Loading...
82-02-02MOUND CITY COUNCIL February 2, 1982 City Hall 7:30 P.M. CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota AGENDA 1. Minutes of January 26, 1982 2. Precilla Anderson Storm Sewer Easement. 3. Tax Forfeited Lands, endorsement of HF 1609. 4. Minnegasco up-date. (staff verbal report) 5. Continental Phone Rate situation 6. Letter from Hennepin County of CSAH 125 7. Comments & Suggestions from Citizen's present (please limit to 3 minutes) 8. Letter from Hennepin County regarding Signals at 15 & 110 9. Notification of State Aids deferred (information) 10. Information Items. 11. Pg. 253-257 Pg. 258-259 Pg. 260-262 Pg. 263-264 Pg. 265 Pg. 266 Pg. 267-269 Pg. 270 a) b) c) d) Payment of 1982 CDBG Program - any ideas ? LMCD minutes & agenda Miscellaneous items bills. (to be handed out) Memo on heating, air conditioning, gas and refrigeration permits Pg. 271-276 Pg. 277-2M0 Pg. 281-284 Pg. 285-296 18 January 26, 1982 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 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 26, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. Those present were: Mayor Rock Lindlan, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Robert Pol- ston and Donald Ulrick. Councilmember Gordon Swenson was absent and excused. Also present were City Manager, Jon Elam; Police Chief, Bruce Wold; Building Official, Jan Bertrand; Sewer and Water Director, Greg Skinner, and Acting City Clerk Marjorie Stutsman. Also present were Dick Bienapfl and associate Linda Schroeder representing Dunkley Investments; Zack Johnson of Zack Johnson & Asso- ciates; Earl Bailey of R. L. Youngdahl & Associates, Inc.; George Boyer of E.A. Hickok and Associates, Inc. and many interested citizens. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of January 12, 1982 were presented for consideration. Polston moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the Janu- ary 12, 19R2 Regular Council Meeting as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS REZONING APPLICATION FOR 2900 HIGHLAND BOULEVARD FROM R1 TO R4 The City Manager explained that this proposal is on referral from the Planning Commission where the proposal was approved. Requirement of the Council is to hold a public hearing; purpose of the hearing is to discuss the rezoning of the property and its merits, not the specific individual activities that might take place if the rezoning was approved; this will be required through a conditional use permit for which a public hearing will have to be held and all input and specifics around any proposal for that site other than the rezoning will be dealt with at that time. The Developer was given the opportunity to make his presentation on the pro- posed rezoning request and explain his ideas on the site. Dick Bienapfl intro- duced himself, his associate Linda Schroeder and Zack Johnson, the architect selected for the project. Bienapfl gave a brief history of property; Dunkley Investments acquired property in January 1981 with the intent to operate a day care center for 5 to 7 years with intent to redevelop after that time. The size of parcel is unusual from what you find many places around the lake and not full of cabins or houses; the value is such that it does not make sense as a business use. Because the Day Care Center has not achieved enrollment they had anticipated, the owner is looking at alternative uses of site. Think that this concept for condominiums would be a viable use of land. The City' Comprehensive Plan recognizes a need for mixed housing; today only 2% of Mound is zoned multi-family. Their market would be going to young pro- fessionals and empty nesters and made to sell to middle income range.. They have tried to determine' market values in neighborhood and Bienapfl handed out copies to the Council of tax assessorls valuations and home sales in area. 19 January 26, 1982 New units would be designed to sell for in the $135,000 range and not to exceed $150,OOO. Feel this would fit into the neighborhood's values that they found. Have looked into possible real estate taxes and estimate that 5 Single family homes would bring $20-$25,000 in taxes; 24 units on same amount of land would bring approximately $53,000 (on average unit cost of $130,O00). Project would probably result in higher sewer treatment costs, but no more water, sewer or storm sewer services needed. Should bring more taxes without more children for the schools. The added people should bring more business to town. Zack Johnson talked of the concerns they had in putting this concept together; looked at 30 units, felt too many for site; feels 24 seem to fit, taking advan- tage of the slope by stepping units down; work with topography; provide through garages and berm presenting soft side to street; size and cost range very tight. Traffic flow would be something less than 1/2 of what school would have if opera- ting at full capacity. Mayor opened the public hearing for input on rezoning request for 2900 Highland Boulevard and persons present were afforded an opportunity to express their views. Mike Bedell, 2976 Highland Boulevard, presented a petition with 52 signatures against the rezoning. They want to keep the area zoned R-1 and feel it will de- crease property values and increase traffic flow and be detrimental to the area. The following persons also had comments and questions: Diane Arneson, 3036 Highland Boulevard Jeannette Gellman, 3050 Highland Boulevard Pam Swihart, 2896 Highland Boulevard Gloria Werner, 2880 Highland Boulevard John Thoresen, Jr., 5845 Fairfield Road Jim Werner, 2880 Highland Boulevard Jan Wold, Woodcrest resident George Kinzer, 2848 Highland Ernie Swihart, 2896 Highland Nancy Kinzer, 2848 Highland Bruce Robinson, 2872 Highland Harlan Dugstad, 5881 Fairfield Leslie Jensen, 2909 Meadow Lane Janet Phillips, 3021 Highland Don Abel, 3026 Highland A1Uner, 3000 Highland Margaret Thomford, 6041 Ridgewood Road All citizens present for the hearing were against the rezoning. The Mayor then closed the public hearing. Councilmember Ulrick noted that the City Attorney had advised rezoning should reflect a major change in area or an error in original zoning. Polston moved and Charon seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 82-26 RESOLUTION TO DENY THE REZONING REQUEST FOR PROPERTY AT 2900 HIGHLAND BOULEVARD FROM R-1 TO R-4 The vote was unanimously in favor of the denial. Councilmember Polston gave 2O January 26, 1982 the following reasons for denying: Doesn't meet criteria for rez0ning; I construe as spot zoning and could eventually lead to uncontrolled zoning of City as a whole - have responsibility to preserve residential areas. Council- member Ulrick said that neighborhood has clear history of resisting density through purchasing of lands to be used for open space; they support the new zoning ordinance; the Council's historic concern for many years has been that this site be overdeveloped. Councilmember Ulrick asked that record show that Council has viewed the use of this land and existing zoning. The school is a permitted use in the single family zoning. DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS Mayor Lindlan opened the public hearing and asked for any comments or objections from the public on the delinquent utility bills. Hearing none, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Polston moved and Charon seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 82-27 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,570.77 AND AUTHORIZING THE SHUTOFF OF WATER SERVICE FOR THOSE ACCOUNTS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MAINTENANCE PERMITS ON WAURIKA COMMONS Polston moved and Charon seconded the-~ollowing resolution: RESOLUTION 82-28 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PARK COMMISSION AND GRANT THE ISSUANCE OF MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR STAIRWAYS ON WAURIKA COMMONS ADJACENT TO ]543 AND 1545 BLUEBIRD LANE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1982 INSURANCE QUOTATION City Manager explained that last November he asked Earl Bailey of R.L. Youngdahl & Assoc., Inc. (present carrier) to review insurance coverages and together they developed a set of specifications and then the City advertised for quotations for coverage of all City insurance business. Proposals received from the Home Insurance Company and the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. The Home Insurance Company package is the lower. Ulrick moved and lPolston seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 82-29 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE QUOTATION OF R.L. YOUNGDAHL & ASSOC., INC. FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE THROUGH THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS BY CITIZENS PRESENT 21 January 26, 1982 The Mayor asked for any comments or suggestlons ~rom the c~t~zens present. One citizen mentioned that a way to 9et out of the City's financial problems might be to set up a lottery. There were no other comments or questions. WATER REPORT/WELL City Manager explained that George Boyer of Hickok and Associates and also Greg Skinner, Water and Sewer Director, were present to answer any questions the Council might have. They would llke a date set for the bid opening for test holes for well in Island Park. Charon moved and Ulrick seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 82-30 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISING FOR BIDS FOR TEST HOLES - BIDS TO BE OPENED AT 10:OO A.M. ON FEBRUARY 23, 1982 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PERMITS - GAMBLING AND ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT RENEWALS Ulrick moved and Charon seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 82-31 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RENEWAL OF THE GAMBLING PERMIT FOR THE AMERICAN LEGION POST # 398 FOR THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 1, 1982 THROUGH JANUARY 31, 1983 The vote was unanimously in favor. Ulrick moved and Charon seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 82-32 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RENEWAL OF THE ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT FOR RAGER'S PUB FOR THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 14, 1982 THROUGH JANUARY 14, 19R3 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. BOARD OF REVIEW DATE Ulrick moved and Polston seconded a motion to approve the date fo[ the Board of Review set by the County Assessor.- Tuesday, June I, 1982 at 7:30 P.M. The vote was unanimously, in favor. Motion carried. APPOINTMENT OF FINANCE DIRECTOR-TREASURER AND DEPUTY TREASURER Ulrick moved and Charon seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 82-33 RESOLUTION APPOINTING SHARON LEGG AS FINANCE DIRECTOR- TREASURER AND JUDY FISHER AS DEPUTY TREASURER The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT OF BILLS Ulrick moved and Polston seconded a motion to approve the payment of the bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of ~449,617.77, when funds are avail- able. Roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 22 January 26, 1982 RESPONSE TO CITY OF 0RON0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Discussed matter brlef]y; City Manager to draft resolution of comments. TREE REBATES The Tree inspector has submitted a list of people entitled to diseased tree rebates.. Polston moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the payment of tree re- bates as submitted on the Tree Rebate List # 24 in the amount of $1,466.OO. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS The City Manager reported on the following items and they were discussed briefly: a) 1982 AMM. Legislative Policy Addendum b) Lake Minnetonka Area's Mayor's Meeting c) 1982 Planning Program in City of Mound d) Police Communication Meeting e) Engineering Agreement f) Cable T.V. Report h) Letter from Paul Pond i) Picture frame donated by Diane Arneson Councilmember Charon asked if some type of preventive maintenance could be worked out on streets/wells and other items that often need large capital. Ulrick moved a motion seconded by Polston to ask City Manager to send a letter of compliment to the Police Chief and every member of the Department recognizing the quality of their work being first rate. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried, Charon moved a motion seconded by Ulrick that the City Manager send a letter of appreciation from the Council to Diane Arneson for the picture frame she donated. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT Polston moved and Ulrlck seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. City Manager Acting City Clerk A.ThOma$ WURST GERALD T. CARroLL I HOMAS F. UNDERWOOD ALBErt FAULCONER ~T JAMES D. LArSON LAW OFFICES WURST, CARROLL & PEARSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA S5402 January 21, 1982 TELEPHONE (612) 338'8911 Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Priscilla Anderson Storm Sewer Easement Dear Jon: We recommend that the Council adopt the enclosed resolution. The easement is necessary to resolve an existing dispute over the location of a storm sewer drain pipe. JDL:ms Very truly yours, James D. Larson Enclosure RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF AN EASEPfENT ON LOT 59, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION 168 WITH NO ASSESSI'~T u~, LOW LAND FOR STORM DRAINAGE WHEREAS, the Council by Resolution No. 80-47A did direct the City Engineer to obtain an easement On Lot 59, Auditor's Subdivision 168 with no assessment on low land for storm drainage, and WHEREAS, Mrs. Priscilla Anderson, owner, previously indicated a willingness to sign the easement, bun now has indicated that she will not sign an easement, and WHEREAS, it is necessary, proper and expedient, and in the interest of the public health, convenience and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Mound to acquire an easement for storm drain- age over the lands described hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the City Attorney is hereby directed to commence a con- demnation proceeding to acquire an easement on Lot 59, Auditor's Subdivision 168, with no assessment on low land for storm drainage over the following described parcel: Easement description: A 20 foot permanent easement for Storm Sewer purposes over, across and under the following described property: Lot 59 Auditor's Subdivision No. 168 according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Said permanent easement being 10.00 feet on each side of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the east line of said Lot 59 a distance of 114.2 feet south of the northeast corner of said Lot 59; thence westerly deflecting 90 degrees from said east line a distance of 45.00 feet and said line there terminating. Attest: Mayor City Clerk A. THOMA.S WURST GERALD T. CARROLL I'HONAs F. UNDERWOOD ALBERT FAULCONER LAW OFFICES WURST, CARROLL & PEARSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5540:=` January 20, 1982 TELEPHONE (612) 338-8911 Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Tax Forfeited Land Dear Jon: I believe you are aware that the City of Mound ran into a problem last summer because of certain rules adopted by the County Board relating to the sale or transfer of tax forfeited lands. At that time at your request, I.worked with the finance people from the County and Representatives Jude and Schreiber concerning getting a modification in State statutes to solve our problems. Jon, this particular policy is to assist the City of Mound in its long standing policy of using the tax forfeited land sale as a method of bring lands into conformance with city codes. I am enclosing herewith a copy of House File 1609 which was introduced on January 18. I have talked to Representative Schreiber and he will be getting a Senate author for the bill. He and Representative Jude are the two principal authors. This bill and our discussions on January 12 might lead to a dis- cussion some evening with the council concerning what it wishes to do with these tax forfeited lands. I recognize your problem in handling all these things and it certainly is getting to be a problem for the city and eventually it will have some effect on your funds for the payment of improvement bonds. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me. CAP:ms City Attorney Enclosure IREV]SOR ] 3CR/RK 82-3011 Introduced by Schreiber, Jude, Jacobs, Vanasek, Valento January 18th, 1982 Ref. to Com. on Governmental Ope.rations Reproduced by PHILLIPS I,EGISLAiiV[ SERVICE, INC. H.f. No. 1609 Companion S.'F. No. Re£. to S. Com. on 7 8 9 10 Il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 A bill for an act relating to tax-forfeited lands; providing all alternate sale procedure under certain conditions; amending Minnesota Statutes 198C, Section 282.01, by adding a subdivision. BE IT ENACTED BY TIlE I,FGI~:LATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1 N2;mcz;otn Statutes ~°80 Section 2~2.01, is amended ~y adding a subdivision to read: Subd. 7a. [ALTERI.!ATE SALE PROCEDURE. ] Land located in a home rule charter or ~tatutcry city, or in a town described in section 368.01, subdivision 1, which cannot be improved because of noncompliance with local ordinances regarding minimum ares, shape, frontage, or access may be sold by the county auditor pursuant to this zubdivision if the auditor determines that a nonpublic sale will encourage tile approval of sale'tar :th~e'ilend by the city or town and promote its return to the tax rolls. The sale of land pur-~uant to this subdivision shall be subJe,ct to any conditions im~,osed by the county board pursuant to section 282.03. The governing body of the city or town may recommend to the county board conditions to be imposed on the sale. The: county auditor may restrict the sale to owners of lands ' :H adjoining the land to be sold. He sha!l conduct the sale.by sealed bid or may select another means of sale. The land shall be sold to thru hi.oheat bidder but in no event shall the land be IKEVISOR ] JCR/RK 82-301! 4 5 6 7 8 9 sold for less than its appraised value. Ail owners of lands adjoining the land to be sold shall be given a written not~ce at least 30 days prior to the sale. This subdivision sall be liberally construed to encourage the sale and utilization of tax-forfeited land, to eliminate nuisances and dangerous conditions, and to increase compliance with land use ordinances. Sec. 2, [EFFECTIVE DATE.] Section 1 is effective the day after final enactment. George C. Mastor, General Counsel James B. Proman. Attorney PatrJcia Ann Burke. Attorney Slinnesota Gas Company January 25, 1982 Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Mound Franchise Dear Mr. Elam: Your most recent franchise redraft enclosed with your January 13 letter (addressed to a Mr. Brown) presents three problems. One of the three is a threshold issue which must be resolved before we can even consider the other two. The two which we can worry about later are: (1) Minnegasco cannot agree to the open-ended expense reimbursement provision contained in your Section 7; and (2) some language modifications will be necessary in Section 3, particularly in Section 3.2. But before we can even talk about negotiating a franchise, one issue must be faced. Our Uniform Franchise contains a 25- year term; your first redraft granted a franchise to January 1, 2002; our redraft contained a 20-year term; all of a sudden, your latest redraft is a one-year franchise. Minnegasco cannot and will not agree to a franchise containing a grant of less than 20 years. I have no idea why you altered the terms so dramatically, but it is totally unacceptable. Our system operations require long-term commitments from the communities we serve. We cannot perform our utility service and extend additional services without such commitments. Minnegasco frequently enters into long-term borrowing commitments, representing to lenders that it has 20-25 year franchises in communities served. Under written trust indentures, Minnegasco is required to maintain and renew those franchises. Mr. J0n Elam January 25, 1982 Page 2 Minn~gasco has been diligently attempting to renew the Mound franchise. As soon as I hear from you or your City Attorney that a 20-year term is acceptable, we will be able to continue negotiating a mutually acceptable and beneficial franchise ordinance. Very truly yours, MINNESOTA GAS COMPANY Legal Division James B. Proman Telephone: 612/372-4827 JBP:ks 4.103 CC' James D. Larson, Esq. Wurst, Carrol & Pearson Donald A. Bistodeau, Acting Manager Metro Central Region CONTINENTAL TELEPHONE SERVICE AREAS SYSTEM Company '!itness · Zxhibit '!o. William O. WO;I-1 l louman MINNESOTA INTI~ RNATtONAL FALLS LITTLE J&COI$O# I \,,v~. CONTINENTAL TELEPHONE OF MINNESOTA ~ NORTH DISTRICT % DISTRICT HENNEPIN IL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 935-3381 January 15, 1982 Mr. John Elam, Manager City of Mound 5341 ~,~ywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re' CSAH 125, CP 7586 Bridge over Black Lake/Spring Park Channel Dear John: In 1977, the County Board adopted a long-range plan for Hennepin County roads and streets. This plan was prepared after many meetings and hearings, and after input was received from other agencies. This plan concluded that in the Cities of Mound and Spring Park CSAH 125 functions as a collector road and recommended municipal jurisdiction. The City of Mound has, by resolution, requested that Hennepin County reconstruct CSAH 125 including curb and gutter, storm sewer, and replacement of the Lost Lake Channel, Cooks Bay Channel, and Black Lake/Spring Park Channel bridges before the City would accept jurisdiction. Ail correspondence from our department, hm~ever, has stated that replacement of the three bridges and a bituminous overlay of CSAH 125 is the only construction that would be necessary by Hennepin County before turnback. Two new bridge programs, the Minnesota Transportation Fund (Bridge Bonds) and the Federal Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement Program (FBR&R), enabled Hennepin County to begin the reconstruction effort for eventual turnback of CSAH 125 by replacing the Lost Lake Channel and Cooks Bay Channel bridges. Recent plans for replacement of the Black Lake/Spring Park Channel bridge have been stopped because oF !ow priority of this bridge compared to other state-wide bridges submitted for funding. The Black Lake/Spring Park Channel bridge is No. 150 of 166 present submittals. This means that no Bridge Bond or FBR&R funds will be available for the reconstruction of this bridge. The Hennepin County Department of Transportation proposes that our department replace the Black Lake/Spring Park Channel bridge using $594,000 from the Hennepin County State Aid Fund. In order for our department to recommend this to the County Board, it would be necessary for the City Council of Mound to agree to accept jurisdiction of CS~ 125 from the City East Limits to CSAH 110 upon completion of the bridge construction. If you feel I should appear before the City Council and explain this proposal, or if you need any additional information for them, please call. ~~truly yours,~ ~ s M. Wold, P.E. Chief, Planning & Programming HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal oppodunify employer DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 935-3381 January 15, 1982 Mr. John Elam, City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, HN 55364 Re: Traffic Signal at CSAH 15 and CSAH llO Dear Mr. Elam: By City Council Resolution No. 81-371 the city requested the county to place the traffic signal at.the CSAH 15 - CSAH 110 intersection in the flashing mode on an experimental basis. The signal would flash red in all three directions thereby creating a three-way stop condition. The experimental period would be three to four months at which time the situation would be reviewed. In response to this request, our department conducted a series of traffic studies at the referenced intersection under full traffic signal operation. These studies would serve as "before" data, The intent was to compare the results of the "before'! s~udies with similar studies following the possible change over as an attempt to identi[v advantages/disadvantages of each mode. The studies undertaken were as follows. 1) Percent Stopping Study - the percentage of vehicles stopping at the signal during the AM and PM peak hours and an offpeak hour was measured. 2) Volume Study - all traffic and pedestrian movements through the inter- section were manually counted during the AM and PM peak hours and an offpeak hour. 3) Travel Time Studies - travel times were run both directions on CSAH 15 from Cypress to Grandview and on CSAH 110 from CSAH 125 to Alder Rd. during the AM and PM peak hours and an offpeak hour. 4) Delay Study - vehicular delays were measured on all approaches to the intersection during the AM and PM peak hours and an offpeak hour. 5) Accident Investigation - the accident record of the intersection for the period of 1978-80 was examined. Copies of all studies are enclosed. Upon review and analysis of the "before" data the following factors became evident. - The existing traffic signal stops approximately 50 percent of the daily traffic using the intersection. If a three-way stop were installed 100 percent of the vehicles would be stopped. The latest studies by Federal Highway Administration indicate that it costs $0.014 to stop a vehicle traveling 20 MPH and for that vehicle to again resume his speed. HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer These costs include fuel and vehicle operating costs only. A total of 14,225 vehicles use the intersection per day. Under signal operation 7,112 are s~opped. Under three way stop operation 14,225 would be stopped. The additional cost to the public if a three way stop were installed would equal (14,225 - 7,112) x $0.014 = $99.58 per day or, annually, $36,347. Included in this cost would be an additional annual consumption of 15,577 gallons of gasoline under the three way stop condition. - Travel times on both roadways even during the peak hours are very respectable. Average vehicular speeds are over 21 MPH on CSAH 15 and close to 25 MPH on CSAH 110. - Delays to traffic moving through the intersection due to signal operation were very minimal. For example, during the 4:00-6:00 PM period the average delay per vehicle was only 5.4 seconds. - The accident rate for the three year period of 1978-80 was 1.66 accidents per million entering vehicles compared to a county average for this type of intersection of 1.28. No pedestrian accidents were reported during the three year period. The results of these studies have shown that the intersection, under traffic signal operation, is accomodating the present traffic demand efficiently and at a high level of service. Travel times through the intersection are low, vehicular delays are minimal, and percentage of stopped vehicles measures only 50 percent. Traffic accidents have not presented a pressin§ problem. The installation of a three-way stop could only serve to deteriorate the level of service to which traffic has become accustomed at this intersection. In addition, stopping all the traffic would incur a substantial financial burden on the motorists as well as becoming a source of energy waste. Based on this data, our department cannot recommend conversion of the inter- section to three-way stop operation. The request of the city must be denied. Should you, ~ayor Lindlan, or the council desire additional information or wish to pursue the matter further, please contact me at 935-3381. Herbert O. Klossner, Director HOK/DLH:de CC: Dale Holmquist Clayton Nolby Dennis Hansen TIME 6:30 - 8:30 AM 11:30 - 1:30 PM 4:00 - 6:00 PM TIME 6:30 - 8:30 AM ll:30 - 1:30 PM 4:00 - 6:00 PM TIME 6:30 - 8:30 AM ll:30 - 1:30 PM 4:00 - 6:00 PM CSAH 15 @ CSAH 110 (E.Jct.) PERCENT STOPPING STUDY SOUTH APROACH NO. OF VEHICLES 276 336 5O0 NO. STOPPED 97 113 299 NORTH APPROACH NO. OF VEHICLES 686 573 688 NO. STOPPED 299 320 468 EAST APPROACH NO. OF VEHICLES 282 492 840 NO. STOPPED 107 238 497 % STOPPED 35.1% 33.6% 59.8% % STOPPED 43.6% 55.8% 68.0% STOPPED 37.9,% 48.4% 59.2% Study No.l160 12/16/81 MOUND CITY OF CiTY TR E~SURER CITY HALL 53/,1 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND M]NNESOTA DEPARTMENT CF REVENUE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AIDS AND ,~NALYSIS DIVISION ~.c.-~~ JANUARY 8, lg82 MN 55364 CERTIFICATION OF DEFERRED PAYMENI'S OF STATE AID IN NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER OF 1981, SLATE AID PAYMENTS TO YOUR C-CVERNMENTAL UNIT WERE DEFERRED PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 16A.14 AND 16A.15. TFIS LETTER IS TO CERTIFY TO YOU THE TOTAL AMOL:NT CF THE DEFERRED AIDS AND T[ NOTIFY YOU OF THE FORIHCOMING PAYMENT OF THESE AIDS.~.~ .~s.-s-.~, TEE TOTAL AMOUNI OF DEFERRED AIDS IS $ 152,g46.57.5~/. "'~' 3~.us~. ...... '~ _~ . ~.~q~,.~ IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE THIRD SPECIAL SESSION ~AWS BE~AID TO YOUR CHAPTER 1, THE ABOVE DEFERRED AID AMOUNT ~ILL GOVERhRENT~L UNIT ON FEBRUARY 26, 1~82. 29~.SD WALLACE 0. CAHL, DIRECTOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AIDS Ah~D ANBLYSIS DIVISION -- ' 1612l 2g~-22~6 January 20, 1982 TO: Jon Elam, City Manager FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official I have attached copies of the fees for heating, air conditioning, gas and refrigeration permits. The fees are based on the 1978 Minneapolis fees and the recently adopted Minnetonka fee schedule. Each schedule is marked and I would recommend that the City Council adopt a fee schedule so the City may obtain permits and make the inspections required by the State Building Code. Jan Bertrand JB/ms Attachments 7/82 MINNEAPOLIS FEE SCHEDULE HEATING, AIR CONDITIONING AND REFRIGERATION PERMIT FEES Definitions. All terms used in this article shall be interpreted as defined in the Minnesota Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning and Refriger- ation Code. Fees Required. The Director of Inspections, before issuing any permit for the construction,.installation, alteration, addition, or repair of any furnace, boiler, heating or power plant or system, or any device or equipment connected therewith, or for any other device connected to, or to be connected, with any chimney or stack, or for the construction, installation, alteration, addition or repair of any cooling piping and equipment, or of any air con- ditionin§ system or ventilation system or sheet metal duct work or equipment therewith, or of any refrigeration plant or equipment, shall require the pay- ment by the applicant for such permit, fee or fees in the amount herein required. REQUIRED HEATING, AIR CONDITIONING AND REFRIGERATION PERMIT FEES CONTRACT PRICE (including labor and material) FEE $1.OO - $1,OOO.OO $15.OO minimum S1,OO1.OO - $5,000.00 $15.oo for first $1,OOO.OO plus S1.25 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof to and including $5,000.00 $5,OO1.OO - $50,000.00 $65. for first $5,OO0.O0 plus $1.00 for each additional $1OO or fraction thereof to and including $50,000.00 $50,OO1.00 - $500,000.00 $515.OO for first $50,000.00 plus $.80 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof to and including $500,000.00 $5OO,OOl:O0 - $1,OOO,0OO.O0 $4,115.OO for first $5OO,OOO.OO plus $5.00 for each addition $1,O00.00 or fraction thereof to and including $1,OOO,OOO.00 $1,OOO,OO1.OO and over S6,665 for first $1,OOO,OO0.OO plus $4.00 for each additional $1,OOO.OO or fraction thereof The cost of installations, alterations, additions, or repairs as used in this Article shall include all labor and material supplied by the contractor. In addition, it shall include all materials supplied by other sources when these materials are normally supplied by the contractor. The permit fee for the installation of a gas burner and its equipment for use in connection with a heating system shall be as set out in the fee table contained for gas fittings. The permit fee for the installation of gas piping for use in connection with a heating system shall be as set out in the fee table contained for gas fittings. MINNEAPOLIS FEE SCHEDULE (Continued) Revision of Estimated Cost. The estlmated cost shall be subject to review by the Inspector of Buildings, and if the estimate does not reflect the true cost, it shall be revised and the applicant shall pay the fee based upon such revision. The Inspector of Buildings may revoke any permit issued containing false information regarding the value of the work authorized by sald permit pursuant to Section 303.(e) of the Building Code. If the actual cost exceeds the estimate by five hundred dollars ($500.00) or more, the applicant shall report within thirty (30) days after completion of the job, the actual cost to the Inspection Department and the fee shall be revised and the applicant shall pay a fee computed on the basis of the actual cost. Permit Fees for Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration by Alter- native Sources of Energy. Permits shall be required for the construction, installation, alteration, addition or repair of any furnace, boiler, heating or power plant or system or any device or equipment connected therewith, or for the construction, installation, alteration or repair of any cooling piping and equipment or of any air conditioning system or ventilation system or sheet metal duct work or equipment connected therewith, or of any refrigeration plant or equipment when using an alternative source of energy such as, but not limited to, solar energy. The fee shall be determined by the Inspector of Buildings. Electrical Heating Systems Permits. The following fees shall be charged for electric heating system permits: For the first 5 kilowatts ................... $10.O0 Each additional lO kilowatts or fraction thereof ........ 6.00 In addition to the electric heating system permits, the usual electrical permit shall be required by the State Board of Electricity. GAS FITTING PERMIT FEES Fees Required. The Inspector of §uildings, before issuing any permit for the installation of any gas piping or gas fixtures, or device, shall require the payment by the applicant for such permit of fees in the amount herein. Gas Piping. (a) For any permit for installing gas piping, not exceeding two (2) inches in diameter and providing not to exceed three (3) openings, the fee shall be four dollars and twenty-five cents ($4.25), and for the piping for each additional opening provided, two dollars ($2.00) shall be added to such permit fee. For any permit for installing gas piping exceeding two (2) inches in diameter and providing not to exceed three (3) openings, the fee shall be twelve dollars and fifty cents ($12.50) and for the piping for each additional opening provided, two.dollars and fifty cents ($2.50) shall be added to such permit fee. (b) A gas piping permit will be required for connection to any gas-burning device, except if the appliance being connected is a replacement of an original appliance of the-same type. (c) Where any such permit is issued for both gas piping and plumbing, the fee for such permit shall be equal to the combined fees for each of said classes of work or installation. Gas Stoves, Ranges, etc. For any permit for installing gas stoves, ranges, gas water heaters, process gas burners, or other similar gas-burning devices not used in connection with a heating system, the fee charged shall be as follows for each such device included in such permit: INPUT FEE Not exceeding 99,999 BTU ............... $10.00 100,000 BTU but not exceeding 199,999 BTU ....... 15.00 200,000 BTU but not exceeding 399,999 BTU ....... 30.00 400,000 BTU but not exceeding 599,999 BTU ....... 44.00 600,000 BTU but not exceeding 999,999 BTU ....... 60.00 For inputs exceeding 999,999 BTU the fee shall be as provided in Gas Burner section of this article for use in connection with a heating, system, which fee shall be in addition to the fee charged as above provided for the installation of any gas piping for said devices and for any other gas fitting work, if any, included in said permit. Gas Burners. (a) For any permit for the installation of a gas burner and/or its equipment, for use in connection with a heating system, the fees shall be as follows: INPUT FEE Not exceeding 99,999 BTU ................... $10.00 100,000 BTU but not exceeding 19~,~99 BTU ........... 15.00 200,000 BTU but not exceeding 399,999 BTU ........... 30.00 400,000 BTU but not exceeding 599,999 BTU ........... 44.00 600,000 BTU but not exceeding 999,999 BTU ........... 60.00 1,000,000 BTU but not exceeding 2,49~,999 BTU ......... 100.00 2,500,000 BTU but not exceeding 9,9~9,999 BTU ......... 120.00 10,000,000 BTU but not exceeding 49,999,999 BTU ........ 175.00 50,000,000 BTU but not exceeding 74,~99,~9 BTU ........ 225.00 75,000,000 BTU and over .................... 300.00 (b) Where more than one gas burner or multiple gas burners are to be installed in a single boiler, furnace or other device, they shall, for the purpose of establishing permit fees therefor, be considered as a single burner. (c) The above fees shall be in addition to the fee charged for the permit for the installation of any gas piping for said burners or equipment. (d) For any permit for alterations or repairs to any existing gas burner or gas burner equipment where the cost of such proposed work does not exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) the fee shall be seven dollars ($7.00). Cost shall include labor and all materials used. For each additional one hundred dollars ($100.00), or fraction thereof, in the cost of such proposed work, one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) shall be added to the above prescribed fee for such permit. NINNETONKA FEE SCHEDULE HEATING & GAS PERMITS CONTRACT PRICE $O.OO to 500.00 500.00 to 1,000.00 1,OOO.OO to 5,000.00 5,000.00 to 10,O00.O0 10,OOO.OO to 25,000.00 25,0OO.OO to 50,000.00 50,000.00 and over Minimum Fee Add State Surcharge % OF CONTRACT PRICE 2.50% 2.25% 2.00% 1.75% ].50% 1.25% 1.OO% 5.oo .0005 X job cost minimum .50 25 January 1982 TO: FROM: RE: Jon Elam, City Manager Rob Chelseth, City Planner 1982 CDBG Program Attached please find the latest memorandum from Hennepin County on development of the Year VIII CDBG program. I plan to meet with Larry Blackstad to obtain further details on their program process. How- ever, as the Feds have yet to complete and publish revised rules on CDBG, things continue to be clouded. The memorandum has the BNA's draft regulations printed in their Housing Reporter in December. Congress is expected to modify these even further this month. All in all, I would like to discuss the available program options with you over the next two weeks, and agree upon a format for handling this locally. Estimated Mound CDBG Budget for Year VIII: $89,000. ~~Chelseth City Planner RC/ms Attachment SUBJECT: January 19, 1982 Participating Urban Hennepin County Con~nuni ti es~ )qennepin County Offi ce of Pl anning- . and Development YEAR VIII Urban Hennepin County Community Development Program/Development Process The December 2, 1981 memo, "Urban Hennepin County Year VIII Certification Statement Development Schedule," indicated that new CD program regulations reflecting 1981 legislative changes should be available in February and that planning should proceed on the basis of a 10% reduction in funding from 1981. It now appears that the regs for the Year VIII program will not be available before late March and that recent federal budget allocations make it advisable to plan on a 15% reduction in CD funding for 1982. Due to the delay in issuance of the new regulations, participant communities are advised to initiate their CD program development process using the current draft Statement of Objectives (dated 12/23/81) as a guide until the final Statement is issued in February. The accompanying eligible activities para- graph from the 1981 Amendments to the Housing and Community Development Act should be sufficient for project identification. Participant communities interested in activities for which an eligibility determination cannot currently be made, may set aside funding in a contingency account for program development purposes. As part of the program development process each participant community is re- quired to hold one public hearing to obtain local views on community develop- ment an'a ~"ousing needs and on the proposed. Y.ear VIII Community Develo~m~L p_~ Hennepin C~un~y ~taff is developing a public F6rmat to be a~ailable by February 1. The hearings can therefore begin by mid-February and hopefully be c~ompletedby mid-March in order to meet the program statement schedule. As presented in the schedule accompanying the December 2 memo, Hennepin County staff will, prior to mid-February, be scheduling meetings of the Planning Area Citizens Advisory Committees to initiate their participation in the Year VIII program development process. The CDBG program representatives are in the process of scheduling monitoring visits to each participant community to review the status of projects from previous years, with particular interest in Year IV and V, and to discuss in greater detail the information set forth in this memo. A separate memo pro- viding more information on the monitoring process will be issued soon. lw 'COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS 09:0507 HDR RF-206 12 -28-81 county, approve the inclusion of the metropolitan city as part of the urban county for purposes of submitting a statement under section 104(a) and carrying out ac- tivities under this title. Eligible Activities Sec. 105. (a) Activities assisted under this title may include only- (l) the acquisition of real property {including air rights, water rights, and other interests therein) which is (A) blighted, deteriorated, deteriorating, undeveloped. or inappropriately developed from the standpoint of sound community development and growth; (B) ap- propriate for rehabilitation or conservation activities; (C) appropriate for the preservation or restoration of historic sites, the beautification of urban land, the conservation of open spaces, natural resources, and scenic areas, the provision of recreational opportunities. or the guidance of urban development; (D) to be used for the provision of public works, facilities, and im- provements eligible for assistance under this title; or (E) to be used for other public purposes; (2) the acquisiton, construction, reconstruction, or installation (including design features and improve- ments with respect to such construction, reconstruction, or installation which promote energy efficiency) of public works, facilities and site or other improve- ments--including neighborhood facilities, centers for the handicapped, senior centers, historic properties, utilities (including power generation and distribution facilities using renewable resource energy systems), streets, street lights, water and sewer facilities, founda- tions and platforms for air rights sites, pedestrian malls and walkways, and parks, playgrounds, and re- creation facilities (including parks, playgrounds, and recreation facilities established as a result of reclama- tion and other construction activities carried out in connection with a river and land adjacent thereto where assistance under other Federal laws or programs is determined to be unavailable), flood and drainage facilities in cases where assistance for such facilities under other Federal laws or programs is determined to be unavailable, and parking facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, recycling or conversion facilities, and fire protection services and facilities which are located in or which serve designated community development areas. {3) code enforcement in deteriorated or deteriorat- ing areas in which such enforcement, together with public improvements and services to be provided, may be expected to arrest the decline of the area; (4) clearance, demolition, removal, and rehabili- tation (including rehabilitation which promotes energy efficiency) of buildings and improvements (including interim assistance, and financing public or private acquisition for rehabilitation, and rehabilitation, of privately owned properties and including the renova- tion of closed school buildings); (5) special projects directed to the removal of ma- terial and architectural barriers which restrict the mo- bility and accessibility of elderly and handicapped per- sons; (6) payments to housing owners for losses of rental income incurred in holding for temporar~ periods hous- ing units to be utt]ized for the relocation of individuals and families displaced by activities under this title; (7) disposition (through sale, lease, donation, or otherwise) of any real property, acquired pursuant to this title or its retention for public purposes; (8) provisions of public services, including but not limited to those concerned with employment, crime prevention, chid care, health, drug abuse, education, energy conservation, welfare or recreation needs, if such services have not been provided by the unit of general local government (through funds raised by such unit, or received by such unit from the State in which it is located) during any part of the twelve-month period im- mediately preceding the date of submission of the state- ment with respect to which funds are to be made available under this title, and which are to be used for such services, unless the Secretary finds that the discon- tinuation of such services was the result of events not within the control of the unit of general local govern- ment, except that not more than 10 per centum of the amount of any assistance to a unit of general local government under this title may be used for activities under this paragraph; (9) payment of the non-Federal share required in connection with a Federal grant-in-aid program under- taken as part of activities assisted under this title; (10) payment of the cost of completing a prOject funded under title I of the Housing Act of 1949: {11) relocation payments and assistance for dis- placed individuals, families, businesses, organizations. and farm operations, when determined by the grantee to be appropriate: (12) activities necessary (A) to develop a compre- hensive community development plan. and (B) to de- velop a policy-planning-management capacity so that the recipient of assistance under this title may more rationally and effectively (i) determine its needs, (ii) set long-term goals and short-term objectives, (iii) devise programs and activities to meet these goals and ob- jectives, (iv) evaluate the progress of such programs in accomplishing these goals and objectives, and (v) 09:'0508 HOUSENG & DEVELOPMENT REPORTER nOUt m~;nagement, coordination, and monitoring tivities necessary for effective planning implemen- (13) payment of reasonable administrative costs and ca,,'-D'ing charges related to the planning and execu- tion of community, development and housing activities, including the provision of information and resources to residents of areas in which community development and housing activities are to be concentrated with re- spect to the planning and execution of such activities, and including-the carrying out of activities as described in section 701(e) of the Housing Act of 1954 on the date prior to the date of enactment of the Housing and Com- munity Development Amendments of 1981; (14) activities which are carried out by public or private nonprofit entities, including (A) acquisition of real property; (B) acquisition, construction, reconstruc- 'tion, rehabilitation, or installation of (i) public facilities, site improvements, and utilities, and (ii) com- mercial or industrial buildings or structures and other commercial or industrial real property improvements; and (C) planning; (15) grants to neighborhood-based nonprofit organizations, local development corporations, or en- tities organized 'under section 301(d) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to carry out a neigh- borhood revitalization or community economic de- ~ment or energy conservation project in furtherance objectives of section 101(c); (16) activities necessary to the development of comprehensive community-wide energy use strategy, which may include items such as-- {A) a description of energy use and projected demand by sector, by fuel type, and by geographic area; {B) an analysis of the options available to th.e community to conserve scarce fuels and encourage use of renewable energy resources; {C) an analysis of the manner in, and the extent to. which the community's neighborhood revitalization, housing, and economic development strategies will support its energy conservation strategy; ID) an analysis of the manner in, and the extent to, :~hich energy conservation objectives will be inte- grated into local government operations, purchasing and service delivery, capital improvements budgeting, land use planning and zoning, and traffic control, parking, and public transportation functions; {E) a statement of the actions the community will take to foster energy conservation and the use of re- nex~able energy resources in the private sector, including the enactment and enforcement of local codes and rdinances to encourage or mandate energy conserva- ~n or use of renewable energy resources, financial td other assistance to be provided (principally for the benefit of low- and moderate-income persons) to make energy conserving improveme.nts to residential struc- tures, and any other proposed energy conservation activities; (1:') appropr',ate provisions for energy emergencies; (G) identification of the local governmental unit responsible for administering the energy use strateD'; (H) provision of a schedule for implementation of each element in the strategy; and (I) a projection of the savings in scarce fossil fuel consumption and the development and use of renewable energy resources that will result from im- plementation of the energy use strategy; and (17) provision of assistance to private, for-profit entities, when the assistance is necessary or appropriate to carry out an economic development project. (b) Upon the request of the recipient of assistance under this title, the Secretary. may agree to perform ad- ministrative services on a reimbursable basis on behalf of such recipient in connection with loans or grants for the rehabilitation of properties as authorized under subsection (a)(4). Allocation And Distribution Of Funds Sec. 106. (a) Of the amount approved in an ap- propriation Act under section 103 for grants in any year (excluding the amounts provided for use in accordance with section 107 and section 119), 70 per centum shall be allocated by the Secretary. to metropolitan cities and ur- ban counties. Except as otherwise specifically autho- rized, each metropolitan city and urban county shall be. entitled to an annual grant from such allocation in an amount not exceeding its basic amount computed pur- suant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b). (b)(1) The Secretary shall determine the amount to be allocated to each metropolitan city which shall be the greater of an amount that bears the same ratio to the allocation for all metropolitan areas as either-- (A) the average of the ratios bet~'een-- (i) the population of that city. and the popula- tion of all metropolitan areas; (ii) the extent of pove~y in that city. and the ex- tent of poverty in all metropolitan areas: and (iii) the extent of housing overcrowding in that city and the extent of housing overcrowding in all metropolitan areas; or (B) the average of the ratios bet~'een-- (i) the extent of growth lag in that city and the extent of growth lag in all metropolitan cities: {ii) the extent of poverty, in that city and the extent of poverty, in all metropolitan areas; and (iii) the age of housing in that city and the age of housing in ali metropolitan areas. (2) The Secretary shall determine the amount 'to be allocated to each urban county, which shall be the greater of an amount that bears the same ratio to the allocation for all metropolitan areas as either~ (A) the average o!' :he ratms between-- (i) the population of t~at urban county .,nd the population o~' all metropol:~:an areas; Pubhshed by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT AGENDA Regular Meeting, 8 p.m., Wednesday, January 27, 1982 TONKA BAY VILLAGE HALL 4901 Manitou Road (County Road 19), Tonka Bay 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Minutes: December 9, 1981 4.. Treasurer's Report A. Monthly Financial Report B. Bills Request to Appear: Halsted's Bay Homeowners Association Committee Reports A. LAKE USE COMMITTEE (1) Committee Report (a) Sp.Ev. Permit: Mai Tai Broomball (f) Boat Speed Law Review (b) " Momsen Fishing Contest (g) Rule Dispensers (c) '" Boy Scout " " (d) Grays Bay Slow Signs (e) Buoy Damage (2) Action Items (a) Sp.Ev. Permit: Mai Tai Broomball (b) " Momsen Fishing Contest (c) " Boy Scout Fishing Contest (3) Other B. WATER STRUCTURES & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE (1) Committee Report (a) P.H.Report: Cady Dock License (b) " Mound Dock License (c) " Neslund Dock License (d) " WYC License & Variance (e) " Vets Camp Dock License (2) Action Items (a) Cady Dock License (b) Mound Dock License (c) Neslund Dock License (d) Wayzata Yacht Club Dock License & Variance (e) Big Island Veterans Camp Dock License (f) Deicing Permits (g) Dock License Renewals (h) DMA Permits (3) Other Moratorium Amendment - First Reading Other Business A. Third Annual Lake Lovers Ball B. Gray FWBI Modelling Program C. Deicing Permits D. Other (h) Rules of the Road (i) Water Patrol Report (j) Other (f) Deicing Permits (g) Dock License Renewals (h) DMA Permits (i) Renewal Dates & Late Fees (j) Other 9. Adjournment 1-21-82 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REGULAR MEETING TONKA BAY VILLAGE HALL December 9, 1981 The regular meeting of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District was called to order by Chairman Brown at 8:05 p.m. on Wednesday, December 9, 1981 at the Tonka Bay Village Hall. Ail Board members were present. Members are: Richard Garwood (Deephaven), Jerry Johnson (Excelsior), Robert Brown (Greenwood), DavidNixon (Laketown Township), Robert Pills- bury (Minnetonka), Lois Johnson (Minnetonka Beach), Alan Fasching (Minnetrista), Orval Fenstad (Mound), Jo Ellen Hurr (Orono), Robert Rascop (Shorewood), Frank Hunt (Spring Park), Ed Bauman (Tonka Bay), Richard Soderberg (Victoria), Robert MacNamara' (Wayzata), and Robert Slocum (Woodland). Communities represented:. Fifteen (15). Because of the orderly annexation of Laketown Township by the City of Victoria, this is the final meeting in whiCh the LMCD is represented by 15 villages - hereafter the number of LMCD member municipalities will be 14. J. Johnson Moved, Garwood Seconded that the minutes of the October 28, 1981 meeting be approved. Motion, Ayes (15), Nays (0). Fenstad Moved, J. Johnson Seconded that the Treasurer's report be approved and the bills paid. Motion, Ayes (15), Nays (0). LAKE USE COMMITTEE: Pillsbury reported that the committee reviewed with a state Aviation Representative the state aeronautic regulations affecting Lake Minnetonka and their differences with the LMCD Code. Ultra light planes were discussed at the Board meeting; they are unlicensed, beginners' planes, can be set up in 20 to 30 minutes; three are known to be based on the Lake. It was reported that a seaplane on Spring Park Bay makes practice takeoffs and landings on Saturdays, more than the one-time permitted by the LMCD Code. Several seaplane-based operators appeared requesting that Lake Minnetonka be designated a non-training area. The committee will continue discussion at its next meeting. Pillsbury also reported that the committee reviewed the county's maintenance program in general, and the county's request for approval of its 1982 pro- jects, and made recommendations; the committee will continue a review of needed buoys or signs. The committee reviewed and made recommendations for 3 Special Event Permit applications. The Water Patrol reported that volun- teer strength is now at 32 special deputies, and a new class is being recruited; applicants should contact the Water Patrol if they are interested in qualifying. The committee is interested in determining the number of buoys that were damaged during the 1981 boating season; at the next meeting the committee will also review the placement of rule (information) dispensers at access points, and current Lake speed laws. CALL TO ORDER ATTENDANCE LAKETOWN ANNEXATION MINUTES TREASURER'~ REPORT AVIATION. REGS REVIEW LAKE USE COMMITTEE REPORT LMCD Board Minutes December 9, 1981 Page 2 Brown Moved, Dauman Seconded that the committee report be accepted. Motion, Ayes (15), Nays (0). Pillsbury Moved, L. Johnson Seconded that the county's 1982 Lake mainten- ance program be approved. Motion, Ayes (15), Nays (0). MacNamara Moved, Bauman Seconded that the following Special Event Permit applications be approved as stipulated: 1. Lord Fletchers of the Lake for a broomball court, and for two extra courts in the lagoon if needed, for the 1981-1982 season. Wayzata Fire Department for an ice fishing contest on Wayzata Bay on February 14, 1982 subject to the following: (1) that inspections by the LMCD for debris be made before and immediately after cleanup of the event, (2) that removal of any ice chunks resulting from the event be included in the cleanup, and (3) that if cleanup isn't adequate, a cleanup bond may be required next year. o Advance Machine Company for a lighted public skating rink on Spring Park Bay with the following stipulations: (1) that lighting be directed downward, (2) that other agencies agree to the location of the rink, and (3) that the project be under the supervision of the Sheriff's Water Patrol. Motion, Ayes (15), Nays (0). MORATORIUM AMENDMENT: The ordinance proposal dealing with the moratorium on new dock license applications or on commercial applications for expan- sion beyond one boat per 10 feet was discussed, noting that the average density already existing on the Lake for commercial licenses is approximately one boat for 10 feet of frontage (for 100' DUA). The proposal will continue to be reviewed. GRAY FRESHWATER BIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE: While the FWBI pilot study to use Lake Minnetonka as a predictive model has land-use ramifications, there is a need for funding specific equipment. Pillsbury Moved, Bauman Seconded that the LMCD fund (e.g., $1,500) some particular equipment for use on Lake Minnetonka in the FWBI predictive model pilot study, and that the LMCD solicit assistance from legislators to further help fund the study. Motion, Ayes (15), Nays (0). BLUE WATER PROPOSAL: The Blue Waterproposal by the MCWD to express Lake water quality in layman terms was viewed as being duplicated effort. J. Johnson Moved, Bauman Seconded that the Blue Water proposal not be supported and that a letter be drafted expressing this positipn. Motion, Ayes (15), Nays (0). 1982 COUNTY SP. EVENT PERMITS: LORD FLETCHER BROOMBALL W.F.D. FISHING ADVANCE MACHINE RINK DENSITY MORATORIUM PREDICTIVE MODEL SUPPORT BLUE WATER NONSUPPORT LMCD Board Minutes December 9, 1981 Page 3 OTHER BUSINESS: Nixon Moved, MacNamara Seconded (1) that Wayzata Bank and Trust Company be designated as the official depository for 1982; and (2) that the official newspaper of the District be the Sun Newspaper and that publications be submitted to other local papers for information purposes. Motion, Ayes (15), Nays (0). Fenstad Moved, Hunt Seconded that the following deicing permit applica- tions be approved subject to inspection and notice to abutting neighbors: Curly's Minnetonka Marina, Inc. Gayle's Marina Corp. Grays Bay Resort & Marina Howard's Point Marina, Inc. Mrs. George Johnson Minnetonka Yacht Club Surfside, Inc. Tonka Bay Marine Wayzata Yacht Club Motion, Ayes (15), Nays (0). Brown Moved, Bauman Seconded that life insurance coverage for LMCD employees be increased to $10,000 effective 1-1-82. Motion, Ayes (15), Nays (0). Garwood Moved, Pillsbury Seconded that liability insurance for Board members be obtained as quoted ($1,000) for a three year period. Motion, Ayes (15), Nays (0) o Eptablishing penalties for late applications (licenses and permits) will be consider&d by the committee. The Metropolitan Council expects to monitor water quality through local watershed districts - copy of the notice will be furnished to the LMCD by the City of Shorewood. ADJOURNMENT: Nixon Moved, Rascop Seconded at 10:20 p.m. that the meeting be adjourned. Motion, Ayes (15), Nays (0). DESiGNA%~ DEPOSITORY, PU DEICING PERMITS LIFE INSURANCE LIABILITY INSURANCE LATE FEES ADJOURNED Submitted by: Robert P. Rascop, Secretary Approved by: Robert Tipton Brown, Chairman POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD. M E M O R A N D U M TO' FROM: DATE'. RE: jalter R. Benson, City Administrator, City of 0rono ohn Elam, City Manager, City of Mound Charlotte Patterson, City Administrator, City of Minnetrista Linda Zitzmann, City Clerk, City of St. Bonifacius Desyl L. Peterson, Prosecuting Attorney,~[~ January 20, 1982 Scheduling of Arraignments I have recently been notified by the Municipal Court Administration that they will be scheduling the arraign- ments for all four cities on Tuesdays, beginning February 1, 1982. As you know, court order now requires each city to provide a prosecutor present at arraignments. By consolidating the four cities on one day, I can appear simultaneously on behalf of all four at a diminished cost to each of you. I intend to bill for 1/4 of the costs of my appearance. I hope that this meets with your approval. T~o~a,~s L. Jot~so~ ~ (~O~NTT A'TTOR N ~rY OFFICE OF THE HENNEP~ COUN~ MINNEAPOLIS, Mm~s~t 55487 (612) 348-3091 January 14, 1982 (hiefBruce Wold M~und Police DepOt 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Chief Wold: I recently was forced to call Officer Roth of your Police Departma~t in a rebuttal in a hcrmicide case which I was trying before a jury. Officer Roth returned my phone call at 7:15 in the mon~ on a day when he was off duty and agreed to ccme down to the Courthouse on short notice and testify in my trial. Officer Roth appeared on tinm and testified in a professional m~-ter. I was extrar~ly impressed with his cooperation in this matter and I think his performance speaks well for the Mound Police Departmant. SAM:ds cc: Officer Roth Sincerely, THOMAS L. JOHNSON HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY ? Stuart A. Mogelson ' Assistant Hennepin County Attorney HENNEPIN COUNTY IS AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER POPHAM, HAIK, $CHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & 4344 IDS CENTE~ MINNEAPOLIS, IVlINN£SOTA 5540:~ 61;~-333-4800 DOTY, ROGER w. SCHNOBRICH D. WILLfAh~ KAU~-MAN DESYL I. PETERSON NIICHAEL O. FREEMAN THOMAS C. D'AOUILA LARRY D, ESPE1 JANIE S.~4AYERON DAVID A. JONES SALLY A. JOHNSON LEE E- SHEEH¥ LESliE GIllETTE MICHAEL T. NILAN ROBERT C. MOILANEN DAVID J. EDOUIST CATHERINE A. POLASKY STEVEN G. HEIKENS JOHN R. WILCOX KATHLEEN h~l. MINDER NANCY J. TURBAK JOHN C, CHILDS THERESE AMBRUSKO January 25, 1982 2660 PETRO-LEWIS TOWEH DENVER, COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE AND TELECOPIER 303-825-2660 SUITE 802-2000 L STREET N. W. WASHINGTON, D. C. :~0036 TELEPHONE AND TELECOPIER 202-887-5i54 OF COUNSEL FRED L. MORRISON Mike Marvell Access Supervisor DNR Centennial offic'e Building 3rd Floor St. Paul, MN 55155 Karen Loechler Regional Administrator DNR Centennial Office Building 3rd Floor St. Paul, MN 55155 Paul Olson Spec I DNR Centennial 3rd Floor St. Paul, Duane Shodeen Regional Fisheries DNR Centennial 3rd Floor St. Paul, HN 55155 Office Building MN 55155 ~ Sup sor Office Building Delos Barber Region Trails & %4aterways ~oord. DNR Centennial Office Building 3rd Floor St. Paul, MN 55155 Mike Gruppa Regional Enforcement Supervisor DNR Centennial Office Buil~in9 3rd Floor St. Paul, MN 55155 Re: Proposed DNR Access on Halstead Bay Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Loechler: Thank you for having met with Ma~or Olson, Tom Link, Frank Burg and the undersigned on January 2U, 1982, to review the proposed DNR access on Halstead Bay. Set forth herein is a summary of some of the City's objections to the proposed access based upon the information to date: POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD. January 25, 1582 Page 2 A. ROAD ACCESS IS IHADEQUATE. access. King's Point Road is the only access road to the lake e base. The road is a narrow;, gravel road over an inadequute 3. It is the worst public road in the Cit3'. 4. The access is 1 1/2 miles over this poor road from Highway 7. 5. There is no cul-de-sac in the roau near the access so vehicles must and/or will turn around in private driveways in order to return to Highway 7. The only cul-de-sac in the area is 1000 to 1500 feet away and does not meet City standards. It is inadequate for cars and trailers. 6. The City does not own an easement or have a platted right of way for the road. At best the City may continue to use only the presently traveled area; the City could not extenu the shoulders, modify the drainage ditches or widen the road %;ithout condemnin~ land at great cost. 7. The City has no plans to upgrade the road. The Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Plan does not provide for any upgrading of the road. 8. Because there is only one road to the access which is not a through road, if there is an emergency at the access site, and the road is blocked, there is no other road over which to drive emergency vehicles to and from the access. 9. The cars and trailers would create man~ potholes and washboard areas on the road. 10. The City e~aployes only 6 people and has limited equipment to maintain 110-120 miles of City public asphalt and gravel roads. Because of the cutback in state aid ~unds, the City may be forced to eliminate 1 of the 6 positions and in the summer, because of vacation and accrued compensation time, the effective maintenance force is reduced to 4 people. The City, t~]erefore, cannot maintain the access roau. DEVELOPMENT OF THE ACCESS %~OULD VIOLATE THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINAHCE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. POPHAM, HAiK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD. January 25, 1982 Page 3 1. The DNR proposes to build an asphalt parkin5 lot for 50 cars on the site. Much of the parking lot is within 75' of the shoreline. ?he parking lot would be constructed on fill. The DNR proposes to build 1-2 docks and 2-4 ramps onto the Lake. 'i~'he DNR plans to fence the entire site. 2. The City's Zoning Ordinance requires that a variance De first obtained for any hardcover or structure within 75' of the shoreline. ?he parking lot, fence, docks and rax~ps will each require a variance. The ordinance limits har~cover on any lot to 20% which would also be violated. 3. Neither a parking lot, multiple dock nor ramp is a permitted use in this residential use district. The DNR must obtain a variance for each of those activities and structures. Minnesota State Law 462.357 Subd. 6(2) states that a variance cannot be granted to allow a land use which is not allowed under the ordinances: "The board . . . may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for the ~roperty in the zone where the affectea person's land is located." 4. The City ordinance does not allow any fill or other disturbance of the wetlands on the access site without a variance. Pursuant to the City's ordinances, the DNR would be filling wetlands protected by the City. 5. The City's Comprehensive Plan which has been approved by the Metropolitan Council, states that this area shall be for low density residential use because of the lack of adequate public services such as roads, buses, etc. The Comprehensive Plan delineates those areas where public park facilities are to be located and this area is not included. An access in this area would be contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and Section 473.865 of the Land Use Planning Act which requires that all uses of land ~n the City be consistent with the plan. [linnesota Statutes §473.865, Subd. 2 states: "A local governmental unit shall not adopt any official control or fiscal device which is in conflict with its Comprehensive Plan or which permits activity in conflict with Metropolitan System plans." 6. The City of Minnetrista was one of the first cities to protect wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas. ~he POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICh, KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD. January 25, 1982 Page 4 City's wetlands ordinance has Oeen used as ~ model ordinance by the Metropolitan Council and by others as a national model ordinance. Tile DNR representative, Judy Boudreau, for the City will attest to the fact that the City protects its wetlanus and shoreline areas. Yhe City routinely denies variances to do exactly what the DNR proposes to do along tl]e shoreline. How can the City uphold its ordinances and apply them to others if the DNR is allowed to violate them? 7. The present owner wanted to fill the wetlands on the site in order to develop the property for homes. He was informeu of the need for several variances. In order to circumvent the City's ordinances, he is now trying to sell the property to the DNR so it can violate the City's ordinances. 8. There is no specific statutory provision which would exempt the DNR from complying with the City's ordinance. Moreover, if one applied the 'balancing of public-interests test' as required in ?own of Oronoco v. Cit~ of Rochester, 197 ~.%~.2d 426 (1972), the balance of public interests favors no exemption for the DNR in this fact situation. DEVELOPMENT OF THE ACCESS WOULD HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENT IN THE AREA. 1. There are several blue heron nests im~:~ediately ad3acent to the site. 2. This area of the lake is very shallow. The bottom is mucky which muck will be continuously disturbed and spreau throughout the Lake by the boats and motors ~rom the access. 3. One of the few remaining lotus beds on the Lake is located near the access which would be endangered by n~ore boat traffic. 4. The construction of the parking lot would destroy the wetlands and would contribute pollutants to the public waters. 5. The construction of tile parking lot would necessitate the removal of the trees and vegetation along the lakeshore. De DEVELOPMENT OF THE ACCESS WOULD HA%/E AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 1. It is important to realize that over 30 homes have been built in this area in reliance upon the fact that there was no public access to the lake at this location. POPHAm, HAiK,$CHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD, January 25, 1982 Page 5 2. The value of these holaes would be adversely affected Dy the noise, traffic, litter, car lights, and other activities generated by those using the access. 3. Those using the access and especially those who cannot park in the lot will use private driveways and front lawns in order to turn their cars and trailers around. Such activity will adversely affect property values and lead to constant confrontations between property owners and trespassers. 4. ~.~ost importantly this type of uncontrolled vehicular traffic on a narrow, gravel non-through street will endanger the safety of the children living in the area. Many children live in the neighborhood. There are no sidewalks so all of the children must and do walk and play in the street and driveways. 5. The City has a small police force of 5 officers and the access will create more enforcement problems for them. THERE IS ALREADY ADEQUATE PUBLIC ACCESS ?O BALSTEAD BAY. 1. The City maintains a public access to halstead Bay Ior boat launching and retrieval. 2. There are numerous areas on the bay where public ~oads are adjacent to the lake which roads also provide access for fishingpersons to the waters. F. THE CITY HAS ALREADY PROVIDED ~IORE THAN ITS SHARE OF PUBLIC AND NON-PROFIT PARKS AND FACILITIES. 1. The City maintains 2 public accesses on Lake ~,linnetonk~. 2. There are numerous non-profit camps including the Y~CA, Boy's Club, Girl Scouts, Methodist Camp Kingwood, and the Minnetonka Sportsman, Nature Conservancy, Hennepin County Park Reserve and several golf courses which include over 375 acres of land now off the tax rolls. 3. The City has over 2,000 acres of Lake Minnetonka within its jurisdiction which is a public park. THIS PROPOSED ACCESS SITE IS INADEQUATE IN COMFARI$ON YO OTHER DNR ACCESSES ON LAKE MIN[~E~ONKA AND ~HROUGHOU~ TH~ METROPOLITAN AREA. 1. The DIOR staff agrees this is not the best possible site. 2. The other 5 Lake Minnetonka DNR accesses are on paved roads. The proposed access is at the end of a ~ead end, 1 1/2 mile gravel road. POPHAM, HAIK,$CHNOBRICH, KAUFmAN & DOTY, LTD. January 25, 1982 Page 6 3. Several Lake ~Iinnetonka accesses are not immediatel3 adjacent to any homes. ?he proposed access is next to 30 homes. 4. The other 5 accesses are not located in environnlentally sensitive areas. The proposed access is so located. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPOSED ACCESS MAY VIOLATE ?hE ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ACT. 1. The development of this site will create dust, noise and litter in an environmentally sensitive area. wetlands. It will necessitate the filling of a City protected 3. It will result in destruction of the few remaining lotus beds and the resuspension in the Lake of the nutrients deposited in the shallow ba3. 4. There are feasable alternatives to this site. The DNR has the power of condemnation so it could and should locate and acquire a better access site. For the reasons stated, the development of this propose~ site would be a violation of the Environmental Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes ~ 116B.01, especially since a feasible an~ prudent alternative site can be found and acquired. See County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 297 Minn. 21~, 210 N.U.2d 290 (1933) and County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 309 Minn. 175, 243 N.%~.2d 316 (1976). The DNR should abandon this site and locate one which is adjacent to a through, paved road and is large enough so that the parking lot need not be adjacent to the lake and can be buffered from pre-existing residential neighborhoods. Very truly yours, Bruce D. Malkerson BDM/jf cc: Commissioner Joseph Alexander Don Carlson, Assistant Commissioner Reprentative Tad Jude Senator George Pillsbury Mayor and City Council, Minnetrista Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Members Frank Mixa, LMCD Edward Monteleone, Hennepin County 0274j  LBERT H. QUIE GOVERNOR STATE OF ,N'IINNESOTA OI:FICE O17 TIlE GON,'EltNOR ."ST. I'AUL 3315~ January 22, 1982 Local Government Official: You, probably more than many Minnesotans, recognize the importance of the decision I was faced with last week as I examined the $838.5 million budget bill sent to me by the DFL-controlled Legislature. It was a bad bill for many reasons. Most objectionable to me, was the fact that it raised taxes too much and cut spending too little. I had recommended and fought hard for a budget solution which would have raised taxes by half as much and cut spending by twice as much. DFL legislative leaders had made clear their intention not to send me a responsible bill. I had vetoed their first attempt on Dec. 21. Their next proposal died in a hectic last-minute effort on New Year's Eve. And this final conference committee bill came with the warning that they would try no more to reach an acceptable solution. Had I signed the bill I would have had to place my name on a bill that I found to be a poor compromise. Had I vetoed it, you, as local Qovernment officials, would have been hit hard. Because statutes limit my authority to cut certain appropriations, local governments would have lost all State aid for the rest of the biennium--a total of $271 million for the remaining 18 months. This would have occurred in the process of "unallotment" which I would have been forced to begin to meet the constitutional obligations to balance the budget. Certainly, you know how that would have affected Minnesota citizens living in your jurisdiction. Moreover, massive unallotments, would have left you and all local government officials in the State in a terribly precarious spot. You would be in limbo, not knowing how much State aid you would be receiving. You would not be able to make good responsible local budgetary decisions. Everything I want to do in government is aimed toward giving local officials and the people they represent, more discretion. My goal is not to put Sou in untenable positions. Therefore, as you are well aware by now, I allowed the budget bill to become law without my signature. With this immediate budget crisis behind us, ! am now eager to begin work on the passage of my legislative initiatives outlined in my State of the State Address. One of the keystones to my proposals is the development of a more responsible relationship between local and State governments. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER -2- Specifically, I have-recon~ended that all State aids dispensed to local ~overnments and schools be paid out in a shared, prorated manner based on actual State revenues. That is, if State revenues are unexpectedly low, local and school aids will fall by that same margin, up to 5 percent of the appropriation. On the other hand, if State revenues are unexpectedly high local and school aids will increase by the same margin, again by up to 5 percent. Under my plan, a percentage of the sales tax will be dedicated to fund local government aids. I have included a summary prepared by the Minnesota Department of Revenue, outlining how the new financing method I am recommending will work. My proposals recognize that our current property tax system is too confusing. Therefore, I have recommended a major change in the homestead credi~ system which holds down homestead taxes by lowering the portion of market value which is taxable. Individual taxes would be no higher in this new system than in the current system. Nor would local government aid be lower. In addition, I am proposing that the State take a hard look at the laws, rules and regulations, constraining the operation of local units of government. I want to remove as many unnecessary mandates as possible. To get this process in motion, I've recommended the creation of a permanent procedure for cataloging, analyzing and evaluating existing State mandates. Under this plan all proposed legislation affecting local governments would have to be analyzed to identify any potential costs to communities. The eliminationoflevy limits will be one of my major priorities as the State rebuilds our relationship wlth local governments. We must remove the shackles that bind your hands as local officials. My job climate initiatives should also be of interest to you. The changes in workers' compensation and unemployment compensation will save local governments many dollars. I urge you to review my proposals. If you agree that these changes must be made to improve the local-state government relationship and would be willing to testify, please call Bill Bond at my office, 612-296-2287. Further, call your local legislators and urge passage of these bills. With your assistance I believe we will be able to make fundamental improvements in State and local governments, resulting in better, more responsive service to the people. //-S~ ncerely, ~ --ALBERT H. QUIE GOVERNOR PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF MAKING PA¥IqENTS OF AIDS AND CREDITS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Under the current system, the state budgets and "guarantees" payment of aids and credits. Recent economic conditions demonstrate clearly, however, that the state cannot guarantee its revenue. Thus, the state and local partnership means that, while the state will continue to budget large amounts of money for local government, local government must recognize that payment of the budgeted amounts must be tied to state income. Therefore, a new payment procedure is proposed for schools and other local governments. Payments to local governments--cities, towns and counties--appropriated in fiscal year 1983 total about $510 million. However, actual payment of this amount would be based on the actual sales tax collections com- pared to the anticipated sales tax collections. For example, if sales tax revenues were 3% short of estimates, then 3% of the $510 million or $15.3 million would not be paid. On the other hand, if sales tax revenues exceeded estimates by 3%, then 3% or $15.3 million extra would be paid out. Shortfalls or gains under this proposal would be limited to 5% in the Tollowing way. A Local Government Fund is established. When the sales tax collections exceed estimates by more than 5%, money accumulates in the reserve fund. When sales tax collections fall short of estimates by more than 5%, money is used from the reserve fund to keep the payment loss at 5%. If reserve funds are insufficient to keep the reduction at 5%, the. avail- able funds shall be prorated as necessary. The reserve, which would accumulate in the fund, would be limited to a maximum of 10% of the sum of the amounts appropriated to local governments. Payments subject to this payment provision are Local Government Aid, Homestead Credit Replacement Aid (including Wetlands Credit, Native Prairie Credit and Reduced Assessment Credit), Commercial/Industrial Replacement Aid and Attached Machinery Aid. A further change is proposed. The $510 million total appropriated fOr fiscal year 1983 is 48% of the sales tax net collections for fiscal year 1983. The proposal establishes future appropriations as the same percent of net sales tax collections as established for fiscal year 1983. The proposal for schools is tied in a similar way to the General Fund exclusive of the sales tax. A.THoMAs WURST GERALD T. CARROLL CURTIS A. PEARSON THOMAs F. UNDERWOOD ALBERT FAULCONER ~T JA~IES D. L. ARSON LAW OFFICES WURST, CARROll & PEARSON PROF'£~i ~IONAL ASSOCIATION MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5540~ January 27, 1982 TELEPHONE (61E) 338-8911 Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Lots 13A and 13B, Brookton Addition Dear Jon: You will recall that on December 28, 1981, Howard L. Kaplan, a St. Paul lawyer, sent to you a quit claim deed from Sears Imported Autos, Inc. to the City of Mound for Lots 13A and 13B, Brookton. The City Council considered this matter and reluctantly decided to have the deeds recorded. I have now gone to the courthouse and attempted to file the deed. I cannot file the deed for the following reasons: The fee owner to the land is Fred B. Olson and others, and in addition thereto Lot 13A has delinquent taxes for the years 1980 and 1981, and Lot 13B has delinquent taxes for the year 1981. Unless the City were desirous of paying those amounts, we cannot record the deed. Since the City was not very enthusiastic about the property to start with, it may be just as well that you let it go tax forfeit and the City can then claim the lots if desired without having to pay delinquent taxes. In addition thereto, if Sears Imported Autos, Inc. was purchasing this property from Fred B. Olson and others on a contract for deed, then they would have to get a deed from those persons to Sears Imported Autos, Inc. I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Kaplan to advise him that the City cannot and will not be recording the deed under these circumstances. Very truly yours, Curtis A. ~earson CAP: Ih ccv Mr. Howard L. Kaplan