82-03-09HOUND CITY COUNCIL
March 9, 19B2
city Hall - 7:30 P.M.
CITY OF MOUND
AGENDA
Mound, Minnesota
1. Minutes of the March 2, 1982 meeting
2. Street Light Report - Bob Shanley
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
A. Terrence P. Wulf, 2600 Ruby Lane
Lot 1, Rgt. Block 7, Shirley Hills Unit B - Map 8
Side Yard Variance
B. Joyce Day, 3070 Alexander Lane
Lot 21, Block 7, Arden - Map 12
Lot Size Variance
C. David W. Bowers, 5200 Sulgrove Road
Lots 27 & S.16 Feet of Lot 1, Block 26, Whipple-Map 15
Side Yard Variance
D. Jon R. Albinson, 2025 Arbor Lane
Lot 5. Subd. of Lots 1 & 32, Skarp & Lindquist's
Ravenswood - Map 5
Variances - Nonconforming Use
E. Donald Fahrman, 2390 Avon Drive
Lot 4, Block 1, Rgt. of Block I $2, Shirley Hills
Unit B - Map 8
Subdivision - Lot Split
4. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present
(please limit to 3 minutes)
5. Application for Gambling Permit - Mound Fire Dept. -
Game Night
6. Leslie Road - Change parking from South to North side of
street
7. Report on CSAH 125
8. Election Equipment - Share with School
9. Risk Insurance Study Proposal
10. Underground Excavation Ordinance
11. Payment of Bills
12. Information/Miscellaneous A. Hennepin County Park Reserve District
B. Suburban Rate Authority Study on Metropolitan
Waste Control Commission
C. Downtown Advisory Committee
D. West Hennepin Human Services
E. American Legion Post #398
F. Chamberlain Goudy V.F.W. Post #5113
G. LMCD
13. Information/Action
A. Zuckman Update
B. Priscilla Anderson Case
Pg. 460-465
Pg. 466
Pg. 467-469
Pg. 470-473
Pg. 474-476
Pg. 477-479
Pg. 480-484
Pg. 485-488
Pg. 489-490
Pg. 491
Pg. 492-493
Pg. 494
Pg. 495-496
Pg. 497-503
Pg. 504
Pg. 505-508
Pg. 509-519
Pg. 520-523
Pg. 524
Pg. 525
Pg. 526
Pg. 527-531
Pg. 532-533
Pg. 534-535
Page 459
March 2, 19~2
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 March 2, 1982, at 7:30 P.M.
Those present were: Mayor Rock Lindlan, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Robert
Polston, Gordon Swenson, Donald Ulrick. Also present were: City Manager Jon Elam,
City Attorney Curtis Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron, Building Inspector
Jan Bertrand, Finance Director Sharon Legg, Police Chief Bruce Wold, City Planner
Rob Chelseth, Greg Berguist and Greg Skinner of the Water Dept, City Clerk
Fran Clark and the following interested persons: Earl Bailey, Paul Pond, Jim
Wold, Mrs. Tom Watson and Mary Campbell.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of February 23, 1982, Regular Council Meeting were
presented for consideration. Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion to
approve the minutes of the February 23, 1982, Council Meeting as submitted. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
COUNTY STATE AID ROAD 125
City Engineer John Cameron was present and has submitted his research on the
City accepting CSAH 125 from Hennepin County after the Black Lake Bridge is
brought up to standards. The following items were covered:
I. Placing this section of road on the City's State Aid system. In order
to do this some other streets, which have not been improved using
State Aid funds, would have to be removed from the State Aid system.
The reason being that only 20% of the total municipal .mileage can be
designated as such and the City is virtually at that maximum now.
Also, if a street is removed from the system that has already been
approved by State funds, the City would have to reimburse the State.
He then gave a list of the streets they would propose removing from
the State Aid system.
2. By placing CSAH 125 on the State Aid system and removing the streets
recommended, the City could increase their yearly construction allotment
by approximately $25,000.
3. The County has agreed to a bituminous overlay of CSAH 125 along with
replacement of the Black Lake Bridge before turnback to the City.
This overlay would cover the entire length except for the section
between Cardiff Lane and Claire Lane which was upgraded in 1978 and
at the two bridges which were reconstructed.
4. With the bituminous overlay the present failure and roughness of the
street would be corrected but without removal of some subgrade
deficiencies, he would anticipate that the street would continue to
experience some future cracking and settling. The road has not been
resurfaced for several years and is not requiring extensive maintenance
and with the overlay improving it, the street should not become an
expensive annual cost.
Mr. Jim Wold, Chief of Planning and Programming for Hennepin County, was
present to give the City the County's view on this situation.
1. The County is trying to plan with the City on CSAH 125.
2. There are no federal funds available for replacement of this low
priority bridge.
F;arch 2, 1982
3, The County would ask the County Board to use County State Aid funds
to replace: the brid0e is the City would take over 125 after its
replacement (estimated cost $594,000).
4. The County would also lay a 2" bituminous mat 36' wide over the
existing 1.5 miles (estimated cost $1.5 million)
5. The City of Mound, by resolution several years ago, agreed that if
the three bridges on 125 were replaced and a bituminous mat laid
the City would accept jurisdiction.
The County feels that the geometries of the Black Lake Bridge are
bad but their inspection shows that the bridge is structurally
good.
The Council felt that curb and gutter should go in before the overlay, but
the County does not recommend putting in curb and gutter on the existing
subgrade or shoulder in certain areas of 125. The County will not install
curb and gutter on 125. The Council feels they should proceed cautiously
in accepting 125 so the City does not inherit a costly problem.
A motion was made by Polston and seconded by Ulrick to have the City Manager
and the Engineer work with the County on studying the roadway and what
effects an overlay would have and report back to the Council at the next
meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
The City Manager outlined the program objectives for the $89,000.00 in the
Community Development Block Grant as follows:
1. $5,000. for a downtown design consultant that could provide
professional technical assistance to the downtown business community.
The money would be spent on a 50-50 basis - grant and individual
contribution.
2. $40,000. as an interest subsidy reduction for downtown business
rehabilitation loans.
3. $30,000. for continuing the city housing rehabilitation program.
This will cover 4-5 additional houses.
4. $10,OOO. for special assessment grants for low-income persons
(County Road llO Porject and Street Light Project).
5. $ 4,000. for administration (to cover administrative costs).
The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for any comments or suggestions
from persons present on additional ways to use this money. Paul Pond
from the Downtown Advisory Committee stated that they support uses 1 thru 5
and especially uses i and 2. There were no further comments. The Mayor
closed the public hearing.
The Council discussed marking $10,000. of this money for senior citizen housing
because they had previously committed money to them that was not used.
Councilmember Swenson moved and Ulrick seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #82-57
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT ITEMS I, 2, 4 AND 5 AS
SUBMITTED AND ADDING ITEM 6-$10,O00. SENIOR CITIZEN
HOUSING THUS REDUCING ITEM 3 TO $20,000. FOR THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
3~
March 2, 1982
REVIE~.! OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT - THE ARCADE
The City Manager covered the history of this Special Use Permit. Jan Bertrand
Building inspector was present and has submitted her report to the Council
on Mr. Watson's noncompliance with the conditions in Council Resolution #82-16.
The Council felt that the health and safety conditions not being met was
inexcuseable.
Councilmember Swenson felt that two of the items (g & h) in Resolution 82-16
were not Mr. Watson's responsibility and should not have been included in
this resolution.
Mrs. Watson was present in the absense of Mr. Watson who was ill and suggested
that her husband might be able to better explain his reasons for not complying
if he were present.
The Building Inspector reported that some of the items in Resolution 82-16
were started but without a building permit.
Mayor Lindlan moved and Charon. seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #82-58
RESOLUTION TO CANCEL MR. WATSON'S SPECIAL USE PERMIT
TO OPERATE THIS BUSINESS AND THAT CANCELLATION REMAIN
IN EFFECT UNTIL THE WORK LAID OUT IS COMPLETED, AT
WHICH TIME THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT WILL BE REINSTATED
UNTIL JANUARY l, 1983
Councilmember Swenson moved the following amendment to the above resolution.
BEING MR. WATSON IS ILL, GIVING HIM A 30 DAY STAY
AND HAVE HIM AT THE FIRST MEETING IN APRIL TO REPLY
This amendment died for lack of a second.
There was discussion by the Council on not wanting to shut The Arcade
down but at the same time feeling they could not allow it to stay open
at the expense of the public health, safety and welfare.
The City Attorney suggested another resolution with different language
than the one originally moved. Mayor Lindland withdrew the above
resolution and Charon withdrew her second.
Ulrick moved and Charon seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #82-58
RESOLUTION DIRECTING A TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF
TOM WATSON'S SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND ORDERING A
DUE PROCESS HEARING TO PERMANENTLY REVOKE THE
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
The Council and the City Attorney discussed the idea that if Mr. Watson
were to comply with the conditions in Resolution 82-16 before the
due process hearing (the Building Inspector approving such compliance)
that the Council would consider reinstating the Special Use Permit at
that time.
The vote on the resolution was 4 in favor with Swenson voting no. Motion
carried. Councilmember Swenson wanted the record to show that he voted no
not because of the health hazards but because he felt there were things in
Resolution 82-16 that were not in the original motion and also that the
37
March 2, 1982
City should not have some standards for one person and another for others.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
The Mayor asked for any comments or suggestions from citizens present. There
were none.
CONSIDERATION OF BUILDING ON COUNTY ROAD Il0
The City Manager explained that there is a building on County Road 110
that could be purchased by the City and used as an alternative to the
Anderson Building storage. This building is on 5 acres, 2½ of which is
under water. It is presently zoned light industrial. The site does not
however have electricity, sewer or water and would have to be filled and
excavated but with these being done would be a perfect place to store
equipment, salt/sand, etc. The asking price is $150,0OO. A proposal could
be to offer a trade for the land the City owns north of the railroad tracks
on Westedge Blvd. and $110,000, with $20,000 down and a contract over a
period of 5 years.
Swenson moved and Lindlan seconded a motion authorizing the City Manager
and the City Attorney to negotiate a price on this property and building,
the City Manager to figure out the approximate cost of the improvements
to make this building usable for the City and bring back to the Council.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
AMENDMENT TO THE DOCK ORDINANCE
The City Manager explained that when the dock fee system was devised, a
provision was never considered for splitting the dock fee in half when two
senior citizens share a dock. Ordinance #426 was submitted(amending
the dock ordinance to cover splitting the dock fee between two residents)
for Council approval. The Park Commission has already approved this item.
Ulrick moved and Polston seconded the following Ordinance.
ORDINANCE #426
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26, SECTION 26,9303,
ADDING SUBDIVISION 2A TO THE CITY CODE RELATING
TO DOCK LICENSES
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Continental Telephone and Shorewood Lane items on the agenda were deleted.
STATUS ON THE ZUCKMAN CASE
The City Manager reported that the papers have now been served. The City
Attorney reported that there will be a hearing Thursday morning for a
temporary injunction to prevent Mr. Zuckman from going forward and rebuilding
the structure.
DEPOT
The Park Director would like to see the Depot stay closed until April
1982 because the parking l'ot has not been plowed all winter and is still
full of snow and if it does melt this month will become very muddy and
unusable.
3~
March 2, 1982
Ulrick moved and Charon seconded a motion to keep the Depot closed until
April l, 1982, or until the parkino conditions allow. The vote wag
unanimously in favor. Motion carrie~.
WATERMAIN BREAK AT 5OI4 SHORELINE BLVD
The City Manager explained that there was a watermain break in February
and the water caused damage to 4 apartments in Westonka Villa. A claim
was turned in to our insurance company and they have denied it for the
following reasons:
"As the city's liability insurance carrier, we are only responsible for
those claims in which the city has been shown to be negligent and can
therefore be held responsible. We do not find any negligence or lack
of proper maintenance on the part of the City of Mound..."
Greg Bergquist of the Water Dept. was present and answered several questions
for the Council. He explained that water main breaks are usually caused by
the shifting of soil caused by frost and there is no way for the City to
know about this shifting or do anything about it.
Earl Bailey, the City insurance agent, was present to go over the reason
for the insurance company denying this claim and also stated that if the
City were sued by these people, Home Insurance would defend the City.
If the courts decide that the City has to pay then the insurance company
would pay the claim.
MINNEGASCO FRANCHISE
The City Manager explained that the final draft of the Franchise has been
received from Minnegasco and could now be adopted. He also told the
Council that the excavating ordinance will be given to the Council for
approval next week.
Councilmembers Charon and Swenson asked to have Section 2.3 of this ordinance
deleted. That section reserves.the City's right to impose a franchise fee
at any time during the 20 year franchise. The City Attorney advised leaving
Section 2.3 in the Ordinance.
Polston moved and Swenson seconded the following:
ORDINANCE #427
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING MINNESOTA GAS COMPANY, A DELEWARE
CORPORATION, ITS SUSSESSORS AND ASSIGNS, A NONEXCLUSIVE
FRANCHISE, ETC.- DELETING SECTION 2.3
Uirick moved'the amend this motion leaving in Section 2.3. This motion
died for lack of a second.
A vote on the original motion was a roll call vote with 3 in favor and
Mayor Lindlan and Councilmember Ulrick voting no. Motion carried.
SOUTH SHORE CABLE T.V. COMMITTEE
The Mayor moved to contribute $300.00 to the South Shore Cable T.V. Committee
in order to keep all our options open. The motion died for lack of a second.
39
March 2, 1982
MOSQUITOES
The City Manager submitted a report from the Hennepin County Community
Health Department regarding California (LaCrosse) encephalitis that is
carried by some mosquitoes. Me also gave each of the Council a copy of
a booklet that came with this letter from the County. The Council all
agreed that the City should make an effort to publish a similar booklet
for the'people of Mound.
BINGO PERMIT, CIGARETTE LICENSES AND TREE REBATE
Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #82-59
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A BINGO PERMIT, THE
CIGARETTE LICENSES AND THE TREE REBATE AS
SUBMITTED.
The vote was four in favor with Councilmember Charon voting no. Motion
carried. Counciimember Charon voted no because she does not believe in
smoking and could not vote yes for the cigarette licenses.
PAYMENTS & ESTIMATES
Swenson moved and Poiston seconded a motion to approve a Hardrives bill
for the 1981 Streets in the amount of $45,145.75 and one for the 1980
Streets in the amount of $25,230.43. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
CHANGE ORDER #1 AND #3
Swenson moved and Charon seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #82-60
RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER #1, FILE 5388
AND CHANGE ORDER #3, FILE 5387
The vote was four in favor with Councilmember Charon absent. Motion carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
The City Manager gave the Council information on the following:
1. Twin Cities Labor Market Information pamphlet.
2. Ind. School Dist. #277 Minutes from the Board.
Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded a motion to adjourn at ll:30 P.M. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
City Manager, Jon Elam
Fran Clark, City Clerk
CITY of MOUND
March 4, 1982
TO: Jori Elam
FROM: Bob Shanley
SUBJECT: Street Light Map
The attached map shows the size and location of all street lites in the City.
We have checked them against the computer sheet sent to us by N.S.P.
On the map there are the following lights:
346 - 175 watt Mercury Vapor
34 - 250 watt Mercury Vapor
8 - Fluorescents
72 - 250 watt High Pressure Sodium
In checking lights against the computer sheets we found three lights listed
on the sheet that are not there. N.S.P. is checking their records to see if
they can tell when they were removed.
The rates for our lites are as follows.
175 watt Mercury Vapor - $3.40 per month
250 watt HP. Sodium Vapor - $5.40 per month
Fluorescent - $10.05
During the month of February the regular street lighting cost us $3,349.00.
Also we pay $79.00 per month for the signal lights at Cty. 15 & 110. Christmas
lighting costs us $87.00 per month.
Past policy has been to receive written requests for street lights, then check
the location to see if we feel it is necessary. Upon this departments recommen-
dation the manager would okay the installation of a new light. I feel this is
a proper way to operate this so that the light locations can be noted and controlled
in number for budgetary reasons.
I will be at the Council meeting on March 9 to answer any questions that may
arise.
Respectfully,
Robert Shanley
Street Supt.
RS/ich
0
ONOUO
MINUTES OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1982
Present: Chairman Russell Peterson; Commissioners Gary Paulsen, Liz Jensen, Frank
Weiland, Stan Mierzejewski and George Stannard; Council Representative Gordon Swen-
son; City Manager don Elam; Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marjorie
Stutsman.
MINUTES
The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 8, 1981 were presented
for consideration. Weiland advised that he was present and had voted on the Wet-
lands Ordinance motion concurring with the action taken. Weiland then moved and
Jensen seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the February 8, 1981 Planning
Commission meeting as corrected. The vote was unanimously in favor.
BOARD OF APPEALS
1. Case 82-100 Side Yard Variance of 1.4 feet (2600 Ruby Lane)
Lot l, Rgt. of Block 7, Shirley Hills Unit B
Terrence Wulf was present.
Discussed request, new ordinance Section 23.408 (3b & 3c) and the existing
nonconforming shed.
Weiland moved and Jensen seconded a motion that Planning Commission recognize
the shed as being nonconforming, but Planning Commission would recommend that
he be granted a permi.t to enclose the existing porch if that meets the code.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. (10 foot side yard required)
Case 82-101 Lot Size Variance of 314.8 square feet (3070 Alexander Lane)
Lot 21, Block 7, Arden
Joyce Day was present with drawing of house designed to fit the lot,
Swenson moved and Stannard seconded a motion approving the lot size variance
with the stipulation that no other variances be granted. The vote was unani-
mously in favor. Motion carried.
Case 82-102 Side Yard Variance (5200 Sulgrove Road)
Lot 27 and S. 16 Feet of Lot 1, Block 26, Whipple
David W. Bowers and M. L. Sycks were present. Mr. Bowers is buying lot and
has designed a solar home; wants to use a passive solar collector and is re-
questing variance on the Tuxedo side to get maximum solar exposure.
Stannard moved and Weiland seconded a motion to recommend approving the di-
mension and design concept and grant the 10 foot variance request and that
a survey be furnished. Note: Building Inspector to check the retaining wall
to see that there is no problem. The vote on the motion was unanimously in
favor.. Motion carried.
Case 82-103 Variances/Nonconforming Use (2025 Arbor Lane)
Lot 5, Subd. of Lots 1 & 32, Skarp & Lindquist's Ravenswood
Jon Albinson was present; wants to remove existing garage and replace with
double garage 20 by 22 feet.
Weiland moved and Stannard seconded a motion to recommend granting a 12 foot
street front variance for a 20 foot by 22 foot garage; maintain ~ foot side
yard and 8 foot off street. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Planning Commisr, ion Minutc~,
February 22, 1982 - Pane 2
Case 82-104 Subdivision of Land - Lot Spli,
Lot 4, Block I, Rgt. of Blks. 1 6 2, Shirley Hills Unit B
Donald Fahrman was present requesting lot split into two legal sized lots.
Weiland moved and Stannard seconded a motion to recommend approval of the
subdivision/lot split as requested. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
Case 82-105 Preliminary Plat - Lost Lake Addition
Metes and Bounds Description - PID 24-117-24 22 OO18
Vern Veit of Beachside Development, Inc. was present. Veit stated they have
not worked out an agreement with the Archdiocese on Outlot A/may possibly put
in single family homes with a cul-de-sac closer to Maywood and get an easement
to Maywood for sewer and water hookups. Now they wish to get just the approval
to develop the 5 sites shown on plat.
Discussed project. Need street specifications, curbing, grade of street, etc.'
worked out.
Stannard moved and Weiland seconded a motion to recommend the approval of the
preliminary plat as long as it meets all conditions of the subdivision ordi-
nance with the stipulation that, if it is not clear whether road will be
extended, then a temporary cul-de-sac should be included. The vote was un-
animously in favor. Motion carried.
City Manager requested that package be complete before coming to the Council.
New Business
The Planning Commission is interested in a zoning training session with Curtis
Pearson, City Attorney. It was agreed to try to schedule for the next Discussion
Meeting, March 8th.
Discussed proposed change of forms for variances, etc. Planning Commission would
like the applicants to write more legibly or print. Chairman suggested Staff re-
view the forms and bring back with their recommendation.
Zoning Ordinance
Planning Commission requested wording of ordinance on Page 16 (3b) and Page 17 (3c)
be checked and set aside for correction at a later date. It was thought 3b should
be "at grade level" (not height of ground floor) and 3c should be "above height of
ground level" (not ground floor elevation).
Old Business
Discussed approval of the Comprehensive Plan as required by Metro Council; it was
suggested Commission may want to approve what the Metro Council has approved and
then make any changes City wishes later after more study.
Adjournment
Stannard moved and Weiland seconded a motion to adjourn at 9:20 p.m.
so meeting adjourned to the next Discussion meeting, March 8, 1982.
All in favor,
Attest:
APP LICA TION FOR VARIANCE
CITY OF MOUND
FEE $__~. '.. ,[:-'[
z0N NS
NAME OF ---------
Address
Te le phone
Number ~"~4-
PROPERTY
ADDRESS ~-~'=
PLAT ~l~ PARCEL
INTEREST IN PROPERTY
FEE OWNER (if other than applicant)
Address
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
FRONT I ACCESSORY1
YARD FT. BUILDING
NOTE:
FT.]
YARD ~ LOT SIZE
LOT SQ.
FOOTAGE
%.A~.~u__L~ .d~.rf~ permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the
('~70 ~council~olution or variance granted becomes null and void.
~J~ - I~an~lare n°ttransferable' ~ ' ~/~
~-Od ~+I.(~kNT ~ ~ ~ DATE 'p-
!
PLANNING
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
To ~eco§nize the shed as being
but recommend tbat a permit be granted to enclose t~e existing 9orch if t~at meets the
code. (10 foot side yard required to enclose) _ _ _ |
DATE Feb. 22, 1982 I
COUNCIL AC TION: RESOLUTION NO.
DATE ~70
:',-'non- confOrming us e
CITY OF HOUND
Hound, Hinnesota
Planning Commission Agenda of February 22, 19R2
Board of Appeals Applicant:
Case 82-100 Terrence P. Wulf
2600 Ruby Lane 2600 Ruby Lane, Mound
R-1 Zoning District Phone 472-1089
Lot l, Rgt. Block 7, Shirley Hills Unit B
Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance 23.302 (65) "Lot Line Front - That
boundary of a lot which abuts an existing or dedicated public street,
and in the case of a corner lot it shall be the shortest dimension
on a public street. If the dimensions of a corner lot are equal, the
front line shall be designated by the owner and filed with the City
Council."
The owner is requesting a side yard variance of 1.5 feet to allow for
a conversion of his existing deck to an enclosed three season porch.
The side yard to the existing deck is 8.5 feet. The Zoning Code
requires one sideyard of lO feet and the other on lots of record,
based on lot width on corner lots of 30 feet. (The neighboring home
is approximately 21 feet ± from his deck.)
He has previously requested approval to enclose the deck at the Planning
and Zoning Commission Meeting of September 28, 1981; the motion at that
time was to deny approval.
Recommend: Motion to deny request for a 1.5 side yard variance as no appar-
ent hardship exists.
Refer to City Council - Meeting of March 9, 1982
Jan Bertrand
Building Official
JB/ms
,J
/
OOI-~ ose3
Octc~bc, r 1~, 1.0~1
Councilmember Swenson moved the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #81-344 '
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AND DENY THIS APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
LOT 1, REARRANGEMENT OF BLOCK 7, SHIRLEY
HILLS UNIT B - PID #24-117-24 13 0001
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
the owner of property described as Lot 1, Rearrangement of
Block 7, Shirley Hills Unit B, PID #24-117-24 13 OOO1, Plat
61930 Parcel 1000 has requested a rear yard variance of 8'
to add an enclosed screened in porch, and
the Planning Commission discussed the existing nonconforming
shed and the alternative placement for the porchwhich would meet
the setbacks, and
the Planning Commission decided there is no major hardship
and they would be. inconsistent with past decisions if this
variance were granted, and
therefore the Planning Commission recommended denial.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND,
MINNESOTA:
That the Council concurs with the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and does hereby DENY the requested variance
for an 8' rear yard setback to add on to the present deck and
make a screened in porch.
A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Charon and upon vote being taken thereon; the followi'ng voted
in favor thereof: Charon, Polston and Swenson; the following voted against
the same: none; with the following being absent: Ulrick and Lindlan,
whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the
Mayor and his signature attested by the Acting City Clerk.
AtteSt Acting City Clerk
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
CITY OF MOUND
NAME OF
APPLICANT
/
INTEREST IN PROPERTY
FEE $
ZONING ~.~
PROPERTY
ADDRESS ,
FEE OWNER (if other than applicant)
Address
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
FRONT
YARD
NOTE:
.i ACCESSORY I
-- FT., BUILDING ~-' FTt
SIDE
YARD I -- FT.J LOTSIZE 1~O FT-I
I
- I LOTSQ.
FT. FOOTAGE
N. C. U.* or
OTHER (describe)
REASON FOR REQUEST: .~-~.--~
: :~.'~:~.%~~it must be applied for within one yeaffrom the date of the
/ c~'~il ?~ution or variance granted ~ecomes =utt and void.
Variance~]a~e not t~nsferable~ / /
~LIC~T C
PLAN~N~'BD~SS~ON ~mCOMMmNDATION ~o approve t~e ~ot s~ze ravia.ce w~t~ t~e
......- .... st~pulatlo, that .o other variances be
granted.
DATE ~ebvuavy 22, ~982
COUNCIL ACTION:
RESOLUTION NO.
DATE
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
Planning Commission Agenda of February 22, 1982
Board of Appeals
Case 82-101
3070 Alexander Lane
Lot 21,.Block 7, Arden
Zoning District R-2
Applicant:
.Joyce Day
Rt. 1, Box 161, Maple Plain
Phone 379-2070/479-1447
Pursuant to the Zoning Code Section 23.605.5(2), the minimum lot size
in the R-2 Zoning District is 6,00~ square feet. The applicant is
requesting ~14.8 square foot variance of lot size to construct a single
family home on this site. Utilities are accessible and stubbed in to
the lot.
Recommend: Motion to grant the variance of lot size with the stipulation
that all lot width, lot depth and side, rear and front yards
meet zoning code requirements and that a hardship exists in
that the lots on both sides are unavailable for purchase; a~e developed
and would make the adjoining properties nonconforming. Also, the
general welfare of the neighborhood would not be jeopardized
by the site development.
Refer to City Council - Meeting of March 9, 1982
Jan Bertrand
Building Official
JB/ms
SURVEY FOR: Joyce Day
DESCRIPTION: Lot21, Block7, "Arden",
We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land
above described and of the location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any,
from or on said land.
Dated this 2nd day of December, 1980. I~GAN, FIELD & NOWAK, INC.
/. Surveyors
~innesota Registration No.
/"/~' o-;.b /// ~-,'-- ~-~/
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
CITY OF MOUND
FEE $ 3£'.00
PROPERTY
ADDRESS
INTEREST IN PROPERTY
Addre s s
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
FRONTI I ACCESSORY
YARD FT. BUILDING
NOTE:
FT.I
SIDE[ ] J
YARD /£' FT: LOTSIZE FT
RD FT. FOOTAGE ~, ~ ~ ~
OTHER (describe) ."
A buHd~n~ per~i~ ~us~ be ~ppHed for ~ehi~ one
council resolution or variance granted becomes null and void,
Variances ~e nbt,tr~ retable.
~O~SSION
RE COmmENDATION
App~ove the dimension and design ~oncept an~
~ant the ]0 foot variance request and that/
a surve~ be furs~d,
/
COUNCIL ACTION:
RESOLUTION NO
DATE
*non-conforming use
CITY OF HOUND
Mound, Minnesota
Planning Commission Agenda of February 22, 1982
Board of Appeals
Case 82-102
5200 Sulgrove Road
R-3 Zoning District
Lot 27 & S. 16 feet of Lot 1,
Block 26, Whipple
Applicant:
Dave W. Bowers
20100 Lakeview Avenue, Excelsior
Phone 474-4893
Pursuant to Zoning Code Section 23.302(65) for the definition of Lot
Line Front ~ the applicant is requesting a variance of 10 feet. The
Zoning Code requires (Section 23.408,5) that lots abutting on more
than one street provide required front yards along every street with
lots of record requiring a 20 foot minimum for lot widths of 51-80
feet. The applicant wants to construct a 75% earth sheltered, three
story, 40 foot by 40 foot, single family home with a future detached
garage and solar heating system. The lot is topographically conducive
for an earth sheltered structure.
Note: I would like to request an interpretation for the wing walls or
retaining side walls of the structure as it relates.to sideyard set-
backs. My opinion is that it would be similar to a retaining wall/
fence and thereby would not encroach on required yard setbacks, but
it is not listed in the Zoning Code Section 23.~08(3) Required Yards
and Open Space.
Recommend:
Motion to grant the l0 foot variance request as the topography
of the lot produces a hardship and the Commission recognizes
the need for the owner to have maximum solar exposure to the
south.
Refer to City Council - Meeting of March 9, 1982
Jan Bertrand
Building Official
JB/ms
191d15 25 117 24 21 0099
Parcel ,~taOag7-A - '1962 ~f15
~~ S 16 ft of Lot I and Lot 27
a WATERBURY
~ .... PHELP
59
t" 6
6 4
z9)3
.RC
A?PLICATION FOR VARIANCE
CITY OF MOUND
ZOOMS W
PROPERTY
ADDRESS, ~ O.~. 5-
NAME OF
' ' - · '~' ~ PARCEL
~,) Tele phone ~
((i.f~; [~ Number /?Y P~)" ADDITION
INTEREST IN PROPERTY , f~ ~[~ h: : /~'~)
FEE OWNER {if other than applicant) ~(<,;,? ~ htK P~
Telephone
Address Jf'q~ff [~J~[.,)~%>, 4 J~ Number
VA~NGE ~ESTED: ~OTE: ~. At~ach a survey A~ ~cale drawing
showing location of proposed improvemen~
FRONT [ 1~,~ FT.[ ACCESSORY[ ~/'/FFT.I inrelati°nt°l°tlines' °therbuildings
YARD B~LDING on property and abutting streets.
2. Give owners~p and dimensions of
SIDE ~ [~% IJZY7] a~joining property. Show apDro~mate
YARD ~ '~ FT% LOT SIZE [q~ ~7~.
, z locations of all buildings, driveways.
and streets pertinent to the application
RD FT~ FOOTAGE ~ ~7 [ ~ _ 3. Attach lette~ from adjoining affected
property owners showing attitude toward
N. C. H. * or request.
OTHER (describe) ~' ~-3ll ~. .
r,..,.,&x',l,d/ .... ' .... '"
...A.~buil~ng permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the
c0ancij~solution ~ variance gTanted becomes null mud void.
I g ?~ Varmn~s are not trans.~erabl~. / .
~x,' ' ' Signature / /,
~--:~p.~N~N_fiLC~[~SSZON' -- ~mCO~N~TION ~o g~t ~ ~ foot ~tr~et r~o~t ~i~e
[ for a ]0 foot by ~] foot garage; ~aintain ~ foot side yard and 8 foot off street.
DATB F~bruary
COUNCIL ACTION:
RESOLUTION NO.
DATE
*non- conforming use
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
Planning Commission Agenda of February 22, 1982
Board of Appeals
Case 82-103
2025 Arbor Lane
Zoning District R-2
Lot 5, Subd. of Lots 1 & 32, Skarp
and Lindquist's Ravenswood
Applicant:
Jon R. Albinson
2025 Arbor Lane, Mound
Phone 472-7925
Note:
Pursuant to the Zoning Code Section 23.407(5) for accessory building
setbacks, the required placement of Mr. Albinson's detached garage on
a lakeshore lot is 20 feet front yard setback when the doors open to
the street; the accessory building may be located within 4 feet of the
side lot line in the front yard. 4 foot sideyard 8
Mr. Albinson is requesting a -3~-~t-~-i~y~r~l-and a ~ foot front
yard ¥~R~e. He would like to demolish his existing garage which is
0.8 feet from the side yard and 3.7 feet from the front property line
and then construct an approximately 20 foot by 22 foot double garage
using part of the existing garage slab for the new garage. The con-
dition of the existing garage slab has not been checked and may have to
be removed.
Recommend: Due to the narrowness of his lot, I would recommend facing the
garage door to the alley and possibly lining up his new garage
somewhat with the neighboring garages by granting the front yard
variance.
I recommend denying the side yard variance as the roof run-off
from the garage would be directed toward his nei§hborls property
and he would not be able to maintain his garage without being
on his neighbor's property. A one hour rated fire wall would
be required by the Building Code when constructed less than 3
feet to the property line with no openings in the wall.
Resolution 80-311 adopted by the City Council on August 12, 1980
allowed Mr. Albinson to remodel the existing garage and allowed the
garage to remain as presently placed on the lot, but he did relocate
his house to comply with the present sideyard requirements of the
Zoning Code.
Refer to City Council - Meeting of March 9, 1982.
Jan Bertrand
Building 0fficial
JB/ms
Councilmcmber Lovaasen moved the following resolution,
RESOLUTION NO. 80-311
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF
TNE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A 3 FOOT LAKE FRONT
VARIANCE FOR A DECK, A STREET FRONT VARIANCE OF
16.3 FEET FOR A GARAGE AND 5.2 FOOT SIDE YARD
VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE BUT DENY SIDE YARD VAR-
IANCE FOR THE HOUSE
WHEREAS, owners of property described as Lot 5, Subd. of Lots 1 & 32 Skarp &
Lindquist's Ravenswood, Plat 62150, Parcel 0800, PID 13-117-24 41 0034,
has a non-conforming use for structure, and
WHEREAS, they are requesting variances for lake front, side yard and street front
to refurbish existin~ structure,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND,
MINNESOTA:
That Council concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission
and does hereby approve a 3 foot lake front variance for a deck, a 16.3
foot street front variance for a garage and a 5.2 foot side yard variance
for a garage but DENIES the 2.4 foot side yard variance for the house.
A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council-
member Swenson and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor
thereof; Lovaasen, Polston, Swenson, Ulrick and Withhart, the.following Voted
against the same; none, whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted,
signed'by the Mayor and his signature attested by the Acting City Clerk.
s/Tim Lovaasen
Mayor
Attest.' Acting Ci~ty Clerk .
/) ~o' ,,v/.
o
X
{ ,,'_,o.o )
r~o,,ales iron monumbnt
D. ,w, les ofr~.et st-,ke
D holes exi=tir,,j dev.
D;.n:)l,~= PrOl~r<,d elev.
0.~ ,ol,'s sm face drainage
Propos<d 9ara§e floor elev.=
!,3.~h ;tS- "].,~_;:'RIEI, -
!,A ,',-'~/Wi U iI.V ~.1 ¥ 0 ;.Lq, iNC.
~030 Ilaebor Lane No.
PI?mouth MN 55441
Phoebe: {612) 5:)9 0908
Propos--~d lowest floor elev. =
Prol)o-'%l top of f,',~,ndation cloy.
B~,c. MAaK: ~/.~
......................................
I hereby certify that this is a true a,~d co~ect ~epres_nta:ion of a survey of File
the boundaries of the above described land and of lhe location of .11 buildi~g%
if any. thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any. from or on said I.nd. ¢ 5/
Scale
/": J o '91t
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
Sec. 22.03-a
£T~-IOq
VILLAGE OF MOUND
FEE $ .J' ~'-'. ~ o
FEE OWNER
PLAT PARCEL
?/0 2 ooo
Location and complete legal description of property to be divided:
D/Iv//
ZONING
To be divided as follows:
A 07- ~
(attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed
building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number)
A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR:
New Lot No. From Square feet TO
Z,o 7'- OOO
Reason:
-, ,. ~ ~,;~. , APPLICANT ~ ~ ~m~.~-
.... : (~ignature)
' ~ ~ ~0 ~ ~ ~7 ~ ~ ~ DATE
~11 ~ ~ '~
This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan-
ation given why this is not the case.
Square feet
· 4'A =Z~ 0o~
TEL. NO. t 72 -- U [~(/O
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
of the subdivision/lot split as requested.
DATE February 22, 19_~f
CITY OF MOUND
Hound, M~nnesota
Planning Commission Agenda of February 22, 1982
Board of Appeals
Case 82-104
Subdivision-Lot Split
Lot 4, Block l, Rgt. of Blks.
1 & 2 Shirley Hills Unit B
R-1 Zoning District
Applicant:
Donald Fahrman
2400 Avon Drive
472-2390
Pursuant to the regulations for Subdivision Section 22.00, Mr. Fahr~
man is requesting a lot split. Section 23.604.5 of the Zoning Code
requires a 10,000 square foot minimum lot area in the R-1 Zoning
District, 60 foot lot width, 80 foot lot depth. Public Works shows
two (2) sewer stub-ins for the present site; no water stub-ins. Mr.
Fahrman has stated on his application that he intends to meet the
requirements of the zoning and subdivision regulations, but he has
not submitted the legal descriptions as of yet.
Recommend:
Motion to approve the requested subdivision, provided the
following information be submitted before final City Council
action is taken:
1. Legal survey must be submitted describing:
a. Lot elevations @ lot corners, street centerline,
finished and existing yard grades, adjoining yard
grades.
b. Drainage and utility easements of record.
c. Utility locations
d. Existing and adjoining building locations
e. Lot square footages
f. Legal descriptions for Tract A and Tract B
2. Compliance with City Ordinances is maintained regarding
lot size minimum area, width, depth and building setbacks.
Jan Bertrand
Building Official
JB/ms
· ,/
T~¢~t p*~rt of ~t 4, ~.[cc( 1, ~-~.rr~ "e¢,~ ':f ?lonk~ ~ a 2 ';htr.t/ :-ilkl~ l'r. tt B, lytn¢
S~utt,~estorly corner :f r ,ii lot; tz:n:; .;.fL cn tho Scut'. l'n~ of z..id lot ~ dls~nee of
tg~.~V fa.~t; ther, ce defl~ctin,, l~ft ~/fof., a al: t~,r.¢- ~I' ~,.~? feet t~ t~e ~tnt of
aP t}e line t~it7d de,erSt 'd; {;a~,ee ~'~rt~,-f~terl;, t; ~ :clr,t on tk,: Nor~hu,~sterly line of said
lot ,'.i:t*nt l&e fe~t, ~e'is~:r~.i ~lr, r,. ~ fA :;-rtt~e::terly iin~, frrr t.e ~st t'orth~rl:, corner
tn~ ~,t t~e SoutL~e~r~ -'rn~r c' -' '. .~t; t~rc~ ~'~'t or. x~.~ 2out~ Lire ot snta Lot ~
· peqoe~e eqisnuJ ieej~---~'-~u!qHM Xt-Jido3d jo s3~uMo pue siu~p!si~ jo iSfl V
'C]IOA (]NV llfiN
$31~dO338 ~.1 UONOI/~qOS3U 3H.L :10 31VQ 3HI I~O~:l ~1¥3A ~ NIHJ. IM
U3NMO 33-1 3HI AgS3XY.L :40 J. N31NAYd A~IV'~3~)3N 3H.L {]NV C]3AO~ldd¥ SY
NOISIAI{3 3HI :dO ONIqld 3H.L 'H3AIYM Xl~ SJ. N31fl~3SSY 'lYI33d$ IN3131-13(]
ANY 40 ~)NIAA3'I 3HI. NO IN3C]N3d3Q SI NOISIAIC] $1HJ. JO qYAOHdd¥
3~¥O
· papnlouI aq pinoqs 3es-ap-ln3 ~deJodma~ e uaq3 'papua~xa aq
~861 ~ZZ Adendqa~ 3~val~l~ peo~ ~aq~aq~ deal3 ~ou si 31 ~1 '~eq~
UOl~elndl~s aq3 qll~ aoueu!p~o UOlSl^lpqns aq3 ~o suo!3lpuo3
Slaatu 31 se §uoI se ~eld ~deu!mlladd aq3 a^o~dde o~ :NOIZYQN3~O33~ NOI~
-ueldxa ue Jo 'RL~adoJd aq~ Jo SI:I3N,q~O etl~ IIe Xq pau6!$ Iq Isntu uo!l. e3!ldde ·
. L$-~'- ') ?d)
ON uoqnloseH
NOIL3V '113N1'103
eta u!~
?,sa i i
:uoseal:I
'oN ioq A~aN
:~lOd o3.Ls3no3a SI 3ZIS ~LO-I NI H3AIYM V
(Jeqmnu Xq paleu§!sap la3Jed Mau q3ea jo eaJe 1ooI aJenbs 'saris 6u!pl!nq
pasocloJd jo uo!suau~!p '$1aaJls ~ua3e[pe §u!~oqs §uiA*e~p ale3S ~o Xa^Jns qoe),le)
DNINOZ
'~'/~/ '~'/~'//:///]~,/ ' 2:.,' :s~wolloj si pap~A~p aq oj.
·
:pep~A!p aq ot AIJadoJd lo uo!ld!.~3$ap le§al elaldUJo3 puc UOlle~O-1
C]NI3OI~ dO 39Vq-11A
e-£o'z:~ '3aS
aNV'l ::10 NOISIAIO8FIS I::iOd NOIIVOIlddV
.~'o / _ 7,]' ,~ -----..~ ,~f
U3NMO
lC.
LOST LAKE ADDITION
Proposed subdivision for
Beachslde Developers
N
t
U.~ -
PROPOSED LOT USAG
BLOCK I
LOT I R-I SINGLE FAMILY
LOT 2 R-3 DUPLEX
BLOCK 2
LOT I R-ISINGLE FAM1LY
LOT ~' R-ISINGLE FAI4LY
LOT 3 R-~ DUPLEX
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOST LAKE
ADDITIOk
WHEREAS, the plat of Lost Lake Addition has been submitted in the manner required
for platting under Section 22 of the City Code of the City of Mound and
under Section 462 of the Minnesota Statutes, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Mound has reviewed said plat and
found it to be consistent with the City plan and ordinances of the City
of Mound,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND,
MINNESOTA:
Preliminary Plat Approval Request Application, Case # 82-105, Lost Lake
Addition is approved contingent.upon compliance with the following require-
ments:
1. The filing of a revised plat with the City Building Official's office
exhibiting a full cul-de-sac, with a radius of 50 feet.
2. The filing of a revised plat indicating surface water drainage patterns
and flows, along with a grading and drainage plan which must be approved
by the City Engineer before final plat approval.
3. Submission to the City Building Official of a letter from the Hennepin
County Highway Depart ment documenting the approval of the proposed
road access on County Road 125.
4. Submission to the City Building Official of results from soil boring
tests conducted on the site.
5. Submission to the City Building Official of evidence of approval by
the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for the proposed surface water
drainage plan and systems.
6. Furnishing a duly completed and executed performance bond, certified
by the City Attorney as valid and enforceable, in the amount of $
to cover (al installation of grading, gravel and base for streets,
(b) paving of streets, (c) installation of concrete curb and gutters,
(d) installation of water systems, (el installation of sanitary sewer
systems, (fl installation of storm sewer systems; all in conformance
with City approved plans and specifications at the sole expense of
the subdivider in conformance with Chapter 22.00 of the City Code.
7. The provision of a ten (10) foot utility and drainage easement along
the front, sides of corner lots, real of all lots, and ten (10) feet
equally divided between each lot on interior side lot lines.
8. Before building permits for any homes constructed in said subdivision
are issued, a certificate signed by a register[engineer must be pro-
vided. This certificate will state that all final lot and building
grades are in conformance to the drainage development plan and mini-
mum floor elevation plans approved by the City Engineer.
9. Pursuant to City of Mound Resolution No. 79-433, the park dedication
and open space requirements for the subdivision are satisfied.
lO. Approval of Title by the City Attorney.
1l. Failure on the part of the petitioner to submit a final plat within
one year from the date of this approval shall deem the preliminary
approval to be null and void. (Section 22.13).
5341 MAYWCOD ROAD
MOUND. M;NNESO';A SF~-~ .:
(612) 472-115.5
March 5, 1982
Mr. Tom Watson
2236 Commerce Boulevard
Mound, MN. 55363
RE: 5558 Auditor's Road - Inspection Report
Dear Mr. Watson:
The following items would be required to operate your Arcade
at the new location:
1. Landing at rear door.
'2. Place 3 foot exit door more than 1/2 distance from rear
entry.
3. Place ABC#2A size extinguisher and wall mount.
4. Remove one electric circuit and cap as I pointed out during
the inspection.
5. Provide two (2) bathrooms - to minimum code
6. Redecorate
7. Concrete block up rear door to garage or replace with one
hour rated door, frame, threshold, self-closing device.
If I can be of any furth~r'a~sistance, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Building Official
JB/ms
cc: Jon Elam, City Manager
24/82
SiS.oo S~nglc Permit
CITY OF HOUNri
Mound, Minnesota
APPLICATION FOR GAMBLING PERMIT
Name of organization
annual[s, ji ng i e occasion
Date to be used /-/- /~7-
Phone Number of Organization
Date Organization was organized
Purpose of Organization /L-~
Type of Gambling to take place:
?4,, .:
.
Address
,/L'&/~. '- jiO/-&-~, ~L organizat ion, hereby applies
gambling permit.
Paddlewheel Yes No
Tipboard Yes No
Raffle Yes No
Location of Gambling:
Address: 3~k,~nE ~.% EZ~L.~ ~
Name of Building Owner
Is the building owned or leased by the organization
Date ownership was acquired
If leased, expiration date of lease
(Copy of lease must accompany application)
Home Phone
Is Gambling Manager an active member of organization (Required)
Date membership acquired
Is Gambling Manager paid by the organization for handling the gambling
(The answer to this question must be no - Sec. 43.40)
Amount of bond furnished by Gambling Manager
Name of Company furnishing Bond
agree to file a copy of the bond with the City Clerk.
Name of Bank where gambling funds will be kept
(At least $10,OOO.)
and we
Gambling Manager:
Name of Gambling Manager
Home address
(2)
Bank Account Number for gambling funds i~',"'
Are funds in the above account mixed with other funds
(Answer must be "No")
AGREEMENT
The,C~'D~,'lj 6~/-/~¢ ? hereby agrees that if the license herein
Name of Applicant F
is granted that the/(4/~,,~/ ~<~/ ~';~' ~.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
Name of Applicant
hereby authorizes the Bank named above as the keeper of gambling funds to allow
the City access to the figures and activity of account number ~"/x~-~ listed
above.
Signed by authorized Of~ixc~r of Organization
Date
The above application is made on behalf of
~nd ~11 information given herein is ~rue ~nd correc~ ~o ~he bes~ of my knowledge
and belief.
e- 3-
Date ~ignature ~.~ Ti tle
Annual Licenses: Expire on January 31 of each year. Fees are not prorated for
licenses purchased after February 1.
clqo
CITY OF MOUND
5
6 o
APPLICATION FOR BINGO PERMIT
Date
Name of Applicant C~ ~ar t~ ~ ~_ 'C--;~:~ ~.,. )~-/} ~ /%~,7 ~ A~ X-,
(If an organization, giv~ organization name)
,) , ,,. .,
Bingo Manager (Name) ~- ~ t il ~' ,~, .'
Address ~' ~ 7tl," /~ -~ ..% / ! '~
Address of where Bingo will be played
Dates and .ours Bingo will be Blayed h'~.
{~ttach separate sheet if more room
Phone
Is License Fee attached? Yes
N6 >~ Amount
Fidelity Bond:
(a) Amount /
(b)
(c)
* (Minimum $10,000.)
Name of Bonding Company ~k¥ ~ L/ ~ ~.' ~'-]'~.-"~'., /~ ~' ~ ~,
Expiration Date of Bond 6 ~ ~, ~ ~ r- ! *
*Note:
Fraternal., religious, veteran and other non-profit
organizations may request the Bond t6 be waive'd.
Please. indicate below if you are making such a request.
Signature of person making applicatio~
INTEROFFICE MEMO
,. , Jon Elam, City ~nager
" ¢
FROM: Chief Bruce Wold
SUBJECT: Street Signing - Leslie Rd.
DATE M~rch 5,
19 §2
Due to road construction over the past few years, much of the street
signing, regulating parking, has been neglected. Two faults seem quite
common. The first is the failure to install signs where the ordinance
requires them. The second is improper sign placement.
Two roads in town which require signs are CarlowRd. and Kerry
CarlowRd. needs signs on the north side from Clare Ln., east to the
dead end. Kerry Ln. requires signs on the west side from Carlow Rd. to
Kildare Rd.
Examples of improper sign placement are Shorewood Lane and Leslie Rd.
I plan to meet with a neighborhood group and discuss the Shorewood Ln.
signing. Leslie Rd. came to my attention when Councilman Swenson asked
me to check into moving the "No Parking Anytime" signs from the north
side to the south side. The intent behind moving the signs is to pro-
vide better lines of sight for drivers in the area of Island Park.
Letters were written to residents on Leslie Rd. to find out their
reaction to allowing parking in front of their homes. As I was pre-
paring a memo for council action, I noticed the ordinance called for
"No Parking Anytime" on the south side of Leslie Rd. from Brighton Blvd.
to Manchester Rd. In essence, the ordinance permits what Councilman
Swenson hoped to accomplish. The signs are installed on the wrong side
of the road.
I plan to take some time to ensure that all regulatory signs are properly
installed. Those areas that are out of conformance with City ordinance
will be made known to the street department.
March 5, 1982
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
Mr. 3on Elam
City Manager
City of Mouno
5341Maywood Road
Mound, HN 55364
Subject:
Mound, Minnesota
C.S.A.H. No. 125 Turnback
File #6389
Dear Oon:
As requested by the City Council at their meeting on March 3, 1982 we have
further reviewed the proposed improvements on C.S.A.H. No. 125 with Hennepin
County. The County has also furnished some additional information which the
Council requested.
The estimated cost for complete reconstruction would be approximately 2.3
million dollars, of which $594,000.00 is for the Black Lake Bridge. This
includes sub-grade correction, storm sewer, concrete curb and gutter and
bituminous paving. No right-of-way costs were figured.
The Council also asked about the traffic counts on 125. The following are
the past 10 years data in Annual Average Daily Traffic (A.A.D.T.):
Year
A.A.D.T. on CSAH 125
at Co. Rd. #110
A.A.D.T. on CSAH 125
at Co. Rd. #15
1971 2650 4075
1972 3759 3361
1973 2671 3872
1974 2981 3845
1975 2800 3900
1976 2918 4383
1977 2869 4631
1978 2377 4625
1979 2545 4637
1980 2858 5069
1981 2684 5097
Minneapolis- Hutchinson - Alexandria- Eagan
printed on recycled par)er
Mr. Oon Elam
March 5, 1982
Page Two
The last bituminous overlay on C.S.A.H. 125 was completed in two different
years. The section from C.S.A.H. llO to the Cooks Bay Bridge was done in 1967,
with the remainder from the Bridge to C.S.A.H. 15 completed in 1969. This
overlay was 2" thick.
A numoer of items have been agreed to by Hennepin County after a joint
inspection with us of the entire length of C.S.A.H. 125. As Jim Wold of
Hennepin County stated at the Council meeting, the overlay will be 2" thick by
36' wide where possible. In some areas this width will have to be reduced to
32' because of the lack of existing shoulders, the close proximity of the lake
and high banks. The driving lanes could be striped at a width of from ll-1/2'
to 12-1/2' This would give the City a useable shoulder width of a minimum of
5' to a maximum of ?'. Two specific areas where the existing bituminous is in
poor condition will be overlayed with an additional 3" to 5". We feel this
will give the City a more stable condition than if minor sub-grade corrections
were made. Rot holes are to be square cut and patched and areas of settlement
such as utility trenches, will receive a leveling course of bituminous prior to
the overlay. The major cracks that have separated are to be cleaned of loose
material, patched and sealed prior to the overlay.
The County has also consented to a 1" overlay on the section between Claire
Lane and Cardiff Lane, which was reconstructed in 1978. A section of ditch
reconstruction which was started on the north side between Bradford Lane and
Marlboro Road will also be completed. At the time of the overlay all culverts
and storm sewer will be inspected and cleaned or repaired as necessary.
The question of installing either concrete curb or bituminous curb also
came up at the Council meeting. We do not think it would be feasible to try
and install either type of curb without major reconstruction, including the
necessary subgrade corrections and storm sewer. The present ditches would have
to be filled, the shoulders reconstructed, and this would become an extensive
project.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
JC:lr
cc: Jim Wold - Hennepin County
Highway Department
February 18, 1982
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 553E, a
(612) 472-1155
Mr. Don Brandenburg
Ind. School Dist. #277
5600 Lynwood Blvd.
Mound, MN. 55364
Dear Don,
We finally found the election ballot counters (they were by my desk) and
inventoried all the election equipment. The two counters are now
undergoing remodeling in California and the promise is they will be back
by March 15th (and for your election in May).
With that out of the way, I can move on to discussing how we might arrange
for sharing the equipment officially from now on. I went back and looked
at the original costs when they were bought in 1974 versus todays costs.
The 2 counters were 51800. each and today theyare 53500. each. The 30
voting machines cost us 5230. each and today they are about 5400. each.
Our total investment at this point, including freight, etc., is about
510,700. If we depreciated the equipment at 5% per year (at an estimated
life of 20 years), the value today would be $6420. Thus if we sold you
half interest, the value would be $3210. If you paid that, all expenses
and additional equipment from here on would be shared 50-50 between the
school and the City. Each of us would pay for all the costs related to
putting on each of our elections, i.e. supplies, setting up the cards, etc.
The first repair bill will be in March when we have to pay the 5900. for
updating the counters. We could pay that from the 53210., thus starting
the system say April 1st or each pay half of the 5900. when the bill comes.
I don't feel strongly either way.
A second alternative to this would be to just rent you the equipment at
say $700. per year. This would help cover depreciation and over a period
of time enough capital to replace and upgrade the equipment as needed,
probably at least every five years.
This approach would give you a dependable annual budget amount, although
once you've invested in the system, :costs would only occur irregularly.
Please let me know if these approaches make sense and we can get together
to talk about a final plan.
Sincerely,
Jon Elam
City Manager
JE:fc
WILLIAM E. HUSBANDS
5207 W. 28TH
~T. LOUI~ PARK, MINNI=~OTA
(612) 920-27
February 24, 1982
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Attn:
Mr. Jon Elam
City Manager
RE~ Letter of Understanding
Dear Mr. Elam:
I appreciate the opportunity of meeting with you concerning
your risk management needs.
In accordance with our discussions, I will do an analysis
of your present insurance program for $50 per hour.
would anticipate it would take 8-16 hours, depending on the
types of situations encountered.
My final report will be in your hands on or before the tenth
working day after approval of this letter of understanding.
Payment to be received by me ten days after you receive my
report. If additional services are requested or needed by
the City, they will be at the $50 per hour rate.
If this meets with your understanding, please sign at the
acknowledge. Keep the copy for your records and return the
original to me.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
DATE
W.E, Husbands
~EH/bb
,J
WILLIAM E. HUSBANDS
RISK MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT
(612) 920-2717
5207 W.25TNST.
ST. LOUIS PARK. MN 55416
-- Is my insurance program up to
date?
-- Am I covering all my insurable
risks?
-- Should I be using different
deductibles or self-insurance?
-- Am I transferring risks through
other means [contracts] properly?.
-- Are my costs in line?
Is anyone concerned with my
interests only or are they just
"selling me something"?
Is my workers compensation
modifier as Iow as it should be
and if not how can I reduce it?,
All corporations and organizations ask
these and many more questions about
their insurance/risk management
program. The large corporations and
organizations can justify the expense of a
full time risk manager because they know
that person will save them more money
than he/she will cost.
What about those that can't justify the
cost of a full time staff?. Since the primary
function of your program is to protect the
corporate/organization assets at the
lowest possible cost, it simply cannot be
ignored. To rely on your agent or
insurance company is to place your
program, money and trust in someone's
hands who is not directly responsible to
you. Sometimes it works, many times it
can't work. For example, claim reserve
problems cannot be addressed by most
agents because they lack the
experience. Yet claim reserves and
payments have much to do with the cost
of your programs. The insurance
companies reserve based on their
perception not on yours. This holds true
for many aspects of your risk
management program, whether formal
or informal. Since the insurance dollar is
taking a big slice of the profit pie you
need someone able to fight your battles
for you who is responsible only to you.
With almost 20 years of insurance
experience in loss control, loss
prevention, claims and risk management,
I feel I can best serve your needs as a
Risk Management Consultant.
I do not sell insurance or related
programs. For more information call or
write:
William E. Husbands
Risk Management Consultant
5207 West 28th Street
St. Louis Park, MN 554'16
[6'12] 920-27'17
Clq l
-4~- THO MAS WURST
GERALD T. CARROLL
CURTIS A. PEARSON
THONIA$ F. UNDERWOOD
ALBERT FAULCONER T~
JAHES D. LARSON
LAW OFFICES
WURST, CARROLL & PEARSON
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
March 1, 1982
TELEPHONE
(612) 33~-B911
Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Re: Underground Excavation Ordinance
Dear Jon:
This will confirm that on February 22 I hand-delivered
to you a copy of a proposed ordinance which we had prepared
relating to the opening and excavation of streets, alleys, etc.
I also gave you a copy of a number of other ordinances from
around the state which I had acquired from the League of
Municipalities.
The ordinance which I sent you is rather detailed and
all inclusive. I thought you and the City Council might want
to work on this to determine exactly what information you
desire. I am enclosing a new copy which is in better from and
which has received final typing. If you have any questions or
comments concerning this matter, please advise. I presume you
will be transmitting it to the Council for their consideration.
Very_ truly yours,
Curtis A. Pearson,
City Attorney
CAP: Ih
Enclosure
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE OPENING AND
EXCAVATING OF STREETS, ALLEYS, SIDEWALKS, AND
OTHER PUBLIC GROUNDS; REQUIRING A PERMIT
THEREFOR AND PAYMENT OF A FEE; IMPOSING
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROTECTION OF LIFE AND
PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH EXCAVATION WORK,
INCLUDING TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN SAFEGUARDS
AND THE PROTECTION OF UTILITIES AND OTHER
PROPERTY; REGULATING THE BACKFILLING AND
RESURFACING OF EXCAVATIONS; PRESCRIBING SURETY
BOND,~INSURANCE ~ ~
NS
~; AND PRESCRIBING PENALTIES
FOR VIOLATIONS OF ITS PROVISIONS.
The City of Mound does ordain:
Short Title. This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the "Street
Excavation Ordinance of the City of Mound."
Section . Definitions. For the purposes of this Ordinance, the following
terms, phrases, words, and their derivations shall have the meaning given herein. When
not inconsistent with the text, words used in the present tense include the future,
words in the plural number include the singular number, and words in the singular
number include the plural number. The word "shall" is always mandatory and not
merely directory.
(1) "Applicant" is any person making written application to the City Manager
for an excavation permit hereunder.
(2) "City Engineer" is the City Engineer of the City of Mound.
(3) "Excavation Work" is the excavation and other work permitted under an
excavation permit and required to be performed under this Ordinance.
(4) "Permittee" is any person who has been granted and has in full force and
effect an excavation permit issued hereunder.
(5) "Person" is any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company
or organization of any kind.
(6) "Street" is any street, highway, sidewalk, alley, avenue, or other public way
or public grounds in the City.
Section . Excavation Permit. It shall be unlawful for any person to dig
up, break, excavate, tunnel, undermine or in any manner break up any street or to
make or cause to be made any excavation in or under the surface of any street for
any purpose or to place, deposit or leave upon any street any earth or other excavated
material obstructing or tending to interfere with the free use of the street, unless
such person shah first have obtained an excavation permit therefor from the City
Manager or his designatee as herein provided.
Section . Application. No excavation permit shall be issued unless a written
application for the issuance of an excavation permit is submitted to the City Manager.
The written application shall state the name and address of the applicant, the nature,
location and purpose of the excavation, the date of commencement and date of
completion of the excavation, and other data as may reasonably be required by the
City Manager. The application shall be accompanied by plans showing the extent of
the proposed excavation work, the dimensions and elevations of both the existing ground
prior to said excavation and of the proposed excavated surfaces, the location of the
excavation work, and such other information as may be prescribed by the City Manager.
Section . Excavation Permit Fees. A permit fee shall be charged by the
City for the issuance of an excavation permit which shall be in addition to all other
fees for permits or charges relative to any proposed construction work. The excavation
permit fee shall be in an amount varying with the type of surface to be opened, dug
or excavated under the permit issued, as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
On unpaved streets
On streets paved with oil or water bound macadam $
On streets paved with cement concrete base or cement concrete
On streets paved with asphalt concrete and bitullthie on broken
rock $
Section . Excavation Placard. The City Manager shall provide each permittee
at the time a permit is issued hereunder a suitable placard plainly written or printed
in English letters at least one inch high with the following notice: "City of Mound
Permit No. Expires "and in the first blank space there shall be inserted
the number of said permit and after word "expires" shall be stated the date when said
permit expires. It shall be the duty of any permittee hereunder to keep the placard
posted in a conspicuous place at the site of the excavation work. It shall be unlawful
for any person to exhibit such placard at or about any excavation not covered by such
permit, or to misrepresent the number of the permit or the date of expiration of the
permit.
Section . Surety Bond. Before an excavation permit as herein provided is
issued, the applicant shall deposit with the City Clerk a surety bond in the amount
of $5,000 payable to the City. The required surety bond must be:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
With good and sufficient surety;
By a surety company authorized to transact business in the state;
Satisfactory to the City Attorney in form and substance;
Conditioned upon the permittee's compliance with this Ordinance
and to secure and hold the City and its officers harmless against
any and all claims, judgments, or other costs arising from the
excavation and other work covered by the excavation permit or
for which the City, the City Council or any city officer may be
made liable by reason of any accident or injury to persons or
property through the fault of the permittee either in not properly
guarding the excavation or for any other injury resulting from the
negligence of the permittee, and further conditioned to fill up,
restore and place in good and safe condition as near as may be to
its original condition, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,
all openings and excavations made in streets, and to maintain any
street where excavation is made in as good condition for the period
of 24 months after said work shall have been done, usual wear and
tear excepted, as it was in before said work shall have been done.
Any settlement of the surface within said two-year period shall be
deemed conclusive evidence of defective back-filling by the per-
mittee. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to require the
permittee to maintain any repairs to pavement made by the City
if such repairs should prove defective. Any owner of real estate
repairing or engaging another to repair his own sidewalk shall not
be required to give such bond. Recovery on such bond for any
injury or accident shall not exhaust the bond but it shall in its
entirety cover any or all future accidents or injuries during the
excavation work for which it is given. In the event of any suit
or claim against the City by reason of the negligence or default
of the permittee, upon the City's giving written notice to the
permittee of such suit or claim, any final judgment against the
City requiring it to pay for such damage shall be conclusive upon
the permittee and his surety. An annual bond may be given under
this provision which shall remain in force for one year conditioned
as above, in the amount specified above and in other respects as
specified above but applicable as to all excavation work in streets
by the principal in such bond during the term of one year from
said date.
Section . Cash Deposits. The application for an excavation permit to
perform excavation work under this Ordinance shall be accompanied with a cash deposit,
made to the City Manager for deposit with the City Treasurer as follows: a sum
equal to $ $~-~ per square foot of surface of each excavation to be made in streets
which have been paved; a sum equal to $10~*- for each square foot of surface of
each_excavation to be made in streets which have been macadamized; a sum equal to
$ 5~ for each square foot of surface of each such excavation to be made in streets
which are neither macadamized nor paved. No deposit shall be less than $~-~. Any
person intending to make openings, cuts or excavations in streets may make and
maintain with the City Treasurer a general deposit in the sum of $2500, and the person
so depositing shall not be required to make the special deposits provided in this section
but shall, however, be required to comply with all other applicable provisions of this
Ordinance. Any special or general deposit made hereunder shall serve as security for
the repair and performance of work necessary to put the street in as good a condition
as it was prior to the excavation if the permittee fails to make the necessary repairs
or to complete the proper refilling of the opening and the excavation work under the
excavation permit. Upon the permittee's completion of the work covered by such
permit in conformity with this Ordinance as determined by the City Engineer, two
thirds of such cash deposit, except in the case of an annual deposit, shall be promptly
refunded by the City to the permittee and the balance shall be refunded by the City
to the permittee upon the expiration of such 24 months' period; provided, however,
that as to any annual deposit two thirds thereof shall be refunded by the City at the
end of the one-year period for which the deposit is made or the satisfactory completion
of all excavation work undertaken during such period, whichever is later, and the
balance of the annual deposit shall be refunded at the expiration of a 24 months'
period following the completion of such excavation work; and provided further that
the City may use any or all of any such deposit to pay the cost of any work the City
performs to restore or maintain the street as herein provided in the event the permittee
fails to perform such work, in which event the amount refunded to the permittee shall
be reduced by the amount thus expended by the City.
5oo
Section Routing of Traffic. The permittee shall take appropriate measures
to assure that during the performance of the excavation work traffic conditions as
nearly normal as practicable shall be maintained at all times so as to cause as little
inconvenience as possible to the occupants of the abutting property and to the general
public, provided that the City Engineer may permit the closing of streets to all traffic
for a period of time prescribed by him if in his opinion it is necessary. The permittee
shall route and control traffic including its own vehicles as directed by the City Police
Department. The following steps shah be taken before any highway may be closed or
restricted to traffic:
(1) The permittee must receive the approval of the City Engineer and the Police
Department therefor;
(2) The permittee must notify the Chief of the Fire Department of any street
so closed;
(3) Upon completion of construction work the permittee shall notify the City
Engineer and City Police Department before traffic is moved back to its normal flow
so that any necessary adjustments may be made;
(4) Where flagmen are deemed necessary by the City Engineer they shall be
furnished by the permittee at its own expense. Through traffic shall be maintained
without the aid of detours, if possible. In instances in which this would not be feasible
the City Engineer will designate detours. The City shall maintain roadway surfaces
of existing highways designated as detours without expense to the permittee but in
case there are no existing highways the permittee shah construct all detours at its
expense and in conformity with the specifications of the City Engineer. The permittee
will be responsible for any unnecessary damage caused to any highways by the operation
of its equipment.
Section . Clearance for Fire Equipment. The excavation work shall be
performed and conducted so as not to interfere with access to fire stations and fire
hydrants. Materials or obstructions shall not be placed within 15 feet of fire plugs.
Passageways leading to fire escapes or fire-fighting equipment shall be kept free of
piles of material or other obstructions.
Section . Protection of Traffic. The permittee shall erect and maintain
suitable barriers to confine earth from trenches or other excavations in order to
encroach upon highways as little as possible.
Section . Removal and Protection of Utilities. The permittee shall not
interfere with any existing utility without the written consent of the City Engineer
and the utility company or person owning the utility. If it becomes necessary to
remove an existing utility this shall be done by its owner. No utility owned by the
City shall be moved to accommodate the permittee unless the cost of such work be
borne by the permittee. The cost of moving privately owned utilities shall be similarly
borne by the permittee un]ess it makes other arrangements with the person owning
the utility. The permittee shall support and protect by timbers or otherwise all pipes,
conduits, poles, wires or other apparatus which may be in any way affected by the
excavation work, and do everything necessary to support, sustain and protect them
under, over, along or across said work. In case any of said pipes, conduits, poles,
wires or apparatus should be damaged, they shall be repaired by the agency or person
owning them and the expense of such repairs shall be charged to the perrnittee, anti
his or its bond shall De liable therefor. The permittee shall De responsible for any
damage done to any public or private property by reason of the breaking of any water
pipes, sewer, gas pipe, electric conduit or other utility and its bond shall be liable
therefor. The permittee shall inform itself as to the existence and location of all
underground utilities and protect the same against damage.
Section . .Protection of Adjoining Property. The permittee shall at all
times and at his or its own expense preserve and protect from injury any adjoining
property by providing proper foundations and taking other measures suitable for the
purpose. Where in the protection of such property it is necessary to enter upon private
property for the purpose of taking appropriate protective measures, the permittee shall
obtain a license or waiver from the owner of such private property for such purpose.
The permittee shall, at its own expense shore up and protect all buildings, wails, fences
or other property likely to be damaged during the progress of the excavation work
and shall be responsible for all damage to public or private property or highways
resulting from its failure properly to protect and carry out said work. Whenever it
may be necessary for the permittee to trench through any lawn area, the sod shall be
carefully cut and roiled and replaced after ditches have been back filled as required
in this Ordinance. All construction and maintenance work shall be done in a manner
calculated to leave the lawn area clean of earth and debris and in a condition as
nearly as possible to that which existed before such work began. The permittee shall
not remove even temporarily any trees or shrubs which exist in parking strip areas or
easements across private property without first having notified and obtained the consent
of the property owner, or in the case of public property the City Manager.
Section . Protective Measures. The permittee shall erect such fence,
railing or barriers about the site of the excavation work as shall prevent danger to
persons using the City street or sidewalks, and such protective barriers shall be
maintained until the work shall be completed or the damger removed. At twilight
there shall be placed upon such place of excavation and upon any excavated materials
or structures or other obstructions to streets suitable and sufficient lights which shall
be kept burning throughout the night during the maintenance of such obstructions. It
shall be unlawful for anyone to remove or tear down the fence or railing or other
protective barriers or any lights provided there for the protection of the public.
Section . Attractive Nuisance. It shall be unlawful for the permittee to
suffer or permit to remain unguarded at the place of excavation or opening any
machinery, equipment or other device having the characteristics of an attractive
nuisance likely to attract children and hazardous to their safety or health.
Section . Care of Excavated Material. Ail material excavated from trenches
and piled adjacent to the trench or in any street shah be piled and maintained in such
manner as not to endanger those working in the trench, pedestrians or users of the
streets, and so that as little inconvenience as possible is caused to those using streets
and adjoining property. Where the confines of the area being excavated are too narrow
to permit the piling of excavated material beside the trench, such as might be the
case in a narrow alley, the City Engineer shall have the authority to require that the
permittee haul the excavated material to a storage site and then rehaul it to the
trench site at the time of backfilling. It shall be the permittee's responsibility to
secure the necessary permission and make all necessary arrangements for all required
storage and disposal sites.
Section . Damage to Existing Improvements. All damage done to existing
improvements during the progress of the excavation work shall be repaired by the
permittee. Materials for such repair shall conform with the requirements of any
applicable code or ordinance. If upon being ordered the permittee fails to furnish the
necessary labor and materials for such repairs, the City Engineer shall have the authority
to cause said necessary labor and materials to be furnished by the City and the cost
shall be charged against the permittee, and the permittee shall also be liable on his
or its bond therefor.
Section . Property Lines and Easements. Property lines and limits of
easem'ents shall be indicated on the plan of excavation submitted with the application
for the excavation permit and it shall be the permittee's responsibility to confine
excavation work within these limits.
Section Clean-up. As the excavation work progresses all streets and
private properties shall be thoroughly cleaned of all rubbish, excess earth, rock and
other debris resulting from such work. All clean-up operations at the location of such
excavation shall be accomplished at the expense of the permittee and shall be completed
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. From time to time as may be ordered by
the City Engineer and in any event immediately after completion of said work, the
permittee shall at his or its own expense clean up and remove all refuse and unused
materials of any kind resulting from said work and upon failure to do so within 24
hours after having been notified to do so by the City Engineer, said work may be done
by the City Engineer and the cost thereof charged to the permittee, and the permittee
shall also be liable for the cost thereof under the surety bond provided hereunder.
Section Protection of Water Courses. The permittee shall provide for
the flow of all water courses, sewers or drains intercepted during the excavation work
and shah replace the same in as good condition as it found them or shall make such
provisions for them as the City Engineer may direct. The permittee shall not obstruct
the gutter of any street but shall use all proper measures to provide for the free
passage of surface water. The permittee shall make provision to take care of all
surplus water, muck, silt, slickings or other runoff pumped from excavations or resulting
from sluicing or other operations and shall be responsible for any damage resulting
from its failure to so provide.
March 8, 1982
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY COUNCIL
JON ELAM, CITY MA~IAGER
APPOINTMENTS TO THE PARK COMMISSION
After screening and interviewing all applicants to the Park Commission,
they would like to recommend the appointment of:
Delores Maas
5959 Idlewood Road
Mound, MN. 55364
472-4827
Gerald Lavrie
6460 Bayridge Road
Mound, MN. 55364
472-5935
I heartily support their recommendations.
JE:fc
Earl F. Andersen & Assoc
Diane Arneson
Affirm. Business Communic.
Holly Bostrom
Badger Meter
Burlington Northern
Bryan Rock Products
£hris Bollis
Business Furniture
F.H. Bathke
Gerald Babb
Janet Bertrand
Joan Clark
Curtis 1OO0
Fran Clark
Robert Cheney
Commiss of Revenue
Christensen Constr.
Davies Water Equip
Dependable Services
Domtar Industries
Door Systems
Engine Parts Supply
Jon Elam
First Natl Bank-Mpls
Govt Training Serv
Eugene Hickok & Assoc
Henn Co. Chfs Police PTAC
Instrumentation Serv.
J.B. Distributing
Kustom Electronics
L.O.G.I.S.
The Laker
Sharon Legg
Doris Lepsch
Brad Landsman
MN Wastewater Oper. Assn
Mound Postmaster
MCFOA Bus Charter
City of Minnetrista
Marina Auto Supply
McCombs-Knutson
Minnegasco
Mound Fire Dept
Mound Locksmith
MN Wastewater Assoc
Metro Fone Communications
Wm Mueller
Martins Navarre 66
Minn Comm
Navarre Hdwe
Northern Power Prod
No Centrl Sect AWWA
295.17
130.OO
105.00
257.50
133.~7
533.33
171.60
38.20
328.58
17.69
7.47
40.27
17.50
129.63
15.89
334.00
3,103.61
2,705.54
169.50
33.00
1,574.56
144.O0
49.32
17.73
236.00
8O.OO
443.88
215.00
116.08
39.84
23.52
3,446.25
274.70
23.88
45.OO
13.80
5.OO
600.00
4O. OO
82.O0
359.92
11,473.O0
849.O0
3,898.45
12.50
5.00
35.4O
1,329.O5
96.25
28.50
53.47
15.26
90.O0
U of M Registrar 75.00
Planning & Develop. Serv 1,350.00
Pitney Bowes Credit 26.00
Reo Raj Kennels 255.00
Roto Rooter 51.00
Shepherds Rental Rug 92.75
Spring Park Car Wash 66.70
Sharer-Watson 300.00
Suburban Tire 194.60
T & T Maintenance 47.45
Thrifty Snyder Drug 13.17
Thurk Bros. Chev. 13.55
Title Ins. 930.00
Tri State Drilling 680.34
Tree Inspect. Workshop 15.00
Village Chev. 70.62
Waconia Ridgeview Hosp 30.00
Water Prod.'Co. 202.12
Widmer Bros. 6,776.16
Westonka Sanitation 50.00
R.L. Youngdahl & Assoc 21,425.40
tate ~reas 1,2~:~
etty wang
TOTAL BILLS 68,280.48
LIQUOR BILLS
Holly Bostrom 120.00
City of Mound 25.20
Real One Acquisition 819.41
Regal Window Clean 21.50
Bradley Extermin. 19.00
Information Publish. 144.OO
Twin City Pricing 141.97
Wallin Heating 31.OO
A.J. Ogle, Inc. 1,855.87
Coca Cola 128.40
Day Distrib 3,117.50
East Side Beverage 2,844.20
Gold Medal Bev. 50.75
Home Juice Co. 21.72
City Club Distrib 2,574.00
Midwest Wine Co. 965.45
The Liquor House 2,267.52
Pepsi Cola/7 Up 157.35
Pogreba Distrib 2,264.17
Thorpe Distrib 3,265.95
Griggs Cooper 3,743.62
Johnson Bros. Liq. 2,643.05
MN Distillers 651.77
Old Peoria 2,249.23
Ed Phillips & Sons 2,328.75
TOTAL LIQUOR BILLS 32,451.38
GRAND TOTAL-ALL BILLS 100,731.86
Hennepin County Park Reserve District
3.~00 County Road 24 o Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359 o Telephone 612-473-4693
PARK RESERVES
BAKER
CARVER
CROW-HA~SAN
ELM CREEK
LAKE REBECCA
MURPHY-HANREHAN'
REGIONAL PARKS
CLEARY LAKE'
COON RAPIDS DAM
EAGLE LAKE
FISH LAKE
JAMES W. WlLKIEo
MEDICINE LAKF
SPRING LAKE'
SPECIAL USE AREAS
BAKER PARK GOLF COURSE
Ct. EARY LAKE GOLF COURSE'
HYLAND HILLS SKI AREA
NOERENBERG MEMORIAL
TRAIL CORRIDORS
NORTH HENNEPIN TRAIL
OTHER PARKS
WAWATASSO ISLAND
Tr GOOSE CHASE ISLAND
.HENNEP1N
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
WILLt4M BARBEAU
CHAIR
MINNEAPOLIS
WlLUAM E. GENTRY
VICE CHAIR
NEW HOPE
JUDITH S. ANDERSON
BLOOMINGTON
SHIRLEY A. BONINE MAPLE PLAIN
MINNEAPOLIS
AMEUA M. DeMUSE
MINNEAPOLIS
CHARLES R. PIHL ORONO
MALCOLM D. REID
SHOREWOOD
DONALD C. RINGHAM
MINNEAPOLIS
RAYMOND N. SEAGREN
MINNEAPOLIS
ANNE-MARIE SOLENSKY
MINNEAPOLIS
CtJFTON E. FRENCH
RINT[NDENT &
ETARY TO THE BOARD
February 2~, 1982
This letter was addressed to all members of the Hennepin
County Legislative Delegation.
As you know, the Hennepin County Park Reserve ~istrict i~
seeking legisiation which would clarify its authority to.own
and operate, hydroelectric generation and transmission facilities.
This bill has a Senate File number of 1948.
While admittedly an unusual request for a special park
district, our board is seeking this clarification due to
unusual circumstances. We are faced with protecting a major
regional park, and at the same time assuring the maximum use of
a potential energy source.
The Park Reserve District has owned the Coon Rapids Dam
since 1969. The dam had previously been operated as a hydro-
power plant by NSP which closed the facility in 1966 calling it
uneconomical to operate,
In 1978, the dam and 360 adjoining acres covering both
sides of the river were opened to the public as the Coon Rapids
Dam Regional Park.
With the higher cost and lower availability of fossil fuels
came a resurgence of interest in hydroelectric generation. The
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has set up a process
· to encourage revitalization of hydropower facilities- The
first step in this process is for an applicant to receive an
exclusive preliminary development permit to study the economic
feasibility of revitalization. If the results of the feasibility
study prove positive, the FER~ would issue the developer a
license to operate the facility.
The Park Reserve District became involved in the application
process when it learned that a private developer (Coon Rapids Dam
Development, Ltd.) had applied for such a permit for the Coon
Rapids Dam. The Park Reserve District filed a counter application
which, because of preference given to municipalities, nullified the
private developer's bid. Had the District not taken this affirma-
tive action to study the feasibility of hydropower, the private
6-o3'
Page 2
February 24, 1982
developer would have received the study permit and could have
ultimately received eminent domain rights to the dam and
possibly the entire park.
Soon after the District filed its application for the
development permit, the City of Anoka submitted an application.
The city was successful in convincing FERC that the District
might not qualify for municipal preference under the agency's
rules. That ~s why the Park Reserve District has requested
legislation. The bill, as it was introduced, would clarify the
District's authority to develop hydropower under the municipal
powers granted in its enabling legislation. The legislation would
limit the District to dams it owns and controls, and would require
it to act jointly with another local unit of government. In effect,
an affirmative clarification would allow the District to compete
equally for the development permit with the City of Anoka.
Should the District receive legislative approval of its
right to compete for the permit, and if it is subsequently granted
the permit by FERC, it has no intention of going into the power
generation business on its own. If the project is found feasible,
the District would enter into a joint powers agreement with
another municipality to undertake the project as specified in
the bill. Such a joint venture would probably result in a sub-
contract to a private developer. The District is interested only
in the best arrangement to guarantee the future of one of the,
most unique regional parks in the state, while ensuring that
whatever energy the dam can generate is also made available to
the public. We firmly believe that the only way to achieve these
two co-equal goals is for the Park Reserve District and a municipal
partner to control how the dam is revitalized. This can only
h~pp~,~ if "-L,,~ District is allowed to compete for. the. development
permit.
Senator William Luther, who is the bill's chief author in the
Senate, has asked the District and the City of Anoka to cooperative
work out an agreement whereby the District would protect the
integrity of the park and Anoka would revitalize the dam for
hydropower. Negotiations were begun at Senator Luther's request
last weekend. The semblance of an agreement with the city was
amended onto the senate bill in the Local and Urban Affairs
Committee on Monday.
It is entirely possible that the District and the city will
be able to finalize such an agreement. However, if this occurs,
you should be aware as a delegation member that any future economi,
February 24, 1982
benefits from this Hennepin County-owned t:acility will go solely
to Anoka.
Should the District and Anoka reach agreement, and further
should the legislature formalize such an agreement through
passage of the bill as presented by Senator Luther, the District
will carry out its part of the agreement in good faith.
Before you vote for such an agreement, however, I believe it is
my responsibility as Chairman of the Park Reserve District Board
of Commissioners to inform you that there are alternatives that
would benefit Hennepin County taxpayers, who I reiterate, own the
dam and the surrounding parkland on both sides of the river, and
who have a five million dollar capital investment in the project.
A Hennepin County municipality such as Minneapolis or any suburb
could just as easily enter into the joint role with the District
as could the City of Anoka. The point has already been raised
that such a role could facilitate a solution to the age-old
problem of locating sources of equitable funding for all the
county's regional parks including those now funded solely by the
City of Minneapolis. The dam could quite conceivably be that source
of funding. That is one alternative to the present course of
action, and there are certainly others. I urge you to consider
the situation carefully.
As you receive this, the District will be continuing its
negotiations with Anoka as directed and will do its best to reach
an agreement satisfactory to both sides. Also~ in the next week
or so, either I or Mike Dean, the District's Public Affairs
Manager, will make an effort to stop by your office to seek your
input into this matter. In the meantime please feel free to
call me at my office at Urban Concerns Workshop, or contact Senator
Luther if you wish to discuss this .further. My number is
645-0853.; ~
The bill was introduced in the House yesterday by Representative
Ellingson without the Anoka a~endment.
I have enclosed an editorial from the Minneapolis Star regard-
ing the dam and a Board resolution stating our intentions with
regard to hydroelectric development.
My best,
William Barbeau, Chairman
Board of Commissioners
WB:af
cc Hennepin County Board of
Commissioners
Hennepin County Mayors and Council
Members
RESOLUTION STATING PARK RESERVE DISTRICT POLICY
REGARDING DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF HYDROELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITIES
WHEREAS, the District has applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission for a preliminary permit to investigate the feaslbility of
hydroelectric development at the Coon Rapids Dam; and
WHEREAS, the District as the owner of the Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park
and the dam structure believes it is necessary that the public owner control
the extent of hydroelectric development at the dam, but does not itself
wish to utilize its own staff and employees in construction or operation
of any hydroelectric facility that may eventually prove feasibile; and
WHEREAS, it appears that the development of hydroelectric capacity at
the dam could be most efficiently accomplished through the use of parties
not associated with the District through contracturai arrangements.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the
Hennepin County Park Reserve District;
That if the District is awarded a preliminary permit from the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the District will pursue and
complete, with all due diligence, the necessa.ry 'preliminary
feasibility studies;
And if the results of such studies shows that it is technically
and economically feasible to develop hydroelectric power at the
dam consistent with continued regional recreational open space
uses of the dam and Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park it is the
intent and the purpose of the Board of Commissioners of the
Hennepin County Park Reserve District to enter into contracts with
others to design, construct and operate the dam for hydroelectric
generation and transmission.
Anderson Aye Gentry .~¥e Seagren Aye
Bonine Absent Pihl Absent Solensky Absent
Crimmins ... Aye .. Reid Aye Barbeau,
DeMuse Absent Ringham Aye Chairman Aye
ADOPTED th[.~_t~*h--~'~ 'D;y of. .February,
HENNEPIN COUNTY PARK RESERVE DISfRICT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
IN WITNESS THEREOF, I hereunto set my hand
C I~ren ch'~
Secretary to the Board
Board of Commissioners
CITY OFFICES / 8950 EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD / EDEN P,~AIRIE. MINNESOTA 55344/TELEP~.SNE {§12)937-2262
October 20, 1981
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Suburban Rate Authority Board
Carl J. Jullie, Manager ~_~-
City of Eden Prairie
RE:
Metro Waste Control Commission Study
Report of Operating Efficiency Subcon~nittee
In March of this year, the "Operating Efficiency" subcommittee was formed and its
members are as follows:
Carl Jullie, Chairman
Chuck Siggerud, PWD, City of Burnsville
David Goman, Utility Superintendent of Spring Park,
and former MWCC maintenance worker
The committee's assignment was to become familiar with the general maintenance and
operational procedures utilized by MWCC and to then "brainstorm" some possible areas
where changes in procedures and utilization of personnel might result in economies,
and thus a reduction in sewer rates to member communities.
Since March, our committee has met on 3 occasions. It was determined that it would
be simply impractical to do any indepth time and management studies because of our
own personel time constraints and of course due to the large scale of MWCC maintenance
operations. For example, the 1982 MWCC budget contemplates expenditures of 69 million
dollars and a total compliment of 878 employees. Thus, we decided that the best
approach would involve a meeting with the commission staff for an overall review of
their maintenance programs, ask appropriate questions, and then formulate our
suggestions and recommendations.
Accordingly, on October 6, 1981, we met with Mr. John Almo, Deputy Director of
Operations and Maintenance. The meeting also included a brief tour of the Metro
(Pigs Eye) Treatment Plant in St. Paul which is the major treatment facility for
the Metro area.
Information from Mr. Almo and review of the 1982 MWCC budget document provided us with
the following data:
The MWCC maintenance staff is responsible for 14 treatment plants,
60 pumping stations, 120 combined flow regulators, 150 metering
stations and about 450 miles of interceptor sewers. Direct
operation and maintenance of these facilities will require 646
out of the total 878 employees.
~.= i.o Oc~oDer 20, ]=~
2. 1st and 2nd echelon maintenance workers for other than treatment
plant operation and maintenance requires the followin§ manpower:
16 for pumping stations and pipelines
7 for regulators
12 for meters and manhole repair
35 Total
The Metro Treatment Plant is especially labor intensive. For
example, it takes 2 full time and 3 part-time bricklayers to
maintain the furnaces which burn sludge. Replacement of chains
which drive skimmers in settling basins is a major maintenance
item.
m
Some of the more recently completed treatment plants (Blue Lake,
Seneca) are approaching lO years old and major maintenance work
will be needed in the near future.
5. The maintenance staff for service area four breaks down as follows:
Three - 2 man crews with I supervisor, plus 2 part-
time helpers during the summer. The foreman is stationed
at the Seneca Plant. There are 26 lift stations in Area
4.
The MWCC maintenance staff is highly unionized with a total
of seven separate bargaining units. Field serviceman are not
allowed to do any significant repair, other than turning off
pumps and closing valves. Any work involving electrical units
or pipefitting for example must wait for the appropriate
unionized worker to arrive from the Metro plant, per Mr. Goman.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the foregoing data and our cursory review of MWCC maintenance operations,
the Operating Efficiency subcommittee offers the following recommendations to MWCC
management:
A. Continue to update the Metro plant with new treatment processes
which will be less labor intensive.
B. Add a vehicle mechanic to cut down on costly outside repairs to
vehicles.
Consider staggering shifts of maintenance crews so that there
will be coverage more hours during the weekdays and weekends
and less overtime for call-outs.
D. Shift electricians and pipefitters to shop locations in more close
proximity to where most calls occur.
Decrease the frequency of maintenance stops at lift stations and
increase the length of stay at each station for performance of
preventative maintenance.
F. Standardize equipment at lift stations and meters so that parts are
interchangeable.
Oc[ooer 20, lg~'
Initiate contact with municipalities having a pu611c works
maintenance staff to explore the potential of cities doing some
of the routine maintenance tasks.
It is further recommended that the Suburban Rate Authority receive this report and that
the Secretary be directed to forward a copy to the members and chief administrator of
the Metro Waste Control Commission.
CJJ :jp
5-11
CiTY OF HOPKINS
I O1 0 FIRST STREET SOUTH · HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343 · 612/935-8474
May 13, 1981
Mr. William Schoell
Schoell & Madsen
50 - 9th Ave. So.
Hopkins, MN. 55343
Re: Suburban Rate Authority
Dear Bill,
This letter will summarize the research to date by the Wage Rates
Committee, and serve as an interim report concerning this facet of the
Metro Waste Control Commission review.
Conclusion - MWCC wage rates are generally on the high end of public
wages for the same types of work in the Twin Cities area. The wages
are frequently more comparable to mid-range private industry wages for
similar work, but in certain cases exceed the private business figures
(per Bureau of Labor Standards Jan. 1981 data). Most Group A personnel
(unclassified and classified non-union, mostly administrative and manage-
ment) have wage ~ang~s that amount to 60% of their wage bases. For in-
stance, the salary for a Group A Secretary II is somewhere between $12,00
and $20,600 per year - a very wide range. Fringe benefits are generally
better than those provided to municipal employees, especially vacations.
Examples - The Commission employs two vehicle mechanics, at a range of
$10.33~$11.02 per hour*, while the Stanton Report shows a Twin Cities
government pay range of $8.37-$9.24 (first to third quartile). However,
the Bureau of Labor Standards (BLS) data shows a range of $9.76-$11.85.
Here are some other hourly wages with comparisons where available:
Position
Machinist-Mechanic
Pipefitters
Electricians
Serviceworker I
Serviceworker II
Secretary II(Gp.B)
MWCC Pay
$10.70
13.45
13.30
6.86-8.11
7.19-8.45
5.04-7.41
BLS
$9.06-$11.00
11.32- 12.54
10.67- 11.37
5.69- 7.01
Stanton
7.14-7.49
8.12-8.64
5.18-6.04
It is common for pay systems to be constructed with a range of com-
pensation, to be adjusted in accordance with experience and ability. Suc]
ranges often allow an increase of 10% to 20% over the base,in time. A
range of 60% is highly unusual.
*All wages are 1980, or Jan. '81 BLS statistics
Mr. William Schoell
Re: Suburban Rate Authority
May 13, 19~1
Page 2.
Fringe benefits of course vary, but a municipal standard is two
weeks vacation per year, for the first several years of employment. Most
MWCC contracts provide for vacation exceeding this.
Yours very truly,
William P. Craig
City Manager ~
WPC: dmj
TO : Bill Schoell, P.E.
Schoell & Madson
FROM
DATE
SUBJECT
: Donald L. Asmus, Director of Engineering
City of Minnetonka
: ~ September 10, 1981
: Committee on Storm/Sanitary Separation (a subcommittee of the
SRA/MWCC Sewer Rates Study Committee)
On September 8, 1981, I held a meeting with Chuck Honchell and Barry Evans,
the other two members of the Committee on Storm/Sanitary Separation.
The main offenders, as it pertains to joint storm/sanitary sewermains, are
Minneapolis, St. Paul and So. St. Paul. A number of communities lying
north of St. Paul contribute to the problem because their storm sewer drainage
runs into lakes that ultimately drain into St. Paul and when they overflow,
St. Paul has provided for it to run into the sanitary sewer. The water is
basically clean water, but by the time it gets to the treatment plant, it is
pretty well mixed.
St. Paul, of course, gets a bill for this large amount of sewage and they
asked Met. Council to direct that the contributing municipalities to the
north pay a major portion of this bill because they are contributing storm
water to the system that ultimately ends up in the treatment plant.
A number of years ago, St. Paul had a proposal to divert the overflow from
some of the lakes via a separate storm sewer system. According to the figures
at that time, a storm sewer would have paid for itself in 4 years from the
savings in sanitary sewer charges. However, because of the Met Council ruling,
apparently St. Paul lost their incentive because they had a lot of other
people paying for this sewage flow.
It seems to us to make good sense to get rid of storm sewer flowage from
the sanitary sewer lines wherever possible, not only from the standpoint of
not having to treat the water, but also from making additional capacity
available.
Our recommendation would be that the SRA urge the MWCC and Met Council to get
behind an effort to remove storm sewer flow from sanitary sewers wherever
possible. The Cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul and So. St. Paul should also
be urged go make the changes wherever possible. It really doesn't make much
sense for the MWCC to provide a new interceptor from the plant to accept only
sanitary sewage when the major offenders upstream are not taking steps to
separate the storm sewage from the sanitary flow.
The general feeling is, why should the suburbs through the Metropolitan
Waste Control Commission have to pay for the separation of storm and
sanitary sewage when they have been doing their part in providing separate
systems. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission does have some
responsibility along this line, but they certainly should not take the
major role in funding the separation, especially since the availability
of federal funds is very questionable.
DLA/eel
CIVIC CEHTER DRIVE
MINNESOTA 55 I 13
October 14, 1981
Mr. William Schoell
c/o Schoell & Madson, Inc.
50 Ninth Avenue South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
RE: r4'JCC Future Construction Program Report
Dear Bill:
Following is the final draft of the conclusions from the subcon~nittee studying
the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Future Construction Programs. This
report is the conclusion of several meetings held by the subcommittee which
consists of Gene Sherman, James Danielson, and Raymond Hoag. The conclusions
are based on our review of the 1981 to 1986 development program prepared by
the Metropolitan l'~aste Control Commission, the 1981 budget and objectives
programs prepared by the Metropolitan Waste Control Coninission, the Metropolitan
Council report of September 18, 1981 and official approval of the 1982 to 1986
development program Metro-wide, and discussions with ~let Council staff reviewing
this area as well as HWCC staff.
The general conclusion reached by the subcommittee was that the various
projects included in the five-year construction program were apparently
desirable and would be beneficial to the system. With the anticipated
reduction in outside funds for such improvements, however, the program
will put an extreme burden on the ability of the individual communities
involved to pay for the local share of these projects. The level of work
should be further reviewed to bring 'it into line with the funding ability
locally of the Metropolitan area.
The M~CC since its inception in 1970, according to the 1981 budget and
objective programs report, has done approximately $337 million worth of
construction projects. Of this amount, approximately 28.5%, or $48
million, was a local cost, with the remainder being State and Federal
grants. In comparison, the ~CC had originally recommended a $454 million
program over the next five years. It should be noted that this figure is
based on 1979 construction costs, and that in reality, inflation will likely
drive those costs up approximately 50% so that the actual expenditures would
approach $700 million. After discussions with the Metropolitan Council staff,
the final recommendation to the Met Council for approval contained projects
totalling $91 million (costs are in 1979 dollars) of which 77%, or $70 million,
is estimated as being a local share. Again, if a 50% increase for inflation
were added to account for the fact that most of construction would not be
October 14, 1981
William Schoel 1
done until 1984, this $91 million would translate into an actual expenditure
of approximately $137 million. At the same 77% local share, that would mean
$105 million of local funds would be required to meet this program. As can
be seen above, this ~is more than twice the local share that was extended
over a ten-year period previously.
The report to the Metropolitan Council approving their five-year program
in addition to the $91 million of work, however, includes approximately $200
million of additional projects which are stated as being consistent with the
water quality management development guide/policy plan, but were not included
in the list for a variety of technicalities. There was no indication in the
report that these would not be added in the near future once the technicalities
were dealt with. With these included, you would have approximately $290 million
worth of improvement projects to be undertaken in the next five years using
the 1979 prices. This-would translate to an expected $436 million actual
expenditure program. At the 77% local funding rate listed for the other
projects, the local share would come to approximately 1/3 of a billion
dollars. It is obvious from the difficulty encountered in paying for the
$48 million local share undertaken over the last ten years, that entering
into a $333 million local share program in the next five-year period, would
be impossible.
It was not the subcommittee's intent, nor within the scope of our ability
under the time frame, to investigate each individual project to determine
the exactness of the estimate or the need for the project. It is, rather,
our conclusion that although many of these projects may be good projects,
and indeed need it, that they simply cannot all be afforded. It is recon~ended
that a prioritization system be established by the r.~WCC to rank the various
improvement projects. After that is accomplished, it is further recommended
that only those projects which are most critically needed, or mandated by
the courts, be undertaken during this five year period; and even then, only
to the degree the local area can afford to fund the local share of the
improvements.
Very truly yours,
Charles V. Honchell,
Future Construction Program
Subcommittee Chairman
cc:
G. Sherman
J. Daniel son
R. Hoag
,TO:
PROM:
SUBJECT:
SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY
AD HOC COMMITTEE ON M~CC - JANUARY 20, 1982
OPERATING EFFICIENCY, WAGE RATES, STORM/SANITARY SEPARATION AND FUTURE
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
Ten members of municipalities' staffs have studied the subco~xnittee specialties
noted above over the past year. They have arrived at various conclusions and recommen-
dations, noted herein, for your consideration. Copies of the subcommittee detailed
reports are attached.
CONCLUSIONS
OPERATING EFFICIENCY
646 of a total of 878 M~cc employees are engaged in direct maintenance and opera-
tion of 14 treatment plants, 60 pumping stations, 120 combined flow regulators,
150 metering stations and about 450 miles of interceptor sewers.
Operation of the Metro Treatment Plant is especially labor-intensive.
Some of the more recently completed treatment plants are approaching ten years
old ard will require major maintenance work in the near future.
The maintenance staff is highly unionized with a total of seven bargaining units.
Field servicemen are not allowed to do any significant repair, other than turning
off pumps and closing valves. Electrical work and pipefitting, for example,
must wait for the appropriate worker to arrive from the Metro plant.
WAGE RATES
1. MWCC rates generally are at the high end of public wages for the same types of work.
2. The rates are frequently more comparable to the mid-~ange of private industry figures.
3. Wage ranges for a particular classification in administrative and management employ-
ment are extremely wide; e. g. Group A Secretary II range from $12,000 to $20,600
annually.
4. Fringe benefits, especially vacationa, generally are better than for municipal
employees'.
STORM/SANITARY SEWER SEPARATION
1. The main offenders in not completing a separation of storm and sanitary flows within own municipalities are Minneapolis, St. Paul and SOuth St. Paul.
2. Separation makes good sense -- the flow volume removed doesn't need treatment and
the reduced flow after separation makes additional sanitary flow capacity available.
-1-
REPORT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE ON M~CC
FUTUI~E CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
CONCLUSIONS
(CONT.)
1. The various projects included in the MWCC five-year program are apparently
desirable and beneficial.
2. This program would put an extreme burden on individual co~cnities to pay the
local share.
e
After review, the Metro Council approved the five-year program of $91 million
(1979 prices); with an inflation factor of 50% and a local share estimated to
average 704, $105 million of local funds would be required. The is twice the
amount of local participation ($45 million) paid during the previous ten-year
program.
The MWCC report to the Metro Council includes about $200 million of additional
projects stated as consistent with the water quality management development
guide/policy plan; all of these projects had some obstructing technicalities.
If these projects are later added, the local share (at the same assumed 77%)
would be one-third billion dollars, including the 50~o inflation factor. Based
on the previous experience in paying $48 million over a ten-year period, this
would be impossible.
5. Although many of these projects may be good projects, and indeed needed, they
simply cannot be afforded.
RECOMMENDATIONS
OPERATING EFFICIENCY
1. Continue to update the Metro plant with new treatment processes which will be
less labor-intensive.
2. Add a vehicle mechanic to cut down on costly outside repairs to vehicles.
3. Consider staggering shifts of maintenance crews to provide better weekday and
weekend coverage and reduce overtime for call-outs.
4. Shift eled~icians and pipefitters to shop locations in more close proximity to
where most of the calls occur.
5. Decrease the frequency of maintenance stops at lift stations and increase the
length of stay at each station for performance of preventive maintenance.
6. Standardize equipment at lift stations and meters so that parts are interchangeable.
7.Cen~act municipalities with public works staff to explore the potential of cities
doing some of the routine maintenance tasks.
-2 -
REPORT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE ON M~CC
R E C 0 ~M E...N D ~ T ~ 0 N S ( C 0 N T . )
STORM/SANITARY SEPARATION
1. SRA should urge the MWCC and Metro Council to get behind an effort to remove
storm flow from sanitary sewers whe£ever possible.
2. Urge cities to make changes in local systems wherever possible.
FUTURE CONSTRUCTION
1. The level of work in future programs should be further reviewed to bring it in
line with funding ability of the metropolitan area.
2. The MWCC should establish a prioritization system to rank various improvement projects
in its five-year construction program.
Only those projects which are most critically needed, or mandated by the courts,
should be undertaken during this five-year period;, and even then, only to the
degree the local area can afford to fund the local share.
The Chairman wishes to thank Messrs. Carl Jullie, Chuck Siggerud, David Goman,
Bill Craig, Barry Evans, Don Asmus, Charles Honchell, James Danielson, Raymond
Hoag and Gene Sherman, some for service on several subcommittees, for their efforts
in assembling this report.
Further work is being done on 'Total costs and allocation methodology" and
"Comparative Costs in Similar Districts" and will be reported to you in the future.
-3 -
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Downtown Advisory Committee
Rob Chelseth, City Planner
4 March 1982
Meeting.of the Downtown Advisory Committee
A very important meeting of the Downtown Advisory Committee has been
scheduled for Wednesday, March lOth, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council
Chambers at City Hall. If you have a conflict, please call Marge
Stutsman at City Hall (472-1155) and leave word you will not be at-
tending.
At its last regular meeting on February 25th, those members of the
DAC present, reviewed a summary of the priority surveys taken of the
City Council and Westonka Chamber of Commerce. They also studied a
"Review of Objectives" memorandum provided to the City Council by Jon
Elam, and a memo from the City Planner. After considerable discussion,
the DAC members present proposed who should take responsibility for
each of the objectives, and how they should be acted upon.
At its next regular meeting, the DAC plans to review a final draft of
the objectives, |ncluding recon~nendations on the steps to be taken
regarding each proposal. Once completed, this final draft will be
forwarded to the City Council for review and approval for'immediate
action.
Look forward to seeing you next Wednesday.
Rob Chelseth
City Planner
RC/ms
Encl.
,Dl'ese13t - ira, l] Pon(t, ~.,a]'v Camn},ell, .3e]u'v Lo~,~pz'e
Also: P, ob Che]seth, Diane arneson, .ion E]ar~, and .3an Deft_rand
Hando~ts were distri.~]ted: six Dames from .3on Elam, priority
survey s,~mmarv of objectives, and a memo]'and-]m from go,~ Chelseth
regarding the work oroa]'am fol' the completion] of the P~o~n](!
Downtown Plan.
~st place in the s,~rvev Drioritv was otjective VII B: The need to
seek other businesses for ko, md, and promote locations
in the City.
2nd place - was a tie between IliA: The need to clean ,lo the City
property West of the Little Leazue Baseball Field.
and IIA: The need to imm]ore the general amoea]'ance
of downtown thro,]gb repainting, and landscaDing s,lch
as a mlanting Dian for olanters, trees, shr,~bs, and
f,~rnit,~re (indicating trash receotaeles).
3rd place - If'.: The need ro Dian and provide technical assistance,
to update store fronts, signs, and store rears; and
assist in findinR financing to assist in such activities.
Jon Elam spec~llated re~arding the ]'ate increase by Cnntinental
Teleohone and the proposal for develooin~ a shoDminm mall.
Lindlan would like ro schedule a grand opening for Cry Ed 110,
possibly even in June.
Ihe committee reviewed the stat,~s and fut~re of the various
objectives:
IA. to the City staff. Elam has kept a list of names of individ-
~als who have expressed inte~'est in the b~]ildin~.
B, stays with the DAc. l:~oney will be D'~t together for this.
A p']blic hearin~ at the Council on b~,arch 2nd is the first
step,
IIA. stavs with the DAC. _qt-]deuts may be helDf'~l th~s s.~mmer.
B. a dead lette]'
C. to the City staff.
D. a dead lette]'
E. tied -tn with earlie]
~', same as above
IIl~t. to the C[rv staff
B. ro the City staff
with the possibility of an ordinance
regarding waste dismosa!
IVA. a dead lette~'
B. a dead letter (in the hands of the Post office:;
C, D, ~ E. lona ranee - beyond the control of the committee -
need an opening before anvrhin~ will haooen
VA. stays in committee' s lad
E. sub- committee
VIA. stays with DAC
5. stays with DAC
C. throwback to earlier s,~bcommirtee
D. to the City staff
VIIA. sub-committee or retail co, mcil (5th in overall priority)
~. same as X - a downtown develoDment project - ir co~ld be
recommended that a group be formed similar ro the
that helped Tonka Toys get into their
VilI. dead, staff assignment, a mhi].osomhical iss,~e
I~l. send letter and abandon
B. long range road plans
~. see VIIB - need a develoDe] (mo ~cb for .Jnn Elam ro take on
in addition ro cable TV, etc.-smile)
idea of marina lnas ~licired ~hone calls from m'opertv owners
along Bartlett (amon~ others)
(We are a finely divided town with an incredi~,le status
goin~ on here. The checks and kalances keen things the same.)
Is attendance ar DAC meet in~s wahine because oeople see a lot
of work ahead?
]on Elam mrod'~ced fifty Da~es of working co:n,,enrar~, which is
in the hands of Paul Pond.
Why do the brilliant people in ou]' town disaoDear when there
are policy decisions to be made?
XI. Senior citizens are taking care of this one.
.Jerry Longpre spoke about the Greater' l-lo, md Development Corporation
of a few years ago. In fact, 23 - 24 years aao, the grouo came
hi n~ ~- es/DAC/E
top, ether tn belo ]onka 'iovs ~et their' hull(lint,.. Ybev sold sna]'es
O[ stock to raise the money. Went door to don]: selling, it.
7'he stock was turned in last year when the ]'eaminin~. mon~es weze
donated to the Lake Arena (Harold J. Pond) Soorts Center.
Possible sub-committee chairmen were discussed for the storefront
objective. Eob Chelseth was asked to o~]t rozether a D]'osDect']S
for mailing o,~t to potential designers, architects, etc..
f'rank Hancuch has aDDarentlv agreed to p.~r to%ether a $250,000
revolving loan fund for umgradinz stores and so forth.
The streetscapi~,lg is a pressure point. If we can get the street
and the downtown area lookin~ better, enthusiasm will l~ild.
$5000 in monev from the council with a $5000 match from local
businesses would orovide the Dian fol' streetscape, storefront
designs, furniture, and so forth.
$27/ sq. ft. is one stimate heard for the oroDosed mall develop-
ment. Knutson kortga~e, Suoer Val,~, Snyders, Coast-to-Coast,
Tonka, and PK Industries are reportedly involved in discussion.
Some feel it is diff~e,~lt for the DAC to plan witho,~t more direct
knowledge of this Droposal. Others think the DAC should D~'oceed
with what we have now.
Longore spoke of his experience with mall developers: costs of
construction, common area maintenance, escalator clauses, taxes,
pezcentage of sales, and so forth.
Thursday may be a bad night for some DAC members to meet. The
next meetings will be Wednesday, I~,arcb 10th at 7:30 p.m., City Hall.
Diane Arneson, Secretary
~ w/~e, ~, west hcnnepin human services planning
~ ! I 4100 vernon avenue south. ,t. louis-park,
human
,e,vice~ ; ~ ~ X~arch
NEWS RELEASE
For immediate release
For more information contact:
Lisa Cohen, 920-5533 or
Marcy Shapiro, 920-5533
board
minnesota
COMMUNITY TO GATHER IN RESPONSE TO REGAN BUDGET CUTS
The kick-off for a community initiative to respond to the drastic
changes in funding for human services will be held, Thursday,
March 11~ 1982, ag 7:30 p.m. at the General Mills Co. 9200 Wayzata
Blvd., Golden Valley.
The community gathering will start an active community response
involving:churches, businesses, volunteer organization, schools,
civic organizations, and other community groups.
Featured speaker will be James Shannon, Executive Director of the
General Mills Foundation. Mr. Shannon will discuss the changing
roll of the private sector in meeting community needs. His remarks
will be responded to by: Judge Allen Oleisky, Robert Bonine,
Vice President, Pillsbury Company, M~tyGates, Director, Social
Action Center, and Leslie Turner, Member Edina City Council, Pas~
Chair, Junior League of Minneapolis, and United Way Board of
Directors.
Concerned by the impact of the cuts on the rural and suburban
communities of Hennepin County, and seeing little cooperation and
coordination among the business, church, volunteer and public
sector the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, South
Hennepin Human Services Council, and the West Hennepin Human
Services Planning Board decided to sponsor a community gathering
involving various groups in 'the p~ivate and public sector to
begin discussing ways to meet service needs.
"I agree with The Sun when it editorialized, 'The test of the local
community during the Regan era will be how well it will be able to
take care of human needs.' This forum will be a first step in an
effort by the suburban communities to take care of the needs in
their communities," said Jennifer Samaha, Chairperson of the West
Hennepin Human Services Planning Board.
American Legion Post 398
rpport
Gambling
GROSS:
DATE F.I~. 2~, ~08 ~
CURRENT MONTH YEAR TO DATE
~1710.00
~1710.00
EXPENSES:
Suppl
~81.AO
326.28
PAYOUT AS PRIZES:
PROFIT:
lO00.O0
t3o2.~2
~07_~R
1000.00
~302.32
DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS:
~100.00
Alano
25.00
A .F.S.
~7~.69
Checkin~
account
~599.69
~2299,~
Chamberlain Goudy VFW Post#5113
/ _~c/_ ?~ DATE
GAMgLING REPORT CURRENT MONTH YEAR TO DATE
EXPENSES:
PAYOUT AS PRIZES:
PROFIT:
DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS:
LAKE MINNETONKA COI,~SERVATION DISTRICT
AGENDA
Regular Meeting, 8 p.m., Wednesday, February 24, 1982
TONKA BAY VILLAGE HALL
4901 Manitou Road (County Road 19), Tonka Bay
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Minutes: January 27, 1982
4. Treasurer's Report A. Monthly Financial Report
B. Bills
5. Public Hearing: Moratorium Amendment
6. Committee Reports
A. LAKE USE COb~MITTEE
(1) Committee Report
(a) Sp. Event Permit: Dunsheath Parasail
(b) Grays Bay Slow Signs
(c) Boat Speed Review
(d) Rule Dispensers
(e) Rules of the Road
(f) Fishhouse Cleanup
(g) Code. Amendment: Careless'vs. Reckless Operation
(h) Code Amendment: Temporary Acceleration Deletion
(i) Water Patrol Report
(j) Other
(2) Action Item: Sp. Ev.Permit: Dunsheath Parasail
(3) Other
B. WATER STRUCTURES & ENVIRONMENT COmmITTEE
(1) Committee Report
(a) Public Hearing Report: Arvidson Variance
(b) 1982 Dock Licenses
(c) 1982 DMA Permits
(d) Deicing Permits
(e) Code Amendment: Late Fees
(f) Permanent Dock Permits
(g) Other
(2) Action Items
(a) 1982 Dock Licenses
(b) 1982 DMA Permits
(c) Deicing Permits
(3) Other
7. Code Amendments
A. MoratoriumAmendment - 2nd Reading
B. Late Fees - 1st Reading
C. Careless vs. Reckless Operation - 1st Reading
D. Temporary Acceleration Deletion - 1st Reading
8. Other Business
A. Resolution: Halsteds Bay Access
B. Other
9. Adjournment
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
REGULAR MEETING
TONKA BAY VILLAGE HALL
January 27, 1982
The regular meeting of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District was
called to order by Chairman Brown at 8 p.m. on Wednesday, January 27,
1982 at the Tonka Bay Village Hall.
Members present: Richard Garwood (Deephaven), Jerry Johnson* (Excelsior),
Robert T. Brown (Greenwood), Robert Pillsbury (Minnetonka), Lois Johnson
(Minnetonka Beach), Alan Fasching (Minnetrista), Orval Fenstad (Mound),
Robert Rascop (Shorewood), Frank Hunt (Spring Park), and Robert Slocum
(Woodland). Communities represented: Ten (10). *Arrived late.
Hunt Moved, Fenstad Seconded that the minutes of the December 9, 1981
meeting be approved. Motion, Ayes (9), Nays (0).
Hunt Moved, Fenstad Seconded that the Treasurer's report be approved,
that the bills be paid, and that Petty Cash be increased to $200.00.
Motion, Ayes (9), Nays (0).
DNR's HALSTED BAY (KINGS POINT) ACCESS: Members of the Halsted's Bay Pre-
servation Fund Homeowners Association appeared to request LMCD support in
its opposition to the DNR's establishing a Lake access on King's Point;
they felt the proposal is a gross overuse of the land, would destroy the
lotus beds and wildlife haven, would require dredging, ignores safety
(four fatalities in recent years already), and ignores that the City of
Minnetrista has declared the site a wetlands area. The City reported
that besides being a wetland, the road would be expensive to upgrade, is
in a zoned-residential area, is not suitable for emergency vehicle access,
policing would be a problem, and the DNR advised that it doesn't need to
honor Minnetrista's wetlands ordinance.
Brown Moved, Fenstad Seconded that while the LMCD supports the fishing
concept, though not necessarily at Kings Point, (1) that a letter be
drafted to the DNR expressing our environmental concerns, (2) that an
ad hoc committee study the matter, contact to be made with the DNR to
alleviate any LMCD concerns, and (3) that a resolution supporting the
City of Minnetrista be drafted for consideration at the next Board meet-
ing. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
LAKE USE COMMITTEE: Pillsbury reported that the committee reviewed several
Special Event Permit applications and made recommendations. Signs used in
Grays Bay (which delineate weekend Quiet Waters) were discussed; the com-
mittee will try to improve readability, in cooperation with the county,
through the design of new signs for accesses and at the bridge. Twenty-
two county buoys were damaged last season (including five Slow buoys);
the county intends to seek specifications for tougher construction
materials. The committee discussed the effects of speed on night accidents
and will consider the need to reduce night speed limits after a review of
accident records at the next committee meeting. The committee also re-
viewed earlier discussions concerning the placing of commercial dispensers
CALL TO
ORDER
ATTENDANCE
MINUTES
TREASURER '
REPORT
DNR'S
KINGS PT.
ACCESS
LMCD board >finutes
January 27, 1982
Page 2
for rules and information sheets at accesses; a proposal to provide such
dispensers at two or three test sites will be considered at the next
meeting. After review of the need for education and the requirement of
use of Rules of the Road by boat operators, the committee recommended
that Rules of the Road,'incorporating more graphics, be emphasized in the
1982 boating safety folder for distribution; the Water Patrol supports
such a distribution. At the committee meeting the Water Patrol requested
some changes in the Code which will be considered at the next meeting;
the committee recommended that the yacht clubs be notified of one of those
proposed changes, namely, that registrations may be required for all boats
participating in races this year, and that this requirement is to be a
condition of any permit granted this year. It was reported to the com-
mittee that the DNR issues fishing permits for contests where prize money
exceeds $2,500. Doug and Heather Dunsheath appeared at the committee
meeting to report complete success of their 150 foot parasail operation
on Lafayette Bay under Special Event Permit last summer; they have no
problems with the operation, and the Water Patrol had no complaints.
Rascop Moved, Fasching Seconded that the committee report be accepted.
Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
L. Johnson Moved, Rascop Seconded that the Special Event Permit applica-
tion by Mai Tai Restaurant for a broomball court be approved subject
(1) to concurrence with any requirements of the Sheriff's Water Patrol,
and (2) that lighting have no hazardous effect upon the Lake. Motion,
Ayes (10), Nays (0).
Brown Moved, Slocum Seconded that approval of a Special Event Permit for
a fishing contest by the St. Paul Boy Scout Council be authorized at the
discretion of the Executive Director in agreement with at least two
members of the Board of Directors, upon receipt of a completed applica-
tion. Motion, Ayes (9), Nays (1), Rascop voting Nay.
No action was taken on the Momsen private-for-profit fishing contest, the
application being incomplete.
WATER STRUCTURES & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE: Brown reported that the com-
mittee reviewed several public hearing reports and made recommendations
on four of them; reviewed and made recommendations on deicing permit ap-
plications, on dock license applications, and on DMA permit applications.
The committee also reviewed the need to establish renewal dates and late
fees for LMCD licenses and permits, and made recommendations for further
consideration.
Pillsbury Moved, J. Johnson Seconded that the committee report be accepted.
Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
Brown Moved, J. Johnson Seconded that the 1981-1982 new dock license
application for Ron Cady be approved for five WAUs, the commercial slip
for A & G Sales to be excluded. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
SP. EVENTS:
MAI TAI
BROOMBALL
BOY SCOUTS
DOCK
LICENSES:
CADY
LMCD Board Minutes
January 27, 1982
Page 3
Brown Moved, L. Johnson Seconded that the new dock license application
for the City of Mound for 400 WAUs be approved. Motion, Ayes (10),
Nays (0).
Brown Moved, Fenstad Seconded that the 1981-1982 dock license application
by Richard Neslund be approved and that the applicant be notified of the
LMCD slip rental ordinance. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
Brown Moved, Garwood Seconded that the new dock license, DMA, and length
variance applications by the Wayzata Yacht Club be approved subject to
certification of the number of WAUs on the drawing submitted, and that an
"as-built" of the dock structure and the mooring area be submitted. Motion,
Ayes (10), Nays (0).
J. Johnson Moved, Fasching Seconded that the 1981-1982 new dock license ap-
plication for Big Island Veterans Camp be held for 60 days for village
review. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
Hunt Moved, Fenstad Seconded that the following deicing permit applications
be approved subject to inspection and notice to abutting neighbors:
Big Island Veterans Camp
Chaska Marine, Inc.
Clay Cliffe
Crystal Bay Service
Fairview Community Hospitals
Virgil Osmonson
Steven Pauly
Sailors World
Ro C. Welch
Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
Rascop Moved, J. Johnson Seconded that the following 1982 dock license
renewal applications be approved with previous stipulations:
BayviewApartments
Cochrane's Boatyard, Inc.
City of Deephaven
City of Excelsior
Grays Bay Resort & }~rina
Minnetonka Boat Works, Inc. (Wayz)
Minnetonka Edgewater Apartments
Park Hill Apartments
Park Island Apartments
Park Island West Apartments
City of Greenwood
Grewe, Bender et al
Hart's Cafe
Herzog Acres Association
Lafayette Club
Rockvam Boat Yards, Inc.
Seton Village Association
Smithtown Bay Association
Village of Tonka Bay
Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club
Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Assn.
Libbs Bay Boat Club
Lord Fletcher Apartments
Lord Fletchers of the Lake
Methodist Lakeside Assembly
Warner, Warner & Yerk
City of Wayzata
Wayzata Bay Tenancy
West Beach Apartments
Roger J. Wikner
Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
DOCK
LICENSES
.MOUN
NESLUND
W.Y .C.
BIG IS.
VET CAMP
DEICING
PERMITS
1982
DOCK
LICENSES
LMCD Board Minutes
January 27, 1982
Page 4
J. Johnson Moved, Garwood Seconded that the following DMA permit applica-
tions be approved: City of Deephaven, City of Excelsior, and Sailors
World. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
MORATORIUM AMENDMENT: Hunt Moved, Brown Seconded that the reading of
the complete proposed Code amendment on Special Density Permits be waived
because of its length. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
Brown Moved, Fenstad Seconded that the first reading be accepted, and
that the proposed amendment be reviewed prior to the second reading.
Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
J. Johnson Moved, Slocum Seconded that the proposed Code amendment be
mailed to the licensed marinas and to the member municipalities, and
that a public hearing at the next meeting be held. Motion, Ayes (10),
Nays (0).
OTHER BUSINESS: ~he Third Annual Lake Lovers Ball will be held at Lord
Fletchers of the Lake on Thursday, February 11. This year's program will
include recognition of Norman Paurus, former LMCD Chairman, and David
Nixon, former LMCD Director from Laketown Township; Judd Brackett will
present a special historical narrative, "Lake Minnetonka, the Vintage
Years: 1900-1940." The annual dinner is also the kick-off for the 1982
Save the Lake Fund campaign.
Pillsbury Moved, Rascop Seconded to increase from $1500 to $2500 the amount
to be given to the Gray Freshwater Biological lnstitute for purchase of a
light meter by the Institute for its work on the Lake predictive modelling
program. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
Pillsbury Moved, Garwood Seconded to proceed with the fishhouse cleanup
campaign as outlined. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
ADJOURNMENT: Brown Moved, Pillsbury Seconded at 10:30 p.m. that the
meeting be adjourned. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
DMA
PERMITS
DENSITY
PERMITS
CODE
A~NDM~ENT
ANNUAL
DINNER
GFWBI
DONATION
FISHHOUSE
CLEANUP
ADJOURNED
Submitted by:
Robert P. Rascop, Secretary
Approved by:
Robert Tipton Brown, Chairman
A.THoMAs WURST
GERALD T. CARROLL
C;MRTIS A. PEARSON
THOMAs F. UNDERWOOD
ALBERT FAULCONER :~
JAMES D. LAR$ON
LAW OFFICES
WURST, CARROLL & P£AR$ON
pROF ESe' IONAL AS~OC~ATtON
IIOO FIRBT BANK PLACE WE-~T
MINNEAPOLIS, NINNESOTA 5540~
March 4, 1982
TELEPHONE
(61 ~") 338-8911
Mr. Jon Elam
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Jon:
On March 4, 1982 we were scheduled to appear at special term to
argue the City's motion requesting a temporary restraining order
and injunction against Mr. Zuckman. On March 3 I was contacted
by Michael J. London, an attorney who had just been retained by
Mr. Zuckman. He asked for a continuance which I have granted him
to March 11 on the basis that they would stipulate that there
would be no further construction. I am enclosing a copy of his
letter and will be appearing at special term on March 11 requesting
the judge to officially grant this temporary injunction.
Ve~ truly yours,
unr~ls A. Pearson
City Attorney
CAP: ms
March 3, 1982
MIBHAEL J. LONDDN
ATTDRNL-Y AT
0UEBI:'C PLAZA - SUITE 303
41~4 C)UEBEO AVENUE NDRTH
I~IINNF__ApnLIS. NIINNEC:r'ITA 5542?
I~OO~' 61~'
TEL~rpHONE~ 533-040D
Mr. Curtis A. Pearson
Attorney at Law
1100 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Re: City of Mound vs. Melvin Zuckman
Dear Mr. Pearson:
This letter is to confirm our phone conversation of
March 3, 1982 with respect to the above matter. I
have spoken with my client and he has assured me that
until this action has been determined on the merits,
there will be no construction on the site.
Mr. Zuckman has indicated that he intends to live at
the premises on week-ends. During that time he will
be doing cosmetic type work, i.e., washing walls,
painting, cleaning floors, etc. I have warned Mr.
Zuckman that any construction without a building permit
would be in violation of our agreement and the court
order which you will obtain. He would then subject
himself to whatever criminal action that might be appro-
priate.
Based upon my discussions with Mr. Zuckman, both he and
his wife, have assured me that there will be no further
construction without first obtaining a building permit.
Since it is imperative that the main action be heard as
quickly as possible, I will assist you in any way I can
to have the Summons and Complaint served on Mr. Zuckman.
Thank you for your cooperation and understanding in this
matter.
Very t£uly yours/
i,: /. I....,'/ /
~±chael ~; London
MJL/j f
A,THOMA$ WURST
GERALD T. CARROLL
THOI~IA$ F. UNDERWOOD
JAI~E$ D. LAR~ON
LAW OFFICES
Wurst, CarFIOL1 & PEarSON
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-~
March 4, 1982
TELEPHONE
Mr. Jon Elam
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Re:
Priscilla Anderson vs. City of Mound and
City of Mound vs. Priscilla Anderson
Dear Jon:
In an effort to keep you advised as to what is transpiring on
some of our litigation, I will try to write you after occurrences
which should be brought to your attention.
On March 4, 1982 Mr. Skip McCombs, John Cameron and I met with
Frank Kelly and Mark Kelly, attorneys at law, who represent
Priscilla Anderson. We have been served with Motion papers, a
copy of which I am enclosing, and which requires a court appearance
on March 11, 1982. After receipt of the Motion papers I contacted
Mr. Kelly and again emphasized that I would rather spend the City's
money in resolving the dispute rather than arguing motions to the
court. We finally were able to arrange the meeting set for this
morning.
At this meeting we indicated to the Kellys how the program had been
developed for that area, how the waters were put in pipe under the
highway and eventually into the swamp behind her house. We also
went over all of her assessments and a good deal of engineering in-
formation. It was our feeling that if they understood the problem
we might have some chance of bringing this to a conclusion. I also
served on Mr. Kelly, who accepted for Priscilla Anderson and Charles
P. Smith, service of our Notice of Hearing and Petition to condemn
the area where the pipe is located.
The Motion papers which are enclosed indicate that Kelly wants to
consolidate his original action for damages along with his later
action appealing the assessments on part of her property along with
our action which is just being commenced to condemn the land. We
will have to research this question and appear before the court a
week from today in opposition to his motion.
WURST. CARROLL & PEARSON
Mr. Jon Elam
Page 2
March 4, 1982
At the meeting today I tried to get some kind of a figure from
Mr. Kelly as to what he wants to settle this litigation. He
refuses to give me a figure but indicates he has an oral appraisal
which he is going to have reduced to writing. He wants the City
to buy or condemn the entire lowland contained on Lot 59 behind
Mrs. Anderson's home. He also wants some kind of adjustments in
the special assessments. I have indicated to him that the City owes
a responsibility to buy the land where the City located the outlet
pipe and for which we do not have an easement, but that this is a
minor area and we think has a minor value.
Our meeting lasted approximately three hours and we tried to con-
vince Mr. Kelly that the assessment which was levied against her
property did not contain any costs as far as the lowlands are
concerned. He disputes the City's position. The long and the
short of this matter is that the City is immediately going to have
to acquire the services of a first class appraiser and we will
probably have to appraise the Anderson-Smith property in three
different ways and for three different purposes, i.e.:
(1)
The value of the parcel before the stre~ improvements, and
the value after the street improvements to show that the
assessed costs or benefits have actually accrued to this
property.
(2)
We need an appraisal on the entire swamp area to determine
the valuation and to help us in negotiation and if a trial
does take place, we will need expert testimony on the value
of that parcel.
(3)
We have to have an appraisal for just the small area located
on the east side of the parcel where the overflow pipe goes
from the parcel to the city street and storm sewer.
I am also enclosing at this time a copy of our Notice of Hearing and
Petition in Condemnation, all of which have been set for April 8,
1982. We will keep you advised as these three cases proceed.
Very .truly yours
~urnls ~. Pearson
City Attorney
CAP:ms
Enclosure
cc: Mr. James Larson
Mr. John Cameron