82-03-23MOUND CITY COUNCIL
March 23, 1982
City Hall - 7:30 P.M.
CITY OF MOUND
AGENDA
Mound, Minnesota
1. Minutes of the March 9, 1982 meeting
2. Proposed Wetlands Ordinance - Planning Commission
Public Hearing
Discussion
3. Public Hearing on Delinquent Utility Bills
4. Downtown Advisory Committee Report - Paul Pond
Request: Approval of Proposed Plan
Allocation of $10,245 for Implementation
5. Repeal of Section 55.50, Chapter 55 of the City Code
(Excavating Streets) This has been replaced by the new
Excavation Ordinance.
6. Spring Clean-Up - Report by the Mayor
7. Status of County Road 15 situation - Mayor
8. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present
(please limit to 3 minutes)
9. Designation of Building Safety Week - City Manager
10. Request to Purchase City Land - City Manager
ll. Request to Approve Purchase Agreement on Cty. Rd. 110 Building
12. Status of Continental Phone Intervention - Jim Larson
13. Hennepin County Dispatch Policy Update
14. Shorewood Lane Parking Plan
15. Cigarette Licenses
16. Payment of Bills
17. Information. Miscellaneous
A. MWCC Regulation of Waste Transport Haulers
B. Video Clipping - L.A. Times
C. Opinion from City Attorney
D. Letter of Commendation to Officer Bill Roth
E. Letter of Commendation to Officer Brad Roy
F. Letter from Orono on Gray's Bay Outlet
G. Lake Minnetonka Area Mayor's Meeting Minutes
Pg. 537-545
~g. 546-553
Pg. 554-555
Pg. 556-570
Pg. 571
Pg. 572-577
Pg. 578-581
Pg. 582-583
Pg. 584-591
Pg. 592
Pg. 593
Pg. 594
Pg. 595-598
Pg. 599
Pg. 600
Pg. 601
Pg. 602
Pg. 603-606
Pg. 607-611
Page 536
March 9, 1982
REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota was held at 5341 Maywood Road in
said City on March 9, 1982, at 7:30 P.M.
Those present were: Mayor Rock Lindlan, Councilmembers, Pinky Charon, Robert
Poiston, Gordon Swenson and Donald Ulrick. Also present were: .City Manager
Jon Elam, City Engineer John Cameron, Building Inspector Jan Bertrand, Finance
Director Sharon Legg, Bob Shanley of the Public Works Dept., City Clerk Fran
Clark and the following interested persons: Melinda Butler, John Ringstrom,
Don Fahrman, Vern Marsh, Mr. & Mrs. David Bowers, Buzz Sycks, Joyce Day,
Tom Watson and Jim Wold.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of March 2, 1982, Regular Council Meeting were
presented for consideration. Charon moved and Swenson seconded a motion to
approve the minutes of the March 2, 1982, Council Meeting as submitted. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
STREET LIGHT REPORT
Bob Shanley of the Public Works Dept. was present and showed a map to the
Council with the location of ali street lights in the City of Mound. This
map showed the following lights:
346 - 175 watt Mercury Vapor
34 - 250 watt Mercury Vapor
8 - Fiuorescents
72 - 250 watt High Pressure Sodium
The rates for these lights are as follows:
175 watt Mercury Vapor $3.40 per month
250 watt H.P. Sodium Vapor 5.40 per month
Fluorescent 10.50 per month
The signal lights at Cry. 15 and llO cost us $79.O0 per month. Christmas
lighting costs $87.OO per month. The City Manager stated that these costs
add up to 53,349.00 per month and that is 5% of the total city budget.
Policy has been to get the corners lit first then long curved streets.
This policy would continue to be followed. The Council felt this was an
administrative matter and that the policy of receiving written request for
street lights, then checking the location to see if they are necessary and'
upon Public Work's recommendation, the manager would okay the installation
of a new light.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
A. SIDE YARD VARIANCE - TERRENCE P. WULF - LOT l, RGT. BLOCK 7
SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B - 2600 RUBY LANE
Ulrick moved and Polston seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #82-61
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION THAT A PERMIT
BE GRANTED TO ENCLOSE THE EXISTING PORCH IF
THAT MEETS THE CODE (10 FOOT SIDE YARD REQUIRED
TO ENCLOSE)
Merck, 9, 1982
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
LOT SIZE VARIANCE - J0¥CE 0~¥ - LOT 21, BLOCK 7, ARDEN -
3070 ALEXANDER LANE
The City Manager stated that the lot is around 5800 sq,ft. I and
there is no land available around the lot to increase this square
footage. This is clearly a hardship case. Ms. Day was present
and presented her plans for a single family dwelling with garage
to the Council. The Planning Commission recommended approval of
this variance with the stipulation that ail lot width, lot depth
and side, rear and front yards meet zoing code requirements.
Swenson moved and Poiston seconded the following re$olution~
RESOLUTION #82-62
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION APPROVING THE
LOT SIZE VARIANCE BECAUSE OF HARDSHIP AND
WITH STIPULATIONS - LOT 21, BLOCK 7, ARDEN
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
SIDE YARD VARIANCE - DAVID W. BOWERS, LOT~ 27 & S.16 FEET OF LOT l,
BLOCK 26, WHIPPLE - 5200 SULGROVE
The City Manager explained that this variance is requested to construct
a 40 x 40 foot, 3 story, single family earth sheltered home;
approximately 16 foot above grade (75% earth shelter) and detached
garage. The variance request is to allow for maximum solar access
to the south exposure.
Mr. Bowers was present and presented his plan to the Council.' The
home would face Sulgrove and the garage access would be on Tuxedo.
The Council was concerned about erosion by the wall on the property
that the City put in. Mr. Bowers assured the Council that he would
repair it if during construction of the home there was any problem.
The Council also stated that a survey should be given to the
Building Inspector prior to Building Permit issuance, giving the
exact location of the garage.
The City Manager explained that the Planning Commission has recommended
approval of the dimension and design concept and granting the 10 foot
side yard variance and that a survey be furnished.
Poiston moved and Charon seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT THE 10 FOOT SIDE YARD
VARIANCE WITH A STIPULATION - LOTS 27 & S.16
FEET OF LOT 1, BLOCK 26, WHIPPLE
RESOLUTION #82-63
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
VARIANCES - NONCONFORMING USE - JON R. ALBINSON, LOT 5. SUBD. OF
LOTS 1 & 32, SKARP & LINDQUIST"S RAVENSWOOD
2025 Arbor Lane
42
March 9, 1982
Tn~ City Manaqer explained that Mr. Albinson is requesting a
4 foot sideyard and an 8 foot front yard variance. He wants to
demolish his existing garage which is .8 feet from the side yard
and 3.7 feet from the [ront property llne and then construct an
approximately 20 foot by 22 foot double garage
The Planning Commission recommended granting a 12 foot street
front variance for a 20 foot by 22 foot garage; maintaining a
4 foot side yard and 8 foot off street.
Polston moved and Charon seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #82-64
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT A 12'
FOOT STREET FRONT VARIANCE: MAINTAINING
4 FOOT SIDE YARD AND 8 FOOT OFF STREET -
LOT 5, SUBD. OF LOTS 1 & 32 - SKARP &
LINDQUIST"S RAVENSWOOD
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
SUBDIVISION - LOT SPLIT - DONALD FAHRMAN, LOT 4, BLOCK l, RGT. OF
OF BLOCK ! & 2, SHIRLEY HILLS UNITS B -
2390 AVON DRIVE
Poiston moved and Charon seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #82-65
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE
SUBDIVISION/LOT SPLIT AS REQUESTED WITH
THE BUILDING INSPECTOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
F. SUBDIVISION - LOST LAKE ADDITION - BEACHSIDE DEVELOPERS
The City Manager reported that an application has been received from
Beachside Developers for a preliminary plat of a subdivision (Lost
Lake Addition). A public hearing must be set for this preliminary
plat.
Polston moved and Charon seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #82-66
RESOLUTION'TO SET THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LOST LAKE ADDITION
BY BEACHSIDE DEVELOPERS FOR APRIL 6, 1982, AT
7:30 P.M.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The Council complimented Jan Bertrand, Building Official, on her handling
of the Planning Commission items.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
The Mayor asked for any comments or suggestions from citizens present.
March 9, 1982
Marsha Smith asked about the street light report given earlier. She
was given a copy of the report from the packet.
GAMBLING PERMIT - MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
The Mound Volunteer Fire Department has asked for permission to have
a game night on Apri] 17, 1982 and for the City to waive the fee.
Councilmember Polston asked if it would be legal to hold this game
night in a public build|ng. The Council directed the City Manager
to check with the City Attorney on this.
Ulrick moved and Pol.ston seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #82-67
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE GAMBLING PERMIT FO~
THE MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT AND WAIVE
THE FEE CONTINGENT UPON OBTAINING THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S LEGAL OPINION ON LEGALITY
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
BINGO PERMIT - CHAMBERLAIN GOUDY POST #5113
Polston moved and Ulrick seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #82-68 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A BINGO PERMIT FOR THE
CHAMBERLAIN GOUDY POST #5113 AND WAIVE THE
PERMIT FEE
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
LESLIE ROAD - PARKING
The City Manager reported that originally the Police Chief had asked that
the Council change the parking from the South to the North side of Leslie
Road. Since that time it has been learned that the signs are on the wrong
side of the street and will be corrected to correspond with the Ordinance.
The City Manager also reported that the Police Department is going to check
over the parking ordinance and make sure that the signing is correct and
corresponds to the signs that are on the streets.
CSAH 125 - REPORT
Since the last meeting Jim Wold of Hennepin County and John Cameron City
Engineer have completely gone over CSAH 125 and on that basis the City
Engineer submitted his report to the Council. Councilmember Ulrick asked
the City Engineer if he saw any major problems 2 years down the line if
the City were to take over CSAH 1257 Mr. Cameron replied that some areas
of CSAH 125 have not been overlayed for 15 years and with the overlay the'
County is proposing the road should last 8 to 10 years with some City
maintenance which could be done with state aid funds.
Mr. Jim Wold assured the Council that the City would not have to take over
the road until all the work on the road and the Black Lake Bridge was
completed.
The Council voiced concern about Mr. Johnson (who lives right over the
bridge in Mound) and his water connection. The City Manager responded
that Mr. Johnson is receiving water from Mound not Spring Park and this
should not be a problem.
The City Manager stated that he has the plans for the Black Lake Bridge
construction in his office and the Council is welcome to come in and look
at them. He then read the sample resolution that the County had prepared.
Charon moved and Polston seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #82-69
RESOLUTION OF CONCURRENCE ADDING THE FOLLOWING
TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH "AND OTHER WORK THAT IS
NECESSARY AS AGREED UPON BY THE CITY ENGINEER
AND COUNTY OFFICIALS".
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
UPDATE ON THE ARCADE - TOM WATSON - SPECIAL USE PERMIT
The City Manager explained that since the last meeting and Resolution No.
82-58, Mr. Watson has met with the Building Inspector and is planning
to move the Arcade to 5558 Auditor's Road. Mr. Watson asked that the
Building Inspector go to this new location and itemize what would be
required to operate the Arcade. The Building Inspector submitted the
following report to Mr. Watson:
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 pointed out during inspection.
5. Provide two (2) bathrooms - minimum code.
6. Redecorate
7- Concrete block up rear door to garage or replace with one hour
rated door, frame, threshold, self-closing device.
The Council questioned whether a Special Use Permit could be transferred to
another location. After checking with the City Attorney, the City Manager
replied that it could not be transferred and therefore another public hearing
would have to be held regarding a Conditional Use Permit for the new location.
Councilmember Swenson felt that #6 of the Building Inspector's report was
not a code violation and should not be a stipulation.
Counciimember Uirick was concerned about the steep driveway that is quite
close to the proposed entrance to the Arcade. He also stated that he would
also like to see a plan for the proposed Arcade.
Ulrick moved and Poiston seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #82-70
RESOLUTION TO SET THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ARCADE
TO BE LOCATED A 5558 AUDITOR'S ROAD FOR APRIL
6, 1982.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Councilmember Swenson then suggested that maybe the Council could hold
a special meeting on March 30, 1982, to hold the public hearing and therefore
if the Conditional Use Permit passed Mr. Watson could open 1 week earlier.
45
March 9, 1982
Since March 30 was not a regular Council Meeting time Councilmembers
Ulrick and Polston had scheduled other things for that night and could
not attend.
ELECTION EQUIPMENT
The City Manager reported that the School District has asked if they might
officially share the election equipment that the City owns, since they
use it for their school board elections a.iso. After figuring the costs
of the election equipment, the. City Manager sent the School District a
proposal that they pay $3210. for their half and then ali repairs would
be shared by both the City and the School District. The School District
has sent the City a purchase order and accepted the proposal.
The Council saw only one problem with sharing the equipment and that was
if both the City and the School needed the equipment for the same day.
Charon moved and Polston seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #82-71
RESOLUTION TO OFFICIALLY SHARE THE CITY ELECTION
EQUIPMENT WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR $3210,
AND ONE HALF THE COST OF' REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE WITH A
STIPULATION
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
RISK INSURANCE
The City Manager reported that Mr. William E. Husbands (Risk Management
Consultant) has presented a proposal to analyze the insurance policies of
the City and recommend how to cut loses and eliminate risks. This would
result in a savings of insurance costs to the City. The City's insurance
agent, Mr. Earl Bailey, was all for this study. Mr. Husbands recently
did a study for the City of Bloomington and saved them $81,000. The
charges for this study would be between $5OO and $800.
Polston moved and Charon seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #82-72
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE WILLIAM E. HUSBANDS
TO ANALYZE THE CITY'S PRESENT INSURANCE PROGRAM
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
UNDERGROUND EXCAVATION ORDINANCE
The City Manager explained that the City Attorney has developed an under-
ground excavation ordinance for the Council to consider. This ordinance
would require firms to tell the City before digging in the streets and
public property, pay a fee, and provide safety precautions. The only
section that the Staff felt would cause a problem (financial nightmare)
was the section on cash deposits. The Council felt that section should
be deleted.
March 9, 1982
Councilmember Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded the adoption of the following
ordinance.
ORDINANCE ~427
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE
REGULATING THE OPENING AND EXCAVATING OF STREETS,
ALLEYS, SIDEWALKS AND OTHER PUBLIC GROUNDS.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
APPOINTMENTS TO THE PARK COMMISSION
The City Manager submitted the names of two applicants to the Park
· Commission that the commission is recommending for appointment.
Polston moved and Ulrlck seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #82-73
RESOLUTION APPOINTING DELORES MAAS AND GERALD
LAURIE TO THE PARK COMMISSION
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded a motion to approve the payment of bills,
as presented on the pre-list, in the amount of $1OO,731.86, when funds are
available. Roll call. vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
BUDGET UPDATE
The City Manager reported that so far this year the staff has held
expenses to 60% of what was spent last year at this time.
Ulrick moved and Polston seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #82-74 RESOLUTION TO COMPLIMENT THE STAFF ON CUTTING COSTS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Councilmember Swenson recommended that each of the Council donate I months
Council pay to the fight against Continental Telephone's rate increase.
The Council decided that was a matter of personal preference.
ISLAND PARK WELL UPDATE
The City Manager reported that the two test holes were drilled and.
according to the Engineer we have a good hole on top of the hill.
He also reported that he has met with Neptune on the outside reader
problem and they are willing to take back the readers and give us a
new type that will not give us the problems the others have.
The City Manager then gave the Council information on the following:
A. Hennepin County Park Reserve District letter - regarding the Coon
Rapids Dam.
47
March 9, 1982
B. The Suburban Rate Authority Study on the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission.
C. Downtown Advisory Committee - Minutes of the February 25th Meeting
D. West Hennep|n Human Services m a new release.
E. American Legion Post #398 - Gambling report for February
F. Chamberlain Goudy VFW Post #5113 - Gambling report for February
G. LMCD - Agenda for the February 24th Meeting and the Minutes of
the January 27th Meeting.
H. Zuckman Case - an update from the City Attorney on this matter.
I. Priscilla Anderson Case - an update from the City Attorney on this
matter.
Swenson moved and Ulrick seconded a motion to adjourn at IO:15 P.M.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
City Manager
City Clerk
Earl F. Andersen & As~c~c 295.17
Diane Arneson t30.00
Affirm. Business Communic. 105.O0
Holly B0strom 257.50
Badger Meter 133.57
Burlington Northern 533.33
Bryan Rock Products 171.60
Chris Bollis 38.20
Business Furniture 328.58
F.H. Bathke 17.69
Gerald Babb 7.47
Janet Bertrand 40.27
Joan Clark 17.50
Curtis 1000 129.63
Fran Clark 15.89
Robert Cheney 334.00
Commiss of Revenue 3,103.61
Christensen Constr. 2,705.54
Davies Water Equip 169.50
Dependable Services 33.00
Domtar Industries 1,574.56
Door Systems 144.00
Engine Parts Supply 49.32
Jon Elam 17.73
First Natl Bank-Mpls 236.00
Govt Training Serv 80.00
Eugene Hickok & Assoc 443.88
Henn Co. Chfs Police PTAC 215.OO
Instrumentation Serv. 116.O8
J.B. Distributing 39.84
Kustom Electronics 23.52
L.O.G.I.S. 3,446.25
The Laker 274.70
Sharon Legg 23.88
Doris Lepsch 45.00
Brad Landsman 13.80
MN Wastewater Oper. Assn 5.00
Mound Postmaster 600.00
MCFOA Bus Charter 40.00
City of Minnetrista 82.00
Marina Auto Supply 359.92
McCombs-Knutson 11,473.O0
Minnegasco 849.00
Mound Fire Dept 3,898.45
Mound Locksmith 12.50
MN Wastewater Assoc 5.00
Metro Fone Communications 35.40
Wm Mueller 1,329.O5
Martins Navarre 66 96.25
Minn Comm 28.50
Navarre Hdwe 53.47
Northern Power Prod 15.26
No Centrl Sect AWWA 90.00
U of t~ 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 Hbsp '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.O0
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 ~OTAL-ALL BILL~ 100,731 .~86
57
February 23, 1982
Councilmember Swens0n moved the following resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 82-50
RESOLUTION TO SET THE DATE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE PROPOSED WETLANDS ORDINANCE FOR MARCH 23, 1982,
AT 7:30 P.M.
WHEREAS, the Wetlands Committee has presented their proposed wetlands
Ordinance and are now ready for a public hearing on it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND,
MINNESOTA:
That the Council does hereby set the date for the public hearing
on the Wetlands Ordinance for March 23, 1982, at 7:30 P.M.
A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
Counc|lmember Polston and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted
in favor thereof: Charon, Polston, Swenson, Ulrick and Lindlan; 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 City Clerk.
MaYor
Attest: City Clerk
5%
March 17, 1982
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JON ELAM, CITY MANAGER
Attached is the proposed Wetlands Ordinance as approved by the Planning
Commission on a 6 to 1 vote. This is the fourth draft the Wetlands
Committee has come up with and I think incorporates the latest approach
to land use management and zoning. Basically that is called performance
zoning - meaning basically nothing is prevented from being undertaken in
the wetlands as long as you fulfill all the required performance standards
for the site, through the issuance of a Wetlands Permit.
The ordinance laYs out when you need this permit, i.e. whenever anyone
constructs, installs or alters any structure located in a wetland or
when a wetland is cleared or altered of vegetation or finally when land
is subdivided in a wetland.
The location of each designated wetland is recorded on a Wetlands Map
which accompanies this ordinance. It should be noted that all wetlands
under 2½ acres have been excluded from the rules and regulations of the
proposed ordinance, thus confining the ordinance to those areas that are
real wetlands versus potholes, etc.
Emergency provisions in the ordinance are laid out (in case of flooding
or related water problems).
Specific performance standards cover: A. Filling
B. Dredging
C. Sewer Discharge
D. Building Requirements
E. Vegetation
After the applicant submits a plan, the City will work with the Hennepin
County Soil & Water Conservation District to evaluate the proposal against
the standards the City is requiring.
Finally like any Special or Conditional USe Permit, (A Wetland Permit follows
the same procedure) the City can approve it with a series of conditions.
The final section of the ordinance lays out City inspection requirements and
finally a variance procedure similar to our Zoning Ordinance.
In the end, I think, we have a good proposal. The Wetlands Committee did
an outstanding job, and although I think alot of people don't understand
the ordinance, hopefully after the public hearing they will better under-
stand it.
WETL~NDS OVERLAY DISTRICT Page 1
The City Council of Mound finds that there are wetlands within
the City which, as part of the ecosystem, are critical to the
health, safety and welfare of the land, animals and people
within the City. These wetlands, if preserved and maintained,
constitute important physical, aesthetic, recreational and
economic assets ~or existing and future residents of the City.
Therefore, the purposes of this district are:
1. To provide for the protection, preservation, proper
maintenance and use of specified wetlands.
2. To minimize the disturbance to them as to prevent
damage from excessive sedimentation, eutrophicat~ion or)
pollution.
3. To prevent loss of fish and other aquatic organisms,
wildlife and vegetation and the habitats of the same.
4. To provide for the protection of the City's fresh water
supplies from the dangers of drought, overdraft, pollution
or mismanagement.
5. To reduce the financial burdens imposed upon the
community through rescue and relief efforts occasioned by
the occupancy or use of areas subject to periodic flooding
and prevent loss of life, property damage and the losses
and risks associated with flood conditions.
6. To preserve the location, character and extent of
natural drainage courses.
DISTRICT BOUNDRIES
This district shall apply to wetland areas which are
specifically delineated on the official Wetlands Map of the
City of Mound and defined as follows:
Type 3 wetlands: Inland shallow fresh marshes. The soil
is usually waterlogged during the growing season; often it
is covered with as much as six (6) inches or more of
water. Vegetation includes grasses, bulrushes,
pickerelweed and smartweeds. These marshes may nearly
fill shallow lake basins or sloughs, or they may border
deep marshes on the landward side. They are also common
as deep areas on irrigated lands.
Type 4 wetlands: Inland deep fresh marshes. The soil is
covered with six (6) inches to three (~) feet or more of
water during the growing season. Vegetation includes
cattails, reeds, bulrushes, spiderushes and wild rice. In
open areas, pondweeds, naiads, coontail, watermilfoils,
waterweeds, duckweeds, waterlilies or spatterdocks may be
found. These marshes may almost completely fill shallow
lake basins, potholes, limestone sinks and sloughs or they
may border open water in such depressions,
Type 5 wetlands: Inland open fresh water. Shallow ponds
and resevoirs are included in this type. Water is usually
less than ten (10) feet deep and is fringed by a border of
ergent vegetation. Vegetation includes pondweeds, naiads,
wild celery, coontail, watermilfoils, muskgrasses,
waterlilies and spatterdocks.
WETLANDS O',,."EF::LA'~' D]S"i'RI[]T Page 2
For purposes of determining the application of this district
to mny pmrticulmr parcel of land or water the above referenced
map shall be on file in the office of the City Manager and
shall be available for inspection and copying. These
boundries may be amended by the procedures set forth in
Section of the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance.
WETLAND PERMIT
Except as hereinafter provided in this ordinance, no person
shall perform any development in a wetland district ~withou~
first having obtained a wetland permit (hereinafter referred
to as "Permit") from the City of Mound. Development shall
include the construction, installation or alteration of any
structure;'the clearing or altering of vegetation or land and
the division of land into two or more parcels.
EXCEPTIONS
The Permit requirements established by this ordinance shall
not apply to:
A. Emergency work necessary to preserve life or property.
When emergency work is performed under this section the
person performing it shall report the pertinent facts
relating to the work to the City Manager prior to the
commencement of work. The City Manager shall review the
facts and determine whether an emergency exists and shall,
by written memorandum, authorize the commencement of the
emergency exception. A person commencing emergency work
shall, within ten days following the commencement of that
activity, apply for the issuance of a Permit. The issuance
thereof, may require the permittee to perform such work
as is determined to be reasonably necessary to correct any
impairment to the wetland occasioned by such work.
B. The repair or maintenance of any lawful use of land
existing on the date of adoption of this ordinance.
APPLICATION FOR AND PROCESSING OF PERMIT
A. A separate application for a Permit shall be made to
the City of Mound for each development activity for which
a Permit is required. Only one application need be made
for two or more such acts which are to be done
simultaneously on the same parcel. The application shall
include a map of the site, a plan of the proposed
development and the estimated cost of development. Other
engineering data such as surveys and other descriptive
information are also required. In order to determine the
effects of such development of the wetland the City
Council may require additional information including but
not limited to the following:
1. A specific description of the type, amount and
location of the development
2. A description of the ecological characteristics of
the wetland
WETLANDS OVERLA] DISTRICT
Page 3
3. A conservation plan describing actions to be taken
to mitigate any detrimental effects of development and
4. Maps and data on soils, water table and flood
capacity of the wetland.
When the proposed development includes the construction
or alteration of a structure three (5) sets of plans
thereof shall be submitted with the application.
B. The permit application shall be processed according to
the procedures specified in Section 25.505 of the Zoning
Ordinance which pertains to processing of conditional use
permits. The Permit may be processed at the saEe time?and
in connection with the processing of an application for a
building permit or any other permit required by ordinance
of the City of Mound.
PERMIT STANDARDS
No Permit shall be issued unless the City of Mound finds and
determines that the proposed development complies with the
following standards:
A. Filling
A minimum amount of filling may be allowed when necessary
but in no case shall the following restrictions on total
amount of filling be exceeded. Since the total amount of
filling which can be permitted is limited, the City, when
considering Permit applications, shall consider the equal
apportionment of fill opportunity to riparian land owners.
1. Total filling shall not cause the total natural
flood storage capacity of the wetland to fall below the
projected volume of runoff from the whole developed
wetland watershed generated by a six (6) inch rainfall
in twenty-four (24) hours.
2. Total filling shall not cause the total natural
nutrient stripping capacity of the wetland to fall
below the nutrient production of the wetland watershed
for its projected development.
3. Only fill free of chemical pollutants and organic
wastes may be used.
4. Wetlands shall not be used for solid waste disposal.
B.Dredging
Dredging may be allowed only when a boat channel is
required for access to a navigable lake, for a marina or
when it will not have a substantial or significantly
adverse effect upon the ecological and hydrological
characteristics of the wetland. Dredging, when allowed,
shall be limited as follows:
1. It shall be located so as to maximize the activity
in the areas of lowest vegetation density.
2. It shall not significantly change the water flow
characteristics.
3. The size of the dredged area shall be limited to the
mimimum necessary to accomplish the purpose.
4. Disposal of the dredged material shall not result in
a significant change in the current flow, or in a
substantial destruction o~: vegetation, fish spawning
areas or water pollution.
5. Work in the wetland will not be performed during the
breeding season of water fowl or fish spawning season.
6. Only one boat channel or marina shall be allowed per
large-scale development.
7. In other residential developments, dredging shall be
located so as to provide for the use of boat channels
and marinas by two or more adjacent property owners.
8. The width of the boat channel to be dredged shall be
no more than the miminum required for the safe
operation of boats at minimum operating speed.
C. Discharges
1. No part of any sewage disposal system requiring
on-land or in-ground disposal of waste shall be located
closer than 150 feet from the normal high water mark
unless it is proven by the applicant that no effluent
will immmediately or gradually reach the wetland
because of existing physical characteristics of the
site or system.
2. Organic waste which would normally be disposed of at
a solid waste disposal site or which would normally be
discharged into a sewage disposal system or sewer shall
not be directly or indirectly discharged to the
wetland.
3. Stormwater runoff from construction sites may be
directed to the wetland only when substantially free of
silt, debris and chemical pollutants and only at rates
which will not disturb vegetation or increase
turbidity.
D. Building constraints
1. The lowest floor elevation of buildings, if used for
living quarters or work areas, shall be at least three
feet above the seasonal high water level of the
wetland.
2. Development which will result in unusual road
maintenance costs or utility line breakages due to soil
limitations, including high frost action shall not be
permitted.
E. Vegetation
No wetland vegetation may be removed or altered except
that reasonably required for the placement of structures
and use of property.
In order to determine whether a proposed plan complies with
the above standard~ the City may request a review and comment
on the plan from th~ Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation
District. Alternatively, any engi. neer knowledgeable in
surface water hydrology may be consulted.
CONDITIONS
A Permit may be approved subject to compliance with reasonable
conditions which are specifically set forth in the Permit and
are necessary to insure compliance with the requirements
contained in this district. Such conditions may include but
are not limited to the following:
1. Limitation of the size, kind or character of the
OVERLAY DISTRICT Page 5
proposed work
2. Require the construction of other sturctures
Require replacement of vegetation
4. Establish required monitoring procedures and
maintenance activity
5. Stage the work over time
6. Require the alteration of the site design to ensure
buffering
7. Require the provision of a performance bond
8. Require the conveyance to the City of Mound or another
public entity of certain lands or interest therin.
The dimensional requirements of the underlying zonin~
district(s) may be modified in furtherance of the purpose of
this ordinance by express condition contained in the Permit.
TIME OF PERMIT
A permitee shall begin the work authorized by the Permit
within sixty (60) days from the date of issuance of the Permit
unless a different date for the commencement of work is set
forth in the Permit. The permittee shall complete the work
authorized by the Permit within the time limits specified in
the Permit which in no event shall exceed more than twelve
(12) months from the date of issuance. The permittee shall
notify the Building Official at least twenty-four (24) hours
prior to commencement of work. Should the work not be
commenced as specified herein, the Permit shall become void.
A. Extensions
If, prior to the date established for commencement of
work, the permittee makes written request to the Building
Official for an extension of time to commence the work,
setting forth the reasons for the required extension, the
administrator may grant such extension.
B. Renewals
A permit which has become void may be renewed at the
discretion of the City Council upon payment of a renewal
fee. If the City Council does not grant such renewal a
Permit for such work may be granted only upon compliance
with the procedures herein established for an original
application.
C. Notice of completion
A permittee shall notify the Building Official in writing
when~he has finished the work. No work shall be deemed to
have been completed until approved in writing by the
Building Official following such written notification.
D. Inspection
The City may require inspections of the work to be made
periodically during the course thereof by a member of the
Building Official staff and shall cause a final inspection
to be made following the completion of the work. The
permittee shall assist the administrator in making such
inspections.
RESPONSIBILITY; EFFECT A. Responsibility
Neither the issuance of a Permit nor compliance with the
WETLANDS OVERLAY DISTRICT Page 6
conditions thereof, nor compliance with the provisions of
this ordinance shall relieve any person ~rom any
responsibility otherwise imposed by law for damage to
persons or property. The issuance of any permit hereunder
shall not serve to impose any liability on the City of
Mound or its officers or employees for injury or damage to
persons or property. A Permit issued pursuant to this
ordinance shall not relieve the permittee of the
responsibility of complying with any other requirements
extablished by law, regulation or ordinance.
B. Special assessment
The land within a designated wetlands district a~ea fop
which a development or other restrictive easement is
conveyed to the City shall not be subject to special
assessments levied by the City to pay the costs of public
water, sewer, curb, gutter or other public municipal
improvements for which such assessments are authorized
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429.
C. Variance
The City Council may authorize in specific cases following
appeal and hearing a variance from the provisions of this
ordinance where the literal application of the ordinance
would result in substantial inequitable hardship to an
applicant property owner. In assessing hardship the City
Council shall balance the severity of the physucal, social
and economic effects of the literal application against
the interests of the City in effecting the purposes of
this ordinance as expressed above. Economic considerations
alone shall not constitute a hardship if a reasonable use
for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
No variance may be granted which would allow any use that
is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject
property is located. A variance shall be granted in
writing accompanied by specific findings of fact as to the
necessity for the grant of the variance and its specific
provisions. A variance request shall be processed in
accordance with thr provisions of section 23.506 of the
Mound City Zoning Ordinance.
Delinquent
(Over six
Utility Bills
months old)
3-16-82
Account
22-232-2370-81
22-235-2221-61
22-235-2314-91
22-238-5020-31
22-244-5019-31
22-256-4841-91
22-256-4972-81
22-259-5340-11
22-259-5872-32
22-259-5892-11
22-259-6070-31
22-262-2997-51
22-280-5846-31
22-280-5883-61
22-280-5921-41
22-286-5907-01
22-286-5915-31
22-286-6037-51
22-286-6056-51
22-289-3017-41
22-292-6033-21
22-310-2618-41
22-310-2625-91
22-310-2695-21
22-310-2710-91
22-310-3136-61
22-319-6709-81
22-337-5930-31
22-337-5975-81
22-343-1790-31
22-343-2066-71
22-343-2420-61
22-346-5667-21
12-364-2571-21
22-373-5063-81
22-388-2529-91
Amount
$127.98
67.10
63.12
51.74
77.28
127.34
63.31
48.40
59.90
105.84
78.21
64.80
50.58
81.65
62.30
79.83
53.80
46.16
89.33
113.37
81.79
81.16
110.38
140.41
94.07
128.76
84.80
129.40
115.95
114.66
90:'50
67.60
81.27
102.28
143.62
89.33
22-388-5005-71
22-404-4801-51
22-404-4839-51
22-404-4867-61
33-620-4884-91
$ 65.80
65.84
59.31
87.16
68.16
$3514.30
March 17, 1982
TO:
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL
JON ELAM, CITY MANAGER
Enclosed is 'the Downtown Advisory Committee's report to the Council.
Quite honestly, I am disappointed. It seems poorly organized and l
really don't know where to go from here.
The report was prepared by Rob and handed out at the last DAC Meeting.
Instead of postponing action on it while it was reviewed, they went
ahead and voted on it. Thus we now face a decision on it with a
price tag of $10,245.
I really need some help on this and where to go with it. Please give
it your thoughts and at the meeting give me some direction.
JE:fc
CIT ' ()f MOUND
5341 MAYWOC, D ~,O,~D
MOUND. MINNESCTZ,
(612) 472~1155
HEHORANDUH
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Jon Elam, City Manager
Rob Chelseth, City Planner
15 March 1982
Downtown Advisory Committee's Recommendation to City Council
Attached please find, "SECTION I: ACTION PLANS FOR THE REVITALIZATION
OF DOWNTOWN MOUND", as recommended by the Downtown Advisory Committee
(DAC) to the City Council for their approval. Please note the Action
Plan places 20 objectives into five planning groups, that the DAC pro-
poses to begin work on in numerical order as time and resources permit.
The DAC has also passed a resolution requesting approval to disperse
the remaining $10,245 in the downtown planning budget on implementation
of the action plans.
Rob Chelseth
Planner
Re/ms
Attachment
5'7
SECTION I: ACTIOI~ PLAI~S FOR THE REVIIALIZATIOi~ OF DOWI6OWI'I MOUND
The following objectives have been identified as requiring the attention of
the Downtown Advisory Committee for successful advancement. The objectives
have been clustered into working groups, to allow work efforts to be combined
and coordinated, saving energy, time and resources.
GROUP #1: DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS '~
Objective I.B. The need to plan and provide technical assistance to update
store fronts, signs and store rears; and assist in finding
financing to assist in such activities.
Specific Actions:
There are three actions necessary to accomplish this
objective. The first is the. preparation of a plan to guide
the renovation of store fronts/rears and signs by building
occupants. A professional with experience in building
renovation should be retained to prepare several design
concepts and formats retailers can choose from. The second
action required is to provide technical assistance to stores
undertaking rehabilitation projects. A fifty percent matching
grant fund can be set aside to help defray the cost of'the
professional advice building occupants seek for designs on
store improvements. Finally, to assist store occupants in
financing the material and labor costs associated with reno-
vation, the City, in cooperation with a local financial
institution, can provide improvement loans at a reduced rate
of interest. Funding sources available to the City through
federal community development programs are eligible for this
type of activity. A loan program (including appli£ations
and procedures) must be developed.
Resources Needed:
Preparation of a design guide For renovating downtown stores
will require the services ora qualified architect, or other
member of the design profession with experience in building
rehab work. To underwrite these costs, the DAC can draw on
its downtown planning funds. It is recommended that this
work be combined with the other downtown design projects
(e.g. work on a street scape plan) requiring technical services.
A budget for both projects can be set at $4,000.
Funds to provide fifty percent matching monies for technical
assistance on design work to specific store renovation projects
can be made available through the Year VIII application
of Mound's Community Development Block Grant.-At this
time, $5,000 has been set aside for this activity. These
funds will become available in July of this year.'
Funds to provide reduced interest loans for rehabilitation
work must come from public and private sources. On the public
side, $40,000 is planned to be made available by the City
of Mound through the Community Development Block Grant program.
These monies will become available in July of this year.
Equally necessary is a source of private funds to be combined
with the public monies to help finance as many projects
as possible. A figure of $250,000 has been suggested
(allowing about 25 $10,000 projects). A commitment must be
sought from a local lending institution, and application
procedures and criteria set up to rank and approve loan
requests. Development of the loan routine can be funded
out of remaining CDBG planning funds.
Timetable:
March - October 1982
Responsibility: Downtown Advisory Committee
Coordination:
Important linkages must be made-in at least three areas.
First, continue close cooperation with the City Council and
City Manager~to facilitate their support and the use of
public resources to underwrite program activities.
Secondly, as'.the owners and occupants of downtown buildings
are the group signularly most affected by this program,
it is important that the DAC establish a close working
relationship with them through existing or new organizations
(e.g. Retail Council). Building owners and occupants should
Objective IIA
Specific Actions:
Resources Needed:
be appraised of the program activities and asked for input.
Finally, meetings and negotiations with local lenders
interested in providing needed private funding will be crucial.
The need to i~rove the general appearance of downtown
through repainting and landscaping such. as planting plan
for planters, trees, shrubs and furniture {including trash
receptacles).
This objective is closely linked with IB, as significant
improvements in appearance (such as repainting) will be
achieved by private initiatives. The most significant
aspect of this objective centers around a landscaping plan
for the downtown streets. This will require hiring pro-
fessional assistance to aid in selecting appropriate street
plantings and associated furniture, as well as assisting in
calculating costs and potential financing techniques to
purchase and maintain the improvements. The selection of
this designer and/or landscape architect should be combined
with selection of a professional under objective IB for store
design concepts. This will encourage a unified and cost
effective approach to the project.
Combine this project with the design portion objective IB,
and fund both projects using $4,000 remaining in the DAC
planning budget. Actual cost for making these improvements
can be paid through a combination of public and private
funding sources.
Timetable:
March - May 1982
Responsibility: Downtown Advisory Committee
Coordination:
Work closely with two groups. First, the City Council and
City Manager, who will be involved in potential financing
mechanisms used to implement these plans. Second, downtown
Objective IIE
Specific Actions:
building owners and occupants again must be consulted as
they will be the 9roup most affected by these actions. This
can be accomplished using the same lines of con~nun~cation
set up for objective IB.
The need for a downtown informational directory, as well as
public toilets, phones and drinking fountains, not located
in retail businesses.
Include the items desired as part of the speEificati6ns for
landscape/streetscape plans under objective 1IA.
Resources Needed:
The design work will be included under the $4,000 budget set
aside for objectives IB and IIA. Funding for the construction
of these improvements should be considered as part of a
package with landscaping and streetscape improvements.
Timetable:
March - May 1982
Responsibility: Downtown Advisory Committee
Coordination:
- City Council and City Manager
- Downtown building owners and occupants
O~jective IIF
The need for Highway signs to identify major community
facilities.
Specific.Actions:
Resources Needed:
Timetable:
Responsibility:
Select the major community facilities'that need signs for
identification, and suggest appropriate locations for the
signs.
City sign shop and personnel plus materials.
March - April 1982
DAC or subcommittee thereof.
4
Coordination:
Work through City Manauer's office.
objective with VI.C.
Coordinate this
Objective VIC
Specific Actions:
The need for better signage identifying parking lots.
Suggest content and location for signs.
Resources Needed:
Timetable:
City sign shop and personnel plus materials.
March - April 1982
Responsibility: DAC or subcommittee thereof.
Coordination: Work through City Manager's office. Coordinate this objective
with II.F.
Objective VIIA
The need for a single identity or theme for downtown Mound.
Specific Actions: Select an identity or theme for downtown.
Resources Needed: Creative thinking on the part of interested individuals and
groups.
Timetable:
Spring, 1982
Responsibility:
Coordination:
Downtown business community.
Work with downtown design group if theme lends itself into
incorporation into building renovations, signing, etc.
G2OUP -~2: PEDESTRIAN £ROSSINGS
Objective VA
The need for crosswalks to protect pedestrians.
Objective VB
The need for a pedestrian signal on County Road 110 at the
crosswalk near the Ben Franklin.
Specific Actions:
Identify specific locations for the proposed crossWalks,
and obtain a~val for placement with Henne~in County. If
pedestrian signal is to be requested, identify ~ype,' location
and funding arrangements.
Resources Needed: Data on pedestrian movements and input from the City Engineer.
Timetable:
Spring 1982
Responsibility: DAC or sub con~nittee thereof.
Coordination:
Work with City Staff and obtain input from affected groups,
including downtown businesses and nearby property owners.
6
GROUP ~3' PARKING IMPROVEMENTS
Objective VIA
The need for better lighting in parking lots.
Objective VIB
Specific Actions:
Resources Needed:
The need to improve the parking behind the Mound State Bank.
Identify the locations where lights are to be installed,
and specify costs and a means of funding. Develop. plan to
improve the parking area behind Mound State Bank.
Input on lighting and designing from City Engineer.
Timetable:
Sunnier 1982
Responsibility: DAC
Coordination:
Residents of CBD Parking Program assessment area, City Council
and City Manager.
BE(}UP ~4: LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Objective VIIB
Objective XA
Th~ need to seek other businesses ~or Mound and promote
locations in the City.
The need for a public .marina behind the Post Office.
Objective XB.
Objective XC
The need to encourage new businesses to locate along Lynwood
from Commerc~'~ Belmont.
The need for more organized retail shopping facilities to
be located on or near the lot by Super Valu in the Existing
downtown area.
Objective XD
The need for a movie theatre, a restaurant serving liquor,
and a motel in the downtown,
Objective XE
Objective XF
The need to change the parking lot North of County Road 15
between Minnesota Federal and Belmont to commercial property
for development.
,The need to develop area around Lake Langdon for open space/
business uses.
Specific Actions:
Create a local hot-for-profit development corporation to
examine potential development projects, provide incentives
for new development, and serve as a conduitfor public funding
sources.
Resources Needed: Funds for staff work needed to organize and begin project
work.
Timetable: 1982
Responsibility: DAC, City Council, business leaders.
8
Cc;ordination'
Requires active support of community leaders in business,
professions, banking, as well as elected officials.
GROUP #5' HIGHWAYS 15 AND 110
Objective IVC
The need to consider alternative traffic patterns, em-
phasizing the use of alternative streets from County Road
15/11D for ingress/egress from shopping.
Objective 1VD
Objective IVE
Reroute County Road 15 so,.as not to deter convenience
traffic, but to solve the problems of a north-south street
served by an ba~t-west road. ~
ThJ need for street lighting, sidewalks, curb and gutter,
and pocket parks along County Road 15 from Commerce Blvd. to
Fairview.
Recommend at ion:
These three objectives a long-range projects involving major
investments of time and money. Equally important, they involve
intergovernmental ~greements between cities and Hennepin
County. The first step in the process is to establish an
organizaiton capable of developing realistic highway
design alternatives, and coordinate broad-based support.
?
The folluwing objectives are proposed for action by the City Staff at the
direction of the City ManageF.
IA. The Anderson Buildin~
The City is currently investigating alternatives available for freeing
up the Anderson Building for an alternative use. The DAC can remain
informed as to plans for the renovation or disposition or.the building
by the City.
IIB.
The need 'to fence off the'railroad crossi'ng sijnal building. ~
Request that-a letter be sent to Burlington Northern asking if ~he
railroad would be willing to fence or screen the crossing signal building
as part of downtown design program.
]IIC.
The need for maintenance of downtown improvements by the City..
City Manager has moved on this topic, proposing a person shared 50-50
between the City and the CBD Assessment District land owners. Dis-
cussions are.currently underway.
IIIA.
The need to clean-up the city property west of the Little League
Baseball Field.
Some clean-up occurred last fall, the job will be completed this spring.
Site will be graded level, with considerations.open for some form of
new land use.
IIIB.
The need to encouraqe and plan for the upkeep ~nd maintenance of
property and structures and provide for properly screened and enclosed
waste disposal facilities.
The maintenance and upkeep of structures will be dealt with under
objective IB. The clean-up and screening of private storage areas is
a function of enforcing existing applicable codes, or the development
of new regulations where a need or problem exists. Public waste cans,
of an attractive nature, may be posed as an additional solution to
this problem under objective IIA.
VID.
The need for access between the pa.rking lot on County Road 15 and the
Super Valu lot across the tracks.
Assuming this is only apedestrian crossing, request the city staff to
contact the railroad to determine the possibility and cost of providing
such a crossing.
Pa9e ~
×IB.
The need to study alternative,plans for the Burlington Northern
Railroad lracKs.
Request the City Manager to keep the DAC informed as the future of
railroad service through Mound is discussed.
Several of the e~jec~lves are proposed for elimination from consideration
at this time.
liD.
lne need for landscape screening (berms, planters, etc.) between
Count~ Road 15 and the parkin9 lot east of Minnesota Federal.
Requires approvals from the railroad and modifications to the'lease
that make it a difficult, time consuming project at this time.
IVA.
IVB.
The need to take out the stop light at the intersectibn' of Cou8ky
Roads 15 and 110.
Issue has been pursued to conslusion.
The need for the Post Office to develop a plan for the left window
drive-in mail drop-off and diagonal parkin9 on the east side of the
~uilding.
Post office is seeking to move ~his fall, and such design issues are
controlled by 'the Post Office, their design specificatiohs, and location
selected.
VillA.
The need to sell some of the City's lots to assist in downtown
development.
Receipts from the sale of most City property (which has been secured
from the County for public purposes) must be returned to Hennepin
County. The feasibility of obtaining revenue from this source is very
small.
IXA.
The need to abandon the Burlington Northern sidin9 from Belmoni~ to
the Coast to Coast for pa. ved pa. rkin9 and sto~res.
A lease would have to be requested from Buriington Northern, consistent~
with the rate for the currentl~ lease parking lot on County Road 15
($6,000.00). Given the fact that CDB residents would bear this cost,
the cost versus benefit of this idea should be left to them.
XIA. The need for elderly housing within the study area.
Currently being pursued by the Westonka Senior Citizens group.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Downtown Advisory Committee
Rob Chelseth, City Planner
18 March 1982
Meeting of the Downtown Advisory Committee
A meeting of the Downtown Advisory Committee has been scheduled
for Wednesday, March 24th, 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 (4'72-1155) and leave word you will not be attending.
At its last meeting on March lOth, DAC members present resolved to
present an Action Plan for Downtown Mound to the City Council,
along with a request for approval of a $10,245 budget to start work
on the plan. These items will go before the City Council at their
meeting next Tuesday, March 23rd. The DAC will meet the following
night to discuss the City Council's decisions, and take the appropri-
ate steps to effect the implementation of the plan.
Look forward to seeing you next Wednesday.
Minutes - ~.iound Downtown Advisory Committee - Wed. lqarch 1D, 1982
City Hall 7:30 p.m.
Present.. Paul Pond, George Stevens, Frank Weiland, Pete Ward,
Oerry Longpre, Dave Willette, Mary Campbell
[Donna Quigley and Eon Norstrem had phoned to say they
were unable to attend.)
Also present: Rob Chelseth, Diane Arneson, David Linnet {from
PlanMark (sp?) an architectural and engineering division
Of Super yalu; L~lrr~ Weidt ( in the business of rehabili-
tating'retail stores ) and his colleagues.Fred Madsen
and Steve Posthumus
Chelseth distributed a handout on the current status of objectives.
Larry Weidt offered that industrial revenue bonds were being used
to fund his current project work in Buffalo. Such bonds are a
group issue and need to be at least a half million dollars.
Pete Ward notices several buildings in town already use cedar
shakes. He wondered whether that idea could be expanded on.
Weiland thinks there would be lots of ideas around town. If the
committee would solicit ideas, people would write them down.
Mary Campbell thinks we won't get anything for free. Chelseth
knows there are architects who work or reside in the community.
Chelseth distributed the draft of a "Request for Proposals"
to be used to solict ideas from various designers/architects.
He would like to interview applicants along with a sub-committee
of the DAC.
Also major work needs to be done with local lenders regarding the
revolving loan program with reduced interest for retailers.
Meetings with store owner, occupants, and members of the retail
council will be needed.
The streetscaping part of the plan needs a funding scheme. The
streetscaping plan, including furniture, trash receptacles, and
an informational directory with public restrooms and telephones
are included in the Request for Proposals.
Chelseth distributed a budget proposal. Pond complimented
Chelseth on work, but would like to have handouts ahead of
meeting time for review, e~pecially on issues of such magnitude.
The proposed budget of $10,245 includes $3,500 in Community
Development Block Grant funds; $6,745 in City funds. Rob's
staff work for the committee is funded entirely out of these
funds. Ward questioned the numbers of hours of work involved.
Members questioned how much of a downtown plan $4000 will buy.
A rough draft - was the most likely conclusion.
Ward said, "I don't even know if we have any takers out there".
Willette: "If no one leads, we're gonna end up just where we
DAC/2
were a ,year agO".
Campbell :. "Retailers are waiting for direction from this
comm( tree"
Pond;. "If we don't lead, we'll get into another morass like we
did with the City council".
Stevens moved and Ward seconded a resolution that Rob Chelseth
and Paul Pond go before the-City council 'to seek approval for
the proposed budget of $10,24.5 for dispersal by the Downtown
Advisory Committee as they'see fit". The vote to aPi~rove was
unanimous.
Ward moved and Campbell seconded a resolution to forward the
Action Plan for the revitalization of downtown"Mound to the'
City council for approval along with the-budget proposal'. The
vote to approve was unanimous.
Adjournment was pronounced at 9:30 p.m.
Diane Arneson, Secretary
March 17, 1~82
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MO LIi"4D ~.,~ I N N E ~("',T A
(612) 472-1155
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY COUNCIL
JON ELAM, CITY MANAGER
REPEAL OF SECTION 55.50 - CHAPTER 55 OF THE CITY CODE
This would eliminate this Section that was missed last meeting when we
passed the new Underground Ordinance.
SECTION 55.50 Excavating Streets
a. It shall be unlawful for any person,
firm or corporation to excavate in
any street, alley, right of way, utility easement, water or sesver ease-
ment, or public grounds in the Village of lVlound, without first having
obtained from the Village Clerk, or other person desi§nated by the
council, a permit to do so.
An application for such permit shall be accompanied by a fee of $1.00
payable to the village, and a drawing made by a registered surveyor or
other competent person, showing the location of the proposed excavation
or ditch and bearing certification of approval by the appropriate engineer
or official of the Northern States Power Company, 1gatertown Telephone
Company, Minneapolis Gas Company, or other company, having lines,
pipes, mains in the vicinity, and bY a sufficient bond or statement of
financial responsibility to guarantee that.such excavation will be properllt
protected at all times it is open, by proper warning signs, lights or
barricades, that the excavation will be properly back filled and tamped
and that the surface of said street, alley or public ground v~ill be put
back in the same cor{dltion as it was prior to the excavation.
57/
Post Office Box 66*Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323eMunicipal Offices
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
March 16, 1982
Mr. Paul Pond
P.O. Box 157
Mound, Minnesota
55364
Dear Mr. Pond:
Thank you for your call Monday morning. The West Hennepin
Chambers plan to offer a cleanup day for all of the business
districts is a worthy project and has the support of our City
Council and staff.
I have notified our Public Works Department to be available on
April 24, 1982 to assist you in the Navarre business district.
Feel free to contact me or John Gerhardson, our Public Works
Coordinator, when you have further information or need further
assistance.
Again, I wish to commend you and the Chamber for initiating a
project that has a direct benefit to all of our business districts
and the Lake area.
Sincerely,
Cit~dministrator
BUILDING & ZO' '73-7357 · ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE - 473-7358 · PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359
RESOLUTION NO. 82-
RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING APRIL 12 THROUGH APRIL 16
"BUILDING SAFETY WEEK"
WHEREAS, the membership of the North Star Chapter of the Internationa! Conference
of 'Building Officials is comprised of Building Officials of the various
Cities and Counties of the State of Minnesota; and'
WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of Building Officials to administer the State
Construction Codes, adopted by the Cities and Counties concerned ~ith
provided a minimum measure of protection for the Health, ~afety, ~nd
General Welfare of the People afforded by these Codes; and
WHEREAS, the general public served by these officials is often not clearly informed
of the activities necessary in administering the construction codes; and
WHEREAS, the failure of the general publ!c to recognize the purpose of construction
codes adopted and administered by these Cities and Counties often serves
to impede .the efforts of the Building Inspection Departments; and
WHEREAS, public information about the activities of the Building Inspection Depart-
ments will serve not only to facilitate the work of these inspectors, but
also assist the Building Official in assuring protection of the Health,
Safety, and General Welfare of the General Public; and
WHEREAS, Albert H Quie, Governor of the State of Minnesota, has proclaimed the week
of April 12 through April 16, 1982 to be Building Safety Week,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND,
MINNESOTA:
That the week of April 12 through April 16, 1982 be proclaimed "Building
Safety Week" in recognition of the Building Officials' dedication and
contribution to the communities they serve.
Mayor
Councilmember
Councilmember
Councilmember
Councilmember
WHEREAS: THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE NORTH STAR CHAPTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS IS COMPRISED OF BUILDING OFFICIALS
OF THE VARIOUS CITIES AND COUNTIES OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: AND
WHEREAS: IT lS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BUILDING OFFICIALS TO ADMINISTER THE
STATE CONSTRUCTION CODES, ADOPTED BY THE CITIES AND COUNTIES CONCERNED
WITH PROVIDING A MINIMUM MEASURE OF PROTECTION FOR THE HEALTH, SAFETY,
AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE AFFORDED BY THESE CODES~ AND
WHEREAS: THE GENERAL PUBLIC SERVED BY THESE OFFICIALS IS OFTEN NOT CLEARLY
INFORMED OF THE ACTIVITIES NECESSARY IN ADMINISTERING THE CONSTRUCTION
CODES; AND
WHEREAS: THE FAILURE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO RECOGNIZE THE PURPOSE OF
CONSTRUCTION CODES ADOPTED AND ADMINISTERED BY THESE CITIES AND COUNTIES
OFTEN SERVES TO IMPEDE THE EFFORTS OF THE BUILDING INSPECTION
DEPARTMENTS; AND
WHEREAS: PUBLIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE BUILDING INSPECTION
DEPARTMENTS WILL SERVE NOT ONLY TO FACILITATE THE WORK OF THESE INSPECTORS,
BUT ALSO ASSIST THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IN ASSURING PROTECTION OF THE
HEALTH, SAFETY, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, ALBERT Hm QUIE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DO
HEREBY PROCLAIM THE WEEK OF APRIL 12 THROUGH APRIL 16. 1982 TO BE
BUILDING SAFETY WEEK
IN MINNESOTA, AND HAVE ASKED LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR LOU WANGBERG TO PREPARE
THIS PROCLAMATION AND DISSEMINATE THE SAME. FURTHER, [ URGE CITIZENS TO
BE AWARE OF THE ROLE THE BUILDING OFFICIALS PLAY IN PROTECTING THE HEALTH,
SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF MINNESOTA.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE HAVE HEREUNTO SET OUR HANDS AND CAUSED THE GREAT
SEAL OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO BE AFFIXED THIS FOURTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY
IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-TWO, AND OF
THE STATE THE Otl~ ~,..~,/NDRED TWENTY-THIRD.
~ ~--~~.-~ C.-~-.,-.~,~'_~,,,,
In accordance with the ]linnesota Laws 1971, Chapter 561 which establishes the State Building
OCode and a system of surcharges to support the administration of the Code. The State
Legislature should assure that the State Building Code remain as the minimum standard for
construction throughout :,~innesota by:
Not allowing communities to adopt alternative, or more, or less restrictive codes.
That the S.B.C. be the only building code used by municipalities, design profes-
sionals and the construction industry throughout the state.
2. Encourage local communities to voluntarily adopt the S.B.C. by:
Allowing joint powers inspection agreements between communities.,,
Allowing communities to contract for private code enforcement.
Consolidating agency inspection functions such as handicapped provisions,
energy related requirements, health service or related licensing require-
ments, to the jurisdiction of the local building inspector.
Encourage uniform enforcement and interpretation of the State Building Code by
continuing to require certification of all Building Officials by an initial state
conducted exam and also to: Provide a continuing education program or a recerti-
fication requirement.
4. Maintenance of the State Building Codes Division ~.~th adequate allocations of the
state building permit surcharge fees being collected, to assure the following:
Timely adoption of the latest editions of appropriate mational model code
documents.
Adequate staff to maintain present level or expansion of existing educatiOnal
programs to include:
1) Quarterly newsletters
2) Quarterly area one day educational seminars
3) Scholarship programs for more extensive educational opportunities
for individuals
4) Sponsorship of communities membership in the International Conference
of Building Officials
c. Adequate staff to serve the code consultant needs of participating communities
in .the areas of:
1) Plan review on a request and fee basis
2) Experienced professional staff available for telephone consultation
with local Building Officials on the subjects of:
(a) Structural Analysis
(b) Fire Protection
(c) Plumbing
(d) Electrical
(e) HVAC
(f) Handicapped Provisions
(g) Energy Code Requirements
(h) Mobile and }~nufactured Home
Requirements
(i) Other Code Areas as Necessary
3) Staff to serve as secretary to various advisory committees including:
(~) Building Officials (d) Fire and Life Safety Committee
(b) Handicapped Code Advisory Committee (e) Mechanical Code Committee
(c) Structural Advisory Committee (f) Ad-Hoc com~,~ttees as required
'~0 Sec. PSA
OBUILDING SAFETY WEEK - April 12 - 16
Building safety is no accident when building codes are effectively
used. The building code insures fire safety, structural safety, energy
conservation, and good electrical, plumbing and heating installations.
Governor A1Quie has proclaimed April 12th through the 16th "Building
Safety Week" in Minnesota. Our building codes protect your family
and your community. You're invited to an open house (date) at (location)
from (times) to meet the building officials of (city). There will be
displays and demonstrations.
BUILDING SAFETY WEEK' APRIL 12-16, 1982 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE'
OPublic safety is ensured through the proper use of building codes in
structures ranging in size from single family homes to multi-storied
office complexes. In recognition of the importance of building safety,
Minnesota Governor A1Quie has proclaimed April 12 - 16, 1982, Building
Safety Week through the state.
(name of community) is participating in Building Safety Week by hosting
an open house and display for the citizens. The open house will be held
at (location) beginning at (time on (day and date). Everyone is welcome.
Building code experts will be.on hand to answer questions and explain
the value of building code enforcement. "Some people feel intimidated
the building code review process," said (name of building official).
"We want people to understand our building code is a safety document
to make sure the building meets some ~inimal safety requirements."
"How many times have we read news articles about fires or disasters in
buildings and found it reported that there were some basic deficiencies
in the construction of the building?" asked (name of official). "The
building code is written in response to events which have occurred,
often these events injured people. The building code doesn't solve
the problem completely, but it's a good first step."
"Building Safety is No Accident" is this year's Building Safety Week
theme and is sponsored by the North Star Chapter, International Con-
~erence of Building Officials. The building officials will be demon-
strating that family and community protection can be strengthened when
good building codes are applied to fire prevention, structural safety,
energy conservation and electricial, plumbing and heating installations.~d
'10 Sec. PSA
BUILDING SAFETY WEEK
Building safety is no accident ..... it's achieved when building codes
are followed. Governor A1Quie has proclaimed April 12-16 "Building
Safety Week in Minnesota". Visit (name of community) building display
(location..date..time) and learn about building safety.
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOr',
MOUND
Hatch 17, 1982
TO:
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL
JON ELAM, CITY MANAGER
Enclosed is some material regarding a request for the sale of five (5)
feet of Lot 1, Block/~Wychwood to Mr. Gary $chleif.
Since he seeks to use this footage to build an addition to the south side
of his house and it will not conflict with the City's long term interest
in eventually rounding off the corner along B~ighton Blvd., the staff
recommendation would be that we approve the sale of the five (5) feet
with the City retaining all necessary right-of-way and easements along
the five (5) feet.
JE:fc
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Jon Elam, City Manager
Jan Bertrand, Building Official
Gary Schleif, 4951 Brighton Boulevard
March 15, 1982
I have discussed with Mr. and Mrs. Gary Schleif, the owner of
4951 Brighton Boulevard, the zoning requirements to put an addi-
tion on his home. In order for him to build the addition on his home
on the south side and meet the required 6 foot side yard setback,
he is requesting the City sell him an additional five (5) feet
of our property. His letter is attached with a bid price of
$1OO.OO.
Could you have the City Attorney review the possible purchase of
the 5 feet from the City owned property? Checking the plat map
lot dimensions, Lot 1, Block 38, Wychwood. is approximately 4,880
square feet. The zoning ordinance requires 6,OO0 square feet
minimum for a building site. Would it be possible to have Mr.
Gary Schlief purchase the entire lot?
"Jan Bertrand
Building Official
JB/ms
Attachment
25/82
ETON
ILSHIRE BLVD.
RC
31
This block i~ oil morsh
FOR
CERTIFICATE
L£6,~ L ~. DESCR~ P't'tONg
GonJ , Minncs0f .
o
n
x ooo.o
(ooo.o)
Denotes iron monument
Denotes offset stake
Denotes existing elev.
Denotes Proposed elev.
Denotes surface drainage
Proposed garage floor elev. =
Proposed lowest floor elev. =
Proposed top of foundation elev. =
BENCH MARK:
~EMARS - GABRIEL
'L~t~ND SURVEYORS, INC.
3030 Harbor Lane No.
Plymouth MN55441
Phone: (612) 559-0908
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of
the boundaries of the above described land and of the location of all buildings,
if any, thereon· and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land.
As surveyed by me this ~ ~.//~ day,of ,~"/¢7~ . 197~_Z'.
Minn. Reg. No. 'k~O& & '
File No.
Book - Page
gl
Scale
CIT-' ()f MOUND
March 17, 1982
534~ MAYWOOD
MQU ',~.; M!NNESC-iA f:.';~ '
i612} 472-1155
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JON ELAM, CITY MANAGER
Enclosed is a Purchase Agreement covering the parcel of land off of County
Road 110 that we have explored as a new Maintenance Building. The price
is $150,O00 with Mr. Widmer giving us $37,500 for our three (3) acre site
along Westedge Blvd. This would make our net cost $112,500. In addition,
we would have to pay one half of 1982's taxes ($1170.) and install the
necessary water and sewer service (estimated cost $5000.). We would also
have to connect it up to the electricity.
The arrangements would be $5,000 earnest money and $17,000 upon closing
May l, 1982. These funds would come from the Building Fund. The remaining
$90,500 would be by Contract for Deed payable over five years at 12% interest.
It is the staff's recommendation that this is about as low as I am going
to get and the trade-off in land for property taxation will be about equal.
We will need to correct the zoning on Westedge from R-1 which we recently
zoned it, back to Industrial which it always had been previously. I think
this was in error and thus can be corrected by rezoning within the law.
With a fellow working up an option agreement on the Anderson Building for
the April 6th Council Meeting, all this isn't taking place any too soon.
JE:fc
[ McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
......
March 18, 1982
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 65441
(612) 559-3700
Mr. 3on Elam
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
SuOject:
Widmer Property
Co. Rd. No. 110
File #6405
Dear Oon:
As per your request, we have looked at the alternatives available in
furnishing water and sewer service to the existing building owned by Fritz
Widmer. The only feasible route is to connect to both the sewer and watermains
in Minnetrista.
The water connection would De fairly simple and inexpensive since their
main is on the east side of the street and stops approximately at the City
boundary. The sewer connection is a different story. The sewer main is
located on the westerly side of Co. Rd. No. 110 under the new paving. The only
way Hennepin County will let us connect is to jack the service through to the
existing manhole. We have estimated the cost for the water service at
approximately $800.00, and the sewer service at $4,000.00. These costs include
bringing both services to within 5 feet of the building.
I have talked to Minnetrista's utility department and they seemed
receptive, but I am sure this will have to be worked out between the two City
Councils. If you need additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
MCCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron
JC:lr
Minneapolis- Hutchinson - Alexandria - Eagan
printed on recycled paper
' REALTOR'
COMMERCIAL -- INDUSTRIAL ~uJ '~/
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
FORM APPROVED BY GREATER MINNEAPOLIS ARLtA BOARD OIt REALTORS~
~ as earnest money and In part payment for the purchm$~ of
~ltu~tefl In
~ounty of , ~~ ~ . Sta~e of MinnesRta. and~pgally des'crlbed an followg, ~-wIC
a of hlch,propert~ fhe~derai~d)aa this da~ sold~o the buyer for the aura of:
which the buyer agrees to pay in thg foIlowing manner:
the date of closing. ~ ~, ' .~ D ~ ~ fi' ' '~ a _~ / '~ ~
.... .... ...,, I
Deed mnveyJ~g marke~ble tiffs ~ s~d premises subject o~ly ~ ~e follo~$
(a) Bulling ud ~ning l~w6, or~nuce6, SiLts And Federal repletions,
(b) Resections relabng m u6e or j~rov~ent of premiiel ~t~ut efrecOve forfeiture proflsJon,
(e) Reservation of any minernl8 or mineral rights ~ the State of Minnesota,
(d) Utility and dr~nage easamenta ~ich ~ ~t interfere ~th present improvements.
(,) ~OHTS OF TE3~ 9 FOLLOWS:
2
Bayer 8hall pav~f the re~ estate taxe~ lad in=~llmen~ or lpecl~ A~me86me~tm dup lad plylhle In
Seller shall pa3~~e real astute ~xes md inlt~lm~ta of 8peci~ assessments dne and payable In
and ~l auch t~s ~ i~l~llment~ of special las~sment$ in prior 7~ul.
Seller ~ven~ts ~at b~ldings, If ~y, are entirely wills ~e ~und~_lines of ~e property ~d ~een m remvm ~1
property
The seller further ~ee$ ~ deliver ~ssessi~ on _t~~ ~ prodded that all e~dltJonl of ~ll
~reement have be~ ~lted ~. ~ {~
In the event this pr~erty Is destroyed or. substantially dam~ed by ~e or ~y o~er cause before ~e cloning date, ~la
shell be~me null and ~id, at the Buyer's option, and all nmnies paid heralder shall be re~nded m him.
The ~yer ~d seller also mutually a~ee that pro ~of rents, interest, ineur~ce, uUIIUes and ~y o~
The seller, shall,~in a reasonable ~me ~ter ~pmval of this a~eem~k furnish an abs~act of title, or a Re~ntered
Abs~act cer~fied ~ date ~d ~ include proper searches ~ve~ng b~k~pteles, and State and Federal judgement and liens. The
·hall be ~llowed ~ days after receipt ~er~f for examina~on of s~d title and the m~ing of any objections ~ere~. said
to be made in ~tzng or deemed to ~ waived. If any objections are so made ~e nailer shall be allowed I~ days ~ m~e mHeh UUe
m~ketable. Pen~ng e~ection of Utle the pa~ents hereunder r~ulred sh~l be pos~oned, but ulmn ~rrecO~ of Utle ~d wlthl~
days after ~ltten notice ~ the ~yw, the panics shall perform this a~eement ac~r~ng ~ Its terms.
If said UOe i8 not marketable ~d la not made ~ within 1~ days from the date of w~tten obJecUonn there~ am prodded, thtm
meat shall be null and ~id, at option of ~yer, ~.nd neither p~ncip~ shall be liable for dampen heralder ~ the o~et pnn~pM.
stoney ~eremfore paid by ~e ~yer shall be refunded. If the ti0e ~ s~d property be found matke~ble or be ~o made within maid ttmm~
and s~d buyer shall default tn any of the ~eements and ~ntlnue in default for a pe~od of 10 days. then ~d in that case the
may te~lnate this ~ntract and on su~ te~tnaUon all ~e paym~t8 made u~n ~in con.act 8hall be te~ined by nard seller ~d
agent, as thmr respective interests may appel, as liquidated dam~e~. Use being of the essence hereof. This pmvisl~ sh~l
dep~ve either party of the ~ght of ~forcing ~e specific perfom,~ce of this ~n~act prodded such ~ntract ah~l ~t be
as aforesaid, and provld~ action m enforce such specific performance 9h~l be commenced ~thin six n~n~e after mu~ right of
shall ~ise.
It is understood and a~e~ that this sale is made s.hJect m ~e approval ~ the owner of said premises in writing and thai
undersized agent ts in no manner liable or responsible on ac~)unt of this agreement, exe~pt ~ return or account for ~e e~emt mon~
]t is unders~d that seller/buyer has unOl . ~ ~ accel Iht tirol tod
THIS 15 A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT. IF HOT UNDERSTOOD, SEEK COMPETENT ADVICE.
] hereby agree to purnhase the said property for the prtCS t~a
upon the terms above mentioned and subject to all eondiUofls heel,
in e~ress~.
Dated
(SIAl,}
INTEROFFICE MEMO
FROM:
Jon Elam, City Manager
Bruce Wold, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Henn. County Dispatch Policy
DATE ~rch ]7,
19~42
The Hennepin County Board met on Tuesday, March 16, 1982, and passed,
on a 4-3 vote, the draft resolution I sent to you earlier. The. reso-
lution calls for:
1. Emergency communications for dependent suburbs at no cost.
2. Administrative communications on a cost basis to each dependent
suburb. The county would assist in establishing a minimal cost
system to handle administrative calls.
3. The county will assume all cost associated with implementation
of the 911 emergency system.
I called Phil Eckert, of the county staff, to get a better perspective
on time frame and definitions. Phil told me the staff will move as
quickly as -possible to define and implement the resolution. He expects
to use the input from dependent communities during this process. Phil
feels that emergency calls constitute the bulk of calls on the system.
This would tend to lead to a definition of emergency as any call for
service requiring the dispatch of a police unit. This type of broad
definition would cover 75 - 90% of all our radio use.
Stay tuned for any other late breaking events.
INTEROFFICE MEMO
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Jon Elam, City Manager
Chief Bruce Wold
Hennepin County Dispatch Policy
DATE March 16,
19,§2
Ail the information I can obtain tends to support the '~jority Report" on
Hennepin County dispatch policy. That report made it clear that. charges,
to suburbs using the Sheriff's radio frequencies should be charged for the
service effective January 1, 1983. Attached to this memo is a copy of a
County Board Resolution which will in all likelihood, be passed.
The essence of the resolution is the county providing all emergency communi-
cations at no cost. However, all administrative communication would be on
a cost for service basis. I have no firm research to tell me what~ercent-
age of all calls for police service in Mound are emergency calls. My gut
feeling is that no more than 5% of total police communication, in Mound, is
in the emergency category.
The estimate offered in the preceeding paragraph is based on my definition
of what constitutes an emergency communication. The resolution neither
defines nor sets up any group of persons to break down the emergency and
administrative calls for service.
There is a possibility that emergency conmunications could end up being
all calls for police service. If that is the case, the percentage paid
for by the County could be as high as 75%.
The County Board mandates that this policy be firmly established by June 1,
1982. This should provide adequate time for us to make plans to hold our
costs to a minimum.
REVISED DiS~,CH ~-'~I[',' '~
-L LLIJI'i!'IL,iJ~, IbIi'
(New provisions are underlined)
i~: Hennepin County Board of Con~qlSSioners should establish as policy
t~at emergency communications and dispatch services, as one of a net-
work of necessary public safety radio communications services in
suburban Hennepin County, is most appropriate)y a County function and
responsibility.
(a) Consistent with the responsibility identified in 1, above, and to
provide incentives for the consolidation of ex~st~ng dispatch
services, the County should offer emergency dispatch services with-
out charge (beyond those charges currently assessed on a cost
sharing basis for equipment procurement and mainte~¢nce) to
municipalities in suburban Hennepin County that wish to'participate
in such a network and are willing to pledge or utilize their
frequencies on an equal load basis.
(b)
Individual municipalities should be responsible for the provision
and fundin~ of all non-emer~enc? communications. The CountS Admin~
trator should prepare a plan for the transfer of the responsibilit~
for all administrative communications from the Sheriff's radio net-
work tR municipalities participating in that network. Cou~t~ staff
should provide technical and engineering suP~rt to mu~Cipalitiq~
to enable them to ass~ne this function ~nd to permit the County to
~ov,e'towa~ a 100 percent emerg~ngy communications and dispatch
system. In the event that it is not feasible for all municipalities
participating in the County radio network to manage their own adminis-
trative communications, the Administrator's plan should include pr~-
visions for charging municipalities for any such services provided by
the County. The AdminiStrator's plan should be presented to the
Hennepin County Board by June 1, 1982 to permit Board action and
notification of municipalities prior to County and municipal budget
deliberations for !983.
~ Ji~paCcn User's Advisory Board sheuld b~ mSLdbllsh~(] Lo mdvise
[h: Sheriff on dispatch policies and prucedures and performance
asl~ects of the o'spatch center. Such a board should cons~$~ of
,'epresen~a~ives of ~hose municipalities and any nonmunicipal
emergency service agencies receiving dispatch services from the
County dispatch center. The board should be responsible for
(1) developing dispatch policies and procedures that will provide
maximum support for local police, fire, and EMS activities;
(~) making recon~nendations to the Sheriff regarding the hiring,
firing, and performance of the dispatch manager; (3) advising' the
Sheriff's Department, other County agencies, and the County Board
on matters relating to the enhancement of the County dispatch center.
(d)
After each suburban municipality has had an opportunity, to determine
whether it wishes to participate in the County dispatch network, the
User'Advisory Board should begin, in conjunction with the Sheriff's
Department and staff of the Information Services Department, to
detemine current and future user requirements and begin the planning
and design of system enhancements. The need for CAD support should
be given special consideration.
(el
Computer support for independents' dispatch operations should be
provided by the County without charge. However, links to independent
dispatching would be at the expense of the specific local municipality.
This would apply to any municipality or County operations such as
Emergency Medical Ser, vice~, if they desire to utilize the network.
and Central Computer facility but have their own dispatch console
at their location.
Hennepin County should provide a subsidy to all mun4cipalities by financin~
all non-recurrihg'911 central ~quipment and installation costs that are
not reimbursed by the State of Minnesota.
It should also be reaffirmed as policy that Hennepin County will continue
to design, install, maintain and manage a public safety radio communications
network consisting of towers, antennas, repeaters, voters, base stations,
microwave and land lines.
Reco(jnlZlng the economic and tecnnical adv~ntJq=,s ,)r L.~llllln(Jn cummunicati()~lS
equipment procurement and maintenance, and the excellent exmerience to
date of such an arrangement, it is recommended that such an operation
continue under County management but with input from participants con-
cerning the functional equipment requirements and replacement policy
designs.
It is the responsibility of the Hennepin County Board to establish and
review budgets, set broad County communications and dispatch policies
and consider issues which cannot be satisfactorily resolved by the
Sheriff's Department and the Users' Advisory Board. The need for reso-
lution of any basic County communications or dispatch policy issues should
be presented for the County Board's consideration by the County Adminis-
trator along with staff analysis, alternatives and reco~end~tions.
RESOLJTIC:i
The fdilowln9 resolution ,.,,'as offered by
BE IT RESOLVED, that the i4ennepin County Board of Commissioners establishes
as policy that elaergency con~nunica~ions and dispatch services, as one of a net-
work of necessary public safety radio co~mnunications services, is an appropriate
County function and responsibility; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in order to fully execute this polic~, the
County will~
Offer emergency communications and dispatch services without
charge (beyond those charges currently assessee on a cost sharing
basis'for equipment procurement and maintenance) to all munici-
palities in suburban Hennepin County that wish to participate in
such a network and are willing to pledge or utilize their fre-
quencies on an equal load basis. ..
Require all municipalities participating in the County radio net-
work to manage their own administrative communications or reimburse
the County for the cost of providing such services. The County
Administrator is directed to prepare and present, by June 1, 1982,
a plan for the transfer of the responsibility for all municipal
administrative communications from the Sheriff's radio network
to municipalities participating in that network. In the event
that it is not feasible for all municipalities to manage their
own administrative communications, the plan shall include pro-
visions for charging municipalities for any such services provided
by the County.
3. Establish a User.,sAdvisory Board to advise the Sheriff on dis-
patch policies and'procedures and performance aspects.of the
dispatch center. Such a board will consist of representatives
of those municipalities and any nonmunicipal emergency service
agencies receiving'dispatch services from the County dispatch
center.' The board will be responsible for {1) developing dis-
patch policies and procedures that will provide maximum support
for local police, .fire and EMS activities; (2) making recom-
mendations to the Sheriff regarding the hiring, firing and
performance of the dispatch manager; (3) advising the Sheriff's
Deparbnent~ other County agencies and the County Board on
matters relating tO the enhancement of the County dispatch center.
4. Begin the planning and design of County dispat'ch system enhance-
ments after each suburban municipality has had the opportunity
to determine whether (t wishes to participate in the Count),
dispatch network..This planning and design effort will primarily
involve the User's Advisory Board, the Sheriff's Department and
the Information Services Department.
O~f~r co~,,pu~er suppor; f;r inGepenclenL municIt~ul I~i~:~' CliSp~l.C~l
operations wltl~¢u: cna~o.e. Links to indepenclen~ dist)~tch centers
w~l] ~e a~ the exper, se of ~ecal municipalities.
o
Provide a subsidy ~-o all municipalities by firlancing all non-
recurring 911 central equipment and installation costs thai; are
not reimbursed by the State of Minnesota.
o
Continue to design, install, maintain and manage a public safety
radio conmlunications network consisting of towers, antennas, ?
repeaters, voters, base stations, microwave and land lines.
o
Continue the existing cooperative procurement and maintenance
program for communications equipment with input from participants
concerning the functional equipment requirements and replacement
policy designs; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that it is the responsibility df thB Hennepin
County Board to establish and review budgets, set overall County communica-
tions and dispatch policies and consider issues which cannot be satisfactorily
resolved by the Sheriff's Department and the User's Advisory Board. The need
for resolution of any basic County communications or dispatch policy issues
will be presented for the County Board's consideration by the County Adminis-
trator along with staff analysis, alternatives and recommendations.
The question was on the adoption of the resolution and there were
YEAS and NAYS as follows'
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
BOARD OF COUNTY CO~(ISSIONERS
Jeff Spartz
Randy Johnson
Richard E. Kremer
E. F. Robb, Jr.
Sam S. Sivanich
Nancy Olkon
John E. Derus, Chairman
YEA NAY OTHER
ATTEST:
Deputy County Auditor
INTEROFFICE MEMO
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Jon Hlmm, City ~nnager
Bruce Wold, Chief of Police
Parking - Shorewood Lane
~A?z ~'~rch 17,
On Tuesday, March 16, 1982, I met with a group of neighbors to discuss parking
on Shorewood Lane. The result of the meeting was a consensus on what parking
restrictions should be placed on Shorewood Lane. The agreement was: ,
o
"No Parking Anytime" on the west side of Shorewood Ln. from Three Points
to Quail.
"No Parking Anytime" from Lakeside Lane to Quail on the east side of
Shorewood Lane.
"No Trailer Parking" on the east side of Shorewood Lane from Quail to
Three Points Blvd.
"No Parking anytime" on Sunrise Landing from Shorewood Lane northeasterly
to the lake shore.
Ordinance 46.29 sect 61c sub. 9 is the ordinance governing the parking on Shore-
wood Lane. The ordinance should be changed by adding: "No Parking Anytime" on
the east side of Shorewood Lane from Lakeside Lane to Quail Rd. Signing should
be changed as follows:
1. "No Parking Anytime" signs should be installed on the west side of Shore-
wood Lane from Three Points Blvd. to Quail Rd. to conform with the
existing ordinance.
2. On the east side of Shorewood Lane, from Quail Rd. to Three Points Blvd.
a. Install sufficient "No Trailer Parking" signs to make it enforceable.
b. Remove all "No Parking Anytime" signs from this stretch of road.
3. On the east side of Shorewood Lane, from Lakeside Lane to Quail Rd.
a. Install "No Parking Begins Here" at Lakeside Lane on the east side of
Shorewood Lane.
b. Install sufficient "No Parking Anytime" signs along this stretch of
roadway.
c. Install 'No Parking Ends Here" at Quail Rd. on the east side of
Shorewood Lane. On the same sign post, install the first "No Trailer
Parking" sign.
4. Install additional "No Parking Anytime" signs on Sunrise Landing.
The neighbors also Voiced concern over the cleanliness of Sunrise Landing. Of
particular concern was trash and unsightly brush.
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Jon Elam, City Manager
Licensing Department
March 16, 1982
Cigarette License Renewals
The following additional cigarette license renewals have been
received:
Mound Lanes, 2346 Cypress Lane
RagerIs Pit Stop Pub, 5098 Three Points Boulevard
Cigarette licenses are from March l, 1982 to February 28, 1983.
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
APPLICATION FOR GAMBLING PERMIT
Northwest Tonka Lions
Name of organization
Mound
Address
Minnesota
, a Non-profit
organization, hereby applies
for a annual
annual/single occasion
gambling permit.
Date to be used May 1982 through May 1983
Phone Number of Organization 472-2013
Date Organization was organized August 30, 1950
Purpose of Organization Promote Civic, social and moral welfare of the community
Type of Gambling to take place:
Paddlewheel Yes No
Tipboard Yes No
Raffle Yes × No
Location of Gambling:
Address: 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota
Name of Building Owner Westonka School District
Is the building owned or leased by the organization Leased
Date ownership was acquired
If leased, expiration date of lease May 1983
(Copy of lease must accompany application)
Gambling Manager:
Name of Gambling Manager Richard Wolowicz
Home address Mound, Minnesota ~3~ ~
Is Gambling Manager an active member of organization yes
Date membership acquired May 8, 1979
Is Gambling Manager paid by the organization for handling the gambling no
(The answer to this question must be no Sec. 43.40)
Amount of bond furnished by Gambling Manager $10,000
State Farm Insurance
Name of Company furnishing Bond
agree to file a copy of the bond with the City Clerk.
State Bank of Mound
Name of Bank where gambling funds will be kept
472-3664
Home Phone
(Required)
(At least SI0,000.)
and we
·
Bank Account Number for gambling funds
Are funds in the above account mixed with other funds no
(Answer must be "No")
AGREEMENT
The N.W. Tonka Lions hereby agrees that if the license herein
Name of Applicant
is granted that the N.W. Tonka Lions 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 N.W. Tonka Lions
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 024588
listed
above.
Signed by authorized Officer of Organization
Z"{ Vice
~ .~ ( / , 4 ,~ ,. Title President
Date /~ ,' ~ ~
The above application is made on behalf of the N.W. Tonka Lions
and all information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
Date Signature
Title
Annual Licenses:
Expire on January 31 of each year. Fees are not prorated for
licenses purchased after February ~.
Air Corem 90, O0
Auto Con Industr;es 157.09
F.H. Bathke 6.90
Gayle Burns 17.49
Holly Bostrom 221.67
Blackowiak ~ 5on5 94.00
Burlington Northern 533.33
Bowman/Barnes 121.75
Chapin Publishing 128.25
Bill Clark Standard 4,404.11
Coast to Coast 74.58
Continental Telephone 960.9l
Dunkley & Bennett 387.50
Director Property Taxation 212.42
Empire Crown Auto 17.49
Jon Elam 113.62
Govt Training Serv. 85.00
Glenwood Inglewood 42.75
Genuine Parts 3.00
Gopher Oil Co. 207.31
Henn Co. Treas. 2,166.25
Henn Co. Atty Office 30.00
David Hofschult 35.00
Henn Co. Chf Police PTAC 150.00
Herbs Typewriter Serv 123.70
Illies& Sons 510.75
JABCO Home Remodeling (HUD) 1,545.50
Lake Mtka Conserv. Dist 1,998.50
Loegerings Comfort Sales(HUD) 1,317.65
McCarthy Well Co. 80.00
City of Minnetrista 50.00
Metro Waste Control Commiss 19,277.27
MN Recreation & Park 85.00
Minnegasco 1,430.55
Minn Mining & Mfg 311.35
MN Safety Equip 40.00
McCombs-Knutson 5,186.00
MacQueen Equip 141.59
Metro Waste Control 841.00
MacQueen Equip 27,136.00
Mound Police Dept. 43.63
" " " 23.56
Nat'l Fire Protection Assn 84.75
Northland Elec Supply 139.57
N.W. Bell Tele 60.30
Nat'l Roof Contr. Assn 68.00
N.S.P. 9,013.38
Oswald Fire Hose 410.34
Charles C. Pearson 16.72
Pitney Bowes Credit 26.00
Popham Haik Kaufman
Paper Calmenson
Barry Palm
Rainbow Inn
Reo Raj Kennels
Ted Stallman
Smoke-Eater
Title Ins.
Uniforms Unlimited
Unitog Rental
Village Printers
Winner Industries
Waconia Ridgeview
R.L. Youngdahl
Xerox, Inc.
Ziegler, Inc.
Wilcox Paper Co,
Griggs, Cooper
Johnson Bros. Liquor
MN Distillers
Old Peoria
Ed Phillips & Sons
TOTAL BILLS
300.00
124.95
65O.OO
34.65
180.00
650.0O
162.oo
94.00
245.02
252.30
136.15
1.65
48.10
87.OO
.' 589.58
285.72
208.74
3,044.55
5,298.64
846.76
986.40
2,342.35
96,790.09
........ DATE:
H: TO:
FROM:
I HeNNePIN
I C;OUNTY
' J SUBJECT:
March 18, 1982
Jon Elam - Mound
Corky Stevenso~
Basic Emergency Management Workshop
Reference our previous memos announcing a basic emergency management
seminar for Mankato, subsequently cancelled, and the next basic emer-
gency management seminar for Grand Rapids.
Enclosed is the course announcement for Grand Rapids, April 21-23, 1982.
To enroll, please complete and return the registration form to this
office ASAP. Call the County Office 827-5687 if you have any questions.
DIV,,SION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
METRO REGION OFFICE
1821 University Avenue - Room 180
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
612/297-3942
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
SAINT PAUL 55155
March 16, 1982
TO :
FROM :
SUBJECT:
Metro Region County Directors, Directors of Minneapolis
and St. Paul
Howard J. Strabala, Metro Region Goordinator~'.~'*
Basic Management Workshop, April 21-23, 1982, Holiday Inn
Grand Rapids, Minnesota
Attached are copies of the Basic Management Workshop Registration Forms.
Please make these forms available to all personnel in your County who are
eligible to attend this workshop. Registration forms will not be
accepted unless the potential student has met the minimum prerequisites
for this course.
There is no set deadline for registration -- the class will be closed
after 30 approved student registrations are received.
HJS:rd
Attachments
STATE OF MIN,~IESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
DIVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
B§ - State Capitol
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Telephone: (612) 296-2233
MEMORANDUM
TO :
FROM :
SUBJECT:
Emergency Management Directors/Coordinators and Staff
Kenneth A. Parsch, Acting Director
Basic Management Workshop
WHERE
Holiday Inn
2301Pokegama Avenue South
Grand Rapids, Minnesota 55744
Tel: (218) 326-8501
WHEN
: April 21-23, 1982
Registration: 9:00 - 9:30 a.m., on Wednesday, April 21.
CONTENT:
Comprehensive Emergency Management - Overview
The Emergency Manager: Primary Role and Responsibilities
Uazard Analysis/Mitigation
Emergency Preparedness: Legislation and Programs
Emergency Preparedness Developmental Planning
Operating Under Emergency Conditions
ADMINISTRATION:
Prerequisites: Minimum requirements: Completion of Civil Defense - USA Itome
Study Course (HS-6), or Emergency Management USA (SS-2).
Attendance
: Is required at ALL sessions -.in order to graduate and receive
1 odging/meal s.
Lodging and meals will be furnished for those students accepted into the course.
No mileage reimbursement is p~ovided.
Lodging :
Meals :
Is provided for students traveling more than 50 miles to attend
the course. Single or double rooms are available for the nights
of April 21 and 22. Additional costs for other arrangements (i.e.,
husband/wife) will be at the student's expense. For those who
travel at least 75 miles to the course, lodging is available, upon
request, for April 20th.
Will be provided according to State regulatlq~s for students stay-
ing at the Holiday Inn beginning with lunch on Wednesday. Students
commuting to the course will receive their noon meals.
-1-
~CREDITATION:
This course has been approved by the Minnesota Board of Peace Of-
ficers Standards and Training (POST) for 19 continuing education
credit hours. A roster of Peace Officers who successfully complete
the course will be submitted to the POST Board.
Please complete the registration form attached and return to your Regional Coordina-
tor as soon as possible, as we can accept only the first 30 students. You will re-
ceive a letter from the State Office confirming your enrollment and lodging arrange-
ments.
n~ey~)arkenrt~~
Training Officer
KAP:IIII:I h
Attachment
-2-
350 mETRO J'OURRE BLDG.
7TH & ROBERT/TREET7'
.fRIrIT PAUL mn 55101
612 '222.8423
March 9, 1982
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Local Government Units-MWCC Contact Person
MWCC Industrial Waste Section
MWCC Regulation of Waste Transport Haulers
. During i9~i, new Metr'opoliLan. Waste Control Commission (MWCC)
Waste Discharge Rules for the Metropolitan Disposal'System were
adopted and sent out to all-Industrial Users, local government
· units, and.appropriate state and local agencies. It i~ ~oP~d
'tha~ resPohsible parsons within eac~ go¥~rnment unit have re- -
viewed these newWaste Discharge Rules~ since the'municipalities'.
will be 'directly involved in the-Industrial Discharge Permit
~ssuanceprocess. Draft Industrial Discharge Permits-for each
InduStrial User will be sent to munic~palities_fonreview and
comment prior to the ~ssuance of the final permit.
lhis letter specifically deals with "Waste Transport Haulers",
-which a~e defined as "An InOustrial User who transports Indus-
tria~ or Domestic Waste fer the p~rposeof discharge into the
Metropolitan Disposal System" (Section 6.011Y of the Waste Dis-
chaYge Rules). These-Waste 'Transport Haulers are mainly involved
in'pumping residential' and commercial septic tank contents for
subsequent sewer..disposal. Many of these haulers also pump com-
mercial and industrial sumps, pits, sand'and grease traps, ~-
well~ and dry~ells,-ho~ding .~ank~, etc.', and this activity Can
lead to the.d~scharge of objectionable n~aterials in~o the Metr6~
politan Disposal System~ ~nder ~he new ~ast6 Discharge ~ules,
the discharge activities of Waste Transport Haulers will be di-
rectly regulated by the MWCC. Industrial Discharge Permit con-
ditions and reporting requirements for ~laste Transport Haulers
are contained-in the Waste Discharge. Rules. The issue of user
charges (Strength Charge) for Waste Transport Haulers Will also
be addressed with the new permit system. Current COmmunity
regulation of ~aste Transport Hauler activities (if any exists)
may continue at the discretion of each local government unit.
In order to effectively regulate~ H~aul~s, it
is necess.ary for th2 MWCC to designate specific Waste Trans-
port Hauler DisF, osal ?oints. Thesc disposal points wi}l be
the locations at which permitted Waste Transport Haulers will
be allowed to discharge their loaes int~ the sewer system.
Several plaints currently in use a~'e kno',-~n to the M'..~CC Indus-
trial Waste Secticn. lhese may be designated as approved dis-
?~sal points fn~, ¢onLinued use, and ne;; a~roYed.dis~osal points
h~ay be established. It will be necessary ~o establish
Page 2 MWCC Regulation of Waste Transport Haulers
these disposal points within the boundaries of communities which are
served by the MWCC, and by this letter community input regarding this
matter is requested. A short Questionnaire is included with this letter,
and it is requested that each com~u.nj~'fili' it' out and return ~t to the
MWCC Industrial Waste Section. Approved Waste Transport Hauler Disposal
Points will not be establis'hed in residential or other sensitive areas,
and community approval will be requested before the final disposal points
are designated. In many cases, the configuration of the MWCC Interceptor
System will affect the disposal point locations. Please answer the attached
questions, and if questions arise call Leo Hermes (771-8845 ext. 108) of
the Industrial Waste Section. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Donald R. Madore
Deputy Director of Quality Control
DRM: LHH:rw
cc: W. K. Johnson, Director of Quality Control, MWCC
G' W. Lusher, Chief Administrator, MWCC
METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION
INDUSTRIAL WASTE SECTION
Community Questionnaire
Waste Transport Hauler Disposal Points
Please answer the following questions and return this form to the
MWCC Industrial Waste Section, 350 Metro Square Building, St Paul
Minnesota, 55101. If possible please return this questionnair~ within'
30 days in order to expedite the disposal point selection process.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Community Name
Name of person answering questions
Title or Function
Phone Number
Date Questionnaire returned to the MWCC
Does your community currently have any regulations, permits, fees or
licenses that deal with Waste Transport Haulers (scavengers, septic
tank pumpers, liquid waste haulers)?
YES NO
If "YES" to Question 6, please describe completely(attach extra sheet~
i f necessary)
Be
If "YES" to Question 6, does your community plan to continue its
regulatory function for Waste Transport Haulers after the MWCC Waste
Discharge Rules are implemented?
YES NO
If "NO" to Question 6, does your community plan to enact any regulations
regarding Waste Transport Haulers after implementation of the MWCC
Waste Discharge Rules?
YES NO
PAGE 2 Coninunity Questionnaire-- Waste TKansport Hauler Disposal Points
10.
Are there currently any locations that you know of within your com-
munity that are used by Waste Transport Haulers to discharge liquid
waste into the public sewer system (local or MWCC)?
YES NO
ll. If "YES" to Question 10, please list the known disposal .point locations.
12.
13.
14.
If "YES" to Question 10, would your community object to the MWCC
designating one or more of the current disposal points as approved
Waste Transport Hauler Disposal Points?
YES ND
If "NO" to Question 10, would your community object to the MWCC
establishing an approved Waste Transport Hauler Disposal Point
within your community boundarieS?
YES NO
Do you have any suggestions as to locations within your community
that would be acceptible as approved Waste Transport Hauler Disposal
Points?
YES NO
15. If "YES" to Question 14, please list them.
16.
Please list any suggestions you may have regarding MWCC control of
Waste Transport Haulers or the matter of selecting approved Waste
Transport Hauler Disposal Points.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION:
~&l~ ~ emtn ~e b~lnc~. ~ ~. gam~ ~fa~ at the end
~hebubble~'t meOYb~L of 1~. More ~e~ su~eya ~e mn ~a s~eyinRe~aY.a~'~'
butit'le~ddenlyal~am~l~.'~Y~ Umva~e,~t~me~a~- . land ~lla-~ed ~ade pubhuUOn-
l~ mak~ of ~m-~a~ ~- . ~ ~ l~l ~e. ~mv~g ~ qumem m new
· ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ -*,~,~ ~t~aCt~q
Or ~ Y, ~e ~e ~mn o~- make a ~ffereme
,~vt ~ y~a ~ ~ ,~ ~, ~nt theY ~t~. s~ of ~e . ~lly ......
~ ~ mm ~t Rv~ a
. . · . ~ ~ ~em ~ ~g n Ut~ level m two l~UOm ~d 70% m
,~m~m~hem ~ won~-~ a~ ~, ;~mmm fred, ~, mat ~lp~ ,bl~, mclu~ d~hmng gam~
~U~~a~' )uyL . .. '. ~,~. ~ney-~ng ~e eyre ~: ~eam~ute~a~bumr°v~
er~f~fe~ve~ ~ ~'~ ~ ' mo~ ~ke ~t m ~ ' h~n~pa~.
~ r- . ~ 'vest~ m ~e ~zn~
~m-~a~v~~ ~ two ~,~byab~ r~ o~yoneml0~n~nues ..........
~ ~ a 81~ m ~U~ ~,,i~de nubhcttY ~t ~ ~em- ~ w~klv tn~me ol more that o~rauus
~t ~ f~J~ out ~ M gm~ m ~lieve ~at ~e~ ~ke~ wo~d ~ 1~ a w~k ~r a~ mont~,, ~ - ~, rnmmuniUes
a~ra~ bke Tn~b~ ~ ~Y b · wt~ ~venues ~ $~ a w~k . ~ ~y. . ~unte~,~n...~:,~,,-~-~F,, ~or
· ~ ~ ~e ~ 8~, s~ av~-
~ev~he~m~n 'machine, w~e o~ mv~ ng~w~Uy~ven~ofmore~~ . ~e mac~n~ ou~8hL Rudy and
%1~,~ m ~ver~ ~n ~C~ ~t J~-~ mont~ on ~e ' ~ ~na Val~ of Hamen~
~ -.~ ~_ ~,, ~y~ey.l~$13,~at~eym'
~ ~ly ~e e~nt m ~e ~ ~t ~ey ~ve ~ d~ m~ oH- m~keL ~ ~g~e [~e ~o~ v~t~ ~ ~n a g~ ~de
~m~e~, ~ m ~des ~ m ~ ~- ~ Sl b~ ~ ~ ~e
- --T~ num~ ~ ~ g~ ·. PIe~
Uonm o~ by o~s.
; --~e ~a ~ bu~g, ~' ~ "
~ntluudfrem~aP . -. ',.'~_ . ~a~y~M~e~-~
~,~ ~t ~ p~ ~c: ,~,, ~t me ~ ~ new ~ mv~ ~
. . m~ ~e~ ~fs m
i~y~nd~ve~~ae' .~nm~sr~m~tY~ . ~n ~ ~ ~ ~o~~-
~~ ~ f~en~ 1~ ~amm ~ve ~e ~ ~ ~eY ~ve ~v'" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~dy ~, e~:~
,~ast mummer, and an;dys~a expect
~le$ to Kmw o~y m~Oy--~ ~c-
c~e--~r ~ ye~ u m wh~e.
w~ of ~aylng ~ g~ An-
~e ~ger 0~ra~ w~ bavc
~ns ~ mm v~m game~
~mat~ 8~ven K~n~.
ly~ ~ ~e New
But ~e ~let ~ I~L w~n
~h~g. ~pl~ mnehl~ ~r)-
~ m ~ ~g lmm
~. ~ a 'fluke' ~ a
~e.' ~ya ~ ~ ~uuve
duct~n from 1~0 gsunea a day to a ~u'~nt ·
profit wtth ~e ~ve~ ~ ~b ~ a ~,
~t~ ~e pm~g ~ h~ f~ a ~new~
.
B~ ~hen Midway ~v~ ~nOy P~ ~e
T ~en ~ Mc~d'J ~u~v~, ~e ~cOon wu non-
j ~ke~.
t' ' "It wu ~ n ~t ~Y ~t went.~
~ ~y ~' ~d S~m's Sleg~ 'But now
· It's ~d~ ~m ~ ~ o~y ~e ~
~ ~ke m~eY."
A.THOMAS WURST
GERALD T. CARROLL
CURTIS A. PEARSON
THOI4AS F, UNDERWOOD
ALBERT FAULCONER T~
JAMES D. LAR$ON
LAW OFFICES
WURST, CARROLL & PEARSON
MINNEAPOLIs, MINNESOTA 5~,402
March 10, 1982
TELEPHONE
Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Re: Las Vegas Night
Dear Jon:
This will confirm our telephone conversation of today where you
have inquired as to whether the Council can authorize the Fire
Department or other group to conduct a Las Vegas Night.
I am enclosing herewith a copy of an Attorney General's opinion
dated March 19, 1974, to the City of Bloomington indicating that
such acts are prohibited by Minnesota Statute~ 609.755.
In 1978, the legislature adopted Chapter 507 which legalized
certain gambling activities consisting of paddle wheels~ tip boards,
and raffles. At the time of that legislation, we checked with the
Attorney General who informed us that they had not reviewed the law
prior to its adoption by the legislature. Since it would be the
Attorney General's responsibility to protect its constitutionality,
they did not issue an opinion, but privately I believe most municipal
and constitutional lawyers would indicate that even paddle wheels,
tip boards, and raffles are nnconstitutional under Article VIII,
Chapter 5 of the Minnesota Constitution which reads as follows:
"Prohibition of Lotteries. The legislature shall not authorize
any lottery or the sale of lottery tickets." I am also enclosing
a copy of Jim Larson's opinion to Brooklyn Park on June 16, 1981,
who as the City's prosecutor indicated that the operation of a roulette
wheel and black jack tables by a non-profit group would be gambling,
and the organization would be guilty of a misdemeanor. I believe this
responds to the question.
If you have any additional questions or comments, please call.
Very truly yours,
Pearson
City Attorney
CAP:Ih
Enclosures
P.S. I am enclosing a copy of 609.75 and 609.755, which are the
statutory prohibitions against gambling.
C.A.P.
-!
_go/
COMMUNITY SERVICES
ALCOHOL AND DRUG PROGRAM
Access Unit (A.I.D.)
18o0 Chicago Avenue South
347-614f
March 5, 1982
Mound Police Department
5341Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Attn: Mr. Wold
Chief of Police
Dear Sir,
On the night of February 23, 1982 the father of a client of mine called me
regarding his daughter. The daughter had been drinking and had called him
to pick her up. When he had arrived at the appointed place she was not there.
He waited 45 minutes and called me to ask for help for he feared she had
passed out in a snowbank, or possibly dead or dying.
I called the Mound police to ask for their assistance in locating the girl.
Not only did the police find my client but they also transported her to the
dexification center which enabled her to receive the care she needed.
Because of the cooperation, quality assistance and professionalism of the
Mounds Police Department that client is now in treatment and on her way to
getting well.
Because I do not know the specific names of the officers and staff on duty
that night, I am asking you to relay my deepest appreciation and respect to·
those wonderful people who took the time and energy to be exceptional.
JAE:pt
Si ncerely,
JoAnn Elston
Chemical Dependency Counselor
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal opportunity employer
March 12, 1982
Mr. David H. Cochran, President
Board of Managers
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
PO Box 387
Wayzata, MN 55391
Subject: Gray's Bay Outlet Control Structure
Dear Mr. Cochran:
The City of Orono has reviewed your February 24, 1982 letter including
the "preliminary proposal for modification of head waters control structure
management policy" concerning certain proposed changes in the operating
procedure for the Gray's Bay Dam.
The Orono City Council, at its meeting of March 8, 1982, discussed
the proposed modifications together with reviewing the documentation
provided to us by your engineer. The City of Orono objects to the
proposed changes finding that there is not sufficient doc~nented need
to justify the radical changes proposed in your letter of February 24,
1982.
During 1980 the City did review the temporary modification requested
to solve a winter discharge problem authorized under the original operati.ng
policy, which caused excessive ice build-up in Minnehaha Creek. The city
feels that this is the only justified reason for which a permanent
modification to the operation policy should be considered at this time.
We are attaching our reconlnended permanent change in the operating
procedure that recognizes the need to discharge water in the fall of the
year at a greater flow rate and to lower lake levels than was comtemp!ated
under the original operating plan adopted in 1978.
This proposed plan allows for~a discharge rate of up to 150 CFS
maximum at any time after July 31st through March 31st of the following
year. The proposed plan also allows a reduction in the lake level at
which point no discharge will be allowed, con~nencin§ on August 15th through
November 15th, so that the lake. level can be brought down to the low point
of 928.6 during November of each year.
David H. Cochran -2- March 12, 1982
The City feels that the operational policy should continue to require
that as water levels exceed 929.6, the Gray's Bay Dam will discharge at
250 CFS, minimizing the flood potential on Lake Minnetonka. Additionally,
when the water level reaches 930.0 the dam should discharge unrestricted
with the flood control structure completely open. We see no documented
evidence that would justify any modification to the control procedure
in these areas at this time.
The City of Orono contends that any modification to the discharge
levels and flow rates during the period from April 1st through the middle
of August as required under the original operational plan, that would ·
lower lake levels during the summer and early fall would have the potential
for adverse environmental impact to the Lake. We see no indications that
there has been any consideration given in your recent proposed modification
to the adverse affects of low water conditions in Lake Minnetonka. The
extreme environmental damage caused by the operation of power boats as
well as normal wave action during low water periods is an important
environmental concern that should be investigated extensively before any
such modifications to the original plan be adopted. Our concerns
particularly focus during a year in which drought conditions exist during
the summer and fall months. The City of Orono certainly wishes to
participate in any such studies that would be undertaken concerning this
subject.
The City has had very little time to respond to your proposal and
we request that any proposed modifications be submitted for our review
and imput earlier in the process so that we can continue to participate
in the management planning of the Gray's Bay Control Structure. The
residents of Lake Minnetonka have made a substantial financial investment
in lakeshore properties which has been reflected through extremely high
real estate taxes. It is the City's position that the watershed district
should do a better job in informing the Lake Minnetonka cities of any
proposed changes that may cause a diminution in property values of Lake
Minnetonka lakeshore.
We plan to be available at your meeting of March 18, 1982 to discuss
this matter and are hopeful that our proposal would be accepted by the
watershed as a permanent modification to the Gray's Bay Dam Operational
Plan.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Yours truly,
CITY, OF ORONO
Brad' ~an~t
Mayor
BV N/1 g
CITY of ORONO
Post Office Box 66 · Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 · Municipal Offices
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Lake Minnetonka Mayor's Association
Dick Benson, City Administrator
March 15, 1982
Gray's Bay Dam
The enclosed is for your information concerning the Gray's Bay
Dam structure and management plan, which will be on the agenda
for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District meeting on March 18,
1982 at 7:30 P.M. at the Wayzata City Council Chambers.
BUILDING & ZONING - 473-7357
ASSESSING
ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE - 473-7358 ·
PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359
5341 MAYWC C:?,
MOUND. '
(612) 472-1155
LAKE MINNETONKA AREA MAYORS
MEETING OF'HARCH 4, 1982
The quarterly Lake Minnetonka Area Mayors' meeting was he]~ at 7:30 p.m.
on Thursday, March 4, 1982, at the Mound City Hall, 5341May~ood Road,' Mound,
Minnesota. The following items were included in the agenda for discussion.
1. Emergenc¥ Communications, Includin~ Police
This item was skipped over as Mayor Froberg was not present with a report.
2. Cable T.V. - an update report
Mayor Van Nest reported that he had attended the Southshore Cable Commission
meeting and it appears that everybody is joining together with Southshore
with the exception of the City of Wayzata (they are already out with their
R.F.P.) and the City of Mound who is planning on developing a cable program
themselves. The Consultant is working with the Cable Commission to realign
the boundaries--process to take between 60 and 90 days; but this should not
slow them down. The Communities originally put in' $200 each and now have
been asked for an extra $100; so the total for each community to date will be
$300.
3. New Management Policy of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Mayor Van Nest reported that he had accidently found out about a new manage-
ment policy regarding the lake elevations controlled by the new dam on Grey's
Bay which was completed late in 1979. Mayor Van Nest went through an explana-
tion of the original standards and standards used for the last two winters on
how the dam operates. He 'has developed graphs showing flow discharge. Con-
cern is that proposed standards may adversely effect the Lake Minnetonka Com-
munities/they want to see more data.
The following motion was moved by Rockvam and seconded by Albrecht:
"That a resolution be sent from the Mayor's Association to the Water-
shed District asking for consideration and review of this matter before
it is presented for adoption and allow time for the 14 communities
around the lake to get their thoughts together before it goes to the
D.N.R. Motion was amended to include the followi, ng: 1) Concern about
the new policy of slowing discharges at the high elevation and of the
removing of the mandatory 250 cubic foot per second flow; concern about
the impact of creating additional flooding condition on lakes that did
not exist before; 2) Lowering of the lake down to 929.7 during the
summer months and 3) The lack of consideration they gave the Lake Com-
munities in their deliberation."
L~JL~. t~innetonka Area Mayor's Meeting
March 4, 1982 Page 2
The vote on the motion: 8 Ayes, ! Abstain
City of Wayzata abstained because not enough known about the subject.
Mayor Van Nest urged every community to have a representative at. the 7:30 p.m.
March 18th Minnehaha Creek Watershed District meeting at the Wayzata Council
Chambers.
Metropolitan Waste C~n.~rol Co~ission - Problem of New Rate Structure
and Infiltration in System ,~
Mayor Ed Bearg distributed reports of information on each individual community
relative to the sewer system and summary of flow analysis. Roy Ode of the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission sent representatives Dick Berg and Paul
Dietz. Mayor Bearg introduced Mr. Berg and Mr. Dietz and then he reviewed the
information on the various reports--key charts were evaluation of waste water
flow by community showing the amount paying for per residence and the flow (MGY)
by community. Flow goes up in wet years and down in dry years. Dietz stated
MWCC tries to use an average year for estimating the MGY.
Mr. Dietz gave a short presentation on the wastewater flow determination and on
infiltration and inflow; started with general background on the Lake Minnetonka
area. Distributed a map showing location of meter stations around the Lake.
In terms of wastewater flow determination, Commission has one of the most exten-
sive systems in the country. Meters continuously monitor and measure flow;
every 15 seconds a signal is sent to the Seneca treatment center from each meter
which logs and records what flow is at that meter; meters are calibered, serviced
and maintained at least on quarterly basis/at plant, are able to put upper and '
lower limits on meter performance/can be done automatically and when a meter
strays out of that area, meter automatically is red flagged and someone sent out
to take a look. This gives idea of what each community's flow is. There are
some unmetered areas on intercommunity flow areas/these are generally uneconomi-
cal or too small to meter or when one community is using another's system, we
can't-differentiate so call it one community's/but to correct or compensate for
that, we look at the number of connections/type of connections and residential
equivalent flow volumes which was on sheet for each community/data is gathered
each year from each community and submitted on sewer user's survey and that is
how we determine residence equivalent connection flow volume. We consider any-
thing over 90,000 per year per resident could be an indication of infiltration/
inflow. Have to look at type of community and type of system each has. In
type of system, you look at water tables, impervious soils, how old system is
and various things like that.
Lake Minnetonka has high potential for infiltration and inflow (I and I); high
ground water has potential for surface run off, surface ponding, some impervious
soil, piping not old, but not new either. After a significant event, fast snow
melt or rainfall, flows go up which is generally an indication of inflow. In-
flow more serious than infiltration, small volume compounds to total flow--occurs
in short period of time; taxes the capacity of interceptors, capabilities of
pump station, meter stations and even the capabilities of the treatment plant
which can cause potential backups in the local systems and other problems. That
is why we feel it is important to eliminate sources of inflow. In terms of
Lake Minnetonka Area Mayor's Meeting
March 4, 1~82 - Page 3
infiltration, we feel where ever it is cost effective to reduce the amount, it
should be done because it is usually a constant background source related to
the water table. We encourage communities to develop on .going maintenance for
collection system to protect the huge investment they have in the ground, pro-
long the life of it both hydrolytically and structurally by. having it maintained;
you can also reduce the I and I and probably save money. Several communities
have applied for and qualified for Federal grants for the I and I program.
A10rsen, Wayzata City Engineer, reviewed some problem areas they had found--
private sump pumps, roof lead~r~and foundation drains greatly increased inflow.
He indicated that there could be 150 homes "illegally" puttlng'storm w~ter and
private surface drainage into their flow system and this could be the major part
of their I and I problem. Jim Norton, Shorewood City Engineer, found infiltra-
tion is 50.2% of the wastewater flow and that Shorewood pays for all the I and I
that comes through.
Dietz explained they have a 3 man crew walking the lines, looking for problem
areas and recently got a grouting machine. MWCC wants to hear of any manhole
with pond over it or other problem.
Dick Berg had xeroxed pages for the 7 communities of the 1981 estimate, the
1981 actual bill and the 1982 estimate. He reviewed the costs and explained
the statement of sewer service charges. Costs are estimated on figures the
Cities furnish on the survey completed every year. 1981 was a dry year. If
flow is less than estimate, what happens is that there is less gallons to
divide by which raises the cost per million gallons. Cost is more if total
flow is less than anticipated. Factors that effect billing costs: 1) Flow
could be more than was estimated; 2) Total flow could go down; and 3) We could
overspend the budget. Report of estimates for years 1983 through 1986 given.
Berg reviewed reports on funding sources, construction funds (cash flow), pro-
jects for which bonds need to be sold and requirements, budget estimates and
cost allocations/are putting most of money into treatment plant; but by year
2000 will have all the debt paid off. Year 1985 will be largest percent of
increase because of a balloon payment. Average cost increase for 1983 through
1986 is expected to be-12.9'percent.This is amount communities should budget.
It was brought out that 85-90 percent of all costs are fixed; so even if less
gallonage is used, the costs may not be decreased.
Discussed problems: l) Communities feel that they are overcharged/questioned
how costs could be kept down with more ground water, etc. being pumped down-
stream, and especially as systems get older; 2) Cities have been told fixing
certain things not cost effective; 3) It was questioned whether charging on
some other basis than gallonage should be considered .(charging on gallonage
may not be best method to base costs if 85-90% is fixed cost); and 4) It was
asked why MWCC can't do something about their lines?
It was recommended that this item be placed on the next agenda for study and
that a meeting be held in May and leave the summer free of meetings.
Mayor Olson of Minnetrista thanked the communities for their support on
the Landfill Site Project and issued a slight warning that DNR wants to acquire
a door to Lake Minnetonka.
Lake t".inr~,:t(;n..a Area t~,ayor's Meeting
March :~, 19.~ - Page /~
The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:30 p.m.; the next meeting of
the Lake Minnetonka Area Mayors being set for the 1st Thursday in May, May 6th,
at the Spring Park City Hall.
Respectfully submitted,
Rock Lindlan
Mayor, City of Mound
Attachment: .List of Attendance
Note: This report, especially on MWCC problem is longer than usual; thought
perhaps Mayors would want to pass this information on to their Councils.
Area Mayors Meeting March 4, 1982
Attendance
Name
Bob Roscop
Bill Humphrey
Dick Knapp
Brad Van Nest
Alan Albrecht
Ed Bearg
Jerry Rockvam
Gen Olson
Charles W. Britzius
Dick Berg
Paul Dietz
A10rsen
Jim Norton
Dave Goman
Cathy West
Rock [indlan
Marjorie Stutsman
City
Shorewood
Wayzata
Excelsior
Orono
Greenwood
Minnetonka Beach
Spring Park
Minnetrista
Deephaven
Wayzata
Shorewood
Spring Park
Shorewood
Mound
Mound
Position
Mayor
Mayor
Mayor
Mayor
Councilman representing Mayor
Mayor
Mayor
Mayor
S.W.A.B. Chairman
Comptroller, Metropolitan
Waste Control Commission
Staff, Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission
City Engineer and Public Works
Director
City Engineer
Public Works Director
Staff
Mayor
Admin. Assistant
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City Council of the City of Mound will conduct a Public Hearing on
April 13, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. on the allocation of it's 1982 Federal
Revenue Sharing Budget.
was $86,734.89.
Proposed uses include:
Present fund balance as of December 31, 1981
Street and Park Dept. Equipment; Upgrading the
Three Points Tennis Courts; Downtown Improvements; Spring and Fall
Clean-Up and City Hall Maintenance and Repairs.
Any citizen wishing to suggest any other ideas is urged to appear at
the Public Hearing.
Fran Clark, City Clerk
Publish in the Laker March 30, 1982