for work expected in 1982. Obviously these can fluctuate radically depending on the building season. Finally, an eight percent contingency fund ($500)has been proposed for set aside. However, this may better be reprogramed to cover work on "Potential Program Activities". This represents the most speculative portion of the budget, open to considerable discussion. Subdivision Regulations: The current regulations are antiquated and could use significant upgrading and/or replacement. Floodplain Regulations: Review provisions for possible updating, modifi- cations, and inclusion into Zoning Code (current floodplain standards ade- quately address legal requirements, so this is an optional task). Assisted Housing Development: Work with City and HRA to investigate possi- ble sites, undertake acquisition and/or improvements, prepare requests for proposals from developers, etc. Memorandum to: Jon Elam, City Manager Subject: Preliminary Budget and Work Program for 1982 Planning Actlv~tles in Mound - 18 January 1982 - Page 2 Miscellaneous Programs: Could include grant applications (LAWC0N, planning funds, etc.) UDAG If City becomes eligible. Special Studies: At the request of the City Manager or City Council. PLANNED PROGRAM ACTIVITIES Activity * Downtown Revitalization Study: Phase I of the p]an for downtown is nearly complete. After identification of planning activities for Phase II, work will proceed on development and implementation. Fundin9 Source CDBG: $4900. General Revenue:S6745. * Community. Development Block Grant: Really Involves two separate activities-- a) Grant Administration: The monthly completion of CDBG - warrants for draw downs and the monitoring of progress on individual activities b) Program Development: will involve the develop- ment of a three year CDBG program.early in 1982 for future CDBG monies $ 670. * Zoning Ordinance: assumed to be essentially com- plete, with little or no technical input required from Planner * Zoning Procedure Forms: Modifications to the Zoning Ordinance have made the old forms in- adequate. Completely new forms should be drafted for Staff approval * Revisions/Update to the Comprehensive Plan: The Planning Commission's 1982 Work Program in- volves reviewing and revising the major sections of the Co!.prehensive Plan (land use, housing, transit, etc). It is assumed that some pro- fesslonal assistance will be necessary, al- though the nature and extent have not been determined at this time. * Wetlands Code: Work with and assist the Wetlands Commission in completing wetland regulations for the City. ANTICIPATED PROGRAM ACTIVITIES * Subdivision Reviews: Varies with land sub- division activity. Encompasses the study of design concept, and its consistency with City standards, emphasizing land use, density, etc. * Zoning Amendments: Prepare analysls and recommenda- tion on proposed zoning changes. * Zoning Variances: Comment/Recommendation on particularly difficult requests. * General (Building Permits, review of private and public plans with potential impacts on Mound, etc.) General Fund Plannin9 Budget $500. (20 hrs.) $100. (4 hrs.) $500. (20 hrs.) $1150. (46 hrs.) $750. (30 hrs.) $750. $750. $500. $500. (3) POTENTIAL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES ~ Draft revised subdJvislon regulations. * Draft revised floodplain zoning district. * As City/HRA Staff, initiate new assisted housing activities (site identification and acqulsJt~on, housing application, developer, RFP, etc.) * Miscellaneous program and funding requests. * Special studies (alternative uses of Anderson site, inventory of vacant City owned property and potential uses, etc.) Contingency: $500. (4) INTEROFFICE MEMO FROM: SUBJECT: Jon Elam, City Manager ~x~ DATE January 14, Bruce. Wold, Chief of Police Communications Meeting Presentation of Draft Proposal by "Independent" Communities 19 82 The meeting was an opportunity to hear a report which the independent communities intend to offer as a response to the Hennepin County Administrator's December questionaire. The report will be sent to us after it is adopted at a meeting on January 20, 1982. The highlights of the report are: By 01-01-83, the county should begin incremental charges to all users of the county radio system. These charges could be paid for through a tax levy if legislation is approved. 2. A board of users should be formed to decide the type of system best suit their needs, based on what charges they are willing to pay. .3. Users should be allowed to switch off the county system and form their own dispatch function or combine with an independent. The idea being that the dependent would seek the best deal in an open and free market. No changes would be allowed in the equipment operated ai the county radio center until January 1, 1983. The county inform all dependents of their incremental costs by July 1, 1982. 6. User fees are needed because of the user fee structure already adopted for jailing and booking. The discussion brought out the fact that current radio costs for the county radio costs for the county radio system is $1.5 million annually. This breaks down to $1.59 per capita in the county. However, 75% of the county population resides within communities that have independent dispatch centers. This means that approximately 240,000 persons are served by the county system in dependent communities. Assuming the $1.5 million cost is passed directly to these comnunities, the per capita costs increases to $6.25. The $1.5 million is for equipment currently in use, not equipment proposed in the county cmim~unications report. A certain percentage of the $1.5 million cost would be spread out over all Hennepin County communities for sheriff's operations. At this time no fig- ures are available on what the percentage would be. Brooklyn Park has passed a resolution ordering the county to provide Brooklyn Park with user fee predictions by January 26, 1982. Should the county not act on the resolution, Brooklyn Park will begin work needed to combine dispatch operations with Brooklyn Center. Brooklyn Park estimates the cost of combining with Brooklyn Center to be $1.5 million over ten years. Brooklyn Center made this decision after looking at figures the county supplied indicating a cost of $100,000 per year on the county system. Jon Elam 01-14-82 Page 2 Eden Prairie appears ready to linkup with Richfield. This will remove one of the large users from the county system. If Brooklyn Park leaves, another large user will be off the system. This will have two effects: 1) to improve the delivery service to remaining cities on the county system; 2) increase the incremental costs to the co~nunities still on the system. Depending on who prevails, we could be on the horns of a large financial dilemma. BW/sh Bruce H. Wold, Chief Mound Police Dept. January 12, 1982 CITY of MOUND M£MO 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: JON ELAM, CITY MANAGER Enclosed is a copy of the existing Engineering Agreement COvering McCombs-Knutson. The first three pages apply only to MoUnd. The remainder is a canned contract theyl use for all their cities. Any changes we want need ,to be listed within the first contract section. I've outlined three questions I thi~k need to be includedl You may have others. If so, please let me know and then I'll set'~up a meeting with Skip and see what I can do to integrate them into a new Agreement. JE:fc McCOMB$-KNUT$ON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS December 8, 1981 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Mr. Jori Elam City Manager City of Hound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota Dear John: I understand that you are going to sitting down and di., of engineering services with some membE ef the Council. For you information, I thought it ~gh~ be helpful if I a copy of our Contract with the City wb~ch~I believes spells the cost of our services _ao~ how they'r~a~r~ved. I'd like to call your attention to 1979 and that the percentage fee was negotiated approved by the City Council. The fee 1980. As you see in the Contract, these services which are detailed on page 4- Contract. In these projects, the finai~ may appear high compared to other proj~ we not did all the land surve ~e ~rope~ty owners to obtain the inspection on the pro~ec~ ~ith the street and count ~ht-of-wa' maintain good rel~ ps with the frustrations were minimized. ;cussing the costs re to send along ,u~ ..ver~ cl~e~rZy Street Projects Mr. Kopp and then and was 7~, and 6.528~ for 1977 and ~tages cover the b~ ' through 1.5 of enrages for ,ut we would like engineering B of the · services out that , otiated with We 'Jed exte zme We believe that we were able to to see that their complaints and I hope this information will be of hSlp itc you and benefit you when you evaluate the cost of our services and ho~ they are affecting the City. From our experience in other communities who have utilized other engineering firms we believe our fees to be very competitiYe considering the extensive magnitude and complexity of the project. Minneapolis - Hutchinson - Alexandria - Eagan printed on recycled p~per 3on Elam December 8, 1981 Page Two We have appreciated the opportunity with you since you've been on board and and happy relationship. with the City of Mound and forward to a continued pleasant WHM:$ Enclosure ASSOCIATES, Inc. ', llIam H. ~lcCombs, PART A AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER & ENGINEER THIS AGREEMENT made this day of ~pril ~ , 1979, by and between the City of Mound, ~innesota, the Owner, and McCombs-Knutson Associates Incorporated, 12805 01son Memorial Highway, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441, hereinafter called the Engineer. WITNESSETH: That whereas the Owner intends to cantract with a Consulting Engineer to'fulfill the normal City requirements relating to investigations, preliminary st~d~es, design of municiial facilities, o~servation of work, resident i?~pection, stakin~ outilof work, and such miscellaneous surveys as m~? be necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, THE OWNER~ND THE ENGINEER for the considerations hereinafter set forth agree as i~ollows: ,i 1. The ENGINEER shall ac~ as City Engineer as'directed by the CITY COUNCIL and provide professional services for the CITY in accordance with the Agreement and the T~rms and Conditions, which is attached hereto and made a part of this Owner-Engineer Agreement. ~ Meeting Attendance I The ENGINEER shall attend meetings as directed by the City Manager or Council. Meetings may include ~nt are not necessarily limited to the following: City Council Meetings Planning Commission Meetings Public Hearings Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Court Hearings ,.-211 Payment to the ENGINEER for attendance at A, B!, and C when not connected with a project will be at the rate of Twenty Five ($25.00) per meeting. Payment for attendance at other meetings ~ill be at the hourly rate of 2.25 times our Birect Personnel Expenses as defined in Article 5 of Part B. Preliminary Studies, Plans and Specifications Administration (large projects). As directed by the Cit~i.~ouncil1 the ENGINEER ~lans and specificationSi, observe constructiol inspection and stake out~ work on large projec $50,000 construction cost) with the City. The ENGINEER will be compensated for the prel plans and specifications,, construction observ basis of the percent (%)i of construction cost will be 8%~ for. projects i$50,000 to $200,000 a projects over $200,000. !Projects over $200,0 complexity includes watermains, sewer systems projects of a higher degree of difficulty, su plants, street improvements, and those involv grants will be 1.3% higher than the above ra' with construction cost above $2,000,000 will individually. Resident inspection and stakin the hourly rate of 2.25 times our direct pers Miscellaneous Services The ENGINEER shall conduct and/or prepare as Manager or City Council the following: mo Bo Investigations and Reports Feasibliity Studies and Contract iishall prepare , Provide resident s (greater than minary studies, tion on the iThe percent .d 6% for all ~O of routine ~ etc For chl asl treatment lng Federal esi. Projects be! considered g Will be paid at o~al expenses. directed by the On Small projects (less than $50,000 cofisitruction cost) prepare plans and specifications, obser~elconstruction, stake out work and;provide resident inspection. D. Prepare Assessment Rolls. The ENGINEER will be compensated for the misCe lanous services on the basis of an agreed upon lump sum amounti when requested by the Ow-ne_r at the hourly rate of 2.25 times ~ke Direct P_ersonnel Expenses,. Where znvestzgatzons and r~piorts descrzbed above lead to projects which later proceed aS':~escribed under paragraph 3 (larger projects), payments received for such investigations and reports shall be credit~.d tp the total percentage fee on such projects. If only a paXt of such investigation or report is applicable the cred!it shall be made pro-rata. : NOW, THEREFORE, THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH, that for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises between the parties hereto, it is hereby agreed that the Engineer shall furnish services and the Owner shall make payment for same in accordance with the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have made and executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. By: CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA PART B AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER & ENGINEER TERMS & CONDITIONS ARTICLE I ENGINEER'S SERVICES 1.1 BASIC SERVICES In accordance with reasonable professional standards. 1.1.1 The ENGINEER agrees to perform professional services in connection with the Project as hereinafter stated, including the stipulations and amendments within the Agreement. 1.1.2 The ENGINEER'S Basic Services consist of the four phases described below. The ENGINEER's Contracted Professional Services from Others, described within the Agreement, are a part of these services. 1.2 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDIES During the Preliminary Engineering, the ENGINEER shall: 1.2.1 Consult with the ~nwer~o ascertain the OWNER'S requirements for the project. 1.2.2 Advise the OWNER as to the necessity of his providing or obtaining additional services such as described within Article 2, "Additional Services of the ENGINEER,: and if concurred with and authorized by the OWNER, shall provide, procure, or assist him in procuring such additional services. 1.2.3 Prepare a preliminary engineering study and report, which will consist of suitable schematic drawings, layouts and/or flow diagrams and reports of studies as necessary for review and written approval by the OWNER. A statement of the ENGINEER'S Opinion of the Construction_Cost shall be prepared based upon the preliminary d~signs developed to this point. 1.2.4 Present the data contained in the report to the Council at public hearings. 1.2.5 Preparation of applications and supporting documents for governmental grants, loans, or advances. 1.3 DESIGN PHASE Upon receipt of the OWNER'S authorization to implement the preliminary engineering Documents and to proceed with the Design Phase, the ENGINEER shall: 1.3.1 Advise the OWNER as to the necessity of his obtaining further additional ~ervices including the types of services described in Article 2, "Additional Services of the Engineer," and if concurred with and authorized by the OWNER, shall provide, procure, or assist him in procuring such services. 1.3.2 Prepare from the approved Preliminary Studies, the Design Documents consisting of design criteria, Contract forms including proposal forms and notice to bidders, drawings, technical specifications and other documents as needed by the ENGINEER to complete the Construction Contract Documents. 1.3.3 Prepare a statement of the ENGINEER's Opinion of the Construction Cost for the Project based upon designs established to this point. 1.3.4 Secure approval when authorized by the OWNER from any governmental authorities having jurisdiction over design criteria applicable to the Project or authorities and agencies that may participate in the Project. 1.4 BIDDING OR NEGOTIATING PHASE Upon receipt of the OWNER'S approval of the Construction Contract Document Phase and authorization to proceed with Bidding or Negotiating phase, the ENGINEER shall: 1.4.1 Assist the OWNER in obtaining bids or negotiating bid proposals, in analyzing bids and proposals, and in awarding the Construction Contract. 1.5 CONSTRUCTION PHASE Upon award of the Construction Contract by the OWNER the Construction Phase of this Agreement will commence. The Construction Phase will terminate upon acceptance by the OWNER and written approval of final certificate of payment to the Contractor by the ENGINEER. During the Construction Phase, the ENGINEER shall assume the following provisions: 1.5.1 The extent of the ENGINEER'S duties and responsibilities and the limitations of the ENGINEER'S authority are as described herein and in the General Conditions of the Construction Contract. These shall not be modified without the written consent of both parties. 1.5.2 Advise and consult with the Owner during the Construction Phase and the ENGINEER shall issue the OWNER'S authorized instructions to the Contractor. 1.5.3 ~ake .periodic visits to the site of the construction to observe the progress and quality of the construction'work and to determine, in general, if the results of the construction work are in accordance with the Drawings and the Specifications. On the basis of his on-site observations as an ENGINEER, he shall endeavor to guard the O.WN. ER against apparent defects_ and deficiencies in the permanent work constructed by the ~ontractor but does not euarantee the performance of the Contractor. The ENGINEER shall not be required to make exhaustive or continuous on-site observations to.check the quality or quantity of the construction work. The ENGINEER is not responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, time of performance, programs, or for any safety precautions in connection with the construction work. The ENGINEER is not responsible for the Contractor's failure to.execute the work in accordance with the Construction Contract. The Engineer shall be responsible for the completed work, that the completed work is in accordance with the plans and specifications. 1.5.4 Review the Contractor's request for progressive payment, advise the OWNER of the ENGINEER's opinion of the extent of work completed in accordance with the terms of the Construction Contract and issue for processing by the OWNER, a certificate of payment in the certified amount. 1.5 Make recommendations to the OWNER on all claims relating to the execution and progress of the construction work. The ENGINEER'S decisions in matters relating to ENGINEERS'S design shall be final. 1,5.6 Notify the OWNER of all permanent work which does not conform to the result required in the Construction Contract, prepare a written report describing any apparent non-conforming permanent work and ma~e recommendations to the OWNER for its correction and, at the request of the OWNER, have recommendations implemented by the Contractor. 1.5.7 Review shop drawings, samples, and. other submissions of the Contractor only for general conformance to the design con'cept of the project and for compliance with the result required in the Construction Contract. 1.5.8 Prepare Change Orders for the OWNER'S approval. 1.5.9 Conduct a construction progress review related to the Contractor's date of completion; receive written guarantees and related data assembled by the Contractor; and issue to the OWNER a Certificate of Final .Payment. 1.5.10 Base~ on the marked-up prints, drawings and other data furnished by the Contractor, the ENGINEER will furnish the OWNER a set of reproducible record prints of drawings showing those changes made during the construction contract execution'or during the construction progress. ARTICLE 2 ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF THE ENGINEER 2.1 GENERAL If authorized by the OWNER, the ENGINEER shall furnish or obtain from others additional services of the following types which are not covered by Article 1, and which shall be paid for by the OWNER as provided in Article 7, "Payment to the Engineer," Additional services of the ENGINEER and the Engineer's Contracted Professional Services from Others include, but are not limited to the following. 2.1.1 Services due to major changes in general scope of the Project or changes in its design iqcluding, but not limited to, changes in size, complexity and/or character of construction. 2.1.2 Revising studies, reports, design documents, drawings and/or specifications which have previously been approved by the OWNER. 2.1.3 Preparation of design documents for alternate bids requested by the OWNER for construction work which is not awarded. If all bids are rejected. 2.1.4 Preparation of detailed renderings, exhibits and/or scale models for the Project. 2.1.5 Providing special analysis of the OWNER'S needs such as operating analysis, OWNER'S operating and maintenance manuals, OWNER'S special operating drawings and/or charts, and any other similar analysis. 2.1.6 Providing boundary surveys, "stake out" of the location of the work, and any other special field surveys. 2.1.7 Investigations involving detailed considerations of operations, maintenance and overhead expenses; the preparation of rate schedules, earnings and expense statements, appraisals and valuations; detailed quantity surveys of material and labor; and material audits or inventories required for certification of force account construction performed by the OWNER. -7- 2.1.8 Additional or extended services during construction made necessary by work damaged by fire, flood, or other disasters during construction. 2.1.9 Additional services and costs of the ENGINEER other than visits to the Project as required by Article 1, "Engineer's Services." 2.1.10 Basic service includes the determination of the general location and width of right-of-way and easements. Land surveying services and work done to negotiate and obtain easements from the property owners when authorized by the City will be performed as extra services. Basic services will include the service of the project engineer on easements. 2.1.11 Giving testimony as an expert witness for the OWNER in any litigation or other proceedings involving this Project or otherwise assisting the OWNER in connection with litigation or other assessments involving the project. 2.1.12 Any other services not otherwise provided for in this agreement, including without limitation, services normally furnished by the OWNER as described in Article 3, "Owner Responsibilities." 2.2 RESIDENT PROJECT SERVICES 2.2.1 If requested by the OWNER or recommended by the ENGINEER and approved by the OWNER, one or more full-time Resident Project Inspectors will be furnished and directed by the ENGINEER in order to provide the Ok~ER with continuous representation at the Project site during the construction phase. Such resident project inspection will be paid for by the OWNER as indicated in - Part A of this agreement. 2.2.2 If the ENGINEER is authorized to furnish a Resident Project Inspector then the ENGINEER through such Representative shall in accordance with reasonable standards of the trade, regularly observe the progress of the project and periodically report to the Owner that the construction is in accordance with the plans and specifications. ARTICLE 3 THE OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES The OWNER will: 3.1 Provide all criteria and full information as to his requirements for the Project, upon request of the Engineer. 3.2 Assist the ENGINEER by placing at his disposal all available written data pertinent to the site of the Project including previous reports and any other data affecting the design and/or construction of the Project. 3.3 When available, furnish the ENGINEER the data on property, boundary, right-of-way~ topographic and utility surveys; soils reports, including core borings, probings and subsurface explorations; hydrographic surveys, laboratory tests, inspections of samples, and materials, OWNER reports and other consultant services including reports and consultation, not covered in Article 2, "Additional Services of the Engineer," all of which the ENGINEER will rely on for his preparation of the design and Construction Contract Documents for this Project. When such information is not available and the necessity of having information is agreed to by both parties, the OWNER shall arrange to obtain such data. 3.4 Acquire all land and rights-of-way for the Project. When performed by the ENGINEER, payment shall be in accordance with paragraph 2.1.11. 3.5 Guarantee access to the property and make all provisions for the ENGINEER to enter upon public and private lands as required for the ENGINEER to perform his services under this Agreement. 3.6 Advertise for proposals from bidders, open the sealed proposals at the appointed time and place and pay for all costs incident thereto. 3.7 Provide legal review of the Construction Contract Document. Provide such accounting and insurance counseling services as are required for the Project. 3.8 Designate in writing a person to act as OWNER'S liason with respect to the ENGINEER'S service. 3.9 Furnish or instruct the ENGINEER to provide at the OWNER'S expense, necessary additional services as stipulated in Article 2 of this Agreement, or other services as required. 3.10 Furnish to the ENGINEER, prior to any performance by the ENGINEER under the Agreement, a copy of any design and construction standards the OWNER shall require the ENGINEER to follow in the preparation of the Construction Contract Documents. ARTICLE 4 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES 4.1 Reimbursable expenses are in addition to the fees for Basic and Additional Services. Reimbursables include actual expenditures made by the ENGINEER, his employees, or his consultants in the interest of the Project and are the expenses listed in the following sub-paragraphs: 4.1.1 Expense of transportation, subsistence, and lodging when traveling at the Owner's request to any location outside of the metropolitan area in connection with the project or grant approval or other authorized travel.. 4.1.2 When authorized in advance by the OWNER, the expense of preparing prospectives or models for the OWNER'S use; and authorized expenses incurred for performing any. services under OWNER'S Responsibility such as listed in Article 3, "Owner's Responsibilities," paragraph 3.3. ARTICLE 5 DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSES 5.1 Direct Personnel Expense is the cost of salaries and mandatory and customary benefits, such as Social Security, Unemployment Compensation, Workmen's Compensation and other statutory benefits, insurance, sick leave, holidays, vacati6ns, pension plans and similar and customary benefits for employees of the ENGINEER engaged on the Project, including architects, engineers, designers, job captains, draftsmen, specification writers and typists engaged in computation, research and design, production of drawings, specifications and other documents pertaining to the Project, and in rendering services during cpnstruction at the site. ARTICLE 6 CONSTRUCTION COST 6.1 Construction Cost, when used as a basis for determining the ENGINEER'S Fee for all construction work designed or specified by the ENGINEER, includes the costs of labor, materials, equipment, and specified furnishings and shall be determined as follows with precedence in the order listed: 6.1.1 For completed construction, the actual total cost to the OWNER of all such construction work. 6.1.2 For construction work not constructed, the lowest bona fide bid received from a qualified bidder for any or all of such work; or 6.1.3 For work for which bids are not received the ENGINEER'S latest Opinion of the Construction Cost or the hourly rate, whichever is lower. 6.2 Construction Cost does not include the fees of the ENGINEER and consultants, the cost of the land, rights-of,way, or other costs which are the Responsibility of the OWNER as provided in Article 3, "The Owner's Responsibilities." 6.3 Labor furnished by the OWNER for the Project construction shall be included in the Construction Cost at current market rates. Materials and equipment furnished by the OWNER shall be included at current prices, F.O.B. Project Site, except that used materials and equipment shall be included as if purchased new for the Project. ARTICLE 7 PAYMENTS TO THE ENGINEER 7.1 The OWNER will pay the ENGINEER for the basic services performed under Article 1, "Engineers Services," and in Part A as indicated within the Agreement, as follows when the percentage of the construction cost applies (on larger project): 7.1.1 A variable lump sum fee which is initially computed on the ENGINEER'S Opinion of the Construcfion Cost as defined in Article 6, "Construction Cost," times an agreed percentage rate amount which is set forth within the Agreement. During the progress of the service, the ENGINEER'S fee shall be adjusted by the estimates of Construction Costs prepared during the various phases and finally, at the conclusion of the services, on the actual cost of the Project to ~he OWNER. 7.2 Payments on account of sa~d fee for basic services provided in Article 7, paragraph 7.1.1 above shall be as follows: 7.2.1 Progress paymentp shall be made monthly in proportion to services performed except where prior arrangements are made between the Owner and Engineer. The compensation for basic services shall amount to the following percentage of the total fee at completion of each phase of the work: (1) Preliminary Report Phase (2) Final Design Phase (3) Construction Phase 20 Percent or lump sum price 70 Percent 10 Percent* 7.2.2 Fees paid on the basis of a hourly rate shall be paid monthly based on the amount of hours spent the previous month except where prior arrangements have been made between the Owner and Engineer. 7.2.3 No deductions shall be made from the ENGINEER'S compensation on account of penalty, liquidated damages, or other sums withheld from payments to contractors. 7.2.4 If the ENGINEER'S Services for the Project are suspended by the OWNER for more than three months or the Project is abandoned in whole or in part by the OWNER, the ENGINEER shall be paid his fees earned at that time or receive written notice from the OWNER of such suspension or abandonment, together with Reimbursable Expenses then due and all terminal expenses resulting from such suspension or abandonment. * Upon completion and acceptance of the project. 7.3 The Ok~ER shall pay the ENGINEER for Additional Services of the ENGINEER performed under Article 2, "Additional Services of the Engineer". 7.3.1 The cost of the Additional Services of the ENGINEER shall be as stated in Part A of the Agreement. 7.3.2 Payments on account of Additional Services of the ENGINEER shall be made within 30 days of the ENGINEER'S submittal of his monthly statement covering such expenses. 7.4 The OWNER will pay the ENGINEER for the cost of Reimbursable Expense as defined in Article 4, on the basis of the ENGINEER'S cost for service performed by the ENGINEER or as stipulated within the Agreement. 7.4.1 Payments on account of Reimbursable Expenses provided for in Article 4, "Reimbursable ~xpenses," shall be made within 30 days of the ENGINEER'S submittal of his monthly statement covering such expenses or will be paid as defined in Article 7.3.2. 7.5 The OWNER will pay the ENGINEER for preparing to serve and serving as an expert witness at the same rate as direct personnel expenses as previously stated in the Agreement.~ ARTICLE 8 GENERAL CONSIDERATION 8.1 The ENGINEER shall act as the O~NER'S agent with respect to those phases of the Project to which the Agreement and the Terms and Conditions of this Owner-Engineer Agreement apply. 8.2 The ENGINEER will prepare his Drawings and Specifications in a timely manner, but it is agreed between the parties to this agreement that the ENGINEER cannot be responsible for delays occasioned by factors beyond his control, nor by factors which could not reasonably have been foreseen at the time this agreement was prepared and executed. 8.3 The ENGINEER'S opinion of the Construction Cost is the opinion of the ENGINEER of probable Construction Cost and is supplied as a guide only. Since the ENGINEER has no control over the cost of labor and material or over competitive bidding and market conditions, the ENGINEER does not guarantee the accuracy of such opinion as compared to contractor bids or actuaI cost to the OWNER. 8.4 The ENGINEER will perform his services in accordance with reasonable current professional standards of the profession for the Minneapolis-St Paul Metropolitan Area and will at all times strive to perform to the highest standards. The ENGINEER shall not be responsible for manner or means of construction or for any safety responsibilities in connection with the contractor's or subcontractor's work. Further, the ENGINEER shall not be responsible for any breach of contract by the contractor, except to the extent of the ENGINEER'S responsibilities herein otherwise stated. 8.5 During the performance of services within this Agreement, the scope of the ENGINEER'S Service, Article 1, the Additional Services of the ENGINEER, Article 2, and the Reimbursable Expenses, Article 4, and compensation thereon may be adjusted by mutually agreed, written amend- ments to this Agreement. ARTICLE 9 ENGINEER'S ACCOUNTING RECORDS Records of the ENGINEER'S Direct Personnel Expense, Contracted Professional Services from Others, Reimbursable Expenses pertaining to the Project, 'and records of accounts between the OWNER and the Contractor, shall be kept on a generally recognized accounting basis and shall be available to the OWNER or his authorized representative, at mutually convenient times on cost-plus contracts only and services under Article 2. ARTICLE 10 TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement may be terminated by either party_~y seven days' written q~tice by mutual agreement or in the event of substantial failure to- pe~f~m ~n accordance' With the te~s hereof b~ ~he other p~rty through no fault of the terminating party, If this agreement is terminated, the ENGINEER shall be paid for the extent of services performed by him to the termination notice date including Reimbursable Expenses then due. ARTICLE 11 OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS The drawings and Specifications are the property of the OWNER and shall be turned over to them when final payment is made. ARTICLE 12 DELEGATION OF DUTIES Neither the OWNER nor the ENGINEER shall delegate his duties in this Agreement without the written consent of the other party. ARTICLE 13 EXTENT OF AGREEMENT This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the OW~NER AND ENGINEER and supersedes all prior negotiations, representa- tions or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both the OWNER and the' ENGINEER. ARTICLE 14 APPLICABLE LAW This Agreement will be governed by the law of the State of Minnesota. -14- CITY of MOUND MEMO 5341 MAYW©C,D ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 January 12, 1982 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: JON ELAM, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CABLE T.V. Following a goOd deal of thought and evaluation and input from each of you, I would like to now develop a direction to our Cable T.V. effort. First, I would like to set up a committee made up of (5) five Mound citizens who have both knowledge and interest in the various aspects of Cable T.V. and the community. This should have, in addition, several ex officio members representing the School Board, City Council and perhaps the City Manager. As part of this we would withdraw as a member of the West Tonka Cable T.V. Committee. My goal would be for the Committee to meet often and regularly to get the issue of development and then, hopefully, implementing a system. I would like to see this move quickly and be done by September, 1982, at the latest. Professional support to this Committee would be provided by Tom Creighton. He served as the program consultant to the Shorewood Committee which has developed the most sophisticated program and approach'in the Lake area. By tying into this effort it would seem clear that any proposal developed would allow for a system that would be able to link into what others are or will be doing in the future. I am projecting a budget for 1982, in this area, of $5,000 to $10,000. The broad goals beside deciding how a Cable T.V. System in Mound ought to be organized, include: 1. The pro's and con's of developing a system for the others and when those decisions should be made - before construction or after, etc. 2. The question of Public vs. Private ownership and how financing could be developed or arranged. 3. How to tie into the present phone company's lines and poles. Page 2 Memo to City Council Cable T.¥. January 12, 1982 I ask, at this point, for several things: 1. Approval to create the Committee. 2. To notify the West Tonka Cable T.V. Committee of our decision to move ahead on our own for now. 3. To develope a consulting agreement with Mr. Creighton. 4. Set a target date for the Committee to develope a report and get back to the Council. JE:fc MOUND RETAIL COUNCIL AFFILIATED WITH THE WESTONKA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE P. O. Box 426, Mound, Minnesota 55364 · (612) 472-6780 SUMMARY OF 12/15 MEETING & NOTICE OF MEETING 1/14 12/15 Meeting: The R-C Council met at Bethel Methodist Church at 7:30 a.m. I.- ........Santa Saves in Mound" promotion: Indications of coupon returns were generally good with only a few exceptions. II. D.A.C. Report. Pete Ward reported that the Downtown Advisory Committee would have a finished report by January, and that in addition he had ordered a separate demographic study of this area which he would copy and give to all R.C. members along with copies of the D.A.C. report. More on this later. The City Council has requested a review of the D.A.C. study with the D.A.C. present sometime in January, after which there will be an open meeting with all interested parties including the Retail Merchants. III. Cty. Rd. 110. A letter of appreciation to the Council, City Manager and McCrosson for expeditious completion of Cty. 110 was discussed at this meeting, and it was decided that such a letter should not be sent. IV. Sidewalk snow removal and cleaning. Pete Ward presented an idea from the Mayor to purchase a small garden tractor with sno%~plow and sidewalk sweep brush to the city in return for city maintenance of the sidewalks downtown. This idea was rejected as, 1) it was felt the tractor et al would be too costly, and 2) the merchants can more quickly and efficiently maintain their own sidewalk areas. It was agreed that the city should do a better job of clearing snow and dirt from sidewalks abutting city and/or public property. It was further agreed the R.C. board should meet with city officials to determine what areas the above comprised and how this might best be implemented. Vo Santa Claus. It appears our Santa Claus was a huge success with particu- larly good attendance the day the Jaycees had their sleigh rides. It was decided we should do this with the Jaycees next year. VI. Movies. Ruth Miller reports almost 100% acceptance (from the R.C. members) for two kiddie movies on Saturdays. Cost/merchant is $50. An announcement of these movies went out in the Community Service Bulletin. Entry fee for a child is 3 pop/beer cans, etc. Ruth deserves a vote of thanks for her fine work on this. PP 7 VII. Treasurer's Re~ort & Dues for '82. A proposal was made by the R.C. board members (the Treasurer, Ad Committee and RoC. Chairman) that the dues be raised to $50 to cover not only general operation costs but also the several general promotion ads and promotion costs such as Santa Claus. This repre- sents a $15/yr. increase and based on last year's ('81) costs, should cover our needs so that no special assessments are needed. This proposal was voted on and passed unanimously. The Treasurer reported that our bank balance is close to nothing. As we have yet to pay Santa and his elf and also have a small outstanding printing bill with the printers, we would like to see you pay your dues as soon as possible. Payment can be made direct to Frank Honchuck at Mound State Bank, or bring your check to the next meeting. VIII. January Promotions. Your Ad Committee has come up with some great ideas for January: "Snow Days"--where in addition to 2 ads in the Laker 1/5 and 1/12, we will sponsor a snow sculpture contest and a cross country ski race. John Royers is heading up the snow sculpture committee and Millie Morrison and John Schervern are heading up the ski race. Details are in the January 5 Laker. IX. ~anuary Meeting and note from your Chairman. Due to holiday business pressures plus sickness in my family (I have to leave town 1/6 to visit my sick mother), I was unable to call an R.C. meeting 1/5 as scheduled. For this reason you were not called for that meeting and I would like to postpone it until Thursday, 1/14. My apologies if this caused you any inconvenience or you showed up anyway. D.A.C. Report. Included with this letter is a copy of the demographic study of Mound which I ordered. I believe you will find it illuminating. "Area #1" refers to a 3 mile radius east from the intersection of Cty. 110 to Cty. 15 plus an area 10 miles west bounded by Hwy. 12 on the north and Hwy. 7 on the south. The other areas are radii from the same intersection (110 & 15) For those of you who are not on the DoA.C. Committee, I have also included the complete D.A.C. report. Please take some time to study it as your input will be asked for at the forthcoming meeting with the City Council. SUMMARY: To those of you whom I have not had the opportunity to see since the last meeting, I wish you belated Happy Holidays and sincerely hope your next year is very profitable. If we all work and promote together, I know we can make Mound the business center for the area that it deserves to be. As George Stevens so aptly remarked at the last meeting, "Every car each of us can pull into down- town Mound is another potential customer for each of the rest of us." Hoping to see you at the next meeting Thursday, January 14, 7:30 a.m., Bethel Methodist Church, I remain: Your R.C. Chairman, Pete Ward REED & POND ATTO R N EYS AT LAW P. O, BOX MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 p~OhlE (612) 472-2222 PAUL. L. POND January 13, 1982 ~'. Jon Elam City Manager City of ~ound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MI~ 55364 Dear Mr. Elam: I am writing this letter in appreciation of the investigative work and assistance rendered me by Mound Police Officer Gary Cayo and Mound Police Chief Bruce Wold. On January 11, 1982, I was involved in a hit-and-run accident on Tuxedo Blvd. in Mound, ~]. At the scene, Chief Wold discovered a portion of the grill from the hit-and-run vehicle with which he was able to identify the make and model of the car. Officer Gary Cayo, with this information and other information he and Chief Wold pieced together, was able to track do~.~ the hit-and-run driver. I believe this was excellent police work on the part of both of these individuals, and I wish to commend them on a job well done. Very truly yours, ~R~D & POND Paul L. Pond PLP/jh CC: Officer Gary Cayo Chief Bruce Wold ',~. ~~/,/To. Jon Elam, City Manager From: Re: (for the Parks file) Diane Arneson (former member Mound AdvisorJ~ Park Commission) "Parks Are People" poster hanging in Mound City Hall Below is a copy of the label I typed for the park poster. This poster was designed by Roman Buxbaum, an A.F.S. student from Baden, Switzerland who attended Mound ~.'lestonka High School in 1973-74. He lived here with the Paul and Jeanne Englund family. Roman has presented several art shows in Europe. He has also become a physician. The poster was entered in a "Parks Are People" contest sponsored by the l-lound Park Advisory Commission in 1974. Another of the artist's entries won the contest, but this poster was selected by Leonard Kopp to hang in the )!ound City Hall. '0 i] / WETLANDS/~ISTRICT Page 1- / /, The City Council of Mound finds that there are wetlands within the City which, as part of the ecosystem, are critical to the health,,safety and welfare of the land, animals and people within the City. These wetlands, if preserved and maintained, constitute important physical, aesthetic, recreational and economic assets for existing and future residents of the City. Therefore, the purposes of this district are: 1. To provide for the protection, preservation, proper maintenance and use of specified wetlands. 2. To minimize the disturbance to them as to prevent damage from excessive sedimentation, eutrophication or pollution. 5. To prevent loss of fish and other aquatic organisms, wildlife and vegetation and the habitats of the same. 4. to provide for the protection of the City's fresh water supplies from the dangers of drought, overdraft, pollution or mismanagement. 5. To reduce the financial burdens imposed upon the community through rescue and relief efforts occasioned by the occupancy or use of areas subject to periodic flooding and prevent loss of life, property damage and the losses and risks associated with flood conditions. 6. To preserve the location, character and extent of natural drainage courses. DISTRICT BOUNDRIES This district shall apply to wetland areas which are specifically delineated on the official Wetlands Map of the City of Mound. For purposes of determining the application of this district to any particular parcel of land or water the above referenced map shall be on file in the office of the City Manager and shall be available for inspection and copying. WETLAND PERMIT Except as hereinafter provided in this ordinance~ no person shall perform any development in a wetland district without first having obtained a wetland permit (hereinafter referred to as "Permit") from the City of Mound. Development shall include the construction, installation or alterat~,on of any structure; the clearing or altering of vegetation~rland~and the division of land into two or more parcels. EXCEPTIONS The Permit requirements established by this ordinance shall not apply to: A. Emergency work necessary to preserve life or property. When emergency work is performed under this section the person performing it shall report the pertinent facts relating to the work to the City Manager prior to the commencement of work. The City Manager shall review the facts and determine whether an emergency exists and shall, by written memorandum, authorize the commencement of the emergency exception. A person commencing emergency work WETLANDS DISTRICT Page 2 shall, within ten days following the commencement of that activity, apply for the issuance of a Permit. The issuance thereof, may require the permittee to perform such work as is determined to be reasonably necessary to correct any impairment to the wetland occasioned by such work. B. The repair or maintenance of any lawful use of land existing on the date of adoption of this ordinance. APPLICATION FOR AND PROCESSING OF PERMIT!~ A. A separate application for a Permit shall be made to the City of Mound for each development activity for which a Permit is required. Only one application need be made for two or more such acts which are to be done simultaneously on the same parcel. The application shall include a map of the site, a plan of the proposed development and the estimated cost of development. Other engineering data such as surveys and other descriptive information are also required. In order to determine the effects of such development of the wetland the City Council may require additional information including but not limited to the following: 1. A specific description of the type, amount and location of the development 2. A description of the ecological characteristics of the wetland 3. A conservation plan describing actions to be taken to mitigate any detrimental effects of development and 4. Maps and data on soils, water table and flood capacity of the wetland. When the proposed development includes the construction or alteration of a structure se~of plans thereof shall be submitted with the application. B. The permit application shall be processed according to the procedures specified in Section 1505 of the Zoning Ordinance which pertains to processing of conditional use permits. The Permit may be processed at the same time and in connection with the processing of an application for a building permit or any other permit required by ordinance of the City of Mound. PERMIT STANDARDS No Permit shall be issued unless the City of Mound finds and determines that the proposed development complies with the following standards: A. Filling A minimum amount of filling may be allowed when necessary but in no case shall the following restrictions on total amount of filling be exceeded. Since the total amount of filling which can be permitted is limite~ the City, when considering Permit applications, shall consider the equal apportionment of fill opportunity to riparian land owners. 1. Total filling shall not cause the total natural flood storage capacity of the wetland to fall below the projected volume of runoff from the whole developed wetland watershed generated by a six (6) inch rainfall WETLANDS DISTRICT Page 5 in twenty-four (24> hours. 2. Total filling mhall not cause the total natural nutrient stripping capacity of the wetland to fall below the nutrient production of the wetland watershed for its p~o]ected development. 3. Only fill free of chemical pollutants and organic wastes may be used. 4. Wetlands shall not be used for solid waste disposal. B. Dredging Dredging may be allowed only when a boat channel is required for access to a navigable lake, for a marina or when it will not have a substantial or significantly adverse effect upon the ecological and hydrological characteristics of the wetland. Dredging, when allowed, shall be limited as follows: 1. It shall be located so as to maximize the activity in the areas of lowest vegetation density. 2. It shall not significantly change the water flow characteristics. 5. The size of the dredged area shall be limited to the absolute mimimum. 4. Disposal of the dredged material shall not results in a significant chang~ in the current flow, or in a substantial destructioq of vegetation, fish spawning areas or water pollutiqn. 5. Work in the wetland~will not be performed during the breeding season of water fowl or fish spawning season. 6. Only one boat channel or marina shall be allowed per large-scale development. 7. In other residential developments, dredging shall be located so as to provide for the use of boat channels and marinas by two or more adjacent property owners. 8. The width of the bo~t channel to be dredged shall be no more than the miminum required for the safe operation of boats at minimum operating speed. C. Discharges 1. No part of any sewage disposal system requiring on-land or in-ground disposal of waste shall be located closer than 150 feet from the normal high water mark unless it is proven by the applicant that no effluent will immmediately or gradually reach the wetland because of existing physical characteristics of the site or system. 2. Organic waste which would normally be disposed of at a solid waste disposal site or which would normally be discharged into a sewage disposal system or sewer shall not be directly or indirectly discharged to the wetland. 3. Stormwater runoff from construction sites may be directed to the wetland only when substantially free of silt, debris and chemical pollutants and only at rates which will not disturb vegetation or increase turbidity. D. Building constraints WETLANDS DISTRICT F'age 4 1. The lowest floor elevation of buildings, if used for living quarters or work areas, shall be at least three feet above the seasonal high water level of the wetland. 2. Development which will result in unusual road maintenance costs or util~ity line breakages due to soil limitations, including high frost action shall not be permitted. E. Vegetation No wetland vegetation ma~ be removed or altered except that reasonabl~~ required for the placement of structures and use of property. CONDITIONS A Permit may be approved subject to compliance with reasonable conditions which are specifically set forth in the Permit and are necessary to insure compliance with the requirements contained in this district. Such conditions may include but are not limited to the following: 1. Limit~on of the size, kind or character of the proposed work 2. Require the construction of other sturctures 5. Require replacement of vegetation 4. Establish required monitoring procedures and maintenance activity 5. Stage the work over ti 6. Require the alteration the site design to ensure buffering 7. Require the provision a performance bond 8. Require the conve, the City of Mound or another public entity of certain a~ds or interest therin. The dimensional requirements ,f i~he un~?rlying zoning~¢~ district(s) may be modified i, ~r~rFO~-of the purpose of this ordinance by express conditio"~ntained in the Permit. TIME OF PERMIT A permitee shall begin the work authorized by the Permit within sixty (60) days from t~e date of issuance of the Permit unless a different date for the commencement of work is set forth in the Permit. The permittee shall complete the work authorized by the Permit within the time limits specified n the Permit which in no event shall exceed more than twelve (12) months from the date of isstlance. The permittee shall notify the Building Official a ' ' at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to ithe i~n~i-ml commencement of work. Should the work not be co~mmenced as specified herein, the Permit shall become void. A~ Extensions If, prior to the date established for commencement of work, the permittee makes written request to the Building Official .~minis~r~to~ for an extension of time to commence the work, setting forth the reasons for the required extension, the administrator may grant such extension. B. Renewals WETLANDS DISTRICT Page 5 A permit which has become void may be renewed at the discretion of the City Council upon payment of a renewal fee. If the City Council does not grant such renewal a Permit for such work may be granted only upon compliance with the procedures herein established for an original application. C. Notice of completion A permittee shall notify ad~r in writing No work shall be deemed approved in writing by th~ following such written no' D. Inspection The City may require insp periodically during the Building Official staff to be made following the permittee shall assist inspections. ~he Building Official ~hen he has finished the work. ~ have been completed until ~ Building Official aw~i~*~=t~-~- ~ification. ~ct!ions of the work to be made ~urise thereof by a member of the ~d ishall cause a final inspection etion of the work. The strator in making such RESPONSIBILITY; EFFECT A. Responsibility Neither the issuance of conditions thereof, nor this ordinance shall reli responsibility otherwise persons or property. shall not serve to im Mound or its officers or' persons or property. A ordinance shall not tel responsibility of complyi extablished by law~ regul B. Special assessment The land within a design~ which a development or conveyed to the City shal assessments levied by water, sewer, curb, nor compliance with the lance wi th the provisions of any person from any used by law for damage to suance of any permit hereunder y liability on the City of loyees for injury or damage to it issued pursuant to this the permittee of the with any other requirements on or ordinance. wetlands district area for restrictive easement is ut be subject to special ty to pay the costs of public r other public municipal improvements for which assessments are authorized pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 42~. C. variance The City Council may authorize in specific cases following appeal and hearing a variance from the provisions of this ordinance where the literial application of the ordinance would result in substanti applicant property owner. Council shall balance th~ and economic effects of t the interests of the Cit' this ordinance as expres~ al inequitable hardship to an In assessing hardship the City severity of the physucal, social he literal application against in effecting the purposes of ed above. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a hardship if a reasonable use for the property exists u'nder the terms of the ordinance. No variance may be granted which would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject WETLANDS DISTRICT Page 6 property im located. A r~ance shall be granted in writing accompanied bys ific findings of fact as to the necessity for the grant ,the variance and its specific provisions. A variance q~est shall be processed in accordance with thr provisions of section 1506 of the Mound City Zoning Ordinance. American GAMBLING REPORT GROSS: EXPENSES: $~'~ Suppli PAYOUT AS PRIZES: PROFIT: DI~RIBUTION OF PROFITS: Le Alano Dona Checking Account ~2571. ,P~st 398 Dec. 31, 1981 MONTH YEAR TO DATE ~25,715.00 ~3aO&.50 1~,850.O0 ~7a60.U6 ~85.00 8O .OO 150 .O0 xs7 A.THOMAS WURST GERALD T. CARROLL CURTIEI A. PEARSON THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD ALBERT FAULCONER Tr~ JAMES D, LARSON WURST, MINI C£S PEARSON E,-~ 0 mA 5540~ 1982 Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: 1980 Street Imt Dear Jon: As you know, Jim is out of sending you a copy of the and Order for Judgment Trans~ Easements in this cc proceed as far as the engine~ We of course are just hearings, viewings, etc. will completed within 180 days. Jim will be picking up on sole purpose of this letter is completed and the iCity CAP:ms Enclosure Condemnation 1702 .ce this week, but I am of Fact, Conclusions of Law Title and Possession of gives us the authority to the contractor are concerned. ~condemnation proceedings and place and are to be when he comes back so the you that the first step led with its work. ' truly yours A. Pearson ity Attorney STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, Petitioner, vs. David O. Miller and Barbara J. Miller, and Secretary of tlousJllg and Urban Development of Washington, D.C., Respondents. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT TRANSFERRING TITLE AND POSSESSION OF EASEMENTS c- / '?z~'fz-~ IN THE MATTER OF THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN LANDS IN THE CITY OF MOUND, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA, FOR STREET PURPOSES. The above-entitled proceedings came on for hearing before the undersigned Judge of this Court in the !h.rn~.pin County Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, on the _~ day of December . 1981, upon the Motion of the City of Mound for the taking of certain lands under the power of eminent domain. Petitioner City nf Mound appoared by its attorneys Wurst, Carroll and Pearson, Minneapolis, hy J~m~,s D. Larson. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Respondents na,,od herein were served with the Motion and Notice of Hearing on the Motion fn n timely manner and according to the Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. Petitioner City of Mound has commenced an sction in eminent domain in this Court whereby they seek to acquire certain lands as stated in their Petition, filed on _n.cm;d~er_?] ., 1981. 3. Tile property which Js the subject of tile taking is located in the County of Nennep~n, State of Mtnnesota. &. Petitioner has shown that the taking is for a public use and purpose, is necessary and convenient in furtherance of Petitioner's project, and that acquisition of said property is required immediately nnd is such as is authorized by law. 5. On Kovember 19 . 1981 Petitioner served notice of intent to take title and possessi.n of the property prior to the filing of owards on each of the o~ers of the affected ]ands, according to the procedure specified Minnesota Statutes 1980, Section 117.042. 6. On , 1981 Petitioner filed a Notlce of Lis Pendens describing the objects or this action with the Registrar of Titles for Hennepin County. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. ,Petlti°ner Js n~lthorlzed by law to acquire the property descrSbed in its Petition herein under the proc~.d.re specified in Minnesota Statutes 1980, Chapter 117. 2. Put/tJoner is entitled to tLtle Lo a~d possess/on of said property as of March 1 , ]982, iii,on te~dt, r to the Respnndent~ ~r .pon pny~nt ~nto the ~urt of PetJt~oner'm ;HH,roved appraisal. WHEREFORE, the ~.rL m;~kem the following (}RI}ER FOR ,JUI~CMI~NT 1. ~at upo~ sat~sf~ctlon of the above condition of pay~n~ that Petitioner has title ~o and pos~..mton of the land descrJbed tn its Petition for the purposes stated ti~erein n~ ~r t-;arct~ 1, 1982 2. ~at the Registrant ~f l'ltle~ forthwith enter this Order against the parcel described In the Petition and Notice of Lis Pendens. 3. ~,at _00el 5e~tz , 0ames [. Ford and 0.0. (with and as alternates), who are dlsInt~.r~.st~d persons and residents of Hennepin County, be and they hereby are nppoI.t,,d ~,s commlssioners of appraisal, and they shall aseertaln and report the ~.,~o.~ of d;m~g~'~ that will be sust~tned by the owners on account of ~he taktng. Satd co~mt~sloner~ shall [tle thetr Report ~tth th~ clerk of district court no later than 180 days from the dace of :his order. Said commissioners shall hold their first meeting in the office of t~e clerk of district court, Ilennepin Couuty Chvernm(:nL Center, Hlnne.3polis, Minnesota, at 9:00 o'clock _.._~a.m. on the gth day of January ......... , 19~. Com~nsation of each of said commissioners t~ hereby set at the sum of One Ilundred ~llars ($100.00) per day for each day occupied by him in the performance of his d~tiest ;md reimbursement for mileage acttmlly traveled Ln the performance of his duties is sct at thc rnte of 23 cents ($0. ~) per mile. 4. Ilk:IL Ihp tq;I;~L~' ;irqolrt,d by Ibc pt'LtLl~,m'r In Lite landg ~h/ch are Ehe ob]ec~ of the peLJCJon 8hall be In Lhe naLure nf ~empnrary e~semen~s Eot s~reeE, u~111cy ~nd d~Jna~u purpo~e~, ns ~l~e snme nre ~re fully me~ forth in said pe~i~ton. Dated: December , 1981. BY TIII'~ COUR~ - 3- STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN **** * , * , * ** * * , * * Alice R. Gensler, Plaintiff, DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT VS. SUMMONS John Doe, City of Mound, and the Mound Fire Department, Defendants. THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon Plaintiff's Attorneys an Answer to the Complaint herewith served upon you within ~ENTY (20) days after service of this Summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, Judgment by Default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint. CLOUTIER & MUSECH By: Cortlen~. Cloutier Attorneys fo~' Plaintiff 610 Midwest Plaza Building Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 332-5100 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Alice R. Gensler, Plaintiff, DISTRICT COURT .FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT vs. COMPLAINT John Doe, City of Mound, and the Mound Fire Department, Defendants. Plaintiff, Alice R. Gensler, as and for her cause of action against the above named Defendants, states and alleges: That at all times material herein, Plaintiff was a manager of the Tipi Wakan Apartment Complex located at 4387 Wilshire Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota. II. That at all times material herein, Defendant, John Doe, was a member of the Defendant, Mound Fire Department, and said Defendant, John Doe's identity is unknown to Plaintiff. III. That on or about April 4, 1979, a fire occurred at the Tipi Wakan Apartment Complex at 4387 Wilshire Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota. IV. That Defendant, Mound Fire Department, was summoned to fight said fire and responded to said summons. V. That the members of Defendant, Mound Fire Department, whose identities are unknown to Plaintiff, requested Plaintiff to guide them to one of the saunas located on the premises of said apartment complex and Plaintiff complied with said request. VI. That an explosion occurred in or near the sauna to which Plaintiff lead said unknowu members of Defendant, Mound Fire Department, while Plaintiff and said members of the Mound Fire Department were at the sauna, and Plaintiff and said members of the Mound Fire Department were forced to retreat to the swimming pool area of the premises. VII. That parts of the roof of the swimming pool area of the premises began to fall while Plaintiff and Defendant, John Doe, were located in the swimming pool area of the premises. viii. That Defendant, John Doe, acting within his duties as a member of Defendant, Mound Fire Department, grabbed Plaintiff, and in a careless and negligent manner dragged Plaintiff to an exit door from the premises and violently threw Plaintiff out said exit door and down the steps thereby to the ground. IX. That as a direct and proximate result of the carelessness and negligence of the Defendant as aforesaid, Plaintiff sustained injuries to her entire body and was otherwise made sick, sore, and lame; has sustained severe and permanent injuries; has suffered a loss of income and diminution of earning capacity; and has sustained and will continue to incur special damages for proper medical care and treatment, the nature and extent of which has not been fully determined. X. That Defendants, City of Mound and Mound Fire Department, had a actual notice of the facts alleged herein, so that Plaintiff was not required to file a Notice of Claim with said Defendants pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ~466.05. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Alice R. Gensler, demands judgment against Defendants, and each of them, pursuant to her above stated claim for relief, for the recovery reasonable damages in -2- an amount greater than $50,000.00, together with her costs and disbursements incurred herein, and such other and further relief as the court may deem just and equitable. CLOUTIER & MUSECH Dated: By: Cortlen ~. Cloutier - Attorneys fo~/Plaintiff 610 Midwest Plaza Building Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 332-5100 -3- AGENDA Minnehaha Creek Watershed District January 21, 19~2 Wayzata city Hall 7:30 p.m. Call to order; present, absent, staff. Reading and approval of minutes of regular meeting, 12/17/81. Approval or amendment to January 21, 1982, agenda. Hearing of permit applications. ne 78-56 Lundgren Bros. Construction - after-the-fact permit extension for "Burl Oaks-3rd Addition," westside of Gleason Lake, City of Plymouth. 81-117 Dana Corporation - Approval of a grading and drainage plan for Spicer Heavy Axel, a commercial de- velopment at Hwy 55 and Vicksburg Lane, City of Plymouth. 81-119 A. Quist - apprqval of lakeshore setback vari- ance reque'st, Lake Minneton~a,.~C~ty of Mound. 81-120 MN Cablesystems Southwest - approval to place TV cable across and under Minnehaha Creek at St. Albans Mill Road, City of Minnetonka. ~-01~ Robert E. Evenson - lakeshore, setback vari- ance, West Arm Bay, Lake MinnetOnka, City of Mound. Go 82-02 City of Chanhassen - approval to remove silt and sediments from the south shore of Christmas Lake, adjacent to "Christmas Acres." 82-03 Michael J. Gorra - approval of a grading and drainage plan for a 30 unit condominium, section 18, lot 8, parcel 2245, City of Spring Park. 82-04 Judd Ringer - approval of a grading and drain- age plan for a 15 lot residential subdivision, SW 1/4 of Sec. 27, NW 1/4 of Sec. 34, Or.no, southwest corner of Dickey Lake. 82-05 City of Minnetonka - approval for the construc- tion of an embankment, road and bridge to connect Stone Rd. with McGinty Rd., SE 1/4 of Sec. 9, City of Minne- tonka. 82-06 Terry A. Juliar - approval to place fill in an existing boat harbor and restore the shoreline using rip-rap, N 1/2 of Sec 12, Minnetrista, Jenning's Bay- Lake Minnetonka. December 17, 1981 Page 2 Minnesota DOT - road repairs on T.H. 41 between T.H. 5 and T.H. 7. 81-116 Following discussion, it was moved by Thomas, seconded by Gudmundson, that the foregoing applications be approved, subject to all terms and conditions recommended by the engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. Shorewood Yacht Club - County Rd. 19, Shorewood, permit exten- sion to place fill in wetland to construct parking facilities. 78-134 The engineer reviewed the application for renewal of Permit No. 78-134 and recommended renewal subject to the conditions identified in his written memorandum. It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Lehman, that the permit be renewed on the conditions recommended by the engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. W. Carlson - lots 1-6, 23, Block 17, Avalon, Mound, suspension of permit to place fill. 81-08 The engineer reviewed the status of work undertaken pursuant to the above permit and advised the managers that the applicant had failed to maintain erosion control measures as required by the permit. The engineer advised the managers that numerous requests had been made by the engineer to the owner for placement of adequate erosion controls but that the owner has not responded to these requests. The engineer recommended suspension of the permit to prohibit the applicant from placing further fill until the applicant has submitted a final development plan to the engineer and said plan has been approved by the engineer. Following discussion, it was moved by Gudmundson, seconded by Russell, that Permit No. 81-08 be suspended for failure to maintain adequate erosion control measures as required by the permit and that the engineer immediately inform the owner that no further filling on the property is authorized until and unless the permit is rein- stated. C. Ostrom - grading and drainage plan, Murry Hill 2nd Addition, Chanhassen. 81-110 The engineer reviewed the application and recommended approval subject to the recommendations contained in his written memorandum. It was moved by Lehman, seconded by Gudmundson, that the application be approved as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. December 17, 1981 Page 3 Dana Corp. - 15831-State Highway 55, Plymouth, grading and drainage for a 33.5 acre commercial development. 81-117 The engineer reviewed the application for grading and drainage plan approval and for placement of fill. Rick Sathre of Sathre-Bergquist, Inc. appeared on behalf of the applicant and reviewed the plan. The engineer advised the managers that the fillin~ was proposed in connection with roadway construction which was requested by the City of Plymouth. The engineer advised the managers that the amount of filling proposed would leave adequate stormwater runoff storage capacity in the adjacent wetland but that some degreda- tion of water quality would occur with the proposed filling. The managers reviewed and discussed the plan, expressing concern regarding the lack of available information regarding development proposals for adjacent property which will affect the drainage area. Following discussion, it was moved by Lehman, seconded by Thomas, that the grading and drainage plan be approved with the exception of the roadway as shown, and subject to the condition that no filling occur on the property. Upon vote the motion carried. D. Farr Development Co. - Cedar Lake Rd. at Zarthon, St. Louis Park, grade a commercial site and fill type III wetland. 81-118 The engineer reviewed ~he application for concept approval of grading for Sunset Ridge. The engineer recommended that it was premature to grant concept approval prior to the applicant determining the impact of the proposed activity on the drainage patterns in the area. Following discussion, it was moved by Thomas, seconded by Gudmundson, that the applica- tion be tabled pending review by the applicant of the impacts of the proposed filling and its effect on water quality. Upon vote the motion carried. A. Quist - County Road 125 and Marlboro Lane, Mound, variance request for lakeshore setback. 81-119 The engineer reviewed the application for variance from the District's lakeshore setback requirement. The engineer advised the managers that the property involved had been filled without issuance of a filling permit from the Dis- trict. The engineer advised the managers that the status of the variance request with the City of Mound is not known and that the facts involving the prior permit application and any filling activity were not presently available to him. Follow- ing discussion, it was moved by Lehman, seconded by Gudmundson, that the application be tabled pending the engineer's review. Upon vote the motion carried. December 17, 1981 Page 5 ~.Mound - C.S.A.H. 125 between ~und and Spring Park, ~ water~a~n construction. 81-125 ...... ~ The engineer advised the managers that application/ 8/~25 has been withdrawn. Carver Beach Properties - Chanhassen, Sec. 2, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, 23 lot residential subdivision. 81-126 The engineer advised the managers that this project is located within the legal boundaries of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District but drains to Riley-Purgatory Watershed District. The engineer recommended approval of the permit incorporating all conditions required by the applicable criteria of the Riley-Purgatory Watershed District. Following discussion, it was moved by Cochran, seconded by Russell, that the permit be approved and issued subject to and including all conditions required by the applicable criteria of the Riley-Purgatory Watershed District. Upon vote the motion carried. M.J. Gorra - wetland fill, lots 34-37, 53-60, 92-100, Minnetonka Park Addition, Spring Park. 81-121 The engineer reviewed the application to fill a portion of the above property to provide access 'to open water for a 30 unit condominium project. The engineer advised the managers that the proposed filling would result in a reduction of approx- imately 2.7 acre feet in storage capacity. The engineer recommended denial of the permit application. Mr. Gorra appeared in support of his application and, following discussion, suggested an alternative proposal to dredge in the existing channel area to provide off-channel navigational access to his property. The managers expressed concern that the proposal, in concept, could involve a landward extention of lake area in violation of the District's regulations. Following discussion, it was moved by Thomas, seconded by Lehman, that the application to fill be denied. Upon vote the motion carried. The managers further requested Mr. Gorra to explore any alternate proposals in detail with the engineer prior to resubmittal to the board. City of Wayzata/Wetland Treatment Project David Bangasser, City-Manager, City of Wayzata, appeared before the board and distributed a memorandum dated December 17, 1981. Mr. Bangasser described an effort being undertaken by the City of Wayzata to initiate a model wetland CITY OF HOUND Hound, H[nnesota TREE REBATE # 24 NAME ADDRESS TOTAL NO. TREES TOTAL DBH DOLLARS Theodore Asao 5033 Avon Drive 1 28" $56.00 Mrs. Robert Braun lO31 13th .Ave. S.E. 2 32" $64.OO .............. ~.. Mpl..s, Mn,...55414 ............. Victor Carlson 2246 Edgewood AVe. S. 1 21" $42.00 .. .St'. Louis Pa. LE.k,..M.n. ~.~.~26 ................ A. E. Erickson 5038 Bartlett Blvd. 1 15" $30.00 Ron Gehring 3213 Charles Ln. 1 33" $66.00 Lowell Hilsen 4539 Island View DR. 1 31" $62.O0 Os 5710 Sunset i $128.O0 Jesson Rd. 4 64" Jess Knight 4852 Lanark Rd. 3 61" 5122.O0 Ray Kramer 3133 Alexander Ln. 24 257" $51~.0t Duane Markus 405 Bushaway Rd. 3 28" $56.C Wayzata, Mn. 55391 Eugene Pulchinski 5025 Shoreline Blvd. 1 30" $60.~ Mary Lou Simnson 6075 Rusticwood Rd. 1 28" $56. Wallace Smith 5053 Wren Rd. 1 15" ~30 Greg Skinner 2196 Fairview Ln. 1 42" Anita Watson 5465 Bartlett Blvd. 1 30" Loyd Bode 5947 Ridgewood Rd. 1 18" $3 Total $1,466.O0 INTEROFFICE MEMO FROM: SUBJECT: Chief Bruce Wold Sgt. William Hudson Renewal of Entertainment Permit ~ Rager's Pub DATE January 19, 19 ,92 I find nothing that would preclude Rager's Pub from being granted a renewal on their entertainment permit. dson DICK SCHWERT- PRESIDENT 5581 SHORELINE BLVD. MOUND, MINN. 55364 OFC,: 472-2555 RES.: 472-2812 1-25-82 City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota, 55364 Attn: Jon Elam City Manager Dear Jon: After reviewing the specifications for the City of Mound's insurance program, I find that I would not at this time have a more competitive program than the one you currently have through the Home Insurance Program or through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. Either of these programs are available to any insurance agency that you select. Thank you for the opportunity to bid on your insurance program. We will keep in touch. Sincerely yours, Schwert-Reed Agency.., Ina. ~ , ~ : ../_.'"' /' 1-21-82 Delinquent Utility Bills Account ~ Amount 33-406-2620-31 Gayle Nelson S 71.51 2620 Tyrone Ln. 33-439-2431-11 33-439-4724-21 33-439-4910-81 33-457-4513-11 33-463-4626-91 33-466-4861-51 James Lassek 55.76 Jim Smith 54.01 Bruce Johnson Closing pending 65.96 Robert Thomas 68.80 Dale Krueger 110.78 Wayne Erickson 79.44 2431Wilshire Blvd. 4724 Wilshire Blvd. 4919 Wilshire Blvd. 4513 Montgomery Rd. 4626 Bedford Rd. 4861 Brunswick Rd. 33-487-4873-61 33-500-4440-41 33-530-3121-81 33-542-4827-41 33-551-3086-91 33-554-3065-71 33-578-2871-81 33-587-3068-11 33-596-4618-31 Jerry Olson 67.43 James Mc Ginley 75.69 S Kokoles 55.79 Sharon Schultz 143.99 Debbie Logan 74.89 Robert Smestad 42.30 Joan Conkey 46.56 Tuxedo Junction 34.84 Robert Hentig 85.62 4873 Cumberland Rd. 4440 Radnor Rd. 3121 Donald Dr. 4827 Canterbury Rd. 3086 Alexander Ln. 3065 Dundee Ln. 2871Harlboro Ln. 3068 Brighton Blvd. 4618 Hanover Rd. 33-599-4700-31 Adeline Carr 43.00 4700 Aberdeen Rd. 33-620-3154-81 Don Hunson 70.92 3154 Island View Dr. 33-620-4884-91 Vacant 68.16 4884 Island View Dr 33-620-4936-71 Gerald Wozniak 78.10 4936 Island View Dr. 33-638-3301-71 Larry Bryne 46.51 ~OI ~,larner Ln. $2066.30 $1570.77 /z//./ CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING oA~v MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 80-39 ON THE CITY OF ORONO COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT PLAN VHEREAS, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires a re-,~-iew by neighboring communities for compatibility with the plans of cormr, ur~ities, and ~'qFERMAS, the City of Orono has submitted its Community Mana~ ~. zan for review bv the City of Spring Park, its neighbor F~qEREAS, the City Council members of Spring Park individua.' !. r ~iew..?_d the plan submitted by the City of Orono and have the fc:lo~~-~ ~ , cormments as to consistency v~ith the Spring Park Plan: 1. The City of Spring Park is in total agreement with the of Orono's concerz~ ~ith the preservation of Lake Minnetonkg our largest natural r¢.~ource, and Spring Park shares the of that preservation. 2. The City of S~ring Park has no objection to the City of ~rono's proposed growth mcna%ement plan with the exception of the nation of CSAH 15 as a scenic parkway. CSAH 15 is the main access between US Highway 12 and the su~- h'bs of Orono, Minnetc.~ka BeaCh., Spring Park, Mound, Minnetrista St. Bonifacius. .-.ne Count-,, of Hennepin has jurisdiction on this roadway and has c,=~ss~d =~zs as a minor arterial' which c?a~s- ification Spring '-' ~ .-:~r~ has .... so adopted. The criteria upon t-hich this ~!~~e~,~-i?? was ma~e is the number of vehicles per d~y. According to tb.~ ?~ennepin County Transportation Department ' results, 18,000 v~hlc!es per day travel this roadway betwee,~ .2~AH 19 and C~iH 110 :~.5. i~ound. ~ne City of Spring Park feels th'. CSAH 15 should r~ '~in a -'~ _ ~ m.,_~,o~' arterial to safely carry this nv~nber of vehicl, e~ ~ THUS, the scenic parkway terminology f-. ' ]SAH '5 is in conflic" '..~ith Hennepin County' .~ s designation and Spt Park's Plan. 3. The Orono Ma~, ~:.ement ?2an apparently does not recogmi, z< a need or desire fcc ?.ny additional commercial areas, statinq :hat ~djacent commuDi'zi,?~ fill this need. In conflict '~' ~ w%=n :his phi!osophv is the fact that Orono see to ~imit access to., ',:,~e ne~ga~o~zng commercial areas through tricting the uo~,r:c'lng of the roadways to these facilities° CITY OF SPRING PARK RESOLUTION 80-39 Page 2 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRING PARK that 0rono's Community Management Plan has beer reviewed and found to be consistent with Spring Park's Plan with tlne exceptions contained herein. i ")?/ED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF Tt~ CITY OF SPRING PARK THIS 15th DAY OF December , 1980. :EST: APPROVED: /