83-04-05 CITY OF MouND
Mound, Minnesota
AG~ENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, April 5, 1983
7:30 P.M. - Council Chambers
Approval of Minutes of March 15, 1983, Regular Meeting
Approval of Minutes of March 21, 1983, Special Meeting
PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRALS
Pg. 581-589
Pg. 590-591
Pg. 592
e
Case #83-113 - Westonka Elderly &':Handicapped Housing
& Our Lady of'the Lake Church
2261 Commerce Blvd. --Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8,
Guilford's Rgt. of Lots in Mound Bay Park
Request: Final Subdivision
Pg. 593-598
Bo
PUBLIC HEARING - Conditional Use Permit - Westonka
Elderly & Handicapped Housing
Case #83-109 - 2261 Commerce Blvd. - Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, &
8, Guilford's Rgt. of Lots in Mound Bay Park
Pg. 599-607
Co
Case 83-109 - Westonka Elderly & Handicapped Housing
2261 Commerce Blvd. - Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8,
Guilford's Rgt. of Lots in Mound Bay Park
Request: Unit Size Variance
Parking Lot Size & Number Variance
Waiver of Filing Fee
Case #83-102 - Robert J. Veilleux - 5042 Tuxedo Blvd.
Lots 5 and 6, Whipple Shores _
Request: Variance in Lot Width
Pg. 599-608
Pg. 609-615
Set Date for Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit
for a Commercial Recreational Use at 2337 Wilshire Blvd. -
PROPOSED DATE - April 19, 1983
Pg. 616-621
5. Certificate of Survey Information - Approval Request
Pg. 622-623
Charging of Water and Sewer Units
Pg. 624'-632
Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present
Application for Bingo Permit - Westonka Senior Citizens, Inc. Pg. 633
9. Parade Request - Shoreline Early Childhood Development
Center, Inc.
Pg. 634-640
10. Proclamation - Cancer Crusade Month April 1983
Pg. 641
Pg. 579
11.
12.
13.
14.
16.
Street Li~htin9 Items,
A. · Request from NSP to Convert Street Lighting from Mercury
Vapor to Sodium.
Bo
City Policy - Re: Placement of Street Lights
(copies of various City's Policies)
Request to Install Street Light on Tyrone Lane and
Carrick Road
Request for Extension for One Year - Subdivision Approved
Under Resolution #81-270 - Richard Olexa -
6609 Bartlett Blvd.
Request for Nomination to Board of Directors - Watershed
District
Approval of Revised Downtown Commercial Rehabilitation
Loan Program Guidelines - Approve by Downtown Advisory
Committee
Request o~ Shoreline Early Childhood Development Center
for Gran'8, of $4,800 from the City of Mound
Radio Purchase Request from Public Works Dept. -
Total Cost $2,O51.OO (to be paid out of 1983 Revenue Sharing
Funds)
17. 1983 Liquor Shore Financial Report
18. Payment of Bills
19. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. Copy of H.F. 522 - Liquor Law Proposal
B. Memo on Velunteer Fair - April 9, 1983
C. Hearing Notice on A1 & Alma's - LMCD
D. Tonka CETA Proposal
E. Metropolitan Council - REVIEW
F. Twin Cities Labor Market Information
G. Hennepin County Report'on Solid Waste
H. Breakdown for New Jobs Bill (H.R. 1718)
I. Update on Water Shut-Off Problem
J. Watershed District Agenda & Minutes
Pg. 642-644
Pg. 645-653
Pg. 654-655
Pg. 656-663~
Pg. 664-668
Pg. 669-672
Pg. 673-678
Pg. 679-684
Pg. 685-690
Pg. 691
Pg. 692
Pg. 693-694
Pg. 695
Pg. 696-703
Pg. 704-705
Pg. 706-709
Pg. 710-711
Pg. 712-714
Pg. 715
Pg. 716-725
Page 580
K. 1982 Watershed District~Annual Report
L. Westonka Elderly & Handicapped Housing Meeting
Announcement
M. AMM - Bulletin
N. Ind. School District #277 Minutes
O. Biographical Sketch on Carl Pohlad (Owner of State
'Bank of Mound)
Pg. 726-737
Pg. 738-746
Pg. 747-748
Pg. 749-7~O
Pg. 751-752
Page 580-A
':" ' ' " PROCLAMATION
.. ~ - .... and.se~'~ces and reh~mlmtata~n am~s for cancer patm~ts,
~isease and 5~ ease ~he h~an su~ering
.... · '~.'..". ,.
h~eby procla~ April as Canc~Control Mo~.~'.'.~,' ..:~ '"~. '.
..... hand and caus~ the seal of-the City of ---.
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, Cancer is the number one health concern of the American
family, and
it is estimated that 14,000 Minnesotans will get cancer
during the year 1983, and .
the American Cancer Society provides a leadership role in
funding important research and providing education programs
and sex~'ices and zehabilitation aids for-cancer patients,
and -
WHEP~AS, the volunteers of the American Cancer Society are to be
commended for their efforts to eliminate cancer as a
~isease and to ease the human suffering caused by cancer,
NOW, ~REFORE, I ~7-~/~ , Mayor of
the City of ~',~ · , do~
hereby proclai~ April as Cancer Control Month.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my
hand and caused the seal of the City of
to be affixed this _~z~ of ~ , 1983.
(Date) (Month)
~ SIGNATUREv !-
March 15, 1983
REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereoF, a regular meeting of the City Councilor
the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at 5341Maywood Road in
said City on March 15, 1983, at 7:30 P.M.
Those present were: Mayor Bob ~olston, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Gary Paulsen,
Russ Peterson and Gordon ~wenson. Also present were: City Attorney Curt Pearson,
City Engineer John Cameron, Building Inspector Jan Bertrand, City Manager Jon
Elam, City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: Mrs. John
Wagman, Ron Gehring, Mr. & Mrs. Jerry Henke, Robert Wroda, Alan Elam, Becky
Stoltz, Dave Moore, Mrs. Ketcher, Paul Young.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.
MINUTES
The Minutes of'the March 1, 1983, Regular Meeting were presented for consideration.
Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve.the Minutes of the
March 1, 1983, Regular Meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - CASE #83-101 -'AMENDMENT TO ZONING MAP - LOTS 16 & 17' BLOCK 3,
SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT "A" - PID #13-117-24 44 '~037
The City Manager explained that this is a request to change these lots to R-3
(two-family) district from and R-2 (Single family) district so.the existing
structure can .be remodeled for a duplex. The abutting properties on,'the north
are zoned R-3 but most are single family dwellings. He then remined the Council
that the City Attorney has advised that there are only two reasons to amend the
map: 1. The City made a mistake ~hen it' orginally zoned the area.
OR
2. There has been a clear change in The neighborhood.
The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for comments from the citizens
present.
The following people spoke against the amendment because they want the area
keep as single family residential: Jerry Henke, Becky Stoltz, Mrs. Ketcher,
A1 Elam and Bob Wroda. Mr. Henke submitted three pictures of the property
showing debris on it. ~
Dave Moore, prospective buyer, stated that the debris came from the inside of
the house and will be removed tomorrow.' He does not own the property yet and
cannot be held r~sponslble for the problems that occurred in the past. He
plans to keep the property very clean and bring it up to code. It has the
· required Square footage for the R-3 zoning district.
The Mayor closed the public'hearing.
Councilmember Paulsen stated that he felt there has not been a change in
the neighborhood and the zoning was not incorrect.
43
March 15, 1983
The City Manager stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial
of the request.
Paulsen moved and Charon seconded the following resolution.
R'ESOLUT ION #83-39
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNI~G COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION AND DENY THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE
ZONING MAP - LOTS 16 & 17, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS
UNIT "A" - PID #13-117-24 44 0037
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
CASE #83£106 ' RON GEHRING - SUBDIVISION.OF PROPERTY - LOTS 3-8 & ll-13,
BLOCK 9, AVALON (PID #19-117-23 31 0022)
The City Manager explained that this.item is connected to .item #4 a public
hearing for a.conditi, onal use permit for twinhomes with zero lot line.
The subdivision must be done before a conditional use permit can be considered.
He stated that the Planning Comm~sslon has approved this final subd~vlslon
if Parcel "E" is combined with one of the abutting parcels of land because
if it is not it would'be landlocked and the Council cannot approved, a
subdivision wi. th a landlocked parcel. Mr. Gehring stated that he does not
plan 'on building on Parcel "E" and would be happy to combine with Parcel
"F" making one Parcel "EF".
The Council then moved on to Item #4.
PUBLIC HEARING - CASE #83-107 - RON GEHRING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
ZERO LOT LINE TWINHOMES - LOTS 1~2~.3~4~5~6~14 &. 15~ BLOC. K 9
AVALON (PID #19-117-23 31 0022) ·
The City Manager went through Ordinance #444 relating' to zero lot line twin-
'homes and dealing with the conditional.uses in the R-3 district. He
explained that the City has not down-graded ~he minimum required.
The City Attorney suggested that in the .Declaration of Convenants, Conditions
and Restrictions the City of Mound be the beneficiary. Mr. Gehring agreed to
have this done.
The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for comments from the citizens
present on the conditional use permit request. There were no comments. The
Mayor closed the public hearing.
The following action was then taken on the subdivision request first and
the conditional use permit second.
Paulsen moved and Charon seconded the following resolution.
'RESOLUTION #83~40
~ESOi'UTION TO APPROVE T. HE FINAL SUBDIVISION OF PARCELS
"C" "D" "EF" "G" BLOCK 9, AVALON, PID #19-117-23 31
0022, AMENDING RESOLUTION 82-325 FOR PARCELS "F" AND
IIGll
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
March 15, 1983
Swenson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #83-41
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR ZERO LOT LINE TWINHOMES ON PARCEL "A",
"B", "C", AND "D", ALL IN BLOCK 9, AVALON -
PID #19-117-23 31 0022, INCORPORATING THE DECLARATION
OF COVENANTS,' CONDITIONS & RESTRICTIONS NAMING THE
CITY OF MOUND A~ THE BENEFICIARY
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
CASE #83-11l - DUANE BARTH - VARIANCE - PART OF LOT 1, FIRST REARR. OF PHELPS
ISLAND PARK lST DIV. - PID #19-117-23 13 0002
The City Manager explained that the existing livingroom portion of the house
was built in 1960 and-is 35 feet from the shoreline. The'zoning ordinance
requires a 50 foot setback now. The request is to add dormers on the house
for a bedroom and bathroon addition and changing the roof line on the existing
nonconforming house. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of this
variance.
Swenson moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION'#83-42
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR'PART
OF'LOT l, FIRST REARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK
lST DIVISION - PID #19-117-23 13 0002
The vote w~s unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
CASE #83-112 - MIKE HILBELINK - SUBDIVISION/LOT SPLIT o LOTS 7,8,9, & lO,
BLOCK 16, DEVON - PID #25-117-2411 0062
The City Manager explained that the 'applican~ wants to subdivide his lots
by splitting off approximately three feet from Lot 8 to go with LOts 9 and
10 so existing structure on Lot 9 will have a sixe foot side (rear) yard.
He will also take out a demolition permit for the garage on Lot 8 to be
removed. The Planning Commission has recommended approval.
Swenson moved and Charon seconded.the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #83-43
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE FINAL SUBDIVISION FOR
LOTS 7, 8, 9 AND 10, BLOCK 16, DEVON (4877 HANOVER
ROAD) PID #25-i17-24 11 0062
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
4521 MANCHESTER ROAD - RESOLUTION #82-236 - MATT PHILLIPPI - SEWER & WATER
CONNECTIONS
The City Manager explained that on Sept. 7, 1982, the City Council adopted
Resolution #82-236 which listed required repairs to 4521 Manchester Road.
One of these was that the property have separate water and sewer connections
to each structure.
45
MarcH.15, 1983
The Building Inspector now reports that all the repairs except the separate
sewer and water connections appear to be completed and that the houses
seem to.be occupied.
The Council all agreed that the Staff should hold to the ordinance
on the sewer and water connections. The City Attorney suggested that the
Staff notify Mr. Phillippi, with copies to the tenants, that he is not in
conformance to Resolution #82-236 and if he does not conform the water
service will be terminated to his property at 4521 Manchester Road.
FINAL PLAT ~ LANGDON'S LANDING
the City Manager.explained that the developers of Lan§don's Landing are
now ready for f|nal plat approval. The City Engineer suggested two items
to be included in the proposed resolution of approval.
1. That the developers change the easement'between Lots 5 and 6 to
accomodate the storm sewer or move the storm sewer to conform with
the easement they have proposed.
2. That the developers prove there is an easement from the sanitary sewer
on the east and north line of the plat(between Lots 3 and 4) on the
adjoining property (PID #23-117-24 13 0024) to run inline with the
existing manhole on the adjoining property.
Dennis Marhula, of Westwood Engineering representing the developer, agreed
to the above. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
Paulsen'moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #83-44 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF LANGDON'S LANDING
SUBDIVISION WITH THE 2 ADDITIONS
The vot.e was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Marhula questioned the about to be escrowed in A.3. of the resolution.
The Staff informed him that they would have to check the expenses that have
already been incurred. Mr. Marhula was. also told that anything that is not
used would be refunded to the developers.
DELINQUENT UTILITY 'BILLS - PUBLIC HEARING
The Mayor opened the public hearing on the delinquent utility bills in arrears
six months or longer. There were no comments. The. Mayor closed the public hearing.
Swenson moved and Charon seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION 83-45
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS
IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,074.00 AND AUTHORIZING THE STAFF
TO TERMINATE WATER SERVICE FOR THESE DELINQUENT
ACCOUNTS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
The Mayor asked if there were any comments or suggestions from citizens present.
March 15, 1983
Paul Young, 4785 Richmond Road stated that there is a swamp area near
his home that Public Works uses to wash their equipment
and it washes mud .into the street which gets tracked into
his driveway and home. Ne also stated that Public Works
uses this same area as a dump site for concrete,etc. He
would like both practices discontinued.
The City Manager stated that he is not aware of any dumping
in that area by Public Works but would check on it.
PAY REQUEST - HARDRIVES - 1981 MSA STREET PROJECT
The City Manager explained that this is a final payment request and is
the result of 1 years negotiating with Hardrives who initially requested
$48,099.60. That number was reduced through negotiations to $16,577..70. Upon receipt
~f'~' this final payment, Hardrives agrees to complete the following items
during the 1983 construction season:
1. Bartlett: Patch cracks and'joints~'and seal coat same areas patched.
2. Tuexdo: Patch all areas in n~ed of patching and seal coat ravelled areas, approx. 1600 lin. ft.
Councilmember Swenson stated that Bartlett Blvd. needs more than just patching
because it was blacktopped on'top of water and is not holding up. He felt
patching.was not enough'.
John Cameron, City Engineer, explained that that Bartlett Blvd. pFoject was
finaled out in February 1982, and the City. really has nothing to make
Hardrives do anYthing to the road. He and the City Attorney have used this final
payment as a lever and gotten Hardrives to'agree to the two]rems above.
The City Attorney stated that i~ we deny or.cOntinue this payment request,
the City is leaving itself open to the original payment request of $48,099.60
not the negotiated $16,577.70.
Swenson moved and Polston seconded a motion to continue this item until the
2nd Meeting in April (April 19, 1983.) and directing John Cameron to do soil
.borings on Bartlett.Blvd. and analyze the condition of the road, meet with
Hardrives and,see what can.be negotiated on doing the work that needs to
be done on that road. Cameron to report back to the Council April 19, 1983.
DISASTER MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT
The City Manager explained that this Agreement was initiated by the North
Star Chapter of Building Officials to allow mutual aid for building inspection
if there were a disaster.
Peterson moved and Swenson seconded the following ~esolution.
RESOLUTION #83-46
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A DISASTER MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT
FOR BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
47'
March 15, 1983
BINGO PERMITS
Swenson.moved and Peterson seconded a motion to authorize the issuance of
Bingo Permits to the VFW Post #5113 and Auxiliary and the Westonka Seniors,
Inc., waiving the fee and the bond requirements. The vote was unanimously
in favor. Motion carried.
GAMBLING PERMIT
Swenson'moved and Peterson seconded a motion to authorize the issuance of
a Gambling Permit(renewal) to the Chamberlain Goudy VFW Post #5113. License
to expire January 31, 1984. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING - CABLE T.V. PROPOSAL --
Swenson'moved and Peterson seconded a motion to set the date for a public
hearing on the Cable T.V. proposal..from Dowden Communications, Inc, for
March 21, 1983, Monday, at 7:30 P.M., in theCouncll Chamber at City Hall.
The vote was unanimous]yin favor, Motion carried.
BUDGET REVISION - 1983 HOsPITAL/DENTAL COSTS
Charon moved and Swenson seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #83-47 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE REVISED HOSPITAL/DENTAL
COSTS FOR 1983
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
QUOTATI.ON FOR UPGRADING SEWER LIFT' STATION A3 (SUNSET ROAD)
'The City Manager explained that two quotations were received to upgrade the
sewer lift station'on Sunset Road. They were:
Tri-State Drilling &.Equipment Co. $9,964.00
Technical Factors, Inc. $8,036.00
Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to approve the quotation of
Technical Factors, Inc. in the amount of $8,036.00 for the upgrading of
sewer lift station #A3 (Sunset Road). The vote was unanimously i'n favor
Motion carried.
WATER UTILITY BILL WORK-OFF
The City Manager explained that in Savanna, Ill. a hospital is allowing
unemployed patients to work off their bills by doing.chores like painting,
landscaping and carpentry. He was thinking about implementing a similar
program for people who have delinquent utility bills in the City of Mound.
'He asked the City Attorney what his thoughts on this were and Curt feels
there are some real potential problems for the City in proceeding. Some
of these problems would be workers compensation claims or some injury or
aggravation of'a prior condition.
The Council discussed the pros and cons of this program and all felt it
was a good idea, but that the City should not take a chance on the
liability aspect. No action was taken.
FARMERS MARKET REQUEST
March 15, 1983
The City Manager has received a request from the Narvest Pantry Coop to
again sponsor a farmers market in Mound. This year they would like to
use the parking lot across from the House of Moy because it is close to
their newly.opened shop. They are requesting about 24 parking spaces
(12 on both sides of the lot).
Councilmember Peterson suggested that maybe they should'use the other
end of the parking lot so they wouldn't tie up the end'closest to the
business'district. The City Manager stated he would coordinate this
program with the businesses.
Paulsen moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the .Harvest Pantry's
Farmers Market. to be hold on Saturday mornings.from mid-July until mid-
October in the downtown Mound parking-lot. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
BILLS
Swenson.moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the bills are presented
on the pre-list in the amount of $102,296.37, when funds are available. A
roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
I NFORMAT ION/M I SC ELLANEOUS
Ae
Letter from City Attorney on Status of Legal Affairs in the City.
Councilmember Swenson.questioned several of. the items in this letter.
They were: Mound v. Kemp and Longley v. Mound.
A~erican Legion Post #398 Gambling Report.for February, 1983.
Mill Rate.for Hennepin County.
Report on Homelessness and.Hunger'in Minnesota from the Governor's' Office.
E. Westonka Chamber of Commerce Newsletter - March, 1983.
F. Ind. School Dist. #277 Minutes - February 14, 1983.
G. Lake Minnetonka Mayor's Association Minutes from December 16, 1982.
H. Express Notes - Hennepin County Transportation. Coordination Program.
I. Congressman Sikorski: Notes of dates of Town Meetings.
J. Humphrey Institute March Newsletter
K. .NeWclipplngs o0 Revenue Sharing Increase proposal.
The City Attorney then asked the Council if they would hold an Executive
Session in order for him to discuss 2 lawsuits. One is a proposed
settlement and the other is to ask the Council for direction.
Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to call an Executive Session.
Time 9:10 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
49
March 15, 1983
The Council came back from Executive Session at 10:05 P.M. and took the
following action.
Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion to authorize a settlement
of $1500.00 in the case of Perron v. Mound. The vote was unanimously
in favor. Motion carrled.~
Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion authorizing the City Attorney
and the City Manager to retain technical advice to assist the City in
sewage litigation. The Vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MAYOR POLSTON
The Mayor stated that now the Met Council is redistricting and Mound will
be in the same district as Hassen. Dick Sherman from Hassen is putting
in his bid for the CoUncil seat from our district. He has excellent
credentials'and would do a good job for Mound and the district. The
Mayor asked that the Council pass a~resolut|on endorsing Dick Sherman
for the position'of representative for this district.and send it t°
Gen. Olson and John Burger.
Swenson moved and Charon seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION # 83-48
RESOLUTION ENDORSING DICK SHERMAN FOR REPRESENTATIVE
OF OUR DISTRICT OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Paulsen moved and Charon seconded a motion to adjourn at 10:lO P.M. The
vote. was unanimously in favor. Motion carried, r
Jon Elam, City Manager
Fran Clark, City Clerk
Applebaums 19.75
Anthonys 25.00
Acro-Minnesota 98.02
Gayle Burns 28,53
Brooklyn Prk Police Dept 20.00
Robert Byrnes 42.04
Badger Meter 1,742.40
Blackowiak & Son 56.00
Holly Bostrom 350.00
Butler Paper 130.14
Butchs Bar Supply 74.00
Chris Bollis 40.03
Bradley Exterminating 19.OO
Jan Bertrand 19.24
Commissioner of Revenue 3,3OO.16
Robert Cheney 334.00
Bill Clark Standard 1,998.55
Coast to Coast 73.64
Continental Tele · 1,129.86
Coca Cola Bottling 181.27
Gary Cayo 4.88
City Club Distrib 2,414.OO
Mike David 740.00
Dept Property Taxation 228.86
Davies Water Equip 161.82
Dependable Services 33.00
Day Distrib 1,979.98
Ditch Witch of MN 2,000.00
Don David Ins. 83.00
Explorer Post 9929 225.00
East Side Beverage 2,292.50
Jori Elam 16.38
Feed Rite Controls 159.25
Govt Training Serv. 75.00
Gold Medal Beverage 88.30'
Glenwood Inglewood 43.80
Henn Co. Treas ?57.50
Henn Co. Sheriff Dept 1OO.98
Halprin Supply 682.94
Johnson Paper & Supply 143.50
I.B.M. 107.25
Illies& Sons 1,O13.50
Information Publishers 173.OO
J.B. Distributing 78.00
Island Park Skelly 21.OO
Kromer Co. 23.75
Kool Kube Ice 47.50
The Laker 24.85
Doris Lepsch 15.OO
Lutz Tree Service 1,895.OO
Little Giant Indust; 295.00
Mound Explorer Post 776 240.00
Mound Postmaster 6OO.OO
!
Mutual Benefit Life 573.79
City of Mound 41.51
Mound Fire Dept 2,922.60
Mound Postmaster 75.00
Metro Waste Control 26,126.47
City of Minnetrista 125.00
Marina Auto Supply 401.18
McCombs Knutson 1,338.00
City of Mpls 34.00
Minnegasco 2,741.40
Mound Super Valu 99.65
Wm Mueller & Sons 2,586.69
Midwest Wine 893.15
Monarch Foodservice 62.10
Metro Fone Communications' 11.80
Martins Navarre 66 30.00
Natl League of Cities Adv~cs~,710.OO
Navarre Hardware 240.95
N.S.P. 5,961.78
NCR Corp. 1OO.70
A.J. Ogle Co. 1,656.30
Planning & Development Serv 1,O32.50
Perma Top 105.OO
Pepsi Cola 242.25
Pogreba Distrib 2,831.70
Physicians Health Plan 4,637.98
Michael Polley 39.00
Barry Palm 740.00
Regal Window Cleaning 10.75
Real One Acquisition 675.00
Shepherds Rental Rugs 53.00
Spring Park Car Wash 114.10
Terry Sincheff 386.75
Standard Spring 386.90
Suburban Tire ' 8.50
State of MN Weights & Meas 240.00
Twln City Home Juice 30.24
Thurk Bros Chev 259.57
Tri State Drilling 658.22
Thorpe Distrib 3,794.45
Village Chev 803.00
Water Products 19.25
Widmer Bros. 1,503.60
Griggs, Cooper 3,599.50
Johnson Bros. Liquor 2,953.03
Old Peoria Co. 1,549.97
Ed. Phillips & Son 1,443.87
5o
March 21, 1983
SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City Council
of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at 5341Maywood Road
in said City on March 21, 1983, at 7:30 P.M.
Th'b'~-e present were: Mayor Robert Polst°n, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Gary
Paulsen, Russ Peterson and Gordon Swenson. Also present-were member of the
Cable T.V. Committee (Kent Borg, Chuck Champine, Dr. Harold Pellett, Marsha
Smith, Don Ulrick and Bruce Wold), City Manager Jon Elam, City Clerk Fran Clark,
Representatives from Dowden Communications Dick Joyce and Stuart Gibson, and
Mound Cable Consultant Tom Creighton and interested citizen Jim Kutzner.
PUB.LIC HEARING - CABL~ T.V. PROPOSAL FROM DOWDEN COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
The Mayor opened the public hearing and the City Manager introduced the Cable
T.V. Committee, the Consultant and the Dowden Representatives to the City Council.
Cable Consultant Tom Creighton explained'the purpose of this public hearing.
This hearing is required by the State Cable Commission 27 days prior to
adopting a franchi-se ordinance to solicit public, inpUt on the proposal and
allow the public to ask questions about the proposal. The company is given
a chance to clarify anything they want to.about their proposal. After this
hearing is held the Council can accept the proposal and order the preparation
of a franchise ordinance.
Dick Joyce, Dow~en Communicati.ons stated that the company is looking forward
to putting cable in Mound.. Dowden wil.1 be bidding on the Wayzata franchise
and the 14 lake communities that have banded together'for cable. ~ ~
Jim Kutzner of Island Park, who is the Chief Engl. neer for Channels 2 and' 17
in Minneapolis, asked a numbe, r of technical questions. Stuart Gibson, Engineer
for Dowden, answered all of Mr. Kutzner's questions. Mr..Kutzner-stated that
he thought the proposal was a good one.
Don Ulrick asked about a total completion date. Mr. Gibson stated that they
are hoping tO start construction sometime in July and 90 - 120 days later
it should be complete and operational. He further.explained that Dowden will
have to work.with the owner of the poles, most of'which are NSP's poles.
The cable had to be 12 inches above phone lines and 40 inches below the main
power lines. Some of the areas he has looked at might be a problem because
the phon~ lines are very close to the power lines. 'They will have to work
with Continental Phone on resolving those problems.
Dr. Pellett asked if Dowden could get cable to the high school. Tom Creighton
explained that if Dowden get the Lake Community bid there Will be no problem
interconnecting. If they do not get the bid, Minnetrista would have to adopt
a limited franchise ordinance with Dowden to allow the cable to be laid in
Minnetrista to. the high school. He felt that one way or another the high
school would be hooked into Mound's cable system.
There were no other comments or questlons and the Mayor closed the public hearing.
March 21, ]983
Mr. Creighton explained that he has gone over the proposal from Dowden
a number of times, the economic aspects of the proposal have been reviewed
and in h~s opinion Dowden has an excellent proposal. It meets all the
minimums that the City asked for; a letter from Fleet National Bank has
been received stating that there is sufficient money to complete this
system; alot of engineering ~has been done already by Dowden that normally
isn't done until after the franchise is awarded; it is not inconceivable
t.h~.Mou~d could be an experlmenta] .area for future technology.
Charon moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #83-49
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL OF DOWDEN
COHMUNICATIO[4S, iI4C. (DOU-SAT) FOR £ABLE T.V.
AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER AND CABLE
~CONSULTANT TOM CREIGHTON TO PREPARE A FRANCHISE
ORD I NANC E
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The City Council thanked all the'Cable T.V.-Committee members for the
time and effort they took i'n bE~'nging cable T.V. to Mound,
SET DATE FOR BID dPENING - 1983 SEAL COAT PROGRAM
Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to set the' date for the bid
opening for the 1983 Seal Coat Program for April 19, 1983 at 10:O0 A.M.
in the Mound City Hall. The vote was unanimously in. favor, Motion carried,
Paulsen moved and Swenson seconded a motion to adjourn at 9;O0. P.M, The vote
· was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Jon Elam, City Manager
Fran Clark, City Clerk
ONOMO
· J S311]~ )NNIN
Case No. 83-113
CITY OF MOUND
MOUn~, Minnesota
Planning Commission Agenda of March 28, 1983:
Board of Appeals
Case No. 83-113
location - 2261 Commerce Boulevard
LeQal.Desc.: Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8,
Guilford's Rgt, of Lots
in Mound Bay Park
Request: Final _Subdivisjon
Zoning District: B-I
ApplJdaht:
Church of Our Lady of the Lake
2385 Commerce Boulevard
Mound, MN.
Phone: 472-1284
The applicant is requesting to subdivtde the present-property to allow for the
construction of the 42 unit multiple dwelling for the Westonka Elderly and Handi-
capped, Inc. They are requesting a waiver of the Chapter 22 Subdivision Ordinance
for filing fees, public hearing., park dedJcatjon,.'escrow fund and replat. The
parcel is less than five acres and under Ordinance Section 22.00, waivers have been
granted in the past where no new street and/or sewer and watermains are adequate, to
service the subdivision.
I have drafted a tentative resolution addressing our City concerns for subdividing
the property.
Jan Bertrand
· .Building Official
!. 'Case No. 83-113';:~Fi.nal Subdivision - Our Lady of the'Lake Church'- 2261 Commerce
lanning Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, Guilford's Rgt. of Lots in Mound Bay Park
~mmission John Rocheford of the Community Development Corporation of the Arc~diocese, co-
c~[on sponsors wit.h the Seniors on this development, was present and stated they wished
-28-83 to subdivide land with the Church retaining that part of Lots 4 and 5 where the
existing structure is located. They had neglected to make the application for
the subdivision at the time of applying for conditional use and variances.
Reese stated that it bothered him that the 24 inch 80 foot high cottonwood trees
will be taken out. The Building Official stated that there can not be any
struction that would prohibit the Fire Department's. access to the building; but
normally the Fire Department can get around trees.
Byrnes moved and Reese seconded a motion to accept the resolution approving
the final subdivision.
The Buildin~ Official requested that an item 3 be added to "D" as follows:
D. 3) Easements to be drawn would be approved or drafted by the 6ity Attorney.
The motion's maker and seconder accepted the inclusion of Item 3.
The vote on the motion as amended was unanimously in ~avor.
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF
Sec. 22.03-a
VILLAGE OF MOUND
LAND
FEE
Request fee be w ",ed.
FEE OWNER
The Church of PLAT PARCEL
Our Lady o£ the Lake
Mound, Minnesota ..- PlO 23-117-24 11 0023/0024
Location and complete legal description of property to be divided: ..'
Lots 4,5,6~'7, and 8, GUILFORD'S RE-ARRANGEHENT OF LOTS IN MOUND
BAY ?ARK, according to the recorded plat' thereof, Hennipen County,
MN.
· ' -. ZONING /.~""}
B6~i~g at ~ point 6n the North line bf sai~ Lot 4 distant 155.00 feet
westerly o£ the Northeast corner o£ said Lot 4; thence Southerly
deflecting 90 degrees to a point that'is 10.00 feet NOrtherly of, ar
measured at right angles to the Southerly line of said Lot 5;. thenc
Easterly 10.00 feet from and parallel with said southerly-line of
Lot 5 to the Easterly line of said Lot 5 and said line there terminating
B)
~'~t~ch s'~rve~'~or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of pr~os~
building sites, square ~oot area of each new parcel designated by number)
A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR:
New Lot No. '. From
Square feet TO Square feet
Reason:
APPLICANT
ADDRESS
Applicant°s interest in the property:
~/' I~ignature) ~' ...........
lite CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF THE LAKE DATE '3-/~--- ~ 5
2385 COMMERCE BOULEVARD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 5536a
This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan-
ation given why this is not the case.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
DATE
5'?y -- ,
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 83-113
RESOLUTION NO. 83-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO APPROVE THE FINAL SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 4,5,6,7 &
8, GUILFORD'S R~T. OF~LOT~ IN MOUND BAY PARK (2461
COMMERCE BOULEVARD)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Westonka Elderly & Handicapped Housing, Inc. and Our Lady
of the Lake Church, ~--r.~cst~d
WHEREAS, an application .to waive the subdivision requirements contained in Section
22.00 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound, and
WHEREAS, it is hereby determined that there are special circumstances or conditions
affecting said property, such that the strict application of the provisions
of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the
land,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA:
A)
The request of Westonka Elderly & Handicapped Housing, Inc. for the
fee waiver, a waiver from the provisions of Section 22.00 of the City
Code and the request to subdivide property of less than five acres,
described as Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, Guilford's Rgt. of Lots in Mound
Bay Park, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minne- ~
sota, PID 23-117-24 11 0023/0024, is hereby granted to permit division
of the following property as described:
Parcel A) Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, Guilford's Rgt. of Lots in Mound Bay
Park, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepln County, Minne-
sota, except those parts of said Lots 4 and 5, lying easterly and
northerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on
the North line of said Lot 4 dlsta~t 155.OO feet westerly of the North-
east corner of said Lot 4; thence Southerly deflecting 90 degrees to a
point that is IO.OO feet Northerly of, as measured at right angles to
the Southerly line of said Lot 5; thence Easterly 10.O0 feet from and
parallel with said southerly line of Lot 5 to the Easterly line of said
Lot 5 and said line there terminating.
A total parcel area of 44,129 square feet.
Parcel B) Lots 4 and 5~ Guilford's Rgt. o.f Lots i"n-Moun~l Bay Pa~-k,
according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepi'n County,-Minnesota,
except parts of said Lots .4 and 5, lyi'ng westerly and southerly of
the following described line: '-B~ginni'ng at a poitnt on the North line
of'said Lot 4 distant 155,O0 feet westerly of the Northeast corner-of
said Lot 4; thence Southerly deflecting 90 degrees, to a .polnt that is
10.OO feet Northerly of~ as m.easured at right angles, to the Southerly
line of said Lot 5; thence Easterly 10,00 feet from and parallel with
said southerly line of Lot 5 to the Easterly line of ~ai'd Lot 5 and
said line there termi'nati'ng.
A total parcel area of 11,121 square feet,
B. Waiver of any and all deficiencies uoon the property for sewer and
water unit charges. (.County Road),
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 83-113 (Page 2)
C. All City sewer and water availability charges are to be paid at time
of the Building Permit-~inthe amount of $'7~,'~' ~ ,~.~
D. That the following conditions must be met to provide fire vehicle access~
1) An easement of 20 feet minimum is to be provided along the north lot
portion of the parcel to maintain on said property a yard or yards,
unobstructed from ground to sky, as shown on the attached plot plan,
marked Exhibit A.
2) An easement for driveway purposes to obtain access from the parcel
parking area, then north and east from the north end of the building
across the adjoining parcel to Commerce Boulevard with the surface
to accommodate. Fire Department vehicles.
3~'Easements to ~e'8.sawn wo~18 Be.a roved or draft d by £he it ~ney
E. Submit other State and Local Agenc,e~~ approvals suc~ as M,nne~aE~ ~,~ '
~atershed, Hennepin County Department of Transportation, etc.
F. It is determined that the foregoing division will constitute a desirable
and stable community development an~ is in harmony with adjacent prop-
er~ies in the B-1 Zoning District.
That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of
this Resolution to the above named owners and subdividers after com-
plet'ion of requirements, for their use as required, by ~.S.A. 462.358.
H. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the
Certificate of Approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance
with the foregoing provisions.
I. This final subdivision shall be filed and recorded within 60 days of
the date of the signing of the hardshells by the Mayor and the City
Manager in accordance with Section 22.00.of the City Code and shall be
recorded within 180 d~ys of the adoption date of this resolution with
one copy being filed with the City of Mound.
i
'ON 3S¥0
~Ll-~e 'ON
- 'o~i ' --
i.. -F- ......... 0'^-I ta ·
0£
( .~ ,,)
C~)
Case No. 83-]-0~
C[FY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Jan Bertrand, Building Official
Rob Chelseth, City Planner
January 7, 1982
Westonka Elderly Housing Request
After our meeting with John Rocheford to review the proposals of the Community
Development Corporation, I have noted the following plannin~ and zoning issues
which need to be addressed,
The lot is located in the B-l. Centra] Business District; the proposed 42 unit
multi-family project is a'COnditional'Use under this District. It is impor-
tant to note that as it is located in the B-1 District, the use is generally
subject to the lot area, height and width requirements specified under this
Section [23.625.5). However, given the facts that the use is a conditional
one, and that under Section 23.505.2, the City Council may impose conditions
it considers necessary to protect the best interests of the community as a
whole, it is recommended'that the standards set forth in Section 23.620.6 of
the R-4 District serve as a basis for formulating the requirements of the
Conditional Use Permit. In reviewing the project against these conditions,
the following exceptions to the requirements have been found:
Side yards of 20 feet or building height (whichever is greater) are
required for multiple family uses in the R-4 District. The need for
this setback is well documented from ~.fire protection and public
safety standpoint. Current plans show no sideyard setback on the north
side of the building.
The Conditional Use Permit should require one of the following: l) if
reasonable and practical, the addition of the required footage to the side
lot through the acquisition of adjacent land; or, 2) require the applicant
to obtain a permanent easement from the adjacent property owner which states
that the adjacent side yard area will be kept permanently open, 'without
buildings or structures,' and providing unlimitedaccess for emergency and
construction vehicles. The depth of this side yard should be determined in
discussions with the Fire Chief; a range of 20 to 30 feet is recommended.
e
The R-4 District would require a lot over two acres in size. It is
recommended that, given the downtown location of the use and'its restric-
tion to elderl_¥ persons as tenants, that the lot area required be set
so that the maximum area covered by the use does not exceed 30 percent
of the lot area (Section 23.620.7(3a)). This should provide sufficient
area for the building and all associated uses.
Some parking places will be located within 2½ feet of the south side
property line. Although a ten foot setback is called for in the R-4
District standards, a less restrictive standard is recommended as
Case No. 83-109
TO: Jan Bertrand, Building Official.
RE: Westonka Elderly Housing Request
January'7, 1983 - Page 2
acceptable in this case, based upon the higher densities in the B-1
District. Screening in the form of fences or vegetation maybe required
of appropriate given the land use on the adjacent lot.
4. The Conditional Use Permit should be subject to final approval of the
subdivision of this parcel.
'In addition to the above named conditions, the use will require variances from
three provisions of the Zoning Code.
Section 23.410 requires a. minimum of 640 square feet for a one bedroom
unit. The majority of these units, will be 530 square.feet in size, based
upon the allowable maximum area set by the U.S. Department of Hgusing and
Urban Development for housing constructed for the elderly using Federal
money. The applicant should be requested to file documents attesting to
these constraints as a basis for considering the variance.
Section 23.716 PARKING requires 105 spaces (2.5 X 42 units) a minimum
of 10 feet by 20 feet in size.. A variance is requested here to permit
smaller spaces (18 X 9 feet) that fit the maximums allowed by HUD, and
fOr a reduction in the number of parking spaces required (to a range
of 25 to 40). Again, the applicant should be requested to provide docu-
mentation that 18 X 9 feet is the maximum allowable by HUD for a parking
space. In terms of the reduction in the number of spaces, the applicant
should provide statistics on car ownership and visitor parking experiences
for buildings of a similar design, occupancy and location that the City
can check and compare.
Rob Chelseth
City Planner
RC/ms
Request Fees be wa .
Fee ?a i d
CITY OF MOUND
Date Fi led
APPLICATION TO P~ANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type the.following information)
reet Address of Property 2461 Commerce Blvd.
Legal Descripti.on of Property: Lot Block
Addition Legal' Description Attached PID No.
Owner's Name Westonka F, lderl¥ ~ Handicapped' Housin~Y Phone
Addresg 528 West 6th St.; St. 'Paul, MN 5S102
Applicant '(if othed than owner): Contact Person
Name John L. Rocheford, Jr.
-Address 528 W. 6th St. ; St. Paul, MN ~S102
Day .Phone No.291-1750
Type. of Request:
(
*If other, specify:
(X) Variance (X) Conditibnal Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review
) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
B-1 Business District
Amendment
S i gn Perm$ t
*Other
)reseni Zoning District
Existing Use(s) of Property.
Has an apPlication ever been made for zoning variance, or conditional use permit or
' ~00HT
other zoning procedure for this propertY?NO, [nowIed~e If so, ·list 'date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and pr6Vide~es°l~tion No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all'of the above statements and the statements contained In any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the an. try in
or upon the premises described in .this appIica~ion by any authorized official of the City
of in~.~p~,cti or of j~ting, J~g
of Mound for the' purpose ng, maintaining and removi ·.such
not ices-as may be requi~C~' ~~~,~. /~
Signature of Applicant . /' ~-'~-~
lances for the
Planning Co~ission Reco ion: >roy the
Housing as requested subject to their obtaining an easement from the Catholic Church and with
stipulation'that the parking space stalls be maintained at 10 foot width (size would be 10 X
i8 feet).
Date Feb. 28, 1983
il Action:
Regolutlon No.
Date
Legal tor Lase NO. OJ-lU~
Lots 4,5,6,7, and 8, GUILFORD'S RE-ARRANGEMENT OF LOTS IN MOUND
BAY PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, except those parts of said Lots 4 and $, lying easterly
and northerly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the North line of said Lot 4 distant
155.00 feet Westerly of the Northeast corner of said Lot 4;
thence Southerly deflecting 90 degrees.to a point that is
10.00 feet Northerly of, as measured at right angles to the
Sohtherly line of said Lot S; thence Easterly 10.00 feet fro~
and parallel with.said Southerly line of Lot S to the Easterly
line of said Lot S and said line terminating.
'Request for Zoni.ng Variance Procedure
Case # 83-109
D. Location of: Signs, easeme, nts, underground utilities, etc.
E. indicate North compass direct')on
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ill. Request for a Zoning Variance
A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general
application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of. the property'c6nform to all use regulations for
the zone district in which it is located? Yes (:(J0 No ( )~
If "no", specify each ~on-conforming use:
Vacant
Ce
Do the existing structures comply With al) area height and bulk regulations
for the zone district in'whlch it is.located? Yes (X_l~) No ( )
If )'no", specifY each non-conforming uSe:
O. Which unique physica) characteristics of the subject property prevent its
reasonable use for any of the.uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) .Too nar~6w (.) Topography ( } Soil
( ) Too. small . ( ) Drainage. ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape (X~) Other: Specify:
Parking - Unit Size - Side Yard
Was the hardship described above lcreated by the action of anyone having
property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No (X~) if yes, explain:
F. Was the hardship created by anylother man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No tX]C) If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for'which you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ) No (TIC)
If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
H.'.What is the "minimum" modification '(variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional
sheets, if necessary.) .
Mortcace commitment ]tmitation~
Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to'property 'in the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
No
· . go3
Procedure .for Conditional use Permit
D.
E.
F.
(2) Case # 83-109
Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
Indicate North compass direction.
Any additlonal information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
III Request for a Conditional Use
A. All information requested below, a sire'plan as described in Part II, and
a development schedule providing reasonable guarantees for the completion .
of the construction must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
B. Type of development for which a Conditional Use Permit is requested:
1. Conditional Use (Specify): Multi - Family Rousing
Current Zoning. and Designation in the future Land Use Plan for Mound
B-1 'Central Business
Development Schedule:
1. A development schedule shall be' attached to this application provlding
reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development.
2. Estimate of cost of the project: $1,600,000.00
Density (for residential.developments only):
I. Number of structures:' one
2. Dwelling Units Per Structure: 42
a. Number of type:.
Efficiency
2 Bedroom 1
3. Lot area per dwelling unit:
I Bedroom 41
~ Bedroom
1,OSO sq. ft.
4. Total lot area: 44,129
IV. Effects of the Proposed Use
List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, in-
Cluding, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking,
and, describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts.
Impact of proposal to be'presented at meeting
Planning
Commission Action 2-28-83
Case No.
Case No. 83~'109 Westonka Seniors Housing - Proposed address: 2461 Commerce
Boulevard - Request is for Con4itional Use Permit and Yariances
Lots 6, 7, 8 and Part of 4 and.5, Guilford's Re-arrangement of Lots in Mound
Bay Park,
The Building Official explained that there are several variances to be granted
and she would like to clarify the B-1 District and the R-4 Multi-Family Dwelling
requlrements---will try to separate the two requests. One is the guJdellnes for
the use and the other is requirements for the district In which it Is to be con-
structed. (Property is located in B-I District and multl-family dwelling use Is
a conditional use in this District: the City Council may impose conditions for
the conditlonal use. The City Planner recommended that the R-4 guldelines be
used.)
The variances being requested are unit size, parking space slze and number of
stalls. The minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet has been met for the Zoning
District; have approximately 44,129 square feet. (A list of comparable parking
stalls for similar apartment unit projects being constructed was passed out.)
The unit slze vary from 539 square feet to 530 square feet (Ordinance minimum
for one bedroom unit is 640). The lot area Is reduced and the size of unit Is
also reduced. Ordinance requires IO X 20 feet for parking space size; request
Is for 9 X 18 feet and 8 X 18 feet. For sldeyard setback on north slde,.they are
asking for zero feet from the property lot line and on the south side, will have
approximately 35 feet at the closest point. The required setbacks from Langdon
Lake and off of Commerce Boulevard are being met. The building height will be
34 feet (maximum under Ordinance is 45 feet)..~L~'!~::'
John L. Rocheford, Jr., Executive Vice.President of the Community Development
Corporation, answered various questions fro~ the Planning Commission members.
He explained what HUD is requiring and they will be having an easement on the
north side of building for access around building (about 21 feet wide---so many
feet per floor) and they will also have access around on the south. Vargo ques-
tioned taking part o[ the School playground for the project. Rocheford ex-
plained that playground is not being taken, but having restrlctions put on it.
Monsignor Sweeney, Admlnlstrato~ Irene Spauldlng and the Attorneys are working
out the details; will be part of the agreement with the Church.
Reese asked "how dld this building get so large and the parking so small?";
doesn't know on what basis the drive and parking spaces were calculated; but
concerned about "wall to wall" building on the 1or. Rocheford responded that
on the orlglnal plan, they had applied for 42 units and the # of units came
from the needs of the community; Also HUD sets a maximum on the' number of
parking spaces. In similar projects, they have found that parking spaces
based on one for each two units has been adequate.
Byrnes asked why use every blt of space for buIldlng? He would like to see
fewer units. Reese asked If any attempt will be made to save the trees.
Rocheford responded they will save every tree they can plus they add trees to
site and also landscape. It was asked If choice between frame construction
and block.economic? Yes, dollars limited. Also HUD sets requirements for
slze of one' bedroom units (maximum 540 square feet) and only one two-bedroom
unlt Is allowed In the building. Reese stated he Is not In favor of narrowing
the parking spaces as It Is dlfflcult for the elderly to get out of a car.
Rocheford stated they would be wlllin~ to stay wlth. IO foot wide spaces and
reduce the number of stalls (would lose perhaps 3). Discussion followed on
whether thls would create problems on holidays. Jensen felt the Indlviduals
were usually picked up for holidays amd taken elsewhere--especially as there
is probably not enough space In unit for family. It was questioned what the
intention was for screening. Rocheford stated HUD reqbires landscaping and
screening. Discussed plantlng shrubs on south side between optional pa?king
and lot llne; natural screen of poplars-on north; poplars at the northeast
corner might have to be removed because of construction.
The Chalrman asked for a motion:
Vargo moved and Mlchael seconded a motion to recommend approval of the vari-
ances for the Westonka Seniors Housing as requested subject to their obtain-
ing an easement from the Catholic Church and with the stipulatlon that the
parking space stalls be maintained at IO foot width (size would be 10 X 18
feet). The parking spaces be reduced to 23 stalls wlth future parking
deslgnated, if needed. The vote was Byrnes against, all others in favor.
Motion carried. Mr. Byrnes stated we do need this type of structure in
Mound, but feels we could have a beautiful building with fewer units.
Heights Manor Apartments
Columbia Heights
Elderly 78 - i BR
7 - 2 BR
85 - Total Units
Oak Ridge Manor Apartments
Hastings, Minnesota
Elderly 105 - i BR
4 - 2 BR
109 - Total Units
Parking Stalls - 46
Cars - 26
Red Rock Manor Apartments
Newport, Minnesota
Elderly 52 - I BR
2 - 2 BR
5--~ - Total Units
Parking Stalls - 91
Cars - 38
Eden Place Apartments
Edina, Minnesota
Elderly 99 - I BR
1 - 2 BR
100 - Total Units
Greenvale Place Apartments
Northfield, Minnesota
Family & 72 - 1 BR
Elderly 16 - 2 BR
8 - 3 BR
96'- Total Units
Parking Stalls - 34
Cars - 22
Maple Hills Apartments
Red Wing, Minnesota
Family & 72 - i BR'
Elderly 16 - 2 BR
8 - 3 BR
9~' - Total Units"
Parking Stalls - 64
Cars - 43
South Shore Park
Excelsior,-.Minnesota
Elderly 66 - i BR
& Handi. ~.__1 - 2 BR
67 - Total Units
Parking Stalls - 91
Cars - 47
Parking Stalls - 96
Cars - 51
Littf~ Canada
Little Canada, Minnesota
Elderly 40 - i BR
& Handi. --1 - 2 BR
41 - Total Units
Parking Stalls - 34
Cars -
Under Construction
June, 1983 Occupancy
East Shor Place
Mahtomedi, Minnesota
Parking Stalls - 21
Cars -
Under Construction
Start July, 1983
Parking Stalls - 45
Cars -
Elderly 60 - i BR
& Handi. 1 - 2 BR
6-~ ~ Total Units
Under Construction
Start July, 1983
CASE NO. 83-109
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 83-109
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDA-
TION TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR A 42 UNIT MULTIPLE
DWELLING AT 2461 COMMERCE BOULEVARD ON LOTS 6, 7, 8 AND PART
OF LOTS 4 AND 5, GUILFORD'S REARRANGMENT OF LOTS IN MOUND BAY
PARK
WHEREAS, the applicant, Westonka Elderly & Handi'capped Housing, has requested the
_~z~e_~ng~fL~g_fe~e t-:~iv~_d.~ and
WHEREAS, they have requested that the above described parcel contain, a 42 unit multi-
ple dwelling, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the B-1 Central Business'.District, a multiple dwelling is subject
to a conditional use and. the R-4 Zoning District has multiple dwelling guide-
lines, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to due and proper notice according to law and Chapter 23 of the City
Code, a public hearing was held on the 5th day of April, 1983, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval
of the variances requested by Resolution # 83- and with certain conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA:
That the application for a conditional use permit to construct a 42 unit
multiple dwelling located on Lots 6, 7, 8 and part of Lots 4 and 5, Guil-
ford's Rearrangement of Lots in Mound Bay Park (Part of PID 23-117-24 ll
0023 and PID 23~117-24 11 0024) is approved subject to the following:
1. Granting of the waiver of filing fe~s for conditional use permit.
2. The property is to be subdivided in accordance with City Code Chapter
22 and State Statute.
3. Side yards of 20 feet minimum are to be maintained on all sides of the
building with emergency vehicle access to be provided along the entire
street front length of the building and a driveway loop out of the site
on the north end around the annex building. (See site plan - Exhibit "A")
4. Landscaping to be used for screening on the south side of the parking
area 'and the north side to have the existing trees for screening (2½
feet from parking stalls to the property line on south side).
5. The maximum building coverage w'ill be 30% of. the site or less.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 83-109
RESOLUTION NO. 83-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
APPROVE THE VARIANCES AS REQUESTED FOR LOTS 6, 7, 8
AND PART OF LOTS 4 AND 5, GUILFORD'S REARRANGEMENT
OF LOTS IN MOUND BAY PARK (2461 COMMERCE BOULEVARD)
PID #
WHEREAS, the applicant, Westonka Elderly & Handicapped.Housing,
~onln_ ~ :v~d, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, the required unit size for a one bedroom
apartment is 640 square feet; the parking space is 2½'spaces per uniti one
of which is to be enclosed, and each stal) is to be 10 foot by 20 foot, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested the unit size to be reduced to 530 to 539 square
feet; the parking space to be all outside in the amount of 23 stalls with
provision for 10 future Parking stalls, if needed, and the stall sizes to be
10 feet by 18 feet with (2) 12. X 18 foot handicap stalls, and
WHEREAS, through case study analysis of other similar low income senior citizen housing
projects, it has been found the unit size and parking needs are sufficient for
this use with the building coverage to be set at a maximum of 30 percent of
the land, and
WHEREAS, the proposed 42 unit multiple dwelling for the Westonka Elderly & Handicapped
Housing is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objectives, it is compati-
ble with the density, of the B-1 Zoning District, and fits the needs of Mound
and the surrounding communities;
NOW;.THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA:
That the City Council do~s concur with the Planning Commission recommendation
to approve the filing fee'waiver, unit size variance of !10 square feet, the
parking number and size variance for' Lots 6, 7, 8 and Part of Lots 4 and 5,
Guilford's Rearrangement of Lots in Mound Bay Park (2461 Commerce Boulevard)
Case No. 83-102
,CITY OF MOUND
Hound, Hinnesota
Planning Commission Agenda of January 31, 1983:
Board of Appeals
Case No. 83-102
Location - 5042 Tuxedo Boulevard
Legal Desc.: Lots 5 & 6, Whipple Shores
'Request: Variance of Lot Width
Zoning District: R-1
Applicant:
Robert J. Veilleux
5042 Tuxedo Boulevard
Phone 472-6444
The applicant is requesting to split his parcel of land thereby creating another
building site on Lot 6, Whipple Shores. His existing house and garage are on
Lot 5, Whipple Shores. His attached survey shows an encroachment of a sidewalk
which Mr. Veilleux plans to remove.
The detached garage meets the setback requirements for lakeshore lots pursuant
to Section 23.407(5), but the driveway was not located on the survey as well as
the utility locations. Pursuant to Section 23.604.5(2), the minimum lot width
is 60 feet. The lot width of Lot 6 is approximately 47 feet; Lot 5 is approxi-
mately 49 feet; a deficiency of ll to 13 feet. (Established at the building set-
back line of 30 feet). The lot area of both lots exceed lO,O00 square foot
required area. Pursuant to Section 23.408(3)b, the walkway on the existing
house to rear deck may extend within 2 feet of the lot line, but the structure
is 6.6 feet to the side lot line and the required distance is 10 feet pursuant
to 23.604.5(2). The lakeshore and front yard setbacks on Lot 5 comply with the
required 50 feet and 30 feet ~espectively..
Recommend:
I would concur with the owner that the sidewalk be removed. The
utilities should be located and separate water lines to each lot
be provided, if the driveway is onto Lot 6, a new access must be
provided or relocate the existing. Due to the original platting of
the subdivision known as Whipple Sh-ores and the location of Tuxedo
Boulevard as well as the excessive lot depth and narrowness of the
lot, I would recommend approval of the lot width and sideyard set-
back variance.
Jan Bertrand
Building Official
JB/ms
Case No."83-102 . Variance of Lot Width - 50/42 Tuxedo Bou]evard.
Lots 5 and 6, Whipple Shores '. . · '
Robert Vei l'leux, applicant, was present.
The'Building Inspector exp]alned that the variance needed is 'determined by the
width of the'lot at the street front setback line or about .]3 feet' The deck
wal.kway.is.not higher than the main floor so can' extend to withi6 2' feet from
the lot l ine'by our present ordinance-(exi.stin9 house on Lot 5), but'structure
is 6.{; feet from east side yard and needs a variance. Applicant plans to turn
garage door and 'put in new driveway for Lot 5,-so there wi ll be no encroachment
for Lot 6.. There is'a sewer stub for 6 'and the water line is' in right between
the lot lines of 5 and 6. He woul'd be willing to stub in another water line.
The.owner'of Lot 7, Whipple Shores, Marie George, was present and had questions
re: the'a, pplicant building' a new house on Lot 6. She feels her view will be
"shot". The Planning Commission discussed that ali setbacks would have to .be
met for a structure on Lot 6,
Mier'zejewski moved and Vargo'seconded a motion to reqommend app.roval, of the
variance of lot width Providing he maintain all sideyard and setbacks, provide
separate sewer and water lines and driveways; recognizing the nonconforming
3./4 feet into existing sideyard of the present structure oh Lot 5.
The vote on'the.motion was..Jensen opposed and all others in favor.' Motion
carried. Jensen opposed the action because it created another nonconformancy.
Ms. George wanted to go on..record-as being opposed'to.the variance being granted~'l.!
Proposed Resolution
Case No. 83-102
RESOLUTION NO. 83-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO~.PPROVE THE LOT WIDTH VARIANCE AS
REQUESTED FOR LOT~6, WHIPPLE SHORES (5048 TUXEDO
BOULEVARD)
WHEREAS, the owner, Robert J. Veilleux, of the property described as Lots 5
and 6, Whipple Shores, PID 24-117-24 43 0054, has applied for an
approximately 11 to 13 foot lot width variance pursuant to the
Zoning Ordinance Section 23.403 which would disallow the lot to be
defined as a lot of record, and
WHEREAS, the City Code requires the existing principal structure to be,lO feet
from the side lot line on Lot 5, and
WHEREAS, the property owner has requested Lot 6, Whipple Shores, be a separate
parcel thereby creating a future building site with the lot area,
building setbacks, bulk and height to meet all City Code requirements,
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this variance due to
the original platting excessive lot depth and lot narrowness,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNE-
SOTA:
That the City Council does hereby concur with the Planning Commission
recommendation to approve the lot width variance of 11 feet for Lot 5
and 13 feet for Lot 6, Whipple Shores.
The City Council concurs with the Planning and Zoning Commission re-
commendation agreed upon with the owner to relocate the present drive-
way from Lot 6 or provide a new driveway location to Lot 5; relocate
the existing garage door; remove the sidewalk which is encroaching
onto Lot 6; supply all utility connections to the newly created build-
ing site; recognize the 6.6 foot existing building side yard setback
as non-conforming.
CITY OF MOUND
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type the following information)
Street Address of Property
Legal Description of Property: Lot
Addition ~O JFJc. I (D p)-~ i~-7
Date
.Day Phone No. ~7~-~'U~
4. Applicant (if other than owner):
Name -----
Day .Phone No.
-Address
5. Type. of Request:
Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
Zoning Interpretation & Review
Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
) Amendment
) Sign Permit
)*Other
*If other, specify:
~,~ Present Zoning Distr.ict
7.
8.
Existing Use(s) of Property ~__!
Has a'n application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? ~)~C) . If so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all'of'the above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. $ consent to the eh. try in
or upon the premises described in .this application by any authorized official of the City
of Mound for the' purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be. requ[re~ ~_~~
Signature of Applicant , , Date ....
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date
Codncil Action:
Re§olution No.
b/82
Date
~ques't for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case # 83-]02
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilitles, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ill. Request for a Zoning Variance
A. All i~formation below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general
application must be provided before a hearing.will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of the property' conform to aL1 use regqlations for
the zone district in .which it is located? Yes ('~(.) ~ ,v~zx)
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
C. Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bul.ktregulations
for the zone district in'which it is located? 'Y~ No (~)
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its
reasonable use for any of the uses.permitted in that zoning district?
( ) Topography ( ) Soil
(~) .Too narrow
( ) Too. small
( ) Too shallow
( )' Drainage
( ) Shape
( ) Sub-surface
( ) Other: Specify:
Was .the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having
property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No (~<.) If yes, explain:
F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~(') ~o (
If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
H..What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional
sheets, if necessary.)
I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the
Same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
: 'Certificate of Stu~vey
for Robert J. Ve]lleux
Lots 5 and 6, Whipple
Hennopin County,
CASE 83-102
or encroachm,::ntn.
Land Sur~'eyor 'and Planner
Long Lake, Minnesota
Scale: 1" = f,O'
Date : 10-20-22
· : lron .qa~ rko r
0 ~ II'on
Certificate of Survey
for Robert J. Vel ii(mx
of Lots 5 and 6, Wa.f. pple Shores
Honnepin County, l.ti,:n,;sota
1 horeby r,'~rt, iVv tll:~t ~.,'.':.. i'; ~ '.
.qP.d COl"l:':'C'f.. l'..~'~/'~:'.:el' ,l:~.,,.
of th~ bound'ri.::; ,;I b:,::' 5 ,.
YJh~ ?plo 5hot'et: ~
all. e :< i s'.. ir..~'
anu sidewalk tht.:l'k~OI3. .~'t :JO'.:5 :lC,
p~.W.L'O.,'L to :;ho~ ,~L.lor [:n..'wo'.,,;ii.~.,l:L..
Or cjrlPrfl:.tc,h!;.(~Iq t,'2.
i~nd Surveyor and Planner
Long ~tke~ Minr~nso~a
Sea l~:
· :
0
i', =
1C'-2C:-82
iron ~r~,rk(:r f'¢~',n~l
Ir. on lr~.:rk.,:r set
X'~S3"IO01I~I ~;
Case No. 83-102
~ O0~Xn.L
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL USE
(TANNING STUDIO) AT 2337 WIL-
SHIRE BOULEVARD
NOTICE ~l.S HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, April 19, ]983, at
7:30 P.M. at the Mound. City Hall, 5341MayWood Road, Mound, Minne-
sota,.~ hearing will be held on the application' for a Conditional
Use Permit for a commercial rec'reatlona] use to be used as a
tanni'ng and exercise studio. Location: 2337 wilShire Boulevard;
legal description: Lot 37, Block 9, Shirley Hills'Unit F (PID #
]3-I17-24 34 0059).
All persons appearing at said hearing will be given an oppor-
tunity, to be heard.
~-Fancene-C. Clark, Cit-y-iCleFk
Published in The Laker April 5, 198.3.
CITY OF MOUND
'Mound, Minnesota
Planning Commission Agenda of March 28, 1983.
CASE NO. 83-120
Board of Appeals
Case No. 83-120
.Loc~ion: 2~37 Wilshlre Boulevard
Legal Desc.: Lot 37, Block 3, Shirley
'. Hills Unit F
Request: Conditional Use
Zoning District: B-I
Applicant:
John R. Drews
695 County Road 19
Mound, MN. 55364
Phone: 472-473'3
The applicant is requestl.ng to start a "Sunlife of Mound" tanninq studio with
three tanning beds to start his business. He plans to add to the future business
some exercise equipment with possibly a sauna or spa at a later date. The present
plans only involve carpeting and painting the existing Structure, placin~ signa~e;
parking to remai.n as is. He will also run his electrical contracting business
from this location.
Pursuant to Section 23.625.2 Service Shops and Offices are a permitted use in the
B-l Zoning District. Section 23.625.3 allows commercial recreation as a condition-
al use in the B-1 Zoning District. Section 23.302(23) defines Commercial Recre-
ation as "Recreational facilities such as bowling alleys, tennis courts, race
tracks, etc., constructed and operated for profit, by private enterprise". Section
23.505.1(1-12) and 23.505.2(1-8). set up the criteria for qranting a conditional use
permit.
The Planner, Mark Koegler, and. I feel that this type of operation depicts a Com-
mercial Recreation type use of the property and does require a conditional use be
granted. At the present time, i believe Mr. Drews will not intensify the present
use of the property which is SO~. Printinq.and 'Gree~n-T Accounting. The present
structure has a 1,022 square foo~ floor ar~a ~th approximately 2 parking stalls
and no inter-circulation on the site. The survey indicates the building is en-
croaching ontp Lot 36. The lot area is 2,966 square feetS. The three tanninq
beds which he proposes plus one employee would indicate a pa'rkin~ need of four
stalls±; office use would require 3 parking stalls. Attached is a parking 'a~ree-
ment and Resolution 78-221. The parking agreement Should be transferred to the
new owner of the site and written out to address the property and not the owner.
The agreement should be approved by our City Attorney. A notice to patrons should
be posted noting the location of additional parking to the rear. He intends to
present signage concept for ~the building at the meeting. ..
Tentative public hearing date of April 19th at the City Council Meeting.
Jan Bertrand
Building Official
JB/ms
i(~L[(~...-" 7" '.i.,il!! ' ' '~.ITY, OF HOUND . CASE 8.~-120
'j-'~ .Io~...oO ...... ' .~18-J'ri'~!~PPLiCATION TO PLANNING ~ ZONING COHH]SSION
~...,~,'"'~;, .~';~;. ~OU~:,~."i_._, (Please type the following infor~t,on)
L~gal Des~riptJpn of Prop~rty~ Lot ~
Addition
· Owner's Name
Addres~
Applicant '(if other than owner):
Name
Block . ~ ..
DaY.Phone No.
-Address
'TyPe. of Request:
(
*if other, specify:
(.)'.Variance (~) Conditibnal Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review '
)'Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ..
) .Amendment
~ Sign Perml
)*Other
Present'Zoning Distr.lct
Existing Use(s) of Proper.ty ~.'/g-~' ~R/~ ~~ . ~ .
Has a~ ;p~licatlon ever been made for zoning, variancq, or conditional use permit or
ocher zoning procedure for this propertyT
Ifst date(s) of.appllcation, action' taken and provld& ResOlUtion No. Is) '
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. .
certify that ail'of the above statements and the statements contained In any required
rapers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the e~try In
)r upon the premises described In .this ~pplica~ion by any authorized official of the 'City
)f Hound for the' purpose of inspe6ting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
~otices as may be-~equJred by law. :
;ignatur¢ of Applicantj ~..~?~
~lannlng Commission Recommendation:
Date
Council Action:
-d/g --
Regolutlon No.
Date
Procedure for Condi'tional Use Permit (2) Case # 83-120
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilitles, etc'.
E. Indicate North compass dlrect~on.
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
Iil Request for a Conditional Use
A. All information requested below, a site plan as described in Part Il, and
a development schedule providing reasonable guarantees for the completion'.
of the construction must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
B..Type of development for which a Conditional Use Permit is requested:
2. Current Zoning and Designation in the future Lan'd Use Plan for Mound
Ce
Development Schedule:
1. A development schedule shall be at~ached to this .appllcation.provldlng
reasonable guarantees for ~he completion of the'proposed development...
2. Estimate of cost of. the project: $
Density (for'reslde~tial developments only}:
1. Number of structures:
2. Dwelling Units Per Structure:
a. Number of type:
Efficiency .
2 Bedroom
Bedroom
Bedroom
3. Lot area per dwelling unit:
4. Total lot area:
IV. Effects of the Proposed Use'
A. List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, in-
cluding, but not limited to traffic, noise, l.i'ght, smoke/odor, parking,
and, describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts.
..uOq
· W~0
I
:
0~[-~8 'ON 3$Va
I~ON
~I~iHS"IlM
.o
CASE 83-120
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Jon Elam, City Manager
Building Official
Certificate of Survey Information
March 11, 1983
The City Engineer and I have reviewed the attached sheet
for "Information Required on Certificate of Survey". Under
the Section 26.06(b) of the City Ordinance provisions, it
does require that surveys be submitted.
We would like the City Council to adopt a resolution with
the appropriate information spelled out.
Jan Bertrand
JB/ms
Attachment
cc: John Cameron
CITY OF NOUND
INFORMATION REQUIRED ON CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
Each application for a building permit shall be accompanied by three (3)
copies of a certified land survey indicating that permanent iron monuments are
in place at each lot corner. Such certification of survey shall also show
thereon the following:
1. North arrow and scale of drawing.
2. Legal.description of parcel and dimension of all lot. lines.
Dimensions and locations of all known easements.
Location of all existing buildings. For remodeling or addition
permits, dimensions of each building and reference distances from the
lot lines to the nearest point of each building must be shown.
Location of existing utilities, including but not limited to manholes,
hydsants, catch basins, power poles, and telephone boxes. Existing
sewer and water services.
Location, including front and side yard setback dimensions, to pro-
posed building. All outside dimensions of proposed buildings, includ-
ing decks and fireplaces.
Location, including front and side yard setback dimensions, to exist-
ing buildings located on adjacent lots if they are within 15 feet of
side lot line. First floor and at grade elevations of corners.
Location of irons at each side lot line establishing proposed front
building line. The maintenance of these irons, once established by
the surveyor, shall be the responsibility of the building permit
applicant. Wood stakes or lath shall be placed at the four corners of
the proposed building. -'
9. Location of proposed driveway.
10.
Bench mark elevation to National Geodetic Vertical Data (N.G.V.D.) and
description of location. (Bench marks available at City Hall or from
McCombs-Knutson, City Engineers, Phone 559-3700).
11. Grade elevations at the following points:
Existing and proposed at each lot corner.
Existing street elevations (centerline and.top of curb) at each
lot line extended and both sides of proposed driveway at
intersect with street.
Existing elevations on side lot lines at extension of proposed
front and rear building lines. -
Proposed lowest floor, garage floor, and top of foundation_
elevations.
Existing and proposed elevations at all major corners of ~%-.~
building.
12. Proposed direction of surface water drainage indicated by arrows.
Square footage of parcel.
March 28, 1983
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
RE:
CHARGING OF WATER AND SEWER USE UNITS
In 1981, the City established a $125.00 charge per residence to hook up to
City sewer and water. These funds help cover future maintenance costs and
the Water and Sewer Department's time in locating water and sewer mains, etc.
In the case of multi-family projects, the one connection charge of $125.O0
seems awfully low.
Metro Waste Control Commission charges their S.A.C. Charges on a flat $425.00
per unit basis. I am wondering if we should charge by the unit or as I
proposed to Jan, by the size of the property, i.e. One unit for every 10,000
square feet. If you did it by land area, everyone irregardless of use would
be treated the same. It may be because uses do vary greatly that this would
be too great of a simplification, but I do think we need some sort of policy
to follow since we are getting more and more multi-unit prOjects.
JE:fc
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO:
FROH:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Jon Elam, City Manager
Jan Bertrand, Building Official
March 22, 1983
Sewer & Water Unit Charges and availability paid at the
time a structure is built.
As of now, the City has set a sewer and water availability charge
of $125.00 each.
As per our d~scussion of today, you feel the sewer and water avail-
ability charges should be assessed against land area of various
properties at a rate of (1) each sewer and water availability per
10,000 square feet land area or fraction thereof.
It is my understanding that the street, sewer and water unit charges
assessed or paid at the time of construction are for deficiencies in
the original property assessments, due to a change in use of the
property such as lot-split or subdivisions. It's also my understand-
ing that the sewer and water availability is in addition to deficient
unit charges and that the City S.A.C. and W.A.C. funds are used for
future demands on water and sewer facilities and replacement of equip-
ment or expansion. I would suggest, however, that we should seriously
consider adopting a policy designed by sewer and water useage rather
than land area. '"
Examp 1 e: CHARGE - AMT.
S.A.C. W.A.C.
6 Unit 2 Bedroom Townhouse:
Land Area minimum
3 3 $750,
Metro Waste Control Commission
formula by useage
6 6 $1500.
JB/ms
cc: Sharon Legg
, SECTION I
POLICIES ON THE ALLOCATION OF
RESERVE CAPACITY CHARGES
POLICY I.
ANNUAL ALLOCATION BASED ON UNITS. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission,
in preparing the Operating Budget for 1973'and each year thereafter, will determine
the current costs for such year which are attributable to reserve capacity in
treatment works and interceptors as provided in Section 8, Subdivisions 3 and 4
of the Metropolitan Sewer Act (MSA Sec. 473C.01 et Seq.). In adopting each
Operating Budget, the commission will allocate the total of such costs among the
respective local government units in the Metropolitan Area for whom capacity is
reserved, for payment as follows:
A. Each local government unit to which the Metropolitan Disposal'.
System is or becomes available.for use during the'budget year
shall pay an amoont equal to-~the Service Availability Charge
(SAC) per.unit for that budget year.times the number of units,
or portions thereof, for which a building permit is issued after
the date upon which will make aVailable such service; and,
B. Each local government unit shall pay an amount equal to the
'.-' ~ Service Availability Charge per unit for that budget year times
.... the number of 'units, or portions thereof, connected directly to.
or indirectly to the Metropolitan Disposal System during the
budget year, less any amount charged for the same units under (A).
Where a local government unit, subject to a charge under paragraph (A) or
(B), I~s territory outside the Metropolitan Sewer Service Region, no charge shall
be made for units~constructed outside the Region a~d for which building permits
are issued. Where a local government unit, subject to charge under paragraph
(A) or (B), has territory in two or more Sewer. Service Areas, the territory in
each Service Area shall be treated as a separate local government unit for
purposes of applying the provision of paragraphs (A) and (B).
v·.
'POLICY II.
SERVICE AVAILABILITY CHARGE SCHEDULE. The Service A~ailability Charge
for budget year -~983 shall be $425 per unit, except for those communities
who do not have interceptor services..The SAC fee is $150 for those com-
munities.
POLICY II. (Cont'd.)
The rate for 1984"and subsequent years shall be subject to review and
justment according to methods used in the determination of the 19~3 SAC
CHARGE of the current costs of reserve capacity, the number of housing starts,
or the number of connections to the Metropolitan Disposal System.
POLICY III.
COMPUTATION OF UNITS. The number of units which are connected, or for
which a building permit is issued shall be computed as follows:
A. Single family houses, townhouses and duplex units shall each
comprise one unit;'
B. Apartments ~hall each comprise 80% of a unit;
C. Other buildings and structures shall be assigned one unit for
each-274 gallons of da~ly f)'ow which it is estimated they will
discharge, and commercial and industrial-building uni~ts shall
be assigned a minimum of one unit;
D. Public housing units and housing Units subsidized under any
federal program for low-and-moderate-income housing shall be
counted as 75% of the unit equivalent for that type of housing;
The Commission will review the assignment of units under items {A), (B},
and {C) and may find it necessary to make revisions as new forms of housing
are provided. The Commission will prescribe more detailed rules.
The computatiJns for new building units shai¥include a deduction for
demolition of existing building units located within the local .government unit.
Such deductions may be made on a month-to.month basis (new building units less
demolished building units} and payment of charges shall be made on the net new
building units, provided thatno deduction shall be allowed for a demolition
until that site is committed to a new use by the issuance of a new building
permit or other appropriate action by the local government unit. Deduction for
demolitions are allowed on a cumulative basis'over the entire' b~dget year. If,
at the close of the budget year, payment for new building exceeds the net of ..
new units less demolitions in that budget year, then a credit for such over-
payment shall be made against the charges due in the next year.
POLICY IV.
REPORTING AND PAYMENT. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission will
prescribe reporting forms which will be required to be filed for each month
with payment of charges due for that month, on or before the loth day of the ·
following month. The Charges due for each month will be based upon units'
· connected or started in that month less the demolitions. Munic~pat-itie~-
shall retain 1% Of.~he. tdtal Service~vailabil'ity'Charge to cover cos.ts.of
POLICY V.
USE OF AMOUNTS COLLECTED. Amounts collected to pay current costs of
reserve capacity will be transferred to the Metropolitan Council Sewer Bond
Fund and used to pay debt service comprising such costs~.
POLICY VI.
DELINQUENCIES. If the governing body of any local government fails to
pay to the Commiss'i'on--when due~ the appropriate amount of reserve capacity.
charges as determined to be owed to the Commission ba~ed upon the foregoin!)
policies~ at the request of the Commission,.. the Metropolitan Council will
certify to the auditor of the county in which, the local government un.it is
located, an ad valorem tax"'.to be levied on all taxab.1..e property in said local
.government unit in the amount required for payment of such delinquency with,
inter.est at six percent (6%) per annum plus a one-half of .dne percent (~ of
1%) pe'r month delinquency service charge for a'dn{inisti=at'ive expenses.
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
Date: March 29, 1983
To: Jon Elam
From: Sharon Legg
Jan and I have discussed the purpose of the $125 water and sewer
availability charges and we feel we need to develop some guidelines
for these charges. I agree with Jan in'that we should charge these
fees based on usage rather than land area. If one was to put in
some type of busi. n~ss which required high water and sewer usage such
as a laundromat, they would certainly use more water than someone
with a retail store. I think they should pay these charges accordingly.
MWCC's guidelines give us something well-defined and reasonable. I
recommend we base our charges on their guidelines. I have attached
a copy of their guidelines for your review.
~CY II.' /Cont'd.)
The rate for 1984 and subsequent years shall be subject to review and
adjustment according to methods used in the determination of the 19~3 SAC
CHARGE of the current costs of reserve capacity, the number of housing starts,
or the number of connections to the Metropolitan Disposal System.
POLICY III.
COMPUTATION OF UNITS. The number of units which are connected, or for
which a building permit is issued shall be computed as follows:
Ae
Single family houses, townhouses and duplex units shall each
comprise one unit;
B. Apartments shall each comprise 80% of a unit;
Other buildings and structures shall be assigned one unit for
each 274 gallons of daily flow which it is estimated they will
discharge, and commercial and industrial building units shall
be assigned a minimum of one unit;
D. Public housing units and housing units subsidized under any
federal program.for low-and-moderate-income housing shall be
counted as 75% of the unit equivalent for that type of housing;
The Commission will review the assignment of units under items (A), (B),
and (C) and may find it necessary to make revisions as new forms of housing
are provided. The Commission will prescribe more detailed rules.
~he computations for new building u~its shall include a deduction for
demolition of existing building units located within the local government unit.
Such deductions may be made on a month-to-month.bBsis (new building units less
demolished building units) and payment of charges shall be made on the. net new
building units, provided that no deduction shall be allowed for a demolition
until that site is committed to a new use bS the issuance of a new buildin9
permit or other appropriate action by the local 9overnment unit. Deduction for
demolitions are allowed on a cumulative basis over the entire budget year. If,
~t the close of the budget year, payment for new building exceeds the net of
.ew units less demolitions in that budget year, then a credit for such over-
~ayment shall be made against the charges due in the next year.
I-2
UNITS FOR
VARIOUS COMMERCIAL, PUBLIC, AND INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES
TYPE OF FACILITY
PARAMETER
SAC UNITS
.ARENAS
110 seats
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE (Fast service less than 4 hrs per
ca~)
(Major service more than 4 hrs per
car)
.~ALLROOM
Facility without liquor service
Facility with liquor service
2 service bays
14 employees
825 sq. ft.
590 sq. ft.
2400 sq. ft.
BANK
BANQUET ROOM
Food catered
Food catering with dishwashing
Food preparation and dishwashing
Food preparation, dishwashing with liquor
2060 sq. ft.
1180 sq. ft.
825 sq. ft.
590 sq. ft.
BARBER SHOP
4 chai rs
SALON
4 stations
NG HOUSE. 5 beds
BODY SHOP (No vehicle washing)
14 employees
BOWLING-ALLEYS (Does not include bar or dinning area) 3 alleys
CAR WASH (SELF-SERVICE)
I stall
CAR WASH (SERVICE STATION)
-&R WASH (Requires specification on equipment flow rate
and cycle time) Contact MWCC for determination
'~'HES (for Sanctuary only) Remainder use other
criteria
275 seats
23 seats
~]CKTAIL LOUNGE('No food service)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING
AND RAO~U~ CO~S
HOSPITALS (Does not include out patient clinic)
2400 sq. ft. net *
floor space
I court
1 bed
* r;et :square footage - deduct mechanical rooms, elevatOr
shafts, stairwell's, restroom and storage areas.
1
2
1
~' OF FACILITY
Continued
PARAMETER
SAC UNITS
LAUN DROMATS
(Requires water volume for cycle time, 8 cycles
per day)
HOTELS AND HOTELS (Assume 2 persons/room)
NURSING HOME
RESTAURANT (Dri ve-i n)
RESTAURANT (FAST'I~DOD)
RESTAURANT
RETAIL STORES
ROOMING HOUSES
SCHOOLS (Sunday)
SCHOOLS (Elementary)
SCHOOLS (Nursery) - Number of students licensed for
SCHOOLS (Secondary)
SERVICE STATION (Gas pumping only)
SERVICE STATION (With service center)
SERVICE STATION (.With service center and car wash)
SWIMMING POOLS (Public)
,~I~NIS COURTS (Public)
::-;EATER
THEATER (Drive-in)
WAREHOUSES
274 gals
2 rooms
3 beds
9 parking spaces
22 seats
8 seats
3000 sq. ft net *
floor space
7 beds
55 students
18 students
14 students
14 students
900 sq.ft.pool area
1 court
64 seats
55 parking spaces
7,000 sq. ft.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
8
1
2
1
1
1
The SAC unit for a facility not included in the above list will be determined by
the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. A request for SAC unit determination
must be'made prior to the issuance of the Building Permits.
* Net - Deduct mechanical rooms, elevator shafts, stairwells, restrooms and unfinished
storage areas.
g3~ III-12 ReviSed 12.1.80
CITY OF MOUND
APPLICATION FOR BINGO PER~4IT
Name of Applicant , ,~~_-~~-~ .
(If an organization, give organization name)
Address ~~ /~ Phone No. /
Bingo Manager (Name)/~~j ~~~~~. _.
Address ~~'~~.
Address of where Bingo will be played
5
Dates and Hours Bingo will be played /w~/3; //-/~
(Attach separate sheet if more room necessary)
Is Licen'se Fee attached?
Fidelity Bond:
(a) Amount
(b) Name of Bonding Company
(c) Expiration Date of Bond
Yes
Nb / Amount
* (Minimum $10,000.)
*Note:
Fraternal-, religious, veteran and other non-profit
organizations may request the Bond .t~ be waive'd.
Please. indicate below if you are making such a request·
Signatu~e/~of person maki~ applicatiz
INTEROFFICE MEMO
TO: Jon Elam
FROM: Bruce Wold
SUBJECT: Gambling Permit
DATE
I¢~rch 31,
The permit requested by Shoreline Early Childhood Development Center, Inc.
should be approved. The organization is a daycare providing rudimentary
education for children with learning disabilities. As such, the organi-
zation meets the educational requirement set out by tile ordinance.
Shoreline has a board of directors numbering fifty which causes it to meet
the membership requirement also.
A telephone call to Schadow Agency, Inc., confirmed Shoreline does have a
$25,000 bond which indemnifies the gambling manager for any wrongful
appropriation of the gambling proceeds.
$15.00 Single Permit
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
APPLICATION'FOR GAMBLING'PERMIT
Shoreline Early Childhood Development Center Inc.'
Name o¢ organization
Phone Number 471-8541
Non-profit and
, a Tax' Exempt .......
fc~r a s:L~gle
annual/single occasion
3745 Shoreline I~ive
, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
Address
9rganization, hereby applies
gambli.ng permit.
Date to be used June 10,11 and 12, 1983
Phone Number of Organization 471-8.541-.
Date Organization was qrganized ~F~..'I~ IQ3~
Purpose of Organization DevelopmentaI E~uc~tlon/Thez~p~, o£ Chtl~en
Type of Gambling to take place:
Paddlewheel Yes No X
Tipboard Yes No X
Raffle Yes X No
Location of Gambling:
Address: Pond Aremz - Commerce Blvd, & Audietors ~d, ; Mo'u~d'~' M~n_~eso~
Name of Building 0wnerWesto~_ka Hockey ~oosters Ass~.'(Westonka' Comm, Services)
Is the building owned or leased by the ~rganization owned ....
Date ownership was acquired '" .....
if leased, expiration date of lease E/A '
(Copy Of lease must accompany application)
Gambli.ng Manager:
Name of Gambling Manager,~,
Home address ..}0~ ~oHA
Home Phone.
Is Gambling Manager an active member, of organization Yes (Required)
Date membership acquired.. /~, ~qq~
Is Gambling Manager paid by the organization for handling the gambling
(The answer to this question must be no - Sec. 43.40)
Amount of bond 'furnished by Gambling Manager ~
Name of Company furnishing Bond ~cHA~o~ ~cu ,
agree to file a copy of the bond with the City Clerk.
(At least $10,OOO.)
and we
Name of Bank where gambling funds will be kept.~o~sc~-~
(2) '
Bank Account Number for gambling funds ~,~0 ~00 ~
Are funds in the above account mixed with other funds
(Answer must be "No")
No
AGREEMENT
The Shorel~gne ]~rly C~cLhd. Dev. g~,r. LnCAereby agrees that if the license herein.
Name of Applicant
is granted that the Shoreline ~rly C~clhd. Der, (~1 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 ]{cense.
It is further agreed that monthly reports shall be furnished the City by the
Gambling Manager as directed in the ordinance and the Shoreline E~rly Chdhd. Dev. Ctr.
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
Iisted
above..
· Signed by a~uU~r~i'z~d Officer of Organization
The above application is made on behalf oT the Shoreline l~rly Chilc~ood Dev. G~r. [nc.
and all information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and bel ief /~ . //~-~ '
Date "-' Signature ,..' .... ~/ . Title
Annual Licenses:
Expire on January 31 of each year. Fees are not'prorated for
licenses purchased after February 1.
Shoreline E~rly Childhood Development Center Inc. ~equests that the $15.00 Single
time permit fee'be waved. Since Shoreline is a non-profit and tax-exempt organization
an~ the raffle will be used to gain financial assistance for this organization, w,
feel that this request is valid. We also draw you~attention to the same permit
gr~nted to us last year where the fee was waved for the same reasons.
/
--for the benefit of Shoreline's Early Intervention, Child Care, & Bridge Programs
SHORELINE EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT OENTER, INO.
-- a tax exempt corporation
March 28th, 1983
Mayor and City Council
~ity-of Mound, Minnesota
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota .55364
To The Mayor and City Councilpersons:
Please consider this letter formal request for permission and permit to hold the
First Annual Westonk~ Multi-Community P~rade (to be renamed ~n the 'Name The
Parade' Contest now being held) within the city limits of Mound. Because of
unresolvable problems and cooperation difficulties with the cities of Spring
Park, Orano and the Orano Police Department the parade will be presented ex-
clusively in the City of Mound this year. The parade will be held on Saturday,
June 11, 1983 and start at 10 AM in the area o£ Wilshtre and Bartlett Blvds.
I have spoken to Jon Elam and Chiefs Bruce Wold and Bob Cheney and have worked
out to their satisfaction any difficulties that~ may concern them with-tn their
various areas of jurisdiction. I have also contacted Hennepin County Trans-
portation Ehief Engineer Dennis Hanson and have his cooperation and approval
for the routing and detour, conditional on your resolutionary approval. Traffic
reroutlng will be handled with the help of the Mound Police, Mound Reserves and
Police Explorers. Additional help can be obtained from Hennepin County Sheriff's
Emer. gency Squad if necessary,
The parade is this year being co-sponsored by the .Westonka Chamber of Commerce
and Shoreline Early Childhood Development Center. In future years this hope-
fully annual .event will become an exclusive part of the Chamber of Commerce, as
it should be. This year Shoreline will be taking on a major roI~e in the event
as a note of Thank You to the communities for their generousity and support of
last years GIANT SALE held to support the Shoreline pro8z~ams for developmentally
delayed children. Shoreline's 1983 GIANT SALE wtll be held on the same weekend
as the parade this year. We are planning many activities and entertainment,
including a GIANT Stage-show on Saturday after the parade, as part of th~ GIANT
SALE that weekend which will be open to the public free of charge. These activ-
ities along with the quality parade now in the formulati~e stages will instill
much community spirit and pride to the cities of the Westonka area. We reqMest
that if there is a fee for this permit that i+. be waved because the parade is
defin,itely a community event, the non-profit status of Shorelin* Programs, the
lack of available funding by the Chamber of Commerce and that the parade will
deffinitely not be a money maker for either of the organizations involved.
We have overwelmingly support and backing of the business community and have been
given encouragement, from all consulted while in the initial planning stages.
It's been ten years since the last parade of this size in the Westonka area and
we ask for your approval and ~upDort to help make it a reality this year,
3745 Shoreline Drive · Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 · (612)471-8541
Stationery donated by Ms. Prin[, Inc. of Mound, Minnesota
The GIANT SALE and Parade
March 28th, 1983
page 2
There are more details and interesting features and guests already enlisted for
the parade that I will be more than happy to brief you on at any time but I
think you may enjoy it more, the parade that is, if you are surprised along with
the viewing audience on June 11th.
Please feel free to call me any time with any questions that you may have, I
will be available to you.
Thank~u ~m All,
~General~Cha irman ~
Home phone: 472-2~33
P.S. You are all invited to participate in the parade and help make it a success.
CHAPTE~ 35
MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS
PARADE, EXCAVATION AND EXCAVATING OF STREETS
Section 35.O1. Parade Permit ReQuired. The streets in the Village of
Mound shall be kept free and clear of ali obstructions and encroachments, for the
use of the public, and no parade, civic or military, with or without band or
other music, and no public gathering or meeting of any kind for any purpose, and
no beating of drum or drums, or playing of any instrument or instruments of mny
kind tending to the obstruction thereof, or gathering of crowds of people thereon,
shall be permitted upon the public streets or public grounds of said village,
except a written permit therefor be ~Prst obtained from the Mayor of the Village.
.(Ord. 65- 3-5-1959) ~ ,~-
Section 35.05. Excavatln9 - Permit Required. No person, firm, co-part-
nership or coporation shall dig, excavate, enlarge or make any excavation or pit in
the village without a permit therefore having been first obtained as hereinafter
required.
Section 35.06. Mining - Permit Required. No person, firm, co-partnership,
or corporation shall remove from the village any soil, earth, sand, grave1 or other
such material without a permit therefor having been first obtained as hereinafter
provided.
Section 35.07. Minin9 - Excavating - Permits, applica'tions, fee, terms,
renewal. Application for the permit as required
Sections 35.05 and 35.06 shall be made to the Village Council, in writing, and file~
with the Village Clerk together with the fee therefor in the amount of $50.00. Such
application shall state the name and address of'the applicant, and if such applicant
is a coporation, the names and addresses of the officers thereof. Such application
shall also state the common description of the property to be excavated, or dug upon,
together with the legal description thereof, a diagram of the proposed excavation
showing the relation thereof to lot lines, existing and proposed s~reets, natural
water courses and existing buildings. In such cases as seem appropriate or where
required by the Council, the application shall include any one, or ay combination
of the following: togopraphic map of the area to be excavated together with ~he
surrounding area, name and address of the supervising engineer, name and address
of the hydrological engineer, destination of any soil, searth, sand, gravel or other
such materia'l as is being removed from the site, explanation of what efforts were
made to dispose of or sell the same locally, name and address of the fee owner of
such property, all outstanding interests in the property together with the nature of
'each and the name and address of holder therof, and such other information as may
seem appropriate or necessary. (296 -5-25-72)
Such application shall be signed by the applicant and verified before some officer
authorized to administer such oath.
If granted, such permit shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of
issuance. If the permit is denied, the application fee shall be refunded.
Applications for renewals shall be accompanied by the same fee as in the case of
original applications and shall state the information as required for such original
~nnlication together wi~h such additional information as may be pertinent under the
PROCLAMATION
BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MINNESOTA;
That April be American Cancer Crusade month in the
City of Mound.
March 28, 1983
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
RE: STREET LIGHTING
Enclosed are two interrelated items on street lighting.
A proposal from NSP to change over our mercury vapor lamps to
high pressure sodium at an increased cost of 5.4%. Change
over costs are $1865.O0 and could be paid for out of Revenue
Sharing.
A breakdown of several cities street light policies. For the
most part they are in conformance with what we do, but are
spelled out somewhat better.
JE:fc
March 9, 1983
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City o£ Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Northern States Power Company
Minnetonka Division
5505 County Road 19
P.O. Box 10
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
Telephone (612) 474-8881
In the mid to late 1960!s, Northern States Power Company installed
a new street lighting system in your city using the most modern and
efficient mercury vapor equipment available. Since this equipment
is now approximately'iS years old, many of the ballasts are beginning
to fail and need replacing. Therefore, we have developed a new street
light improvement program, again using the most efficient lighting
available, which you may want NSP to install in your city.
The existing NSP owned overhead street lighting system can be converted
to a sodium vapor light source on a planned basis at a reasonable cost
to the city.
Presently your NSP owned overhead lighting system consists of:
23 - 250 Watt Mercury Vapor Units
350 - 175 Watt Mercury Vapor Units
This can be converted approximately size for size, to a sodium vapor
system consisting of:
23 - 150 Watt Sodium Units
350 - 100 Watt Sodium Vapor Units
If you choose to have this conversion done,.3ou will receive 12.3 percent
~pre_li~ht for 5.4 percent more monthly operating_co~. An initial
payment of 95 per unit or $1,865 total would be required for the group
replacement of these lights to the modern most efficient sodium vapor
light source.
An alternative, would be to have NSP replace the existing mercury vapor
units with the sodium vapor units only on burn out of the mercury ballasts.
- 2-
There would be no initial charge for this alternative, however, the
street lighting system would be a mixture of mercury and sodium
lights until all of the existing mercury ballasts fail.
If you would like more detailed information, please contact
Sam Higuchi of NSP at 474-8881.
Distribution Engineering Manager
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
March 31, 1983
TO: Jon Elam
FROM: Joyce Nelson
~OBJECT: Street lights
In my conversation with Mr. Rudolph of NSP he explained that this new
lighting system would be done over a period of 3 to 4 years. The new
lights would have the same brightness as our street lights downtown.
The cost of the new lights would be $9.65 for the 100 Watt, we are
presently paying $9.15, we have 350 of these lights. For the 150 Watt
we will be paying $10.65, we are paying $10.15 now. There are only
23 of this type.
Mr. Rudolph suggested we contact Sam Higuchi, he could come up with a
system as to which part of town we would like done first and if we wanted
it done in 3 years or 4.
We have a total of 373 street lights if they did the replacement in
4~ years as Mr. Rudolph s~ggested we would be doing about 94 of them at
a cost of $5.00 each or $470.00 a year.
Mr. Rudolph was also asking about the street lights on Shoreline Blvd.,
he stated they are having a difficult time finding parts. I mentioned
we have alot of the old ballasts at the Anderson building.
Respectfully,
Joyee Nelson
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
November 3, 1982
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Jom Elam
Public Works
Estimated Electricity costs for 1983.
For the year of 1983 the Street Dept. budgeted $55,000 for electricity.
In September NSP's rate increase went :Into effect, here is an estimated
out line of the costs for electricity for 1983.
STREETLIGHTS
350 - 175W Mercury $9.15 each per month = $3,202.50
23 - 250W Mercury $10.15 each per month = $233.45
12 - 175W Mercury (Parking Lots) $12.55 each per month ~ $150.60
7 - F72EHO Fluorescent (Shoreline)S23.10 each per month ~ $161.70
72 - 250 W Mercury (Downtown) $5.75 each per month = $414.00
The streetlights come to a total of $4,162.25 per month or $49,927.00 per
year. Also coming out of the electricity budget ~s .$~2.00 per month for
the signal light and about $300.00 per year for a portion of the electricity
for the shop.
The total estimated costs for 1983 electricty is about $50,991.00
Resp_ec t fully,
Joyce Nelson
?ublic Works
S'IRE~ LI6H'rII~ DOLICY
£~ptcmbcr, 1981
I<~.F3.S, it is d~Cmed necesrory %]~t a uniform policy for the plac~n~nt of street
lights Jn the City be cstabli~]~, the follu~,ing slull ccnstitute fha policy for installa-
tion of street lights in tha. City of BrooklYn Center:
A street light shall'be installed a.t c~'e~, inters- tio .open for traffic.
within the City. Cn any streets with a c~b-to-curb width in ~cess of
52 feet, and where there is normally, a sig~.ificant ~.o~u~t of pedestrian.
traffic, t%D street lights ]cay be installed at each intersection.
~[id-block street lights may be installed in any'block in which the center-
line to centerline distance between cross streets is _creater than' 700 feet,
upon receipt of a petition signed by a'majority of the residents o~' the block,
ir~luding the signatures of the residents adjacen~ to t~be specific location
where such mid-block light is requested. In such instances, additional street
lights shall be installed so that the distance be~.een street lights does not
excesd 700 feet.
3. Additional street lights will be considered for individual approval upon
receipt of a Petition from the property o%~ners ~% the affec~=d area, or upon
reccrm~ndation from the Chief of Police or from t]~e Dir'ector of Public Z,~rks
' when such petition or reconr~J~ation deTmnstrates a specific w-orrant affect-
ing traffic safety.
4.. 'ihe type of street lights ins~_!led urger the provisions of tha abov~ three
paragraphs shall be as follo%.s:
If the electrical'distributicn syste~ within the area is overhead, the'
street light shall consist of a steel mast a~m an~ l~mdnaire mounhed on
a conventional ~ pOle witch overhead electrical service.
If the electrical' distribution system within the arCh is u~.der~und, the
street light shall consist of a steel mast 8rr.~ and luminaire ~ounted on
a conventional v~od pole with undergrc.:md electrical service.
c. The size of. luminaires, to be installed shall'be as follow~:
- On collector and arterial, streets
~_rcury High Pressure
Vapor. OR Sodium
400 watt 250 watt
- On local streets, at marked
crosswalks
- On local streets, where no
marked ~ cros~%~al3~ exist
250 watt 150 %~tt'
175 watt 100 watt
All street lighting rec~]ests ~md Lnstallatiohs s]x~uld be_ coordLnated though
the Director of P~)lic %qDrks.
.AFi)rovcd by:
COUNCIL POLICY NO. 1 - 14
STREET LIGHTING
COUNCIL POLICY ON THE
PLACEMENT OF STREET LIGHTING
The purpose of this directive is to set out the policy of the
City Council concerning the placement of street lighting in the
City of Minnetonka.
BACKGROUND
The City of Minnetonka provides street lighting of various types
to promote safe travel on City streets of vehicular and pedes-
trian traffic. The City provided street lighting is not intended
for the purpose of deterring criminal activity.
-STATEMENT OF POLICY
This poli~y is applicable to all requests, for the installation
of street lighting to be provided by the City.
STANDARD ~' STREET LIGHTING : ~' .
'The City-Council will consider the authorization of placing
street lights in the City only at intersections, the end of cul-
de-sacs or at sharp turns or steep hills along City streets.
The~ initiation of Council action for the placement of such..tights_, ii
may c'ome from City 'Staff who have been made aware of the need
- for street lights which meet such criteria or upon petition from
residents who are interested in. the placement of a street light.
!"Residents inquiring of the-City about placement of street lights -'
· shall be made aware of criteria for street light placement in- --
cluded in this policy.-' - ' -
DECORATIVE AND SPECIAL LIGHTING ..
"The d_evelopers and/or residents of residential areas may petition
the City for the placement of decorative lighting in residential
neighborhoods. If such installation is approved by the City
Council, the property owners in the neighborhood served by such
decorative lighting shall pay a separate charge established by
COUNCIL POLICY NO. 1 - 14
PLACEMENT OF STREET LIGHTING
PAGE 2
the City to pay for the cost of the installation and operation
of the decorative street lighting system. Such charge shall
appear separately on the quarterly utility bill to the property
owner from the City unless otherwise provided for.~
The City Council may, from time to time, authorize the installa-
tion of decorative and/or special lighting systems 'along roadways
in commercial and industrial areas of the City. Payment for the
construction and operation of such lighting systems may be made
by the City or charged back to benefitting property owners at
the discretion of the City Council.
Adopted by Resolution No.
Council Meeting of
MAY 19, 1980
1 Ob
To: City Council
From: City Manager's Office
Subject: Proposed Street Lighting Assessment Policy
Special assessments have traditionally been used as a means of financing
the costs of local public improvements. The fundamental objective of
special assessment financing is to equitably distribute costs among
benefiting properties in accordance with increased property values that are
realized as a result of a public improvement. A special assessment should
therefore reflect a fair approximation of the increase in a property's
market value. In this way, .special assessments should be regarded as a
benefit to the land and not necessarily to the current use of the land,
inasmuch as the current use is subject to change.
Public improvements usually provide, to some extent, general benefits in
addition to special benefits received by properties within a project area.
In'such cases, general funds may be combined with special assessments to
finance the costs of public improvements. According to state law, special
benefits can be assessed in full or in part, but the assessment cannot exceed
the special benefits resulting from an improvement.
However, general funds do not necessarily have to be used in the financing of
an improvement project because some general benefits occur. Rather, it is
the special benefits realized by properties adjoining an improvement which
determine the local nature of the project and therefore the amount of the
special assessments.
Under MS 429.021, Subd. l, authority is granted to the Council to order
public improvements involving the installation, replacement, extension and
maintenance of street lighting systems. The use of special assessments is a
means of financing street lighting improvements.
DEVELOPING AN ASSESSMENT POLICY
FOR STREET LIGHTING
To be effective, an assessment policy.must prescribe a flexible yet consistent
approach to be followed'in the distribution of public improvement costs among
benefiting properties. Flexibility is needed to insure that the policy is
applicable in all but unusual circumstances. Consistency in the application
of the policy is also needed to avoid the appearance of being arbitrary or
capricious in the distribution of public improvement costs.
An assessment policy must reflect and differentiate various characteristics
of property that could receive benefits from certain street lighting improve-
ments. Property can.be distinguished on the basis of its use and, in some
cases, the intensity of its use. For example, property may be zoned for
residential, ~usiness or industrial use. Its intensity of use may range from
sin§le-faniily residences to multiple-dwelling units such as condominiums
and apartments which have higher densities.
Different kinds of properties receive different kinds of benefits from the
installation of street lighting improvements. Properties'*zoned for industrial,
business and high'density residential uses realize.increases in market value
because of the benefit or.having a street 1.ight located in the adjoining
right-of-way..Street lighting provides direct benefits to such properties
i~ the form of increased visibilitx'and security. A single-family residence,
however, does not specifically receive a direct benefit from a street light
'located on its adjoining right-of-way. Rather, it receives benefits in the
form of a safer, well-lighted neighborhood that are shared with other
residences in the project area.
On the basis of the information presented above., various kinds of street
lighting projects are identified so that special assessment methods can be
developed accordingly.. The following zoning classifications of. project areas
are proposed:
1} Residential--a project, area characterized by low-density
dwelling units such as single-family homes.
2)
High-density residential--a project area characterized by
multiple-dwelling'units such as condominiums, apartments or
'townhouses.
3) Business/industrial--a project area characterized by business
and industrial uses.
PROPOSED STREET LIGHTING POLICY
Residential - The typical residential street lighting project will generally
'consist of intersectional and midblock lighting. The average spacing
between lights will range from 300 to 400 feet. High-pressure sodium lamps
having 150 watts will be mounted on poles having a height of 25 to 30 feet.
The benefits which would result from this kind of street lighting project
would be realized exclusively within the residential project area. The
values of properties within that project area would.all be enhanced because of
the improved visibility and safety provided by the li,ghting. Therefore, the
financing of residential street lighting, projects should be borne completely
by special assessments levied against properties locatgd in the project area.
It is recommended that special assessments be distributed on a unit basis
such that an equal portion of the costs is assessed to each unit. For assess-
ment purposes, a unit is defined as a zoning lot or a potential building site.
A unit is not necessarily the same as a parcel of land because a parcel of land
may be comprised of one or more units,*i.e, potential building sites. The
unit method cannot'be used if different zoning classifications exist. In the
event that there is not a standard zoning classification within a project area,
special assessments would, be computed on a front-foot basis.
Residential Collectors and Thoroughfares - Some residential street lighting
improvements may involve the i~st211a'~ion of street lights along
collectors or thoroughfares, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan? When
these projects involve higher design standards than those used in residential
areas, the residential properties benefit in terms Of increased
visibility and safety.
The general public benefits.from the increased lighting that is required due to
the higher traffic volumes. It can then be assumed that the costs of a
street l'ighting project along certain collectors or thoroughfares will have
a higher cost aS compared to a project installed along a residential street.
It therefore appears most equitable to finance street lighting projects
installed along collectors and thoroughfares identified in the Comprehensive
Plan in such a manner as to combine special assessments with some kind of
assistance from general revenues. The general obligation cost of such a project
should be equivalent to the difference between the total cost of the project
less the cost of the project, if it had been designed in accordance with the
residential standards described above.
This difference can be determined by comparing the average spacing of
street lights along a collector or thoroughfare tO the average spacing of
lights along a residential street. General revenues should therefore be Used
in the financing of a street lighting project when the average spacing is less
than 300 feet and the project design includes more than intersectional and
midblock lighting. In essence, residential properties would then be paying in
accordance with the same residential benefits they would have received if these
properties had been located on a residential street having an intersectional'and
midblock street lighting design.
The general obligation/special assessment split will need to be determined for
each individual street lighting project installed along a collector or
thoroughfare in a residential area.
Business, industrial and high-density residential - Street lighting projects
i~ business, industria~ and high-density residential areas provide direct
benefits to properties located in the project area in terms of enhanced
visibility and security. Because of the presence of these special benefits, the
cost of street lighting improvements should be borne totally by the properties
located within a project area.
Since properties having street lights located directly in front of them
receive direct street lightiQg benefits, a direct cost of the street lighting
should be borne by these properties. Thirty percent of the project costs
would therefore be assessed on the basis of direct benefits. The direct
benefit would.be calculated by dividing 30 percent of the total project Cost
by the number of street lights in the project. This unit cost would then be
assessed against properties receiving a direct benefit from a street
lighting standard. 'The direct cost would be shared equally by adjoining
properties in the event that the street light is located on a property line.
WThis' list is' not currently available because the Comprehensive Plan
is being revised.
-3-
The remaining 70 percent of the project costs would be assessed as. an
indirect benefit against all the properties in the project area. These
costs are assessed on a front-foot basis.
In the event that a residential use exists in a project area that has been
zoned for high-density residential, business or industrial uses, that
residential use should be assessed in accordance with the special assess-
ment policy that has been established for these zoning classifications.
Although the land is residential, in this case, it must still be assessed
consistent with its potential' use. However, in these unusual circumstances,
Co'uncil may wish to direct the City Manager to cause these assessments to be
equalized.
Financing and Replace~en~ - The estimatedlife of street lighting facilities
'should be established at 20.years. Accordingly, the period for financing
street lighting special assessments~would be 20 years. This would also
enable the City to guarantee that no future assessments for street lighting
would be levied against properties during that 20-year period. After this time,
the City could replace the street lighting poles'and fixtures and assess the
tota) cost against the benefiting properties consistent with the policy
outlined above.
RECOMMENDATION
It is therefore recommended that 'Council direct preparation of a resolution ·
setting forth a street lighting assessment as described in this report.
bf
-4-
MEMO
February 11, 1983
TO: Pat Klaers
FROM: Dick Lovberg ~
RE: Mound City Manager's request for information
about our street light policy.
Unfortunately our street light policy is not that easy to
define.
Prior to 1970, all street lights were on poles owned by
Northern States Power. In the early 1970's the City started
requiring developers to install street lights which then
became the property of the City. As shown on the N.S.P.
billing statement the cost of City owned'street lights is much
less per month than the lights on N.S.P. owned poles. The
cost is the advantage but the fact that we have to maintain
all but the bulbs is the disadvantage. We still feel however
that the advantages outweight the disadvantages.
As to the number of street lights required of the developer,
we require a light at each intersection, each curve, each
cul-de-sac and on straight streets we require a light at mid-
block. Some developers complain that we require too many
lights. We require that the developer bond for the number of
street lights required and that they guaranty them for one
year. After the one year.period, the City maintains the lights
that were installed by the developer.
As to the older area which have overhead wiring, if an individual
requests a light, we ask that he/she circulate a petition getting
as many signatures as possible of the property owners that
would be affected by that light. After the petition is received
and the request reviewed, we will either deny the request or
have N.S.P. install the light. N.S.P. will install and maintain
a light at their expense but will charge the City at the higher
rate per month.
I would be happy to answer any other questions at your convenience.
DL/md
MEMO
February 21, 1980
TO:
FROM:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
c/o R.M. Henneberger, City Manager
Nell M. Johnson, Director of Public Works
Street Light Policy.
Per the memo dated January 21st and the discussion held by the City
Council at their Committee Meeting of January 21st the following has
been prepared as being the City Policy regarding the installation of
street lights in subdivisions and developments. Whereas the Ordinance
- Section 345:64, Sub. 12' ~ states that street lights shall be installed
per City Specifications at all intersections and whereas the City has
determined that the strict interpretation of said Ordinance may impose
an undue hardship on developers and subdividers of small tracts from an
economic basis the following policy will govern:
ae
The property owner and/or the developer of subdivisions with 10
lots or more will bond for and construct all street lights in
their subdivisigns as required by the City Engineer per Ordinance.
Be
Property owners/developers of less than 10 lots will be given the
option of paying to the City a flat fee of $200.00 per lot in lieu
of bonding and installing required street lights. The money so
received will be placed in a trust and agency account managed by
the Finance Dept. The monies received into this account will be
used to supplement ~he general fund street light budgeted monies
for the purpose of constructing street lights in various locations
in accordance with prioritized needs as determined by the City
Engineer. The receiving of said monies does not obligate the City
to construct street lights adjacent to the propose~ subdivision
except where a prioritized need has been so determined.
Respectfully submitted,
Ne°~ $. ~s~on~' P.E.
~i~;or~ Public Works
OHO~O
FEE OWNER
VILLAGE OF MOUND
That part of Lot 9 and West ½ of Lot 10 lying Sly of Nly 185' thereof
Hal stead Heights
ZONING
~~ [attach~ucvey or scale drawing show~ng adjacent streets, dimension of proposed
-~~ sites, square foot ar~a of each new parcel designated by
A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR:
New Lot No. From
Square feet TO Square feet
Reason:
APPLICANT ,, TEL. NO.
(sig t e)
Applica. nt's interest in the pro,petty: , , ~, ,~:~ ,~,,~'~//a~;/ '~ ~~
This application must be signe~ by all the OWNERS of the property, or anexplan-
ation given why this is not the case.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Division be approved contingent on there being a
legal description of access to parcel designated
as A-2 from Co. Rd. 110. DATE 7-27-81 ..~o~-~
COUNCIL ACTION
ResolutionNo.
Concur with Planning Commission and approve
81-270
DATE August I1, 1~81
APPROVAL OF THIS DIVISION IS DEPENDENT ON THE LEVYING OF ANY
DEFICIENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BY WAIVER, THE FILING OF THE DIVISION
AS APPROVED AND THE NECESSARY PAYMENT OF TAXESBY THE FEE OWNER
WITHIN 1 YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE RESOLUTION OR IT BECOMES
NULL AND VOID.
A list of residents and owners of property within.., feet must be attached.
295 ,'
August ll, 1981
Councilmember Ulrick moved the'following resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 81-270
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION AS
REQUESTED - THAT PART OF LOT 9 & W.½ OF LOT 10
LYING SOUTHERLY OF NORTHERLY 185 FEET, HALSTEAD
HEIGHTS
WHEREAS,
an application to waive the subdivision requirements contained in
Section 22.00 of the City Code has been filed with the City of
Mound, and
WHEREAS, said request for a waiver has been reviewed by the Planning
Commission and the City Council, and
WHEREAS,
it is determined that there are special circumstances affecting
said property such that the strict application of the ordinance
would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land;
that the waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right; and that granting the waiver
will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other owners,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE T RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND,
MOUND, MINNESOTA:
1)
That the request of Richard A. Olexa for the waiver from the
provisions of Section 22.00 of the City Code and the request
to subdivide property of less than five areas, described as
Lot 9 and West 1/2 of Lot 10, Halstead Heights, Plat.61605,
Parcels 1825 and 1850, PID #2~-117-24 43 0011/0012 is
approved to be divided as follows:
NEW PARCEL 1 (Shown on survey as A & B): That part of
Lot 9 and the west half of Lot 10, Halstead Heights,
lying Northerly of a line. drawn Northeasterly parallel
with the Northerly line of said lots from a point on the
West line of said Lot 9 distant 185 feet South from the
Northwesterly corner of said Lot 9, subject to an
easement for driveway purposes over the West I0 feet
thereof; that part of Lot 9 and the West half of Lot 10,
Halstead Heights, lying Southerly of a line drawn
Northeasterly parallel with the Northerly line of said
lots from a point on the West line of said Lo~ 9 distant
185 feet South from the Northwesterly corner of said
Lot 9, and lying Northerly of a line drawn Northeasterly
parallel with the Northerly line of said lots from a
point on the West line of said Lot 9 distant 205 feet
South from the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 9, subject
to an easement for driveway purposes over West 20 feet
thereof; also the East 15 feet of that part of said West
half of Lot l0 lying Southerly of a line drawn North-
easterly p~rallel with the Northerly line of said lot
from a point on the West line of said lot distant 205 feet
South from the Northwesterly corner of said lot; Also
2~6
August 11, 1981
that part of said West half of Lot l0 lying West of said
above-described East 15 feet, and South of a line drawn
West perpendicular to the East line of said West half of
Lot 10 from a point on said East line of the West half
distant 588.65 feet South from the Northeast corner of
said West half of Lot 10.
NEW PARCEL 2 (Shown on survey as C): That part of Lot 9
and the West half of Lot 10, Halstead Heights, lying
Southerly of a line drawn Northeasterly parallel with the
Northerly line and said lots from a point on the West line
of said Lot 9 dislant 205 feet South from the North-
westerly corner of said Lot 9, said parallel line being
hereinafter referred to as "Line A", together with an
easement for driveway purposes over the West IO feet of
that part of said Lot 9 lying Northerly of a line herein-
after referred to as "Line B", drawn Northeasterly parallel
with the Northerly line of said Lot 9 from a point on the
West line of said lot distant 185 feet South from the
Northwesterly corner of said lot, and an easement for
driveway purposes over the West 20 feet of that part of
Lot 9 lying Northerly of said "Line A" and Southerly of
said "Line B", EXCEPT the East 15 feet of that part of
said West half of Lot lO lying Southerly of said "Line A";
ALSO EXCEPT that part of said West half of Lot 10 lying
West of said above described 15 feet, and South of a line
drawn West perpendiculr to the East line of said West
half of Lot 10 from a point on said East line of the West
half distant 588.65 feet South from the Northeast corner
of said West half of Lot 10.
2) That any deficiencies on said p. roperty resulting from division
are to be paid in full or waivers signed.
3)
It is determined that the ~oregoing division will constitute a
desirable and'stable community development and is in harmony
with adjacent properties.
4)
The City.~.ierk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this
resolution to the applicant for filing in the office of the
Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County
to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of this City.
A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember 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 Manager.
A~'s ~: City Manager
M~yoF ,7 ...... ' -
!
COMB'S-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS [] LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS
March 22, 1R83
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesot~ 55441
(612) 559-3700
Mr. Oon Elam
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Subject:
Proposed Subdivision
Richard Olexa Property
Lots 9 & lC, Halstead Heights
#2113 ~
Dear Oon:
As requested, we have reviewed the proposed subdivision of lots 9 & lC,
Halstead Heights. The legal description of the two new parcels are acceptable
as written. Our main concern with this proposed subdivision is whether the
City should be approving a subdivision which appears to be solely for creating
ownership of lake access. We do not feel this is the appropriate use of the
City's subdivision ordinance.
There are two exisitng homes located on these lots, which according to the
tax records, are already subdividied into two parcels. It appears from the
descriptions that the home on parcel 22-117-24 43 0012 has access to County
Road llO by easement across parcel 22-117-24 43 OOll. It is our opinion that
access to the lake for the home closest to the road, parcel OOll, should be
handled in the same manner, by easement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
me.
Sincerely,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc.
oc:j
~%')9 '°,':,~,;-2r'U uiJ'3O3 '~ uo.'..'.zoo. · ,09 = ,,I
~ou saop qI 'uooaeq% s2uIpIinq BUT3S.rxe II~; jo uo!%uooI
'Of ~ jo JT%~ ~ze,~ ples jo
aou.zoJ %~ou~oN oq~ u,~j U~no~ qe~j ~9'99~ ~u~slP Ji~q
qs~%{ 6ql o~ a~l'uolpu~J~ %se~i u~ap eu~ ~ jo q%nos pu~
1~i ~'~D):S O~V I,,V eUlq. pIwz jo /tl~uq~nos ~Ul,{I OI ~oq jo
p~s 3o au%I ~bl eq~ uo ~uI~ ~ mozj 6 ~ p~s jo
OT :~zo,-t ~qu ~oio sa:~and Xnaoi, t~p ~oj 3ue=~sue u~
',,V ~u~q,, s~ oq p~ojo~ ao~JnU3e~oq ~uIoq pul:% I;~l~s~i
FI~ jo aou.~oo $~aol,aaqqaoii. e~ moaj q3n~ 308J
qinos 3oaJ ¢9'89~ 3u~3sIP JI~ 3s~f~ eq~ jo ou~! ~e~ p~s uo ~u!c~
~ mo~j Ol qoq jo ~ %so~ piss jo e'~1%s~g oq~ o~ Z~lnotpuada~
3s~". uaezp OUtl w jo q%nos pu~ '~ooJ ¢I ~swS p~q~Zosop-onoq~
p!~s jo qse-fi.~% OT 3~ jo JI~4 3~of~ pins jo
'.~oI p!~s jo ao~oo ~lzo%soaq%ao~ mq3 ~o~j q%n~ 3ooJ
pi~ jo eui] 3~+v aq3 uo %ul~ ~ mo:j 301 pln~ jo outI ~IaWq~o
OI 3oq jo jI~q ~s~, pi~s jo ~a~ ~mt~ jo ~euj
aa~oo ~7i~-,~e~q3ao;.~ ~q~ ~oaj q%nos ~,~ ~OE 3ur~sIF 6 ~ pt~z jo
~'~'lT 3sr.',, a:II ,Jo 3uT~ ~ moaj s~oi p~s jo outI ~I~a~%~o~ 'o.i'~ 43Ir, ~'.]'.~,'
'' ' ,o .];:~:Jo,; £~[.,lO%SC,:'.t{q&ON c~Uq_ L':o..ll ".,
' . , q.,.to.-, '%o03 r~,4'[ ~ur.s.-4. sip 6 %oq (.__...
'; 50 u:ql %Ia,; a:i3 uo ~utcx~ ~ ,uo~$ ~qol PlUS JO mz!] XIa~-q~aoF.
":;.'~ Uq:-~ l~-:T'fv-.ir.d .'?l~q'~w;)i{~aq; ua~ap auiI ~ jo fl..teq3noS 2ui¢%
f,I"s jc .zr.u.to:~ Z'TJw~sa.'u~%ao'4 et!% u~oz,7 ii,no_o' ~aaj .tgi :~ut~sIP 6 o,o,]
¢~'-g4-',t'n~ Pa3r'lw.4. ~'.Ji 2oq jo jl:.,q 3s~-~ eqo, pu~.. 6 qoq ,]o 3aec '%.nqj. ~
KAY MITCHELL
CLERK TO TH[; BOARD
BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487
March 16, 1983
Hs. Francene Clark, Clerk
City of )!ound
534l :~aywood Road
!:ound, [',N 55364
PHONE
34,5-5433
This letter is to inform you that Chapter 112 of Minnesota
Statutes, which governs the establishment and operation of
watershed districts, was amended by Laws 1982, Chapter 509,
allowing affected municipalities within watershed districts to
nominate persons to serve on the watershed districts. I am
attaching a copy of Section 15, Chapter 509, Laws 1982, which
clarifies the following procedures for appointment of managers:
1. If the watershed district is located wholly within the
metropolitan area, the local townships and municipalities within
the district, either jointly or individually, may nominate
persons to serve on the watershed district. These nominees must
be submitted to the County Board at least 60 days prior
to the expiration of term of office of that particular manager..
2. If the townships or municipalities within the district do
not submit a list of nominees within 60 days prior to the
expiration of term, the County Board of Commissioners may then
select the eligible individuals from within the district.
Also attached is a synopsis of the watershed district(s)
affecting your area which includes a listing of the members and
expiration of terms. Please note, that any person nominated to
serve on the district must be a resident of the district and may
not be a public ~officer of the county, state or federal
government.
Should you desire to submit a "list of nominees for upcoming
vacancies, please forward them to my attention within the 60 day
timeframe. I will submit your nominations to the County Board of
Commissioners for consideration.
Sincerely,
~frklot~h~he Board
KM/jc
Attach:
~,l~ I ,\W,S nf MIX~FSOI A for I~.~ Ch. ~0(~
(4) l'h'e number .f managers proposed for tire district. I!xce_~ as
9.d~c/$~?~ provided in suhdixi~ions 6 and 7, the managers shall he not less than
fl~ree mw more th:m J%t a~ ~ sl~5~)] be selected from n list of al lensl ten
m,nnnccs 'l'ht?: a~l.S~ thall bc selected as representative of the local units of
g,~ermnenl affected a~,l None shall be a public officer of Ihe county, state, or
federal gox crnmcnt;
(5) A map of Ilic pr(~poscd
((~} A rcqt]c~l l~r Ibc cslabli~hmenl of lhe dis[riel ns proposed.
lhe peliti(mer~ ~hall cause In be ~erved upon the coullly auditor or
at,hlor~ of Ibc counlie~ afl'eclcd by Ih,' prop.~cd (li~lricl, the commis~i(mer, and
lhe director, a copy of ~id I~ nnmi,-,mg pclifion, and proof of service thereof
~h,fll he allached I() Ibc .rigmal pclHs(m. Io hc filol ~tilh the secrelary of the
board.
Sec. 14 Nhnnc~ot:~ Slalules log0, Scclion 112.37, is amended.by adding
a ~ubdivisiou' In read:
Suhd. 7. The managerx of a dislrict M~ollv xgiflfin the metropolitan area
shall number not Ices Ihan five nor more Iha~ nine. They shall be selected from
! ]i.~ off person~ nominaled j0imlv or sexerallv by ~tammrv and home rule charter
cities and Io~ns having ~yr~t~rx~ w~]ti,2 I~S di~Jri~t. 'Ibc list shall comain at
lea~l lhree nominees for each posilio~ ~t2 ~ filled. I~ ~he cities and towns fail to
n~.}j~t:sle in i~ccordance ~ilh this subdivision, lhe managers shall be selecled
See. 15. Minncxota Slatutes 1980, Section 112.42, Subdivixion t,
amended to read:
Subd. 3. Al lea~l 30 da)'~ prior to thc expiration of Ihe lerm of o~ce of
the first managers named by the board. Ihe courtly c-mmissioners of each county
affected shall mee~ and proceed Io ;~ppoint successors Io thc first managers.
Pv~k k~wever, If the nominamu: p.'lilim~ that initiated the district shall
originated from a'majonty of the cmos x~i~hiu the dislrict or if Ihe district is
~hollv ~'ithin the metroD~ are~ fl~e coumy commissioners shall ap~int the
managers from a ]lq ~ff s~mi~ kubmiU~l persons nomit~aled joindy o~
~a~hZ by Ihe loxvnqups and municipalilicx wiflm~ the dislricl. ~ ~h9 list
shall contain al leas~ Ihree nominees for .each posilmn Io be filled. It shall be
~ubmilled m the affecled cotHil)' board al lea~l ~) days prior Io the expiralion of
Ihe Icrm of o~ce If gt~ls Ihe list is not submilled within ~) days prior to the
expiralion of file term ~ff o~ce Ihe cou~ll)' cdmmissioners shall select
m:maFcr~ from eligibleindMduals~ilhin lhedixlricl. Said The countycommis-
sioncr~ shall al least 30 days befi~re Ihe expiralion of lhe term of -fl~ce of any
managers meel and appoim lt~e successors. If Ihe district affecls more lhan one
cotml), dislribulion of Ihe managers among Ihe counties affected shall be as
direcled by lhe board. Ten years after the order of establishment, upon petition
(~n~es ~r ~ddilion~ are indicswd hy tmdeflme, deletions b) ~.
,/unit~ of
,. state, or
,uditor or
oner, and
thereof
of' lhe
adding
htan area
.'ted from
i~ chatler
,retain at
ns fail to
letted as
,,n 3, is
of'riCe of
!l county
magers.
,t ric__.jt is
,lint the
':t~ or
[he list
i~al~ be
fJ¢,n t]f
t the
'-mis-
,~f' an)'
,In one
.etitiOn
Ch 500 IAWS of MINNES()I'A fi~r 1982 615
of Iht county hoard of commi,;sioners of an), courtly affecled by Ibc di'qrict, the
board after public hearing Ihereon, may redNthbute the managers among the
c,m-'w~ if ~m:h ~cdi~,l~il,uti(m i~ in accordance x~ilh the policy and im~POSCS of
tln~ chapter. No pctillOn fl)r lite rcdisl~ibulion of managers shall be filed with
lhe board more often Ihan once in Ica years. The term of o~ce of each manager,
if the number doe~ hal exceed lhree, shall ~ one for a tem~ of one year, One for a
lerm of two year~, and one for a term of three years. If lhe managers consist of
five members, one shall be for a te~ of one year, lwo for a le~ of two years,
and two for a term of three years. If the board of manaEers ggp:ti~D of more
than five members, the ~Ea~ers shall be ~.9~ so that as nearly a~ possible
one-third serve terms of one )'ear, one-tl~}r~ serv~ ter~} 9f ~'9 ~zears~ ~_~tl
one-lhird serve terms of lhrcc years, If I}tc district affect~ more II~a" one cotlnl~.
lhe board shall direct tilt' ,h..t~H~ution of thc one. two and Ihree year tc~ ms amo.g
the afl~ctctl counties. ['hc~cafler, the term al off, ce for each manager *hall bc
a term of lhree )'cars, and until his successor is ap~inted and qualified. If the
distdcl affects more than five counties, in order IO provide fi*r the ord,'dy
distribution of the ma,}iigcr% Ihe board may determine and ideal,fy Iht manager
areas wilhin Ihe territory of Ihe district and ~elect Ihe ap~inting county h,arcl of
commissioners for each m;m.tger's area. Any vacancy ~'curdng in an ollice al a
. manager shall be filled b)' lhe appointing county board of commissioners. A
r~ord of all appointmenls made under this subdivision shall be filed with the
counly audilor of each county affected, with the 's~retary of the h,,ard
managers, and with the secreta~ of the waler resources board. No I,..~..on
~ appointed as a manager who is not a voting resident of the district and
'shall ~ a public o~cer cfi the county, state, or federal government.
Sec: 16. Minnesola ShHutes 1~80. Section 112.42, is amended by adding
a subdivision to read:
Subd. 3a. The board shall rest~cture lhe ~ards of man; ~:e~t ~,f di.~l.ricts
eslablished before ~}~.~ ~ffS'E{i2'~ dar~ oJ th~ ac~ an~ ~53~1~ ~),-.,~) ,,,,h~p
m.el.ropolitan area lo ensure compliance with the requirements of sections 14 and
15_.:. "I'h._~e bo__ard s!ml! rc_~. uc.~ recommendations frmn the district and the affected
local government unit.__2~~. Additional mana_gers, if any, shall be appointed by thee
'county designated by the board, to terms designated by th.~e board, at th_.~e time of
and in the manner provided for the next regular appointment of successors to
managers of the district.
Sec. 17. Minnesota Statutes 1980, Section 112.43, is amended by adding
a subdivision to read:
Subd. lb. A watershed district located wholly within thee .rn_e.t.rgpolitan
area shall have the duties and authorities provided in sections lg io 25.
Notwithstandint, any contrary provision of subdivision 1, a watershed district
located wholl.v within th_.e_ metropolitan area shall have authority to .regulate th_e
use and development of land only under the conditions ,specified in section 20,
clause (c).
Chanl~e,; or additions are indicated b.~ u_m_J_erl_.ji.n_e, deletions by ,,,6ke~L
'WATERSHED DISTRICT -
MINNEHAHA CREEK
PURPOSE:
Established in March, 1967 to carry out conservation of natural resources
through land utilization, flood control and other needs upon sound scientific
prin'ciples for the protection of the public health and welfare and the provident
use of the natural resources. (Watershed Act, Chapt. 112) The Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District coordinates the management of the water and related land
recources in the area that drains into the Minnetonka/Minnehaha system.
COMPOSITION:
-The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is governed by a five-member Board of
Managers who serve 3-year terms on a staggered basis. Four of the managers
are appointed by the Hennepin County Board and one by the Carver County Board.
Chapter 112 of Minnesota Statutes, which governs the establishment and operation
of watershed districts was amended by Laws 1982, Chapter 509, allowing affected
municipalities within watershed districts to nominate persons to serve on the
watershed districts. (Section 15, Chapter 509):
1. If the watershed district is located wholly within the metropolitan area, the
local townshiPs and municipalities within the district, either jointly~or
individually, may nominate persons to serve on the watershed district. These
nominees must be submitted to the CountS Board at least 60, days. prior to the
expiration of term of office of that particular manager.
If the townships or municipalities within the district do not submit a list
of nominees within 60 days prior to the expiration of term, the. County Board
of CommissionerS may then select the eligible individuals from within the
district.
A member may not be a public officer of the county, state or. federal government,
and must be a resident of 'the district. In Hennepin County there are 25 cities
· and townships lying wholly or partly within the watershed boundaries:
Deephaven Edina *Excelsior
Golden Valley *Greenwood Hopkins
Independence *Long' Lake Maple Plain
Medina Minneapolis Minnetonka
*Minnetonka Beach Minnestrista *Mound
*Orono' Plymouth Richfield
*St. Bonifacius St. Louis Park Shorewood
*Spring Park *Tonka Bay *Wayzata
*Woodland
(*Entirely within District).
Because of the nature o~ the Board, it is helpful to have members who have a
background in water conservation, farming, development, law, engineering,
environment, administration, etc.' Most importantly, members need to. have a
keen interest in the preservation of water resources, with particular emphasis
on maintaining water quality standards and reducing adverse water level
fluctuations.
MEETING REQUIREMENTS:
Public meetings are held at 7:30 p.m. on the 3rd Thursday of each month in the
City Hall of Wayzata in even-numbered months, and in the St. Louis Park City
Hall odd-numbered months. Special meetings are often held, as well as field
tri'ps to view development requests, etc. This District is very active and
requires approximately 10-15 hours each month by a member of the Boar~^~ ~
RES?ONSIS~LITIES'
The development and aJel'tion of 'an Overall Plan is one of the most important
responsibilities ~.:' .'.he Watershed 'District. The plan is a comprehensive statement
of management pt:.ilosoF:h].,, policies and programs for the watershed pursuant to
objectives stated in the enabling legislation. This plan was formally adopted
in December, l~.;c'~, but will be updated soon, for the First time. Other
important responsibilities <*~e in the areas of:
Local 5ove,'nment (Land development and dra nace in areas
adjacent to pUi,lic waters)
S~ream an, d Lake Crossings
l.~unic'!nal Drainage Plan
Land Use and Soil Characteristics
Withdrawal of Waters
Placement of Structures on Lots Riparian to Public Waters
Erosion and Sediment Control
Development of water management in the u$,:~er watershed
Rules 'revision
R E ML::i ERAT ~
"The comDensation of the' members of the board of manarjers shall not exceed
S50.00 per day, and each member shall be entitled tn reimbursement for all
traveling and other expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of
official duties." (Watershed Act 1!2.-'2 (5).
t.' FI."-'. E R S APPOINTED B','
David H. Cochran
45~0 '' ~
~ndwco~ Circle
excelsior, ..,,'l 55~31
Michael R. ·Carroll
4509 ',.:ashburn A','er:~e South
Minneapolis,
Albert L. Lehman
350a West Sunrise Drive
I,linnetonka, MN 5F~.~
Barbara Gudmundson
5505-28th Avenue South
M~nneapolis, MN 55417
John E. Thomas
He.nnepi n
3 11/C'~
3/8/84
Hennepin
"~ 0
W8/,.,5.
Hennepin 6/15/7~q ~/,../85
Hennepin 5/15/79 3/8/83
Carver
3/8/83
MOUND DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL BUILDING REHAB LOAN PROGRAM: DRAFT #4
purpose of this program is to provide financing at attractive interest rates
to stimulate the rehabilitation of commercial buildings in downtown Mound in
response to the new improvement plan. During Year VIII of the Mound Community
Development Block Grant (began'July 1st, 1982) the City budgeted ~40,000 for
interest subsidies on rahab loans for commercial buildings. This procedure is
Viewed as one of the mo~t effective ways of.both leveraging the available funds,
and making the largest amount of money available as quickly as possible.
An additional.sum of $5,000 is available ~uring Year VIII of the Block Grant .
program to help under~rlte ~esign costs Incurred during the development-of plans
for rehabilitation work. Finally, some administrative funds will be'made avail-
able to assist in the preparation, review and administration of loans and loan.
ppplicatlons.
Design Services Grants
The City will make available $5,000.in,Community.Development Block Grant monies
to provide design assistance to those planning Improvements to a downtown commer~i:al
building. Interested.persons should appl~/ to the City for the money, and must
meet all the following requirements before receiving funding:
1. The applicant must match the grant on a~dolla, r' per dollar basis with private
fbnds for the design work,
2. Grants are limited to $750 per applicant,
3, The grant monies may only be used for "design consultation"or."design sketches"
services. These services may range from rough concept sketches, to architectural
schematic and design development drawings that show materials, finishes and
colors for a project,
4. All design work must be consistent with the provisions set forth in
"The Design Guide for Downtown Mound".
5.. The structure must be located in the downtown strategy area.
6. The structure must be a building in commercial or service use.
A Commercial Rehab Loan Program
The $40,000 in Block Grant funds will'b~ used to pay a portion of the interest charged
by'banks on $100,000 in loan monies. These funds will be loaned by the State.Bank of
Hound following their standard loan procedures and requirements;, however, the loan
applicants will first be required to submit a separate preliminary loan application
to a special Downtown Loan Qualificati.on C0mmittee. This committee will examine the
~pplications received to determine if the proposed actlvitles are consistent with the
.objectives of the downtown revitalization.plan. In.summary, the l'oans will be Judged
both on their flnanci'al merits and on the extent to'which they are consistent with the'
objections and guidelines or. the downtown revitalization plan.
Terms of the Loan "
Discussions with the State Bank of Mound indicate the standard rehabilitation loan fo~,~
a commercial structure has a five year term~ and ls available'at a'fixed Interest· rate
near the current prime lending rate.'.The State'Bank of Mound has.agreed to set up an
initial loan pool of $100,000 to Initiate the program. However, other financial ·
institutions may be approached by'applicants to participate in the program." .Ap~iicants
should ask their bank to contact the City of Mound for details. The Block Grant funds
would potentially be used to reduce the Interest'rate, to an effective interest rate
of about 8-9 percent on the loan.
Example of Loan sUbsidy In Operation
~ A standard loan of $10,006 - 5 years Q 17t Monthly Payment - $2~8.5~
Total Interest. Paid = $4,911.80
* .Special l'oan of $10,000'- 5 years ~ 9~ Monthly Payment = $207.5~
~otal Interest Paid =.$2,455.40
Community Development Block Grant Interest Subsidy to loan
Another Issue concerns the maximum size of individual loans.' AlthoUgh this will be
determioed through the loan applicants ability to secure and repay the loan, a
ceiling is established to insure several large borrowers do not monopolize the funding.
The maximum amount of loan funds permitted for each a'ppli6ant'will be.$20,O00. Interest
subsidy amounts cannot exceed 25~ of the loan amount, I.e. Loan of' $10~000 - interest
subsidy = $2,500.
Invitation for Applications and Eligibility Requirements
The Downtown Loan Qualification Committee will make a publlc announcement to all
downtown store owners and occupants.that applicat$ons for assisted loans will be
accepted. The loans will be considered on a first come, first serve basis. As the
committee receives appllcations, it will review them in the order of their sub-
mission. £ach.application will be examined to determine it meets the basic terms
set for the l°ans regarding size and matching 'funds, and that the loan meets the
following basic eligibility requirements.
Basic Eligibility. Requirements for Participation in the Mound Downtown Commercial
Rehab Loan Pro~ram
A. General - a rehabilitation loan may be.~only with respect to commercial or
m~xed residential-commercial use properties located with the Mound Downtown-
Stategy Area.' Commercial property shall mean. propertY which is engaged in the
sale of goods or services to the .general public and is'an.income .producing
investment. Mixed-use property shall refer to property for which the ground
level will be used, after rehabilitation, for commercial purposes, and no 'more
than 50%.of the building will be'used for residential and common space purposes.
The applicant is responsible for securing all necessary'approvals for'the loan
from conventional sources. ·
B. Applicant Eligibility.-.the loan applicant must:
.1. Own the property under consideration or be the purchaser occupant of the
property under a land sales'contract or any similar agreement for the
purchase of real property.
2. In order for a commercial'lessee.t~be considered for a loan, the l~ssee
.must.first provide written permission.from the owner of the structure.
C. Property Eligibility - the property must:
1'. Be located within the Moun~ Downtown Strategy Area.
2. ~all present property taxes and municipal charges paid in full, and. be
in conformance with.zoning and all other applicable city codes·
.D. Scope of'Eligible Project Activities and Costs
I. General - a r~habilitation loan may be made Only with respect to property In
need of improvement in accordance'with the activities outlined under
Allowable Costs.
2. ~llowable Costs - a rehabilitation loan may be made to underwrite the
following costs:
a. .Improvements to the buildings exterior surfaces, including front, side
posterior outside walls, that will lead to the improvement in appearance
of the 'downtcwn and esthetic enhancement consistent with adopted down-
. town plans and themes.
b. Modificat'ions and replacement of exter|or s|gnage consistent
with adopted design gui~elines for the downtown.
c; COrrect|ye measures and' modifications to roofs, wSndows, doorways
and other exterior building components, necessary to successfully
conclude rehabi]itatlon of the building facade.
d. .Buildl.ng permits, architectural fees and related costs as included
in the. project de6cr!ptlon.
..' Upon determination that.the.appll-cant meets, a11 requirements, the Loan Qualification
Committee will certify the application as. acceptable, and recommend the a~Pllcant to
submit a loan appllcatlon to the State Bank of Mound or any other financial lnst[tutlon '
willing to'participate in the program.. ..
Shoreline
Early Childh o o d
.Development Center Inc.
Shoreline Early Childhood Development Center, Inc. is a non-profit~
tax exempt corporation dedicated to providing a safe and secure
environment for communi%y children while enabling them to meet
the demands of a complex world.
Shoreline Early Childhood Development Center, Inc. includes:
1. ChiIdcare
2. Pre-School
3. Early Intervention (a Developmental'Achievement Center)
4. Bridge_Program (a Developmental Pre-school)
Our proposal focuses on two of these programs.
CHILDCARE
The Childcare program, in light of our current economy, is
essential to provide families of two and/or single parents
the opportunity to'.work and/or seek work. Shoreline has for
the past 11 years served your community by providing a quality,
safe and secure program. Shoreline Childcare in January, 1983
received designation as a Special Needs D~ycare program by
Hennepin County. Special Needs children now have the opportunity
to be placed in a social and learning situation with age-mates
to furthgr enhance their development in various delayed areas .
(i.e. speech, motor, etc.). Unfortunately, not all our families
can afford to finance their Childcare needs fully and thus are
not. able to obtain their full potential in the workforce.
cost of care for the Childcare program which operates 12 hours
per day, 5 days per week, on a year round basis, is as follows:
* Full Day (5 days a week, more than 6 hours) ...... $225.00 per .month
* Full Day (4 days or less, more than 6 hours) ..... ..12~00 per day
* Half Day ( 5 to 6 haurs) ................. ; ......... ~ 9.25 per day
* Hourly Fee- (Up to 4½ hours) ..... % .................. , 2.15 per hour
LOCATED IN GOOD' SHEPHERD CHURCH, 3745 SHORELINE DRIVE, WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391. 471-8433~,~3
page 2
Included in the fees are meals and snacks. On a twelve hour
da~ this would include breakfast, a hot lunch, and two upp-
lemental "snacks."
EARLY iNTERVENTION
The Shoreline Early Intervention Program is an individualized
program deSignedfor developmentally delayed, neurologically
imPaired, mentally retarded or physically handicapped infants
from birth to four years of age, and their parents or guardians..
Using the normal, sequence of development, this program is adapt-
ed to the child and his environment; realizing, although he
may have special'needs,.he is alSo a part of a family unit.
Suggested programs and activities are written with the concern
that they enhance the parents, interaction with the child, not
impose an additional burden to the family.
'The philosophy of this program is ,that the parents and guardians
are the prime educators. With instruction, assistance and re-~
assurance, a parent or guardian can progide an effective home
program for their child.
Service is provided on an In-Center aS well as-Homebound basis;
either individually, or if appropriate, with a group.
Funding for this program is provided through Title XX monies
and parent fees determined by a Hennepin County instituted
sliding fee scale. Charge for 1½ - 2 hour Visit is $70.85.
Parents' ~ees range from $9.00 - $93.00 monthly. Although
the parents' portion of these fees sometimes may be covered by
insurance, there are' circumstances when insurance coverage is
not available. For moderate and low income families, already
burdened with the unexpected costs of a speCial needs child, .~
these additional costs can be a determining factor in cont-
inuation of the program, community funding could be used to
.cover DAC parent fees and/or additional, physician Ordered, ther-
apy in cases where .insurance does not cover the cost for low
or moderate income families that are in financial crisis.
48% of the families using these programs are drawn from ygur.
· bommuni~y. It is~Shoreline Early~Childho~evelopment Center's
~ proposal'that funds 'in the amount of ~e appropriated
from you~ Hennepin County community deveo~f~-~pment block grant
program allocation to assist more parents of lower and moderate
incomes in Mound and afford them the opportunity to use
our services.
Shoreline Early Childhood Development Center
Serving the Suburban Communities of Hennepin County
volume 2
issue I
March 1 982
Child' Care Sliding Fee: A Community Development Issue?
Members of the Suburban Child Care Co-
alition, and other residents of suburban
Hennepin County actively concerned about
the high cost of quality child care, and.
the plight of working parents who cannot
meet that cost, have been busy during
the last two months carrying on convers-
ations with city council members in a.
variety of municipalities. Following up
on information received from the Henn-
epin County Office of Planning and Devel-
opment that cities may spend up to 10%
of their Community Development Block
_nt Funds on public services, and that
hild care sliding fee program for low-
moderate income families is both an
eligible and a fundable project, a. number
of communities have begun to look into
the local need for this kind. of service.
In the process we have uncovered some
interesting statistics. -.
The suburbs are the home of 65% of the
County's children aged 0-9, and 47% of
-~he female-headed families. In some
cities the number of female-headed fam-
.ilies in 1980 had increased as much as
557% in 10 years. 64% of female heads
of household have at least one child
under the age of 6. 60% of all Minnesota
single parent mothers with pre-school-age
chi'ldren, and 78% with school-age child~
ren are in the labor force. In 1976 the
median income for a female-headed family
in Minnesota was $8,050. Nationally, for
female-headed families with children, if
at least one of the children is under 6
years of age, the percentage in poverty
48%.
n Hennepin County, costs of child care
for 2 children, if one 'is an infant and
the other a pre-schooler, can easily run
to as much .as $530 per month. If one is
a pre-school.er, and' the other is in school
full-time and under the age of 9 or lO,
good child care may cost $375 per month or
more.
The advantage of a sliding fee child
care program is that it allows a working
parent to remain on the job, without worry-
ing that a slight raise in salary may make
her ineligible for federally or state-fund-
ed subsidies for low-income families, and'
thus force her out of the job market and
back on welfare. As a parent's income in-
creases, the fee she pays for child care
increases proportionately, until she reaches
the top level of the Section VIII CDBP, in-
come limits, at which point she is presum-
ably able to pay the full cost of care,
A sliding fee child care subsidy is NOT
an income maintenance or welfare program.
It is in fact just the opposite in the way
that it operates, providing support for
pa~ents to maintain employment without
penalizing them for upward economic mobil-
ity. There is an impressive body of data
available to prove that the tax payments of
parents participating' in a ~ltding fee pro-
gram significantly exceed the amount of
subsidy..~Thus the child care sliding fee
concept is a positive support to the econ-
omic development of both the recipient par-
ent and the community in which she resides.
- Helen Watkins, staff
Suburban Hennepin Child Care Coalition
NEXT SUBURBAN COALITION MEETING:
Tuesday, April 5, 7:30 p.m.
Alice Smith School
801 Minnetonka Mills Road, Hopkins
PLEASE coME AND JOIN US!
g 76-
Cost Effectiveness
of Quality Programs
The Suburban Hennepin Child Care Coalit-
ion has purchased the High/Scope slide and
cassette presentation on the long term
soc.ial and economic effects of high quality
early childhood education, The production
d~'amatizes the results of a study performed
in Ypsilanti, Michigan, by the Center for
the Study of Public Policies for Young
Children. Evidence of the benefits, as
reported to the 1982 Southern Governors'
Conference in South Carolina, in a paper
titled The Cost-Effectiveness of High
Qualits'"Early Childhood 'Programs, 'led to
the conclusion that "budget-minded policy
makers~ looking for hard evidence thata
program works,-will certainly understand
the implications for policymaking which
this. research supports."
As noted in the Minneapolis Tribune,
May ll, 1978:
"Children who attend nursery school be-
fore they begin elementary school have a
better chance of getting into college,
will make more money in their lifetimes
and probably, will not end up-on welfare,
a 17-year study shows.
"We' believe the findings afc astounding
and have great social and political im-
plications,' said David Weikart, a psych-
ologist who conducted the study among dis-
advantaged youths.
The study, which divided 123... econom-
ically and educatio, nally disadvantaged ~
Ypsilanti students into two groups, showed
the group of children who received two
years of preschool education outperformed
the group of students who entered school
at ki ndergarte, n.
' E~gh~y-~hr;e ~,r;en~ o~ t~e ~re;chJol'
group performed on at least average levels
during early grade school years, compared
with 62 percent of the other group,
Teachers perceived the preschool stu-
dents as better behaved, more disciplined
and more motivated t.han the other stu-
dents.
Several of the preschool students are
now in college. None of the other group
are.
None of the preschool students are on
welfare, .compared with l0 percent of' the
other group.
Weikart said.., the preschool paid for '~-
self because the children required fewer
special programs in later school years.
He also said the study indicated the pre-
school children had prospects of higher life-
time earnings."
(Thanks to Gay Touhey for this information.)
The Suburban Coalition believes that the
same benefits result from high quality care
of any kind, whether in small groups within
a home setting, with a trained family day
care pro¥ider, or in.larger schools-and
centers.
Anyone may become a co-ownerlof the slide/
tape. presentation by sending a check for
$2.00 {made out to the Suburban Hennepin
Child Care Coalition) c/o Helen Watkins,
GMDCA, 1006 West Lake St., Minneapolis 55408.
A co-owner'may reserve the slides and tape
for a maximum of 3 days, at a minimum of one
week's advance registration. They are espec-
ially appropriate for viewing by parent ·
groups, school district administrators, ty
councils, and anyone interested in corrobor-
ating the long term Value.of investing in
early childhood services.
SPecial Needs Training,
Thursday, April 7, 7:00 - 9:00 p.m~
"WORKING TOGETHER"
This workshop will deal with the effective
development of a team approach to working in
the classroom.
Instructor: Barbara Mauk,
Early/Special Education Teacher, Roseville
Public School s.
Place: St. Louis Park Preschool,
6715 West Mi nnetonka Boulevard
Monday, April 18, 1:00 -. 3:00 p.m.
':MOVEMENT IS VALUABLE"
This workshop emphasizes Physical development
as part of the total development of the child.
Instructor: Wisti Rorabacher,
Early/Special Education Teacher, Minneapolis
Public Schools.
Place: Community Child Care,
60th & Nicollet Avenue South, Richfield
Reservations: call Nancy at 823-7243
Community Recognition
for Quality Child Care
Suburban Directors Group has been look-
at a variety of models for a quality-con-
troll ed professional accreditation program,
preferably using a peer-evaluation team app-
roach. Among those studied is Upqradin.~ Pre-
School Prp.grams in Phoenix, Arizona. Since
1969, UPP has given recognition and endorse-
ment to programs for young children that have
m~intained-a standard of excellence. UPP's
standards-am~loW for a wide range of teaching
and learning philosophies. The .format for
accreditation provides for self-assessment as
well ~s outside observation and evaluation.
Consultation services are maintained by vol-
unteer teams of parents and professionals.
Criteria of quality relate to staff attitudes
towards children, staff/child ratios, program
goals, creative environments for varied act-
ivities and self-education, health and nutri-
tion standards, and a positive social and
emotional climate. UPP's list of approved
programs is used by many families when
selecting~child care appropriate to their
needs.
ation provided with the help of
Gay Touhey, Director, St. Mary's of .the Lake
Nursery School, and Kathy Dayton, Director,
Children's Learning Center, Plymouth.).
Some of the questions being raised by. the
Suburban Directors Group are:
What might broad-based community recognition
of high quality in programs - family and
group family day care, nursery schools,
sdhool-age programs, a'nd day care centers -
do for the whole child care system in our
area? How might this kind of education of
potential consumers impact on the reputation
of child care in general, as a profession,
and as a service Worthy of public support?
In addition, the Suburban Directors Group
has been gathering and collating data on fee
scales, staff salaries and benefits, adminis-
trative costs, parent and staff policies, and
other budgetary concerns. As a group, these
directors have developed, a highly effective
network for sharing information of profess-
1 benefit to all. Future meetings will
gate further the economics of child
care, and will present an opportunity to
dialogue with the new County Community Health
Day Care Consultant concerning the needs of
child care programs...
The next officially scheduled meetings
of the Suburban Directors Group are:
Thursday, March 24,
at the Children's Learning Center,
Harley Hopkins Elementary School, 125
Monroe Avenue S., Hopkins, and
Tuesday, April 19,
at Lenox Community Center
6715 Minnetonka Blvd.
(betw. Georgia & Hampshire
All meetings begin With a bag lunch at
12:30, and proceed with the official
agenda from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m.
To get on the mailing list, or to find
out how you can start a similar support
group of child care providers in your
area, contact Helen Watkins at 823-7243.
American Red Cross
'Health & Safety Workshop for'Providers
DATE: Saturday, April 9o
COST:''~ $11.O0. Pre-registratiOn by check;
mail to Therese Crisman, American Red Cross,
3915 Adair Avenue N., Crystal, MN 55422.
Telephone: 533-3048
LOCATION: Northridge Care Center {3rd floor),
5430 Boone Avenue N., New Hope
AGENDA
8:30 - 9:00 Registration
9:00 - 12:00 Developmental Stages and
Reactions to Stress, with Rochelle
Brandt, Director of Child Guidance
Clinic, North Memorial Hospital
- Accident Prevention and Poison COntrol
- Childhood Diseases and Medications,
with Nurse Practitioners
· .l:O0 - 4:00 Emergency First Aid, with
"Hands-on" Practice
(Choking, Shock, Bleeding, Bone breaks,
Eye injuries and Head injuries)
This class meets all First Aid requirements
under MN DPW Rul~e 3. PLEASE BRING A BAG
LUNCH; coffee will be provided.
801zgcj moseuuuAI 'SllOdeauullA/
uo!telOOSS~ ~ ;eO S!lOde~uu!lN
OTHER HEALTH AND SAFETY CLASSES
Infant and Child Safety: This course deals with accident prevention and first-aid treat-
ment of childhood injuries; toy, playground, and car safety; how to prepare for an emerg-
ency; and who, when, and how to call for assistance.' Bands-on learning of infant resus-
citation.
Tuesdays, 4 weeks,beginning April 5, 6:30-9:30 p.m., Minnetonka Sr. High School $25.00
Wednesdays, " , beginning April 6, 9:00-12:00 a.m., Henneptn Technical Center ~ommunity
Center, 6300 Walker Street, St. Louis Park $25.00
ThursdaYs, " , beginning April 7, 6:30-9:30 p.m., HTC Community Center $25.00
Infant and First Aid for Child care Providers: This course is designed for child care
providers and meets the first aid requirements from Minnesota DPW. It is a condensed
version of the 12 hr. Infant and Child Safety Class, including: burns, head injuries,
seizures, lacerations, poisons. Hands-on learning of infant resuscitation techniques
will also be covered. For more information on all these programs, contact Margaret Becker,
Project GIFTT Coordinator, HennePin Technical Centers-Central: 920-4122."
MULTIPLE CHOICE: CELEBRATING FAMILIES - an upcoming SW Cable TV Production
Some members of the Suburban Coalition have joined with staff of the Fraser Infant and
Preschool'Programs in Richfield, the Richfield Fun Club, Storefront/ Youth Action, and
Community Education Parenting Programs in Edina, Hopkins, and Eden Prairie to form a.
volunteer consortium known as MULTIPLE CHOICE. Their first production - a panel dis-
cussion among a variety of parents on'the differences between their expectations and
the realities of parenthood - titled CELEBRATING FAMILIES, will be aired on the public
~7~access channel of S.W. Cable TV sometime in April. Watch for itt ..
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
March 8, 1983
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Jon Elam, City Manager
Chris Bollis, Park Director
Radio Purchase
After checking over our present radio system and consulting with
the Service Manager at Aircomm, we determined that the following
changes could be made to our system to help eliminate most of the
problems we now have.
Yearly update - budget enough money each year to replace one
or two pieces of the older equipment Some equipment is over
ten years old and accounts for a lot of service call time.
o
Eliminate phone line rental - at the present time, we rent 3
phone lines for remote control of our repeater. These lines
cause numerous problems, noise, breakdown, etc. Also, if the
Phone Company has a major problem, power failure or storm
damage, our base station will not ogerate. The phone line
rental fee is $20.O0'a month.
If we purchased a control station radio and one extension as shown
in the attached proposal, we could eliminate the use of phone lines.
Below is an outline of modifications suggested:
1. Trade in lO year old Street Department radio on new one,
re-crystal~ four other radios for two channel operation.
2. Purchase a control station for Public Works Office
3. Install extension at City Hall from Police Control Station to
Administrative Office
4. Remember to budget in 1984 money for trade-in of older radios.
Total cost for the above improvements $2,051.O0
COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS
?6 MORELAND AVE. E
W~"~ ~T. ~AUI., MINN. 55118
Proposal for:
City of Mound
Public Works Department
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
ATTENTION: CHRIS
DATE. Feb. 16,1983 PAGE 1 of.
1
QUANTITY
1
1
1
1
1
PART NUMBER
PPL 6060
R39-0226-011
250-072-002
DESCRIPTION
1-channel Mobile with tone
Power Supply
Base Microphone
Magnetic-mount Antenna
Remote Adapter
Labor to install Remote
Adapter in local control.
Labor to install mobile if
necessary
PRICE EACH
,.~OTAL
190.00
100.0O
25. O0
100.00
100. O0
65.00
TERMS: % down Net days.
Lease or installment purchase contract:
$ .per mo. for years.
Other
Proposal valid for: '~0 days.
Date: ~//~/~
Accepted
P;inte~ in
~ Form No. 2021A
Total Equipment Cost
Labor, Installation and Test
Tax
Total Purchase
Frequency Coord,/License
Total
Less Down Payment
Amount Due
Two W~¥ Radios That Pay Their Way
Customer Copy -- White Distributor Copy -- Yellow
$ 94o. oo
$ 165.00
s
$1,105.00
$
$1,105. O0
$
Jol~nson Copy -- Pink
COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS
WE~j[ ~.o P_AUL~ MiNi'i, ~5118
SYSTEM
PROPOSAL
Proposal for:
City of Hound
DATE
PAGE 2
ol.
4
ATTENTION: CERIS
TERMS:
OUANTITY
1
PART NUMBER
PPL6060
1/4-wave
DESCRIPTION
2-channel Mobile with Talk-
around.
Antenna
TRADE-IN: 1 577 Johnson Mobil
% down Net days.
Lease or installment purchase contract:
$· per mo. for years.
Other
Proposal valid for: 30 days.
Prepared by:
Mary/Millerbernd '
Date: March 3, 1983
Accepte. d by:
Printed in U,S.A.
Total Equipment Cost
Labor, Installation and Test
Tax
Total Purchase
Frequency Coord./License
Total
Less Down Payment
Amount Due
PRICE EACH
$600. O0
25. O0
(lOO.OO)
Two W~¥ Radios That Pay Their Way
TOTAL
$600. oo
25.00
(lOO.OO)
525. O0
~/~
525. O0
----
525. O0
COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS
~'6 MOft£1..AND AVE. E.
SYSTEM"
PROPOSAL
Proposal for:
City of Mound
Police Department
5B~l Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
ATTENTION: CHRIS
QUANTITY PART NUMBER
DATE Feb.16,1983 PAGE 1 of. 1
DESCRIPTION
Trade one remote for one used
Extension.
Modify Control for Extension
PRICE EACH
TOTAL
N/C
lO0.00
TERMS: % down Net days.
Lease or installment purchase contract:
$. per mo. for years.
Other
Proposal valid f~.~O~ay~/
Prepared by:
Date: %//
/
Accepted by:
Printed in U.S.A.
Form No. 2021A
Total Equipment Cost
Labor, Installation and Test
Tax
Total Purchase
Frequency Coord./License
Total
Less Down Payment
Amount Due
Two Way Radios That Pay Their Way
Customer Copy - While Distril3utor Copy - Yellow-
$
$ 1OO. OO
$
$ 1OO. OO
$
$
Johnson Copy - Pink
COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS
76 MOREL/I, ND AVE. E
W_E,v~ ~, I~AUI., M~N~ 551~8
PROPOSAL
Proposal for:
OATE 3/3/83
PAGE 3
of 4
City of Mound
ATTENTION: CHRIS
QUANTITY
PART NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
To install Talk-around in
existing customer's one-
channel PPL6060 Mobile:
Parts
Labor
PRICE EACH
40.00 ea.
42.00 ea.
TOTAL
TERMS: .% down Net ..... days.
Lease or installment purchase contract:
$. per mo. for years.
Other
Proposal valid for: 30 days.
Prepared by:
Mary Millerbernd
Date: March 5, 1983
Accepted by:
Prin~ed in U.S.A.
Form No. 2021A
Total Equipment Cost
Labor, Installation and Test
Tax
Total Purchase
Frequency Coord./License
Total
Less Down Payment
Amount Due
Two W~¥ Radios That Pay Their Way
(~ustomer Copy - While Oistribulor Copy -- Yellow
40.00
42.00
T/E
82.OO
82.00 ea
Johnson Copy - Pink
COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS
Proposal for:
City of Mound
ATTENTION: CHRIS
76 MORELAND AVE. E,
wE~ F._f, I~AUL, M~NI% 55118
DATE 3/3/83 PAGE
of ~
QUANTITY
PART NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
Installation of Talk-around
in customer's 2-channel
Johnson 558 radio:
Part s
Labor
PRICE EACH
50,00
25.00
TOTAL
50. O0
25.00
TERMS: % down Net days.
Lease or installment purchase contract:
$ per mo. for__.years.
Other
Proposal valid for: 30 days.
Prepared by: ~
Millerbernd ' ~'~'
Date: March 3; 1983
Accepted by:
Printed in U.S.A.
Form No. 2021A
Total Equipment Cost
Labor, Installation and Test
Tax
Total Purchase
Frequency Coord./License
Total
Less Down Payment
Amount Due
Two WaV Radios That Pay Their Way
Customer Copy - White OistriDulor Copy - Yellov~
$ 25. oo
$ T/~.
$ 75.00
$ ----
$ 75. oo
Johnson Copy -- Pink
AUOOO36-O2a (1-83)
OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR
STATE OF MINNESOTA
555 PARK STREET
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55103
(612) 297-3683
FINANCIAL STATEMENT PUBLICATION
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
CITY OF MOUND~ MN
For the Year Ended December 31, 1982
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Publish Balance Sheet and Statment of Operations of the
Municipal Liquor Store in the format of pages 1 and 2,
in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sec. 471.6985.
2. Furnish one set of forms (Daqes 1-4) to the Office of
the State Auditor with city financial statements by
March 31, 1983.
3. Furnish a copy of audited financial statements of the
Municipal Liquor Store to the Office of the State Auditor
for those stores having audits.
CITY OF
MO. UN~ ~N'i ..
MUNI'CIPAL LIQU~RISTORE
BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1982
(Round all figures to nearest dollar)
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and Investments
Investments
Accounts Receivable
Inventories at Cost
Prepaid Expenses
Fixed Assets:
Land
Buildings, Furniture & Fixtures
Less: Accumulated Depreciation
Total Assets
$
135~617
36
94,531
57~509
( 48.~639
$...239~054
LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY
Current Liabilities:
Accounts Payable
Accrued Liabilities
PERA, FICA, and Taxes Withheld
Other Current Liabilities (Identify)
Long-Term Liabilities:
Revenue Bonds (Net of current portion)
Fund Equity:
Contributed Capital-Municipality
Retained Earnings
Reserved
Unreserved
Total Liabilities, Contributed
Capital and Retained Earnings
29,353
16,172
193,529
$ 239,054
SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF
MOUND, MN MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE OPERATIONS
('City)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1982
(Round all figures to nearest dollar)
TOTAL SALES (from all sources, net of sales tax)
Less: Cost of Merchandise S~ld
Gross Profit
Gross Profit as a percent of sales
Operating Expenses
Operating Income
Nonoperating Revenues (Interest income, etc.)
Nonoperating Expenses (Interest expense, etc.)
NET INCOME
$ 715,140
537,250
177,890
129,598
$ 45,292
20,583
8'8
$_.~ 68.787
Additional Information
Transfers (contributions) from store profits to
city funds. (Identify-fund) General Fund 50,000.-
Sea|-Coat)~g 78,926
Transfers (contributions) to the store Trom
city funds. (Identify fund)
Capital' Outlay (buildings, equipment, etc.)
Proceeds of new Revenue Bonds issued during the year
Interest on indebtedness during the year
Principal paid on Debt
128,~26
-O-
Note:
Detailed statements of expenses and supplemental information are
available in the City Treasurer's office for inspection and they
have also been filed with the office of the State Auditor.
ANALYSIS OF MOUND, MN
(Ci'ty]
MUNICIPAL. LIQUOR STORE OPERATIONS
STATEMENT OF OPERATING EXPENSES
Year Ended December 31, 1982
{Round all figures to nearest dollar)
OPERATING EXPENSES {Net of Sales Tax}
Salaries and Wages of Liquor Store Employees
Retirement Contributions {FICA & PERA} for
Liquor Store Employees
Liability Insurance {Dram Shop) of Liquor Store
Hospitalization and Insurance for Liquor
Store Employees
Worker's Compensation for Liquor Store Employees
Rents and Leases - Buildings
Rents and Leases - Equipment
Maintenance and Repairs
Professional Services
Communications
Subscriptions and Memberships
Utilities of Liquor Store
Bonds and Licenses
Other Contractual Services
Office Supplies
General Supplies
Janitorial Expense
Other (Identify)
Total Operating Expenses before depreciation
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES {This figure to Page
$ 72,922
6,255
10~00 ........
5,479
.... 8O6
8,100
3,250
1,359
1 6os'
1,677
125
6~245
59
254
822
2,156
2,07~
3~178
$ ,,m 126 ,566
3,032
$ 129,598
CITY OF MOUND, MN ''
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
For the Year Ended December 31, 1982
(Round all figures to nearest dollar)
Liquor Store No. of
..Employees Employees
Full Time 3
Part Time ll
Totals 14
Personnel Expense
Total
Salaries &
Fringe
Benefits
$ 67,857
17,605
$ 85,462
Vending Machines
Games - Pool, Bowling and Other
Total Vending Machines and Games
Vending Machines and Aames Revenue
No. of
Machines Revenue
1 $ 319
1 $319
Type of store:
On and off-sale
Off-sale only X
Name of Firm auditing Municioal Liquor Store Abdo, Abdo & Eick
(CPA~ LP.~
6~I'~$
t9o'aoz~
(9~'~)
0~;' ~;
IL'L
~0'
6I'Z
L";,' ~
9L0'9I 9
boo'o~
(99i'~)
~o' £1
19'
0~'
£I'
6£'
99' OI
90' 9 00~ 09
O~'gg
O~'LL
00'00I'
9LO'9g ~ · gO'gl 6gg'69 9
zt '9t 66'z z'zz
9I'6t~I ~ I6'g
99L'6[ ~ 90'6 ~6Z'L9 $
s2uom2sn[p~
omoou~
pun~ ieaouao o~ ao;suea2 ~uI~eaodo
szogsu~aa eao3oq omoouI
snoauelIaaSI~
ezoou] ~u~aezodo
0~I'9 09' 9~6'g aoqao
699t£ 9g' ~g6tt sooIa-~os Iena~eaauoa aeq~O
Z96'6 9g'I [99t6 2u°M
99~tI gO' ££g ovu~uo2uI~m pu~ sa!~doM
I9£'0I 19'1 LZ6'II eaueansuI
gI6 91' gCgtI suoI~Iunmm°D
gI9'l g£' O~9t'g sa~In-~s IeUOISSo3oa~
809tg 6[' gI6tg sa!Iddns
EOS'9Z ~ 68'01 098'09 9 se:p_xes IeUOSaad
· asuadxa 2u3aeaadO
~09'~9I~ ~'~Z tOZ'69I~
6LI'LZL~ 00'00I
~unomV s~I~s 3o ~unomV
0961 1961
plos spoo~ 3o 2soo
solaS - sonuoaoM
VIOS~NNI~ '~NflO~ &O XiIO
BILLS .... APKtL 5, i983
Air Comm
All Star Electric
Earl F Andersen
Anthonys Floral
Acro Minnesota
Blackowiak & Son
Holly Bostrom
Burlington Northern
Bradley Exterminating
Blue Cross
Bloomington Explorer Post
J~mes Bloom
Continental Safety Equip
Fran Clark
Commiss of Revenue
Dependable Services
D.R.I. Industries
Dock Refunds (ll)
Jon Elam
Empire Crown Auto
Feed Rite Controls
First Bank Mpls
Govt Training Service
Group Health
Henn Co. Treas.
Wm Husbands
Henn Co. Planning
Internatl Conf Bldg Offic
Jenkins Equip Co.
Internatl Inst. Munic Clrks
LOGIS
.League of MN Municip.
Lamba Systems
M.F.O.A.
MacQueen Equip
Minnegasco
Mound Explorers
Minnesota Fire Inc
Meta Resources P.A.
Mound Medical Clinic
McCarthy Well Co.
Metro Fone
MN City Mgmt Assn
MN Recreation & Park Assn
Minnetonka Sportsmen
Minn Comm
State of MN Documents
Mpls Oxygen Co.
MN Form Printing Serv
McLean Trucking
Mound Fire Relief
Med Center Health
96 OO
1,169 16
189 55
25 OO
102 63
56 O0
350 O0
533 33
19.OO
427.42
145.O0
35.00
117.O3
~75.00
3,421.63
33.00
150.48
468.00
16.08
12.25
195.65
~6.00
25.OO
135.18
150.00
400.00
3,384.82
5O.OO
263.15
185.00
1,497.95
11.50
515.11
65.OO
'647.39
3.14
210.00
85.28
65.00
58.00
95.00
23.60
25.OO
85.OO
7O. OO
28.75
5.50
44.40
752. O0
29.44
2,750.00
129.88
Mound Postmaster
MN Chiefs Police Assn
Mutual Benefit Life
Natl Criminal Justice
N.S.P.
Northland Electric
Old Dominion Brush
Permatop
Popham, Haik Schnobrick
Pioneer Enterprises
Pitney Bowes Credit
Pierceys Auto Body
Ellora Perron
P.E.R.A.
Curt Pearson
J. Rushtons
Real One Acquisition
Shepherds Rental Rugs
Don Streicher Guns
St. Paul Stamp Works
SOS Printing
Smoke-Eaters
Stern Levine & Schwartz
State Treas
Travel ers Ins
Thrifty Snyder Drug
Twin City Garage Door
Uniforms Unlimited
Water Products Co.
Westonka Sewer & Water
Bruce Wold
Wallin Heating
Western Life Ins
Xerox
Ziegler Inc
State Treas
P.E.R.A.
Physicians Health Plan
Griggs Cooper & Co.
Johnson Bros Liquor
MN Distillers
Old Peoria
Ed Phi~llips & Sons
TOTAL BILLS
600.00
4O.OO
7~8.48
16.90
4,158.44
'463.14
591.00
120.00
2,000.42
95.00
26.00
115.00
1,5OO.00
2,500.0~
1,400.OF~
18.(,'
698.7~
53.00
121.30
148.55
142.30
156.O0
.4,773.68
1,354.90
689.31
6.21
88.19
128.15
1,001.13
100.00
6.o0
31.~'
44.47
1,688.72
52.81
1,368.80
2,483.22
4,630.88
2,455.05
3,866.38
1,154.10
185.01
2,176.43
63,510.78
March 31, 1983
CITY of 5341MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
Below is an interesting Bill that I thought might be useful to us and
'relates to a way to carry the cost of the DWI enforcement we have been
accumulating.
Liquor - 5 Cents Per Drink Excise Tax - Local Reimbursement
H.F. NO. 522-Introduced by Clawson x(Center City) Wynia x(St. Paul)
K. Clark x(Mpls)
Committee on Taxes
New legislation imposing an excise tax of five cents per
drink (per ounce of distilled liquor, per four ounces of
wine, and per ]2 ounces of fermented malt beverages) against
wholesale distributors on sales to retail dealers for the
purpose of resale at on-sale establishments. Credits
revenues to the general fund and makes appropriations in
blank to the Crime Reparations Board to reimburse uncompen-
sated victims of alcohol or drug-related traffic accidents;
and to the Department of Public Safety foe programs for the
control and prevention, of alcohol or drug-related traffic
violations, to reimburse local governmental units and other
state agencies for a portion of enforcement costs, includin~
additional patrolling costs between 9:00 P.M. and 3:00 A.M.,
subject to rules promulgated by the Commissioner.
JE:fc
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
AL & AL~t~'S
NEW DOCK LICENSE & SITE LINE VARIANCE
Notice is hereby given that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation
District will hold a public hearing at the Tonka Bay City
Hall, 4901Manitou Road (County Road 19), City of Tonka Bay,
at 7:30 p.m., on Wednesday, April 6, 1983, in the matter of
a new dock license and site line variance for A1 & Alma's
Supper Club, 5200 Piper Road, City of Mound, on LMCD Area 3
(Cooks Bay).
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
g ?j-
March 31, 1983
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO: CITY COUNCIL
.FROM: CITY MANAGER
Enclosed is a copy of the Job Placement & Training proposal on Tonka that
Hennepin County CETA submitted to the State and got funded for $75,000.
I am putting it in for information, but would welcome any feedback to the
usefulness of the approach being used.
JE: fc
DIST, OC~D t.~J~ ~
~ne~on~aCorporaEion locaEed in Mour~,, Minnesota, has announceS_ Eha~
it will be closing its toy manufacturing ~lant this year. As a
~esult, 6U~ ~ployees will lose jobs between now and the fail of
1983. The ma~n objective of this project is to identify employees
who desire new emmloyment an~ to develop a cOordinated system_, of
e~o~,loy~e_nt services to assist those individuals in t.heir job search.
~ Hennepin County Private Industry Council {?IC) Pet with the Ton?a
Cormoration's management staff in November, 1982 to determine if
there was a way in which the Hennepin County PIC and CETA Services
De~nartment could help the em.,..oloyees obtain new jobs. The meeting
resulted in the Tonka Corse. ration asking. Hen,ne-.in O~ty to .~rve as
the coordinator for the re-e~ployment effort a.r~ to .~rovi~e initial
.enploym~nt services to those ~plo~es desiring assistance. In ad.d~-
tion, Hen,neDin County will docoment all of the activities ccrv..~lete.d
and nrovide a sum~..ary re.nort which can he_ used by others %.~.o beco~
involved in desi.crnivg a program for dislocated workers.
A. To ]dentify the nu..nber of e.-.nlo,..~es ,.'_~sirin? e~.~ployment assis-
tahoe.
?c i.'~entify the ty~e cf _~-..~.lo?nent .~ervic_~s ~.vd level of service_n
potentially needed by those_ ~!oyee.~ r~.~J!uestin9 assistance.
To identify the financial an_~ non-financial resources in the
cc~-m, unity which can be used to assist the e-ployees become re-
~.~loyed.
D. To design an aopropriate service deliver:
F. To imnle.ment the program.
F. To evallmte the program operation and outcomcs.
~,.. To docunent the grocess, so that the_ proj_~rt c~n be reP, lic-at_~5.
III.
Th. ls :wroj£c°c will consist of four .txhases:
desinn, 3) vrogra~ i.~vle?cntation, ard 4) evaluation/~.ocur~tation.
Follo~Snc3 is a description of these pleases.
3. t'e?c~ ?..~.~e~-e~ - A two-~rt nec~_3.~ a,~e~.~_nt r~,e~.tion~a~re
has been desiar~'? bv ~ Henne_pin Cou~' CET.~,%. a~inistrative
staff and, subgrantee Ce. un.~e]ors. The,_ first .r~rt of the oue. s-
tionnaire is designed to identify each individual's plans
immediately fol]o%-ring tho. nlant closing. All ~nploy~es will
be asked to ¢~;,.ulete the first part. Those individun].~ wb.o
indicate t~hat t.hey nlc~ to r~e_? ntt' c~,.:.~lc~,~'-~t a.':°~ ;%0 ," "~.re
assistance will be asked to complete the ~econd part of the.
e3uestionna i re.
The second part is deal.creed to collect r~apbic data, to
identify the person's skill level add work requirements and
to help determine the types of em. Dloyment services ~guich
would help t.he individual secure a Dew job.
There are 1C..~ employees who were laid off in ]982 and will
not be recalled to work. ~ questionnaire will be mailed to
this groun during the second, week of February, 1983. The
rema~nirg 5F~ e~.Dloyees will continue working until so~.,eti..~e
during the ~z~er or fall of 1983. Staff frown CFTA Services
and other co~.~m..unity agencies will administer the question-
naire to these individuals in person. Tonka will reimburse
the e~.n.]oyee= for ti,ma to c~.Lolete the_ .c~estionnaire at their
job site. Staff will meet with s~all grour~ of ~?loyees to
explain the process and help the~ complete the _e~estionnaire.
D..~en the cuestionnaires are com~.leted, Henneoin Coup.~.' C~,..?~
wi]]. ~rc~guce a su.~ary re.~_ort. This ronort will then .be_
analyzed to determine the (~.i,-~er'.~ions of the problem. Fron
this analysis a determination %.rill be_ mate of the potential
service.= needed, and the level of services r..~Tnir_ed.
Identification of 9esources -Hennepin County identified
those agencies, in the ccra~t~nity wino may have resources avail-
able to contribute to this project. An initial inform, ational
meeting wa~ held to provide background information to these
agencies an,fl to explore the possible resources %~ich each
agency may contribute. This grou~ will weet periodically to
· ~rovide input into the project. Attachment R lists the
m~ers of this group.
In ad~iticn to coordinatin~ the activfties of the_ varie::.~
co..-~unity agencies, Hennepin County is researching the
possibility of acquiring non-local funding. Two such
resources are the_ Trade Femg. jusb~ent Act and the Dislocate~
Uorker funds unc~r t~e Job Training PartncrshiD Act.
B. ProGram D~siqn
Services - The s?_~cific mix of program services will be_
~'~eterr~in_,:~, after the assessment ~uestionnaires have been
receive~. and analyze~~. The ~ty~es of services which tx)st
likely %rlll be_ provided~ include intmke, a.~se.~."..~ent, e~.~o]ov-
~ent, counseling, jeb seeking s::il]£ training,
services, placement arz~ follow-up. Only after anolvris
the a~ses~.-ent will the actual level of services be_ 2e-
te m ne .
Service Delivery Sv.~t~'~ - The final design of the .~ervice
delivery syst_c~n will bc c~.~lete~, after the ty~e and mix of
program services arc ~'}entifie~. In ~'.'e.",i,-r. im? thc ,-7,~!iv."~ '.
system., the follo%,ing ste~,~s will t~ completed:
be
Identification of the services ~ich will be provide~ to
the Tonka e.~ployees.
Determination of which community agencies have the
interest and. resources to ~eliver ar~. ro~riate services.
c. Identification of the ~eographical location %~ich each
participating community agency is able to serve.
d. Identification of the services that each c~rr~nity ~gency
is willing and, capable of providing.
e. De_sign a system for provi-3ir~ services.
f. Secure the required, fundinc for the project, including
matching funds for this ?rarer.
g. Pre.~aration of a project ba~get.
h. Pre.~aration of an Jn.~le.-~-ntation sc!~..nle.
Fstablishment of ~uantifiab]e Dro~r~. objectiveg,
ina]cnter$.of .success e~nd,, o~jectives fcra research com-
ponent if anmlicable.
C. I.~. le'nent~ tion
Implementation of the project ~:ill be the responsibility of
Hennepin County CETA. The following_ activities ~rlll be addressed
during, this .chase:
1. Develop.~e_nt of financial ar~." non-financial agree~ent~ uit~
participating, comuni~, ag_~ncies.
2. Establishment of financial anP manage?ant information
systems.
3. Procur-~ment of the necessary staff ~ Dr_ogr~, resources.
Comnletion of a pre-at-libation on all _r~'.rloyees who return
the second ~ortion of tho cuest!onn~iro (tho.~e intere~t~ in
see_k~n~ _e~..nloyment and ~s~rinc assistance) to i~entifv
~mploye. es for whom services are aF?ropriate.
Se
Co:,Fletion of an intake and asscsc~ent of tlnose indiv;_~uals
identified through the Fre-a~Dlicatinr as available and
a?~.~ronriate for participation.
3
6. Referral of individuals to ansropriate proq. ram activities.
7. Plac~ent of. indivi~uaJs into unsubsidized ~loyment.
8. £stabliskn~.nt and co~]etion of a syste~ for follow-up.
D. E%,al~ntion and Documentation
Program r~onitorin9 - Process evaluation of the project
implementation will be completed bi-weekly by the CETA
Independent Monitoring Unit at the beginning of the program.
As the prcx3,.ra~ proceeds, this process ~lll be_ continued on a
regular basis through the standard quarterly review.; process.
o
Outcome Fva]uation - The data collected through the CF?A
financial and management information syste~ w~ll be analyzed
by the eTistinc~ CETA Data Review Con~ittee (DRC) which bas
the res?onsibilit¥ for an organized nuarter]y revie%.:,
analysis an~. evaluation of objective progra~ data relate~ to
programs operated by the Department. (~uantifiable objec-
tives, indicators of success, actual versus o]anned .per-
formance and other measures of the orogra~'s progress in
reaching the stated goals %,,ill be analyzL=d.
Fesearc~ F~,a]uat]on - The .~c.,~..~--~ Corporation lay-off offers a
unicue o.~nortunitv to dete~ine %~ether earl7 ~nterventicn of
e~nlo.,~ont an,! trainin~ nrograms d~].n~ a ~siness closure
will provide an advantag~ to ]n~]v]du~ls r~eivi~ servic.9~.
There are tuo groups of ~nle,~e~ ]nvolu~ in this proj~t.
Cne oroun consists of ]u8 ~n~ividuals %:ho %:ere ]a~-off
~fore ~ny servi~s %~re available. T~ ot~r group ~n~ist~
of 55P i~ividuals who will have an opportunity to receive
~rvices %~ile ~ are still worki~.
All information received on inflividuals ..~artici.sati,~9 in this
project will be maintained seoarately for each group,
allowing a co~,.~arison to be made. of the emm. loy~nt status of
individuals in the tuo groups. Analysis of t.her~ results
will provide insight into the effectiveness of providing_.
type. of prograz to ~Dloy~es prior to t]~ir lay-off.
PreDaretion o{ Su,%~,arv Re~.ert -~enne~in County CETA,
the assistance of t,he }:end, pin County Public .'-.flairs Office
%:ill ~.re.o~re a final report outlining the ste~r~ co~.]et_~
~uri .nc the..project. The data gather_~, and the renu]ts of tb
project will be su.~r,~riz_~~ in the. report. T~hc retort will he
~rritt~n so that other imtereste-3 aoenc]es can use the
infor~-atiom to help them..operate a similar ~r_ogra~..
Hennem]n. County CF?.~ will be the cocrdiP~ti~g a?ency for t%e ?~nPa
Dislocated.. ~..?orker Project. The Dlanni~n, coo. r.~iDation of resources,
.nrograr i~.~.!erentation and evaluation ~.,ill be t~e resron~ibility of
flennepin County.
The budget for the initial planning ~rant is ~tline~~. in ~.ttache..~ent A
o.f this pronosal. The budget is detailed by the cost ~er pro, ram
co?~nent. The cost of administrative activi~ j~ ~:~:t~~ on an .
~urly basis for ~taff ti~ snent on each activity. The cost .of
~rvi~ ~ ~rtici~n~ is ~t~3 ~ a ~st ~r ~rtici~nt ~sis.
The budget reflects the estimat~l cost of the oroject, excluding
progra.~ .services, .placement and follow-up. These items will be
estimated after the assessment process is co~,...nleted. The budget will
be fun~e~ b~y the initial State orant of ~c75,~0 %-fnich ~,~11 be match~l
b~, additional funds s~cured fro~.. State an-] local sources; such as, the
State Department ef Fcono~ic Security, the Tonka Cormoration, Hennepin
Comnty CrTA ar~ other co~unity agencies.
I~-4o~qn$
:~Jl~d~,~r30~'NOIJ~'~iYfJ.a-t AI j$'~iid
~dn-~.oIIO& 'g
JOO'6
~0'£.
NOIS~G N~d~%.,~id II 35~
I~o~qns
sao;nosaM otqei~ea~ ;o uo!;~o!J!lu~I
DI~ ~ ~
~ar~ary 14,
Normandale Co.?munity College
Multi -Resource Center
Carver County Job Training
M.I.R.E.D. - CETA
Greate~ Minnesota Job Trainipg
Hennepin County PIC
Hennemin Technical Centers - CETA
%;estonka Cc~,,-,unity Services
$':estonka Co,~munity Services
Department of F~ucation-CETA Linkage
De.~art~vent of Vocational Fducation
Depa. rtment of Vocational F~.ucation
Department of Fcono~.-ic Security-Job Service
Department of Ecomc~,ic Security--Job Service
REPP~.~, .ES.~AT I VF
Daniel .Barnett
Bob Bet lute
Theresa ~rick~on
Jane Foster
Rick Hokanson
Tom McMullen
Jim Rossbach
Don Ulrick
Mary Hurley
Barbara :'h i b~ore
Art Vadnais
Rosemary Frueling
Pat ¥o~
300 Metro Square Bldg., St. Paul MN 55101 c ·
General Office Telephone (612) 291-6359 --::"i~.' ~_ ,~,~ %?~":~i 7.
ffice at 291-6464.
March 18, 1983
RECENT COUNCIL ACTIONS (March 7-18)
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Water Quality-The Metropolitan Council approved plans
for new construction or alteration of three Metropolitan Area
sewage treatment plants and five major sewage lines at an
estimated capital cost of $18 million. Affected plants are:
Metro Plant, St. Paul, and Hastings and Medina plants.
The eight proposals are amendments to Part I of the
Council's Water Resources Management Development Guide.
A ninth amendment was referred to Council staff for
further study. It is for construction of a major sewage line
(called an interceptor) to serve nine western Lake Minnetonka
communities. The amendment calls for an interceptor to divert
sewage flow from the Lake Virginia Lift Station, Chanhassen,
to the Purgatory Creek interceptor in Eden Prairie, in place of
a Lake Ann interceptor in Chanhassen. The estimated cost of
the project is $5.5 million.
Solid Waste-The Council approved two more potential
solid waste landfill sites in Carver County.
It approved Site D, centrally located in Chanhassen, and
Site U, east of Cologne in Dahlgren Twp. The Council last
month had approved two other potential Carver County sites
-one in Laketown Twp. and the other between Chaska and
Laketown Twp.
Resource Recovery--The Council adopted a report that
outlines key issues for an environmental study of a proposed
waste-to-energy resource recovery plant for Ramsey and
Washington Counties.
The plant, an estimated $55 million mass-burn incinerator,
would be built in Lake Elmo, Washington County. It would
burn about 600 tons of municipal waste daily and produce
steam for sale to 3M Co. in Maplewood-and other nearby
customers if the facility is expanded. If the project is aDproved
and funding is found, construction could begin in 1984.
Air Quality-The Council objected to a proposed Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that would find Ramsay
County in violation of federal carbon monoxide standards.
The objection was part of a letter of comment sent by
Council Chair Gerald Isaacs to the EPA.
The proposed rule says the EPA will find state air quality
implementation plans inadequate for each area that could not
prove it attained federal air quality standards by Dec. 31,
1982. Failure to meet federal air quality standards can mean
less federal highway funding for an area.
The EPA rule would find all of Ramsey County in violation
and would ~ot consider recent improvements in carbon
monoxide levels achieved through the state's air =ualitv
implementation plan. The Council is urging the EPA to
restrict its concerns to the St. Paul intersection of Shelling
and University Avs., which is in violation.
COMMITTEES OF THE COUNCIL
Physical Development Committee. The committee voted six to
five to delay action unt~ 'Aprfl 7~n-a-met4e~commendin_q
that the state commissioner of transportation approve the
city's proposal.
Plymouth is the first city to try to withdraw from the
MTC's service district under the 1981 state "opt out" law.
The law allows cities to pay for a substitute transit service with
property taxes that now go to the MTC. The law affects 26
cities on the fringe of the Twin Cities urban area that receive
little or no MTC service.
In other actions, the committee recommendedi
- The Council request the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency to hold a public hearing on a proposed federal waste-
water discharge permit for the Maple Plain sewage treatment
plant. To reduce the amounts of phosphorus from the plant's
discharge from entering Lake Minnetonka, the proposed
permit requires the plant to be expanded and upgraded or
closed by 1986.
- A proposed project to increase drainage of seasonally
flooded lands adjacent to Bevens Creek in Benton and
Dahlgren Twps. in Carver County be withdrawn and not be
resubmitted until a watershed plan has been prepared for th~
area. Should the project not be withdrawn, the committee
recommended the Council request the Carver County Boarcl
to require an environmental impact statement on the effects
increased drainage may have on the channel downstream and
on the creek's water quality. The committee also requested
that the state Environmental Quality Board urge Sibley and
Carver Counties to jointly develop the watershed plan for
the creek.
- The Council submit to Hennepin ~ounty comments on a
draft environmental impact statement (ELS) that outline
a proposed improvement to County Rd. 18 between Inter-
state Hwy. 494 in Bloomington and state Hwy. 101 in Scott
County. The Council's comments say converting the six-mile
county road segment into a four-lane divided highway is
consistent with Council plans for regional transportation.
- That the Council accept a staff study on the Region's
natural resources of sand, gravel and crushed rock. The com-
mittee also recommended the Council distribute the study
and hold a meeting for public comment.
- Approval of a new taxiway paving project at the
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport to improve the
safety and efficiency of ground traffic operations. The project
would cost an estimated $3 million.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Metropolitan Health Planning Board-April 13, Council
Chambers.
5 o.m.-Bethany Coven.ant Home (a nur.~ing home),
2309 Hayes St. NE., Minneapolis; certificate-of-need request
to recertify 38 Intermediate I care beds to Skilled, and 18
Intermediate II care beds to Intermediate I care beds, at an
estimated capital cost of $65,000.
Plymouth's bid to "opt out" of the Metropolitan Transit
Commission's (MTC) service district was placed on hold by the
CURIOUS ABOUT AIRPORT? SEWAGE TREATMENT
PLANT? TOURS SET MAY 1, ~ETRO DAY'
The inner workings of several huge regional public facilities
till be open for public tours on Sunday, May 1. They'll
the Minn. eapolis-St. Paul International Airport, the big
sewage treatment plant at Pig's Eye, St. Paul, and the bus
overhaul facility.
Special events also will be held at regional parks in the
Seven-County Area.
The tours and actlv~tles are part of "Metro Day," a program
.designed to give Area residents first-hand information about
regional urban services.
On Monday, May 2, the Metropolitan Council will hold its
annual State of the Region program. The subject will be the
future of the Twin Cities Area.
The two-day event is sponsored by the Council and several
regional commissions. For more information call 291-6464.
METRO HRA SEEKS MORE OWNERS
FOR RENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The Metropolitan Council is seeki'ng more apartment
owners to participate in its Section 8 rent assistance program,
Council Chair Gerald Isaacs announced today.
The Council serves as the Metropolitan Housing and Redevel-
opment Authority (Metro HRA) for 65 suburbs in the Region.
The rent assistance program benefits owners as well as
tenants. As vacancy rates go up and the rental market is less
stable, the program can reduce some apartment owners' risks.
Owners are guaranteed a regular rental income. The HRA also
covers up to two months of owners' losses caused by vacancies
and damage.
Under the Council's program, eligible families, elderly or
isabled people with Iow or moderate incomes rent a privately
owned, market-rate unit in one of the'65 suburbs served by
Metro HRA. Tenants pay 30 percent of their gross monthly
incomes toward rent, and Metro HRA pays the remainder.
For more information, call 291-6528.
HUD TO AWARD GRANTS TO CONDUCT WORKSHOPS
ON SERVICE DELIVERY ALTERNATIVES
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) will award 15 grants of $10,000 each to qualified
individuals to conduct workshops for local leaders on alterna-
tives in public service delivery. Applications are due April 6,
1983. .~
HUD is seeking individuals to make local elected and
appointed officials and administrators aware of alternatives,
then help leaders select alternatives and put them into action.
Grantees will be expected to develop workshop materials on
alternatives, conduct workshops at public interest group
meetings, provide local leaders with on,ire seminars, and
respond to requests for workshops.
Mail a request for application to: Charles Taylor, director;
Budget, Contracts and Program Control Division; Office of
Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development; Room 4140; 451 Seventh
St. SW.; Washington, D.C. 20401.
COUNCIL OFFERS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING EDUCATION PROGRAM
Where will our children llve? This is the theme of an afford-
able housing education program offered upon request by the
Metropolitan Council to local Twin Cities Area civic groups.
The program is about today's housing market and the need to
provide more affordable housing.
The program consists of a 45-minute presentation including
a slide show and discussion of such topics as: trends that affect
housing. 'current housing co,ts, how regulations affect housing
costs, housing in the 1980s, and common concerns and mis-
information often associated with more dense housing. Where
possible, current housing issues in a community will be high-
lighted. The program provides an information kit, booklets
and staff available to work with local civic leaders.
For more information, call Council housing planners Guy
Paterson or Aha Stern at 291-6472.
NEW PUBLICATIONS
· Smoking: TWin Cities Health Risk. Feb. 1983. No. 18~2-
094; 23 pp.; $1.
Metropolitan Council Directory. Jan. 1983. List of Council
members and staff. No. 08~3~)27; no charge,
Competitive Tension in Delivering Social Services and Pro.
grams: The Role of CAPS in Rural Minnesota. 1982. Published
by and available from the Center for Urban and Regional
Affairs, University of Minnesota (tel. 373-7833); 55 pp.;
no charge for single copies.
COMING MEETINGS (March 28-April 8)
(information below i$ tentative. To verify, call 291-64E4.]
Cable I nterconnection Task Force-Monday, March 28,
4 p.m., Conference Room E.
Criminal Justice Advisory Committee-Monday, April 4,
noon, Council Chambers.
Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission--
Monday, April 4, 3 p.m., Council Chambers.
Transportation Subcommittee--Tuesday, April 5,
3 p.m., Conference Room E.
Executive Committee--Tuesday, April 5, 5 p.m.,
Conference Room A.
Technical Advisory Committee (transportation}-Wed.
nesday, April 6, 9 a.m., Council Chambers.
Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee-
Wednesday, April 6, 2 p.m., Council Chambers.
Chairman's Advisory Committee-Wednesday, April 6,
7 p.m., Council Chambers.
Physical Development Committee-Thursday, April 7,
Council Chambers (time to be determined).
TWIN CITIES
}LABOR- MARKET
NFO MAT ON
LABOR MARKET CONDITIONS Vol. 7 No. 3 March 1983
While the national indicators point to the recovery of the U.S. economy during 1983,
local economic indicators continue to show mixed signals. Labor market conditions
continue to be very poor as reflected in the record-high 8.1 percent unemployment
rate in January. Month-to-month changes in the unemployment rate can fluctuate sig-
nificahtly and consequently may be misleading ~f other trends are not considered.
The December to January increase in unemployment of 15.8 percent was considerably
higher than the average of the .past twelve years, 7.5 percent. Seasonal contractions
in.the construction and retail trade work force generally cause unemployment to rise
in January. While Unemployment Insurance claims ·data tend to confirm an increase in
layoffs in January, they do not support an increase of such a magnitude. In addi-
tion, estimates of nonagricultural wage and salary jobs in the Twin Cities show a
typical decrease, rather than a sharp decline as might be expected with a.large in-
crease in unemployment. On balance, therefore, it appears that labor market condi-
tions, while considerably poorer than a year ago at this time, underwent normal sea-
sonal changes in January.
NOTE: 1982 LABOR FORCE DATA FOR MINNESOTA, THE MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL SMSA,
AND ITS SUBAREAS HAVE BEEN REVISED TO THE 1982 ANNUAL AVERAGE
CURRENT POPULATION SURVEY BENCHMARK.
LA~OR FORCE ESTIHAIES
(not seasonally adjusted)
AREA CIVILIAN LAB~ FORCE TOTAL EI~LOYME~. UNEMPLOYMENT UN£1~LOYMERT IIATE
· 'tan. o Dec. ,lan. ~ ,Jan. ~ Dec. ,)an. o ,lan. o Oec. ,.lan. a ,,lan. ~ Dec. ,)an.
1983' 1982R 1982" 1983' 1982R 1982" 1983' 1982R 1982" 1983' 1982R 1982R
)41noe&polts- 1,146.4 1,168.7 1,139.4 1,083.5 1,088.4 1,078.5 92.9 _80.3 63.9 8.1 6.9 $.&
St. P&ul
County:
Anoka 109,639 111,321 108,477 99,734 ]03,035 101,8)4 9,905 8,286 6,663 9.0 7.4 6.1
Carver 20,868 21,173 . 20,739 18,851 19,475 19,244 2,017 1,698 1,495 9.7 8.0 7.2
Chtsago 14,636 14,845 14,611 13,086 13,519 13,359 I,$$0 1,326 1,252 10.8 8.g 8.6
Dakota 108,072 109,986 107,147 98,773 102,043 100,833 9,2.99 7,943 6,314 8.$ 7.2 $.9
Henn~p)n 517,919 $29,214 514,642 479,037 494,89S 489,027 38,682 34,319 28,$1S 7.S 6.$ $.0
Ramsey 253,808 258,857 252,721 233,961 241,706 238,840 19,839 17,151 13,881 · 7.8 6.6
SCott 24,895 25,275 24,691 22,280 23,017 22,744 2,616 2,259 1,847 10.5 8.9 7.$
Washtngt~ 62,596 64,078 62,700 57,791 69,704 58,996 4,806 4,374 3,704 7.7 6.6
YrSgh~ 34,036 33,925 33,726 30,003 30,996 30,629 4,032 ~ 2,929 3,096 11.8 8.6
Ctty of 204,489 208,951 203,662 188,769 195,007 192,696 15,730 13,944 10,857 7.7 6.7 5.3
MI rme&pol ta
Ctty of 149,869 152,648 149,248 137,507 142,068 140,374 12,362 10,590 8,874 8.2 8.9
St. Paul
Ftlm~esota* 2,100.7 2,129.0 2,093.6 1,882.8 1,943.3 1,937.6 217.9 186.7 166.9 10.4 8.7 7.4
United States* 109,779 110,477 108,014 97,262 98,849 97,831 12,517 i1,'628 10,183 11.4 10.6 9.4
P - Pr'elimfn~ry
* U.S., Minnesota. and SMSA c~ta in thousands.
NOTE: BENCHMARK ADJUSTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO 1982 MONTHLY EMPLOYMENT, HOURS,
AND EARNINGS ESTIMATES.
EMPLOYMENT, HOURS AND EARNINGS
in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area '.
PERCENT PRODUCTION WORKERS~ HCRJRS & EARNINGS~/
EMPLOYMENT CHANGE
INOUSTRY (000) FROM Average Weekly Average Hourly Average Weekly
Ea rnt rigs £ar~ rigs Hours
Jan. Honth Year Month Year Jan. Month Jan. Month 0an. Month
1983 Ago 'Ago Ago Ago 1983 Ago 1981 Ago 1983 Ago
TOTAL'NO~AGRICULTURAL 1035.5 1059.9 1063.7 -2.3 -2.7 XX XX )DS ! XX XX XX
MAt;UFACTURING 225.4 227.1 239.8 -0.8 -6.0 390.85 397.~0 go~ g.94 39.4 40.0
Durable Goods 142.5 143.6 154.2 -0.8 -7.6 398.78 406.43 9.~5 9.77 40.9 41.6
Lumber & Wood P~ducts 4.3 3.8 3.9 13.1 7.g 430.12 431.83 10.78 10.85 39.9 39.8
Furniture & Fixtures 1.5 1.5 1.5 6.4 · 5.4 302.76 310.27 8.41 8.23 36.0 37.7
Stone, Cla~ & Glass 2.9 3.2 2.8 -8.7 2.0 391.41 382.31 t.57 9.63 40.9 39.7
Prir~ry )~tals 3.8 3.8 4.7 0.6 -17.7 332.12 340.73 8.74 8.67 38.0 39.3
Fabricated Metals 26.1 26.1 27.3 -0.1 -4.4 456.79 474.10 10.85 11.00 42.1 43.1
Non-Electrical Machinery 58.0 58.3 65.6 -0.5 -11.6 394.63 398.37 9.72 9.74 40.6 40.9
Electrical Machinery 17.6 17.3 18.0 1.7 -2.4 357.30 368.46 9.00 8,90 39.7 41.4
Transportation Equtp~nt 2.3 3.4 2.3 -32.4 -O.g 469.45 474.37 11.62 11.57 40.4 41.0
Other Durables1_/ 26.0 26.1 28.1 -1.1 -7.5 391.56 393.55 9.17 g.ll 42.7 43.2
Nondurable Goods 82.9 83.5 85.6 -0.8 -3.1 379.44 384.27 10.20 10.22 37.2 37.6
Food & Kindred Products 18.1 18.3 18.1 -1.1 0.0 356.45 350.60 9.66 g.4S 36.9 37.1
Textiles & Apparel 2.3 2.3 2.9 3.3 -18.8 201.27 196.24 6.27 6.21 32.1 31.6
raper & Allied Products 23.6 23.9 24.7 -1.3 -4.5 422.89 427.32 10.19 10.15 41.5 42.1
Printing & Publishing 24.2 24.4 23.9 -0.6 1.3 379.00 386.26 11.45 11.53 33.1 33.5
Chemical Products 6.1 6.1 6.5 -0.7 -6.6 374.37 387.93 10.01 10.0S 37.4 38.6
Petroleum Products 1.5 1,S 1.4 0.3 6.0 479.52 498.42 11.84 ll.70 40.5 42.6
Kubber& Leather Products 7.1 7.1 8.0 -0.4 -12.0 328.13 33B.35 8.75 9.12 37.5 37.1
~(OtlI*~NUFACTURI NG 810.1 832.8 823.9 -2.7 -1.7 XX XX XX XX XX XX
CONSTRUCTION 29.1 32.9 32.4 -11.4 -10.1 564.10 576.01 15.89 15.61 35.5 36.9
Building Const~ctton 8,2 9.0 g.E -8.3 -15.8I 562.46 559.13 i15.12 14.99 37.2 37.3
Highway & Heavy Const~ction 1.8 .2.6 2.2 -31.2 -20.5 501.50 513.75 14.97 13.70 33.5 37.5
Spuctal Trades Contracting 19.1 21.3 20.4 -10.3 -6.1 559.92 590.87 16.33 16,10 34.g 36.7
TRLNSPORTATION 38.9 40.1 40.6 -3.0 -4.4 XX XX XX XX XX XX
Railroads 6.9 6.9 7.2 0.0 -3.4 451.28 451.28 g.g4 g,g4 45.4 45.4
Trucking & Warehousing 12.8 13.g 13.) -7.7 -6.4 ~423.86 436.48 12,43 12.33 34.1 35.4
PUBLIC UTILITIES & COital. 20.1 20.5 21.0 -2.1 -4.2 462.50 455.89 11.92 11,78 38.8 38.7
T~DE 255.9 265.4 261.1 -3.6 "-2.0 222.31 221.70 7.46 7.39 29.8 30.0
Petail Trade 182.6 191.8 187.3 -4.8 -2.5 171.57 173.98 6.45 6.42 26.6 27.1
General gerchandise Stores 32.2 34.6 33.7 -7.0 -4.3 174.58 ,151.58 5.80 S.82 30.1 31.2
Food Stores 23.4 24.6 24.4 -4.9 -3.8 237.42 238.26 8.36 8.36 28.4 28.5
Eating & Orinking Places 58.8 61.6 60.1 -4.6 -2.2 76.02 75.72 4.20 4.23 18.1 17.g
Wholesale Trade " 73.2 73.7 73.9 -0.6 -0.9 373.58 374.30 9.53 9.50 39.2 39.4
F~NCE, INS. & REAL ESTATE '72.6 72.7 72.8 -0.I -0.3
Finance 30.5 30.5 30.8 -0,1 -1.1
Insurance 29.4 29.2 29.3 0.5 0.3
ae,~l Estate 12.7 13.0 12.7 -1.9 0.2
SCgVICE & MISCELLANEOUS 245.0 249.7 242.5 -1.9 1.0
Business & Per,dna1 Services 58.0 60.9 58.3 -4.7 -0.4
Repair Services 12.0 12.2 11.7 -1.6 2.8
Medical Services 73.1 73.2 72.0 -0.1 1.5
Hospitals 30.8 30.7 31.4 0.1 -2.0 ,.
. Nursing Ho~s 19.8 20.0 19.6 -0.7 O.g
GOVERNMENT 148.6 151.5 153.4 -1.9 -3.2
Federal 17.2 17.3 17.8 -0.7 -3.4
State 46.6 47.1 46.6 -1.1 -0.1
Local 84.8 87.0 89.0 -2.6 -4.7
** Less than .05 .-
~/ Includes Scientific Instruments and ~iscellaneous Manufacturing
~/ Average earnings data are on a 'gross' basis and are derived from reports of payroll for full- and part-time
production or nonsupervtsory workers. The payroll is reported before deductions of any kind. Bonuses, retro-
active pay, tips, payment in kind, and "fringe benefits' are excluded.
Source: Current Employment Statistics Program (Figures rounded to nearest hundred) ~.
EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS CONDITIONS
Twin Cities area nonagricultural wage and Salary employment declined in January, but
the decrease was not as severe as has occurred during the past three recession-
plagued years. Several factors were probably responsible for the moderation. First,
'there was a smaller than usual decrease in construction jobs between December and
January. This was probably due to the unusually mild weather in January, some im-
provement in. housing activity due to lower interest rates, and the fact the employ-
ment levels were already at a low level. Secondly, retail trade employment did not
drop as much as usual in January because retailers had not increased their holiday
work force by as much as they usually do. These factors seem to indicate that
January'was relatively good because December was positively terrible. A third, and
more positive, factor was a comparatively stable month of employment in the manufac-
turing sector. In spite of the fact that there was another temporary layoff in the
transportation equipment industry, the rest of the manufacturing sector held up well.
Nationally, both new domestic car sales and new home construction have shown signs of
rejuvenation from their 1982 lows. Employment in the basic industries of steel,
wood, and other durable goods related to automobiles and construction should begin to
gradually improve.' *~Locally, employment in the'lumber'and furniture industry'jumped'
in January.
In other nonmanufacturing industries, employment on a seasonally-adjusted basis grew
.in finance, insurance, and real estate and the service industries while it decreased
in both transportation, public utilities and government industries.
CHARACTERISTICS OF PERSONS
CLAIMING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
The number of unemployment insurance
claimants }ncreased by 5,691 from Decem-
ber. The monthly increase of 18.4 per-
cent is below the paSt five-year average
increase of 25.9 percent. The largest'
increases occurred in the construction
and manufacturing industries. The con-
struction increase is a normal seasonal
development and the manufacturing in-
crease was due to a temporary layoff in
the transportation equipment industry.
Additionally, claimants under Federal
Supplemental Compensation, an extended
duration benefit program, increased by
132.8 percent from December, bringing
the January level to 10,788.
Compared to a year ago, the increase in
claimant levels has been slowing down
for the past few months. The manufac-
turing industry had the largest in-
creases (3,160 additional claimants)
from a year ago, mostly in electrical
and nonelectrical machinery sectors.
The trade and services industries also
had large increases with 1,673 and 1,339
additional claims, respectively.
C)4NLACTERXSTICS OF THE INSURED UNEMPLOYED
(Regular Benefits Program)
MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL SI(SA
Week Ending 1/15/83
Percent Change
)ndustry and From: Percent Percent ~
Occupational -~ ~onth Year of Long-TermJY Percent
Attachment Nmnber Ago Ago Total Unemployed We~en
Total, AIl Industries 36,633 18.4 20.6 100.0 22.2 27.8
Construction 7,583 34.7 -7.2 20.7 7.8 3.5
Manufacturing 12,526 12.3 33.7 34.2 27.7 31.5
Ourable Goods 9,717 g.6 36.2 26.5 29.6 28.5
Nondurable Goods 2,809 23.0 25.7 7.7 21.1 41.9
Trans., Coe~., and
Public Utilities 1,515 3S.1 11.6 4.1 15.4 13.~
Wholesale Trade 2,806 9.3 43.8 7.7 28.7 24.0
Retail Trade 3,761 23.4 27.8 10.3 26.5 39.8
Fin., 1ns., and
Real Estate 1,098 16.6 34.4 3.0 30.7 54.0
Services '5,385 9.8 33.1 14.7 28.7 48.8
Public Admtn. $S4 6.1 -20.1 1.5 18.8 37.S
All Other 1;080 33.3 26.3 2.9 4.5 8.8
Inf. Not Available 325! 31.O 88.8 0.9 2.8 24.6
Total~ All Occupations 36,633 18.4 20.6 100.0 22.2 27.8
Prof., Tach., Mgr. 5,094 6.9 51.7 13.9 33.1 37.5
Clertcal 4,120 12.6 36.S .11.2 34.2 73.9
Sales .. 1,299 18.4 29.0 3.S 2g.0 30.9
Service 2,188 16.1 38.0 6.0 27.7 42.9
Farm., For., Fish. 633 19.7 6.7 1.7 4.6 8.2
Processing $b'7 -7.4 25.4 1.5 30.0 17.5
Machine Trades 3,159 6.0 '34.5 8.6 29.0 16.4
8enchwork 4,664 9.S 26.9 12.7 24.5 4g.1
Structural Work 8,946 41.6 -0.4 24.4 10.2 3.0
Miscellaneousi 5,838 23.0 10.8 l$.g 14.7 10.7
Inf. Not Available 125 34.4 48.8 0.3 22.4 3P
NOTE: Percentages may not total to 100.0 due to independent rounding.
1_/ Long-Termunemployed refers to unemployment insurance claimants whose
current spell of une~plo~Inent has lasted 15 weeks or longer.
THE JOB MARKET
As noted previously in the bulletin, labor force and nonagricultural wage and salary
estimates for 1982 have been revised. The following tables present the revised
figures.
1982 Annual Average
Labor Force Statistics
Civilian Unen~)loy~nt
Labor Force Employ~nt Unemployment Rate
Minneapolis-St. Paul SMSA* 1,164,4III 1,090.1 74.3 6.4
County:
Anoka 110,867 103,194 7,673 6.g
Carver 20,930 19,505 1,425 6.8
Chisago 14,707 13,540 1,167 7.9
Dakota 109,282 102,200 7,082 6.5
Henneptn 527,698 495,658 32,040 6.1
Ramsey 258,508 242,07g 16,42g 6.4
Scott 25,007 23,053 1,954 7.8
Washington 63,754 59,796 3,958 6.2
Wright 33,632 31,044 2,588 7.7
City of Minneapolis 209.0 195.3 13.7 6.5
City of St. Paul 152.6 142.3 10.4 6.8
Minnesota* 2,166.0 1,997.0 16g.O 7.8
United States* 110,204.0 99,526 10,678 9.7
*U.S., Minnesota, and SMSA data in thousands.
1981 and 1982 Annual Average
Nonagricultural Wage and Salary Employnmnt
{In Thousands)
1981
Total, All Industries 1,0~-~'[~
Manufacturing 243.7
DuraBle Goods 158.0
Nondurable Goods 85.7
Nonn~nufacturtng 848.8
Mining
Construction 40.1
Transport., Pub. utti. 62.8
.Trade 269.3
Wholesale 75.4
Retail 193.9
Finance, Insur., Real
Estate 73.1
Services 246.4'.
Government 157.1
Federal 18.3
State 46.4
Local 92.3
*Includes Mining.
Mpls.-St. Paul
Percent
1982
1 ,o--~. 4 ~
234.5 -3.8
149.9 -5.1
84.6 -1.3
830.9 -2.1
35.8 -10.7
60.5 -3.7
262.3 -2.6
74.1 -1.7
188.2 -2.9
73.2 0.1
247.7* 0.5
151.6 -3.5
17.6 -3.8
45.6 -1.7
88.4 -4.2
lgS1
,7~?F7
364.0
219.6
144.4
,398.8
15.6
67.7
98.8
439~9
116.2
323.7
9? .8
3?9.9
299.0
31.2
72.0
195.8
Minnesota
1982
1,~7
346.3
206.0
140.3
1,362.4
9.5
59.7
94.8
430.9
ll3.1
317.8
.98.1
380.6
288.8
30.3
70.6
187.9
Percent
-2.8
-2.6
-39.1
-ll.8
-4.0
-2.0
-2.7
-1.8
0.3
0.2
-3.4
-2.9
-1.9
-4.0
4
l'uu!w 'S!lodoauu!w
'1 ~0~: l!u~ad
I QlVd
I 30¥1cjOd '$'n
~9£55 NH ~punoW
'P~ P°°~eN
ddo~ '9
punoH-I!ouno3
C~6L qoJe~
£~,£gg 'uu.~ 'suv4cloH
'S 'aAV uo~uF4s?/Vi 0~:Z
Z~aeu~ ~, 3ueuIuo,r[Au~t )o
~ueu~a'ede(i -,f~unoo u'$dauuaH
& specia/report
Beginning in April
Hennepin, cities to distribute-compost
Free leaf compost will be made available
to the public in mid-April by Hennepin
County and cities of Minneapolis,
Hopkins and St. Louis Park.
Compost is an excellent soil conditioner
and can be used as a bedding material,
garden mulch and soil extender.
Compost improves the moisture-holding
capacity of the soil and increases
aeration so there may be better plant
growth. It also makes the soil more
erosion resistant and restores the
natural color, texture and structure of
the soil.
An important factor in the county's
decision to begin a leaf-composting
program is that composting reduces the
need for landfilling yard wastes. A
consultant study estimates that such
wastes, consisting of leaves and grass
clippings, constitute approximately 9
percent of the municipal solid waste in
the county.
Since the program was started in 1972
by the Department of Environment and
Energy, 195,500 cubic yards of leaves
have been processed into compost.
2/0
Hennepin County's two sites will be
open, beginning Saturday, April 16,
seven days a week from 8 a.m.to 5 p.m.
A front-end loader will be available on
weekends only through May 1. The sites
are located in Eden Prairie, 2~ miles
south of the 1-494 and County Road 18
intersection, then three-quarters of a
mile west on County Road 1 to Franlo
Road, then a quarter-mile south on
Franlo Road; and in Maple Grove, one
mile west of County Road 18 on County
Road 109. For more information, call
935-3381.
Leaf compost will be available at four
Minneapolis street maintenance district
sites, beginning Friday, April 15. For
additional information, call 348-2487.
The Hopkins site (call 935-8474,
extension 182 or 138) opens Monday,
April 18, and the St. Louis Park site (call
920-3000) begins distribution Saturday,
April 16.
Leaves will not be accepted during the
spring months. The sites will reopen in
the fall to' receive leaves for composting.
City public works departments provide .
the majority of leaves through their
municipal leaf-collection programs.
Leaves also are accepted from the
public, lawn and landscape firms,
cemeteries and golf courses.
After the leaves are deposited at the
sites, they are watered with tank trucks.
When the correct amount of moisture is
present in the leaves, they are
inoculated with a compost culture, a
natural bacteria derived from the soil.
The culture accelerates the
decomposition process, making it
possible to complete the composting
process in the fall-to-spring season.
Leaves decompose naturally over two or
more years.
The inoculated leaves are piled in
windrows 10 to 12 feet high and 15 to 20
feet wide and left to "cook" until mid-
winter. The temperature in the windrows
reaches 100° to 150° F. during the
decomposing period. Temperatures ~
monitored with a probe thermometer tu
make sure the process is progressing at
the rate desired. The leaves then are
shredded and left to continue
decomposing.
a special report
I-Ienm'epin County Sohd Waste Disposal & Recovery
County promotes recycling programs
Hennepin County's 1982 landfill-
disposal abatement report calls for a
combination .of city, county and private-
sector recycling programs and waste-
burning energy plants.
The county is promoting a number of
recycling programs to reduce its
dependence on landfills for solid-waste
disposal. Here are some of them:
MINNEAPOLIS
The City of Minneapolis, with
. Hennepin's assistance, operates a
curbside-collection program for
recyclable materials to help reduce the
city's disposal costs, which are about
$22 per ton for the 135,000 tons of solid
waste generated annually.
The pilot project consists of
oximately 40,000 dwelling units in
and southwest Minneapolis.
ut 31 percent of the households
took part in the program, at one time or
another, from June 1982, when the
program began, through January 1983.
The avera~]e monthly participation rate
was 15 percent, and 1,150 tons of
recyclables were collected through
February. Phase II of the program,
featuring additional materials to be
collected, began recently. Collection
service is once each month.
ST. LOUIS PARK
This suburb initiated a curbside/alley
collection program for recyclables in
October 1982. The program, funded by
Hennepin County and community
development money, provides stackable
plastic containers to each dwelling unit
in the test area.
The average monthly participation rate
from October through January was 52
percent. About 114 tons of recyclables
were collected in the service area of
2,160 households and a 110-unit senior
citizen facility. Collection is twice a
month.
SCHOOLS
Since August 1982, the county-
contracted firm of Kenneth J.
Haselberger, Inc., has provided
recycling-education services to more
than 140 of the 600 schools in the
Compost time
Residents will be able to pick up free compost at several sites in Hennepln County, starting
about April 15. Leaf-compostlr~g programs are operated by lhe county, Hopkins, Minneapolis
and St. Louis Park.'(See article on reverse side.)
county. Services include informational
meetings, recycling-feasibility and
waste-reduction studies, assembly
programs and curriculum consulting.
The program has been instrumental in
the establishment of 40 new recycling
activities, which are expected to recover
over a million pounds of materials each
year. For information on how schools
can participate in the program, contact
Haselberger at 483-8744.
HENNEPIN COUNTY
An office-paper recycling program was
started in the Government Center in
1975, using central collection containers
in the Central Services and computer
operations. In January 1981, the Bureau
of Public Service in Hopkins began a
pilot office-paper recovery program,
featuring desk-top containers with
central collection containers.
Because of the pilot's success, the
Government Center initiated a desk-top
program in October 1981. Similar
programs were operating by the end of
1982 at the Chemical Dependency
Division, the Welfare Building, the
McGill Building and the Park Reserve
District. County offices recovered 203
tons of office paper last year, compared
with 151 tons in 1981. Programs will
begin this year at the county Medical
Center, the Ridgedale Service Center
and other facilities.
Hennepin also processed 12,000 tons of
diseased trees into lumber, wood chips
and fuel last year. The program began in
1972.
BUSINESS
The Brauer Group, under a county
contract, has encouraged over 120
private businesses to establish or
expand paper and cardboard recycling
programs. The initial contacts in 1981
showed that the businesses employed
50,000 persons, 21,000 of whom were in
firms which operated source-separation
programs.
The consultant recontacted 80 percent
of the businesses last year and found
that about half of the individual
corporations which were considering
recycling had started some type of
program. 7//
March 31, 1983
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO: CITY COUNCIL
.FROM: CITY MANAGER
Attached is a breakdown of the new Job's Bill passed and signed last week.
JE:fc
Relief Measure
Has Thousands
Of New Jobs
The $4.6 billion jobs bill passed
by O_~ngres~ yesterday and swiftly
signed by President Reagan will ere.
ate employment for several hundred
thousand people by'pumping addb
-tional money'--from St billion for
~mmunity development grant~ to
$40,000 for 'conservation--into
scores of existing federal programs.
.i The legislation, the first major
"~eCess[on-relief measure passed by
~the-.98th Congress, also ~provides
about $200 million in humanitarian
'aid, such' as food and shelter, for' the
hardest, hit victims of the recession.
Most of the jobs will involve con-
'struction, repair and maintenance
everywhere from national forests,
Indian reservations and fisheries to
~ federal prisons, train stations and
veterans' hospitals. ".
In an attempt to create jobs for
women as well as men, Congress proi
vided that up to half the jobs
generated through. ~community de-
. velopment block' grants will be in the
public service area, such as day care
for children.
In theory,, programs included in
the bill .were chosen because they. are
labor-intensive, meaning they 'pro-
vide a'high number Of jobs for the
dollar, and because they ca~ .be put
in place, rapidly, theoretically within
90 days ]n most cases.
But the programs also include
some pet projects of members of the
Senate and House appropriations
committees, ?here the legislation
was drafted. For instance, his col-
leagues strongly suspect that' House
Appropriations Committee' 'Chair-
man Jamie L. Whitten (D-Miss.) will
land the $33 million' highway de-
monstration project for his district.
Roughly $2.1 billion will be tar-
geted to areas of highest unemploy-
ment for such projects as federal
building repair, park and forest
maintenance, mass transit and Am-
trak, soil conservation, school con-
struction and military housing. Some
of the rest will be parceled out under
existing formulas weighted toward
areas of poverty and joblessness:
--Helen Dewar
EMERGENCY JOBS BILL (H.R. 1718)
TITLE I - MEETING OUR DOMESTIC PROBLEMS
WITH ESSENTIAL AND PRODUCTIVE JOBS
AGRICULTURE
$150,000,000
Rural water and waste disposal grants:
Appropriations
Indians: (continuedl)
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Fish and wildlife facilities
Low-income weather!zation (DOE) _
Schools & hospital~; weatherizatlon (DOE)
SUBTOTAL:
20,000,0r
20,000,(X,
100,000,000
50,000,000
$538,450,000
FHA: Salaries and e~penses '
Watershed and flood prevention operationsi
Appropriations ,..
Loam - . - , . . ..
Agriculture r~search service
Special supplement, al food program 0/VIC).'
Food and drug qdministration . ..
Surplus food distribution
' Resource COnservation and development '
6,500,000 LABOR, HHS, EDUCATION
107,500,000
3,000,000
100,000, 000
875,000
' 75,000,000'
5,000,0O0
Dislocated workers '
Job corps.
Jot, search assistance (state emplByment) _
'Social services block grant
Community services block grant'
Community services employment for 'older
Americans -:.. ...
. $85,000,000
32,400,000
225~000,000
25,000,000
FNS emergency food .administration
SUBTOTAL... ~ '* · ' '
.. '. $447j~7~'000
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE, JUDIOARY
-SBA small business guarantee program (sec. 503i:" ,.':' '
Appropriations ;: ... .. - ' '. $~
Federal prison system . .. . ' 60,000,000
Support of U.S. prisoners ~. 20,000,000
Economic Development A'dministrati0'n'' ' "100,000,000 '
SBA - New direct loans · 50,000,000
SBA - Natural resources development 50,000,000
SUBTOTAL: $282,000,000
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT'
Corps of Engineers:, ' .
'Construction '
Operations and maintenam:e ' · .:. .... '
MississipPi River and tributaries
Bureau of Reclamation..
Construction.
Operatio. n and maintenance '':
Loan program " " ':'
Tennessee Valley Authority"
SUBTOTAL: ~ *' '~
/
$85,000,000
164,000,000
140;000,000
College work-study: ;,.': '". . ' ' 50,000,000
Removal of architectural barrier~ i" .: : *" . 40,000,000
Rehabilitation services and handicapped' '"'"'
research *' 5,000,000
Impact aid construction 60,000,000
Library construction · ' * :/.: '. '. - .' ' ~ 50,000,000
' Centers fo~ Disease COntrol 15,560,000
Sum. mer youth employment and training· ' 100,000,000
Community and home health service' · 70,000,000
Maternal and child health .. ~....: 105,000,000
Alcohol, drug abuse and m'en~al health.... 30,000,000
Preventive health services
Head Start --
Railroad Retirement Board:
Payments to the ~ailrood unemployment . .:
insurance account ' :.= ' 125,000,('
Payments to the railro~d'u~emp!oyment ...... ..._ .
administration account , .~ ..: ~..: .~:~. =. .: 1750,000
.SUBTOTAL:. .. $1,056,210,000
MIUTARY CONSTRUCTION
65,000,0001'
21,000,000 ._·Family housing ...... ' .....$179,642,000
30,000,000
40,000,000 TRANSPORTATION · ' :
$545,000,000. Northeast corri~lor improvement "
HUD.- INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
VA Hospital repairs and maintenance
FEMA: Emergency food and shelter·
Community Development BloCk Grant:
Appropriation . ',.
Loan guarantee authority ...: - '
Expedite emergency mortgage assistance
SUBTOTAL:
$75,000,000
100,000,000
1,000,000,000
$1,175,000,C~0~)
iNTERIOR : . :. , ..
Forest Service:
Reforestation ';
General
National Park Service: '
Construction
Historic preservation fund
Land and water conservation fund, state
assistance"
Repairing urban parks
Indians:
Indian health service'
Indian housing
Indian facility construction
$60,000,000
25,000,000
25,000,000
25,000,000
40,000
40,000,000
39,000,000
30,000,000
64,450,000
.'AMTRA K: ' .
Maintenance of. way
Capital improvemen.ts
Highway demonstration projects
Mass transit grants
SUBTOTAL: '-
s8o,ooo, oo0
33,000,000
132,650,000
· $245,650,000
TREASURY - POSTAL SERVICES
GSA: Building fund .
GSA: Motor vehicle purchases -
· Treasury 'corporations study ' '
United States Customs .ServiCe, Operation
and m~aintenance .' ..
SUBTOTAL ..
s 25,ooo,ooo,
3,7~0,000
$128,750,000
TC~TAL, TITLE I $4,598;577,000.
TITLE II - DOMESTIC COMMODITY AND' ~.
FOOD DISTRIBUTION ACT
Domestic commodity and food assistance $50,000,~. ~
TOTAL, TITLE II $50,000,000
TOTAL, TITLE I & TITLE II $4,648,577,00.,0.
March 28, 1~83
CITY of
MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MIN'NESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
RE: WATER SHUT-OFFS
Starting with a base of 58 accounts owing $8,000.00 we are, as of Monday,
March 28th, down to 35 accounts owing $3,756.94. Of those, only six are
actually shut-off, four of them being vacant houses.
The remaining accounts have all made contractual arrangements with the
City, which we will strongly enforce.
Although this has been one of the toughest things I've ever been involved
with, at least I think we have brought our major delinquencies under
control and cleared up some major problems.
JE:fc
'AGENDA
Minnehaha Creek'Watershed District
March 17, 1983
NOTE LOCATION***
Edina City Hall***
Council Chambers
4801 West 50th Street
7:30 p.m.
1. Call to order; present, absent, staff.
2. Reading and approval of minutes of regular meeting of
February 17, 1983.
3.- Approval or amendment of March 17, 1983, agenda.
4. Hearing of permit applications.
A. 81-65 Universal Land Corp. - grading and drainage for
"Langdon's Landing," a 9-lot residential subdivision; south
shore of Langdon Lake on Beachwood Road,~ Mound.
B. 81-101 Lanvesco Corp. - grading and drainage plan for a
43 acre multi-unit residential development, County Road 73,
south of Minnetonka Blvd., Minnetonka.
C. 82-119 Cardinal Insulated Glass - after-the-fact fill
and excavation, 7115 West Lake Street, St. Louis Park.
D. 83-06 Eugene A. Hickok - grading and drainage plan for
a two-story building addition,~Walker Avenue at Indian
Mound, Wayzata.
E. 83-07 Carver County - removal of lakeshore vegetation
for swimming beach, Lake Minnewashta Regional Park pubiic
access, Chanhassen.
5. Correspondence.
6. Hearing of requests for petitions by public for action by
the Watershed District.
7. Reports of Treasurer, Engineer and Attorney.
A. Treasurer's Report - Mr. Carroll
(1) Administrative Fund Report
B. Engineer's Report - Mr. Panzer
C. Attorney's Report -'Ms. Peterson
(1) Fee Schedule
(2) DNR Approval of Operational Plan
8.' Unfinished Business.
A. Rule and Regulation Revision/Chapter 509
B. ~istrict Initiated Maintenance Projects
C. 'Bridge Obstruction
D. Draft Permit Application Guidelines
9. New Business.
10. Adjournment.
7/2
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
February 17, 1983
The regular meeting of February 17, 1983, of the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was called to order by Chairman
Cochran at 7:30 p.m. at the Wayzata City Hall.
Managers Present:
Cochran, Lehman and Thomas.
Managers Carroll and Gudmundson
arrived at 7:45.
Also present were Board advisors Panzer and Peterson.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the regular meeting of January 20, 1983,
were reviewed. It was noted that the proper location of the
meeting was the St. Louis Park City Hall rather than the Wayzata
City Hall. It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Lehman, that the
minutes be approved as amended. Upon vote the motion carried.
Approval of Permit Applications
The managers reviewed a memorandum from the engineer
dated February 10, 1983, indicating that the following
applications comply with all applicable standards of the District
and recommending approval on the terms and conditions as set forth
in his written memorandum:
Hennepin County Department of Environment and Enerqy -
200 lineal feet of shoreline rip rap protection to
alleviate shoreline erosion in Coffee Channel west 'of
Shadywood Road. 82-29
Hennepin County Department of Environment and Energy -
200 lineal feet of shoreline rip rap protection. 81-30.
Hennepin County DOT - Upgrading of CSAH 3 (County
project 7512) between Meadowbrook Avenue and Louisiana
Avenue. 82-17.
Robert Naegele, Jr. - 200 lineal feet of rip rap
shoreline erosion protection. 83-02.
February. 17, 1983
Page 2
Hennepin County Department of Environment and Energy -
Rip rap shoreline erosion protection. 83-03.
Darrel Fart Development Company - Grading and drainage
for "Sunset Ridge", commercial site, and fill and
excavation in an adjacent Type III wetland. 81-118.
It was moved by Lehman, seconded by Thomas, that the foregoing
applications be approved subject to all terms and conditions
recommended by the engineer. Upon vote, the motion carried.
Walter F. Helland - lake setback variance of 48 feet to a man-made
lagoon adjacent to Harrison Bay, Harrison Bay, Minnetonka. 83-05.
Appearing to discuss this matter with the managers were
the applicants. The District's engineer reviewed this application
for a 48-foot setback to the shoreline of a man-made lagoon
located on the northwest shore of Harrison Bay. The adjacent lot
to the south has a single family structure presently owned by the
applicant. Part of the adjacent lot to the north was dedicated as
a drainage easement as part of Permit 82-60, issued July 15,
1982. The applicant wishes to construct the structure 20 feet
.from the right-of-way of Three Points Boulevard, requiring a
variance from the City of Mound. That approval had not yet been
issued. Following discussion, it was moved by Lehman, seconded by
Thomas, that the permit be approved subject to the engineer's
recommendations and approval by the City of Mound. Upon vote the
motion carried. ~
Minnesota Department of Transportatlon - bridge replacement over
Grays Bay Channel, causeway widening and boat launch reconstruc-
tion, Grays Bay, Wayzata. 83-04.
Appearing to discuss this matter with the managers was
Greg Felt, Project Engineer for the Minnesota Department of
Transportation. Mr. Felt presented the Department's concept plan
for the realignment of Highway 101, the bridge replacement over
Grays Bay' Channel, and upgrading of the existing public access and
boat launch facility. The major issues regarding this proposal
appear to be the dredging, the placement of fill, and the boat
launch. The highway itself will be placed as close as possible to
'the existing alignment. The highway construction is actually a
small portion of the project, with the recreational portion being
the primary impact upon the lake. The concept plan proposes
dredging of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of lake bottom
material. Two thousand cubic yards will be dredged along the
Wayzata Bay of the causeway, and rip rap will be placed to prevent
further erosion of the shoreline. It is estimated that
approximately 30 feet on the Wayzata Bay side of the causeway has
been lost due to erosion. The remaining 18,000 cubic yards will
February 17, 1983
Page 3
be dredged within Grays Bay and the spoils used to reconstruct the
access facility. The dredging and filling will require a variance
from the Watershed District. Mr. Felt indicated that they were
looking at hydraulic dredging as the best way to undertake the
work. The department's water quality experts are concerned about
algae blooms developing if the dredging is not done correctly.
Manager Carroll expressed concern over the dredging and filling
and the potential impacts from the parking facility. Mr. Felt
responded that there will be a storm sewer with a capacity large
enough to contain oil or truck spills. Manager Thomas raised the
issue of placing rip rap along the channel to protect the
shoreline from boat traffic. The managers also raised the issue
of the District's historical gauging station which is presently
located near the existing bridge. Mr. Felt responded that they
were open to suggestions as to where and how it should be
relocated. He did indicate that it would be not operating for a
period of time. He suggested that potentially it could be encased
in the roadway or a sidewalk. The managers also suggested the
location of a lake level gauge on the bridge pier for the lake
users to see. Regarding the access facility, the proposal
includes parking space for 55 single cars and 48 car and trailer
combinations. The parking surface would be upgraded to a
bituminous surface and would be expanded. Manager Cochran
reported that the Lake Minnetonka Access Task Force suggested the
incorporation of a four unit wide boat launch, although it
recognizes that this would require more fill. Also, the Task
Force recommends the inclusion of make-ready piers for people to
board the boats once they are launched~ Mr. Felt indicated that
the department would be doing both an EAW and an EIS because a
business will need to be relocated, a home purchased or relocated,
and park land is involved. Following extensive discussion, it was
moved by Lehman, seconded by Thomas, that the proposal be approved
in concept, with the understanding that final construction plans
and specifications must be approved by the Watershed District.
Upon vote the motion carried.
David O. Hansen - extension of permit 77-106, lake setback
variance of 50 feet, Tonka Bay. 77-106.
The engineer reviewed this request for an extension of
an earlier permit to allow a setback of 50 feet. The application
was first issued to Mr. John R. Thomas, no relation to Manager
Thomas. Two extensions were granted to him and two extensions
granted to the present owner, David O. Hansen. The engineer
indicated that he believed an extension should not be granted
until a permit application was received and signed by the present
owner accompanied by a proposed grading and drainage plan.
Recognizing that the District generally follows setback variances
granted by the cities, and that this proposed setback is located
in a backwater area, it was moved by Thomas, seconded by
February .17, 1983
Page 4
Gudmundson, that the extension be approved but that the permit not
actually be granted until a new permit application signed by the
present owner and accompanied by an acceptable grading and
.drainage plan has been received by the District. Upon vote the
motion carried.
Minneqasco, Inc. - after-the-fact installation of an 8" natural
gas line alonq T.H.7 from T.H.41 to Second Street,
Shorewood/Excelsior. 83-01.
The engineer reviewed this application for an
"after-the-fact" utility construction plan for the installation of
a gas main in Shorewood and Excelsior. The applicant was advised
to discontinue construction on December 15, 1982, by staff letter
until a Watershed District Permit had been issued. The applicant
chose to complete construction, due to the necessity of having the
line operating during the 1982-83 heating season. The project is
substantially complete with the exception of restoration of
disturbed soil surfaces. At the January 20, 1983, meeting the
Board of Managers tabled the permit application pending the
receipt of an erosion control plan to be submitted by February 4,
1983. This was not received, nor was it received by the date of
the meeting, and the engineer recommended tabling the application
pending the receipt of the erosion control plan which must include
the following:
Restoration of all disturbed soil surfaces, including
topsoil and sod.for slopes steeper than 3:1 and top
soil, seed and mulch for all other areas.
Installation of sediment check dams consisting of
staked hay bales at the inlets to all open water
dr'ainage ways and storm sewers.
Following discussion, it was moved by Thomas, seconded by Lehman,
that the application be tabled, but that the staff is authorized
to issue a permit if the plan is received and meets the concerns
noted. Upon vote the motion carried, with Manager Gudmundson
voting no.
Correspondence
The managers noted receipt of the following items of
correspondence:
Notice of claim filed against Lake Minnetonka
Conservation District for a boat accident at Grays Bay
Dam.
Notice of expiring terms for Managers Thomas and
Gudmundson.
February 17, 1983
Page 5
Correspondence from Roger Lake about the recent
metropolitan meeting regarding Chapter 509 planning.
Correspondence from Roger J. Lapic specifying that the
accounting rates for next year will be the same as the
previous year.
5. The 1982 census form for special districts.
6. The Metropolitan Council Metro Monitor.
Treasurer's Report
Manager Carroll distributed the monthly Funds Report,
noting that there is now a provision for the new fund established
for management planning. Following discussion, it was moved by
Thomas, seconded by Lehman, that the Treasurer's Report be
approved and the bills noted therein be paid. The managers noted
that the dues for the Minnesota Association of Watershed District
in the amount of $237.50 needed to be paid at this time. It was
moved by Lehman, seconded by Gudmundson, to authorize such payment
which was already listed in the Treasurer's Report.
The attorney noted that the resolution adopted by the
managers on September 16, 1982, transferring $40,000 from the Data
Acquisition Fund to the Administrative Fund needed clarification
regarding the managers' intent. Following discussion, it was
moved by Lehman, seconded by Carroll, that the following
resolution be adopted providing for the transfer of a sum from the
Data Acquisition Fund to the Administrative Fund for Project
Initiation Costs:
AMENDED RESOLUTION
TRANSFERRING A SUM FROM THE DATA
ACQUISITION FUND TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
FUND FOR PROJECT INITIATION COSTS
WHEREAS, a Data Acquisition Fund was established by the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for the purpose of paying for
the making of necessary surveys and acquiring data in connection
'with District activities; and
WHEREAS, surveys and acquiring data are necessary to
initiate the Upper Watershed Storage Cooperative Project and
specifically the Painter Creek Subwatershed pilot project; and
WHEREAS, the Data Acquisition Fund balance is sufficient to
fund the proposed surveys and data collection for this project for
1983;
February 17, 1983
Page 6
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The sum of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00) be
transferred from the Data Acquisition Fund balance to the
Administrative Fund balance.
2. The Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to take
such action as may be necessary to implement this transfer and to
render such reports as are appropriate and necessary.
Upon vote the motion carried.
The attorney also reported that an amendment needed to
be made to the action taken by the Board of Managers on January
20, 1983. That action rescinded various appropriations from 1980
made against the Water Maintenance and Repair Fund. There was
also an allocation of $1,000 for engineering fees made against the
1980 fund which also needed to be cancelled. Following
discussion,'it was moved by Lehman, seconded by Gudmundson, that
the encumbrance of $1,000 for engineering fees against the Water
Maintenance and Repair'Fund for 1980 be rescinded as of December
31, 1982. Upon vote the motion carried.
Hydrologic Data Report 1982
The engineer distributed copies of the 1982 Hydrologic
Data Report and reviewed major portions with the managers. A
number of questions were raised and modifications suggested, and
the engineer was asked to make certain modifications to the report.
West 44th Street Improvement Project
The engineer reported that the project started January
25, 1983, and was substantially completed by February 10, 1983.
He reported that negotiations to amend the agreement with the
contractor failed so the District chose to terminate the project.'
The bonding agent chose to undertake completion of the project and
used the same contractor and the District's engineer. The
engineer reported that there was an opportunity to increase the
depth of excavation at no additional cost as a result of deletion
of certain bid items from the contract. He, therefore, authorized
the contractor to remove additional material, provided the
original bid amount was not exceeded. The estimated final
construction cost is $35,740 rather than the accepted bid cost of
$33,867. The engineer reported that there will be a meeting to
determine what additional costs the district incurred as a result
of the contract default on March 2, 1982. It was noted that Edina
would be contributing to the cost of the project .in accordance
February 17, 1983
Page 7
with the prior agreement. He noted that the request for payment
should be received before the next regular meeting. Manager
Lehman discussed whether the engineer had the authority to
authorize the deeper dredging. Manager Carroll expressed the need
for guidelines to govern the parameters of the engineer's
decision-making authority. It was agreed that this should be
reviewed in more detail as time progresses.
Painter Creek Improvement Project
The engineer reported that he had received comments
from the managers and the attorney to the draft engineer's report
sent out in November, 1982, which would require substantial
change. He reported that he had met with the Lake MiD~etonka
Conservation District a week earlier and had asked for comments
from that body. He is also seeking input from the District's
Advisory Committee.
Annual Report
The attorney distributed a draft of the 1982 Annual
Report. Manager Gudmundson suggested several changes, and it was
agreed that if any of the other managers had any suggestions, they
would be forwarded to the attorney.
Permit Fee Schedule
The managers reviewed a draft fee schedule prepared in
accordance with the managers' direction. Manager Carroll
recommended eliminating surveyors and landscape architects as
approved preparers of grading and drainage plans. The managers
also considered a penalty provision for after-the-fact permits.
Two options considered were (a) requiring payment of the first
$100 and (b) paying double the permit fee. The managers concluded
that the first option appeared to be the better one. The managers
also discussed the provision for post-construction monitoring.
fees, but concluded that such costs would be difficult to assess
and enforce. They, therefore, directed the staff to eliminate
that section, replace it with a penalty section, and bring one
more draft of the proposed fee schedule back to the managers at
the next meeting.
Gray's Bay Control Structure - Operational Plan
The engineer reviewed correspondence from the
Department of Natural Resources approving the proposed changes to
the Operational Plan subject to some changes. Those changes were
reviewed in detail. Following discussion, it was moved by
Gudmundson, seconded by Carroll, that the revisions specified by
the DNR be made and a revised Operational Plan be distributed.
Upon vote the motion carried.
February .17, 1983
Page 8
The engineer also reported that on February 15, 1983,
the City o~ Minnetonka removed some stop logs and put in fish
screens to encourage the early breakup of the creek. The present
flow is approximatley 5-6 cfs. He recommended that this be
watched carefully and the discharge be adjusted upwards as creek
conditions improve to avoid a spring flood. Cities and other
appropriate agencies will be advised as the adjustments are
needed. The managers Concurred in this recommendation.
Chapter 509 Water Manaqement Planninq
Due to the lateness of the hour and the need to spend
considerable time on the question of watershed planning to meet
the mandate of Chapter 509, the managers decided to hold a special
meeting on March 10, 1983, at 7:30 p.m. to discuss this matter.
Manager Gudmundson requested that the meeting be held at St. Louis
Park if possible since the council chambers at St. Louis Park
would not be available for the Watershed District Meeting on March
17, 1983.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the
regular meeting, Chairman Cochran declared the regular meeting
adjourned at 12:00 p.m.
Barbara R. Gudmundson, Secretary
0024i
MINNEHAHA CREEK
~%;ATE~E;; H ED DISTRICT
P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
BOAilD OF MANAGERS:
David H. Cochran, Pres, ·Albe[t g I.ehman · James S. Russell * ~ohn E. Thomas · Barbara Gudmundson
WATERSHED BOUNDARY
· /
LAKE MINNETONK~
March 28, 1983
DEAR INTERESTED CITIZEN:
Enclosed for your information is a copy of the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District's Annual Report for 1982. Please feel
free to contact any member of the Watershed District's Board of
Managers should you have any questions or comments about the
District's activities.
Sincerely,
David H. 'Cochran, President
Board of Managers
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
DHC/mb
Enclosure
cc: Board of Managers
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
ANNUAL REPORT FOR ]982
March, 1983
~?
INDEX
Managers and Meeting Information
Permit Applications
Hydrologic Data Collection
Gray's Bay Control Structure
Revised Operational Plan
WateI Maintenance and Repair Fund
Galpin Lake Storm Drainage Improvement Project
Municipal Storm Water Management Plans
Upper Watershed Storage and Retention Project
West 44th Street Improvement Project
Creek Clean-Up
Minnehaha Creek Hydraulic Study
Goals and Objectives
Budget/1983
Financial Records
Pa~e
1
2
3
3
4
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
8
MANAGERS AND MEETING INFORMATION
The names, addresses and terms of the managers are:
Michael R. Carroll
4509 Washburn Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55410
Term Expires
March 8, 1985
David H. Cochran
4640 Linwood Circle
Excelsior, MN 55331
Term Expires
March 8, 1984
Barbara R. Gudmundson
5505 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55417
Term Expires
March 8, 1983
Albert L. Lehman
3604 West Sunrise Drive
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Term Expires
March 8, 1985
John E. Thomas
6326 Smithtown Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Term Expires
March 8, 1983
The present officers are:
David H. Cochran
Albert L. Lehman
Barbara R. Gudmundson
Michael R. Carroll
President
Vice President
Secretary
Treasurer
During 1982, twelve regular meetings were held by the
managers on the third Thursday of each month at 7:30 p.m. In
June, 1982, the board adopted a schedule of meeting alternately
at the Wayzata City Hall and at the St. Louis Park City Hall in
order to make the meetings of the managers more accessible to
all residents of the district. The managers meet in odd
numbered months in the City Council Chambers of the City of St.
Louis Park and in even numbered months at the Wayzata City Hall.
During 1982, manager James S. Russell who had served on the
board of managers for nine years did not seek reappointment.
The managers express their sincere and deep appreciation for
the nine years of service Mr. Russell has given to the board as
a manager, and as its treasurer since 1976, and the board
expresses its appreciation for the countless hours Mr. Russell
has spent on watershed district matters to the benefit of all
residents of the district.
During 1982, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners
appointed Michael R. Carroll of the City of Minneapolis to the
board of managers. Mr. Carroll took the oath of office April
15, 1982.
The managers exchanged information with other governmental
units affected by the programs and policies of the watershed
district and honored requests to attend meetings of municipal,
~county and state officials as well as meetings of interested
-1-
citizens and groups. The managers received substantial support
and assistance from the Hennepin and Carver County Boards of
Commissioners through the year which greatly assisted the
district in carrying out its programs during 1982.
During 1982, the managers continued to serve on planning
· bodies with regard to water resource issues. Manager Cochran
was designated by the board to serve on the Department of
Natural Resources task force on recreational use of Lake
Minnetonka and on the Metropolitan Council's reactivated $208
Committee. Managers Lehman and Gudmundson attended the annual
meeting of the Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts on
December 3 and 4, 1982, at which Manager Gudmundson assisted in
forming a Chapter 509 Committee of the Association to deal with
metropolitan area watershed district issues implementing
Chapter 509, Laws 1982.
As in previous years, the managers supplied copies of
minutes of all meetings and reports to interested citizens and
to public officials throughout the district. Copies of the
1981 Annual Report were filed in 1982 with the Minnesota Water
Resources Board, the Boards of County Commissioners of Hennepin
and Carver Counties and with State Senators and Representatives
from the watershed district area.
PERMIT APPLICATIONS
The watershed district received 119 permit applications
during 1982. In each instance, the proposed project was
reviewed in detail by the managers for environmental soundness
and for compliance with the district's rules and regulations.
Applications were received for projects such as dredging,
shoreline erosion protection, highway and utility crossings,
setback variances, filling, preliminary plat review and
drainage and grading for site development. A summary is
attached showing the project location and type of application
received.
As in previous years,-a large majority of the applications
received were from the Lake Minnetonka portion of the watershed
district, reflecting the continuing urbanization of that area.
All permits granted by the watershed district 'specifically
require compliance with applicable municipal ordinances and, 'if
the permit involved Lake Minnetonka, the appiicable ordinances
and regulations of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District.
In addition, permits issued by the watershed district require
compliance with any 'applicable regulations of the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources. The board of managers also
took action as necessary regarding complaints, permit
violations and activities which had been undertaken prior to
issuance of a permit from the district.
HYDROLOGIC DATA COLLECTION
The hydrologic data collection program was continued during
1982. The data for 1981 is published in the annual Hydrologic
Data Report dated April, 1982. Copies of these reports were
made available to the Minnesota Water Resources Board, the
'Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
the Department of Natural Resources and local government
officials and citizens' advisory groups. During 1982, the
board authorized modified data collection procedures to reduce
costs, provided for additional rain ga~ging stations to be
located within the watershed district area and commenced a
program of volunteer lake level monitoring within the district.
GRAY'S BAY CONTROL STRUCTURE REVISED OPERATIONAL PLAN
During 1982, the district continued to utilize the
Management Policy and Operational Plan adopted in 1977 for the
operation of the control structure at Gray's Bay. The City of
Minnetonka continued to perform operational and maintenance
tasks under an agreement with the district.
The district also proposed a second series of modifications
to the Management Policy and Operational Plan for the control
ucture in light of the comments made at the public hearing
of June 18, 1981.
At the direction of the board, the staff, in February of
]982, prepared and submitted to the board proposed revisions of
the Management Policy and Operational Plan to better accomplish
the purposes of flood control, lake level stabilization and
augmenting Minnehaha Creek flow. Spirited testimony and
commentary by both upstream and downstream residents was
offered at the February meeting. Following board review, the
preliminary draft was submitted to all municipalities within
the district for review and comment.
Numerous comments were received which were considered by
the board at its meetings in March and April, 1982. As a
consequence, the staff prepared a revised draft of the
Management Policy document incorporating the comments. Because
a few municipalities did not review the proposal on the
timetable requested by the managers, the deadline for comments
was postponed until July.
In response, the staff submitted, in July of 1982, a final
proposed draft of the changes, incorporating the comments
received. The board again reviewed the staff draft and
irected that it be submitted to all municipalities within the
~istrict for review and comment prior to final action by the
.oard of managers.
-3-
In September, 1982, the board adopted a revised Management
Policy and 'Operational Plan document.
The changes.were submitted to the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources and, as of year end, the DNR is reviewing the
requested changes.
During 1982, the managers continued to rely heavily upon
participation of each of the creekside municipalities in
recording creek elevations and flows and reporting that data to
the district. The district prepared monthly summaries of this
data and made these summaries available to interested
municipalities and citizens. The assistance of each of the
municipalities was invaluable to the district in making the
operational adjustments required during 1982 to accomplish the
management objectives of the Headwaters Control Structure.
WATER MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR FUND
In 1982, the board of managers continued its practice of
requesting from the municipalities within the district
suggestions for maintenance projects to be paid in part from
the district's Water Maintenance and Repair Fund. From the
numerous requests 'received, the managers approved projects with
the following municipalities:
Applicant
project Description
Allocation
City. of
Greenwood
Erosion control of public
launching area at the end
of Westend Lane.
50% up to a
maximum of
$2065
City of
Long Lake
General clean up and deb£is
removal from drainage channel
from Holbrook Park to Long
Lake
General clean up and debris
removal from. Long Lake Creek
from Long Lake to the Bur-
lington Northern tracks
50% up to a
maximum of
$3155
50% up to a
maximum of
$557
Wetland restoration at Dexter
Drive (West side) and Water-
town Road (North side)
50% up to a
maximum of
$900
City of
Medina
Channel repair between Willow
Drive and Wolsfeld Lake
50% up to a
maximum of
$1500
-4-
Minneapolis
rk and
Recreation
Board
Aquatic Weed Harvesting:
Lakes Harriet, Calhoun, Isles,
Cedar, Nokomis, Hiawatha and
Diamond
$2200 maximum
City of St.
Louis Park
Creek Bank Stabilization near
the C & N Railroad Bridge over
Minnehaha Creek
30% up to a
maximum of
$1500
City of
Edina
Abandonment and capping of
Cascade well, general clean up
and restoration of area
10% up to a
maximum of
$800 (appli-
cable to clean
up and restora-
tion only)
TOTAL $12,677
In all cases, the grants were conditioned upon the work
being arranged for and supervised by the city involved, either
through city employees or by a contractor, and upon payment by
the watershed district only after inspection and approval by
the engineer for the district.
The availability of municipal matching funds with which to
omplete the projects was one of the factors considered by the
anagers in making the grants.
GALPIN LAKE STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
At the request of the City of Excelsior, the district
authorized a contribution up to a maximum of $2200 from its
Water Maintenance and Repair Fund to the City of Excelsior for
payment of a portion of the cost of materials necessary to
implement certain improvements to the drainage system between
Ga]pin Lake and Lake Minnetonka. In September ]982, the City
advised the board that it had completed the work authorized and
that it considered the Ga]pin Lake Drainage matter completed.
MUNICIPAL STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS
During 1982 the managers reviewed a proposed municipal
storm water management plan prepared by the City of
Minnetonka. The engineer prepared comments regarding the plan
and submitted his comments and suggestions to the City.
733
UPPER WATERSHED STORAGE AND'RETENtION PROJECT
The work ~lan for Studying the feasibility of the Upper
Watershed Storage and Retention Project within the Painter
Creek Subwatershed was continued during 1982. The Advisory
Committee, consisting of representatives of each of the
municipalities within the Painter Creek Subwatershed as well as
public members, met regularly during 1982 and assisted in the
holding of public informational meetings in the areas of the
proposed project' activities. As of year end, a draft of the
engineer's preliminary report was submitted to the board of
managers. The board transmitted the draft preliminary report
to the Advisory Committee and to the petitioner with a request
for review and comments.
WEST 44TH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
During 1982, the contractor selected to undertake the West
44th Street Improvement Project under a cooperative agreement
with the City of Edina failed to undertake the work as required
by contract documents. The. board terminated the contract on
June 17, 1982. As of year end, the bonding company has assumed
responsibility for completion of the project under the bonds
submitted in connection with the project.
CREEK CLEAN-UP
The Izaac Walton League, St. Louis ParkChapter, and the
St. Louis Park Boy Scout Tzoop-again sponsored creek clean-up
activities within the reach of the creek in the City of St.
Louis Park. The managers express their continuing appreciation
for these voluntary activities to increase the aesthetic value
and safety of Minnehaha Creek.
MINNEHAHA CREEK HYDRAULIC-STUDY
During 1982, the district and the City of Minneapolis
entered into a cooperative agreement for a Minnehaha Creek
Hydraulic Study whereby the district would pay 20~ of the
estimated total project costs or approximately $3,600.00.
of year end, the project has been substantially completed.
As
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
In 1982 the managers authorized a work plan to amend the
existing Overall Plan in conformance with 1982 legislation.
The first steps of that work should be performed during 1983.
The schedule calls for completion of the work of amending the
Overall Plan by December 31, 1985.
It is anticipated that the preliminary engineering report
to evaluate the feasibility of the improvements petitioned for
by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District within the Painter
Creek Subwatershed will be completed in 1983 and that a public
hearing on the report will be held during 1983.
The managers voted to emphasize active use of its Water
Maintenance and Repair Fund during 1983 in order to accomplish
desirable maintenance projects within the district,
particularly in light of the need to activate available
resources in the present economy.
The managers also anticipate that further consideration
will be given to the issue of charging fees for permit
processing as one method to defray the costs incurred by the
district in conducting this major function of permit review°
The board anticipates that it will continue reviewing and
issuing permits pertaining to individual site developments. As
part of this ongoing regulatory function, the board expects it
will be necessary to review and continually update board policy
pertaining to installation and maintenance of proper erosion
control measures and restoration of development sites once
construction activities are completed.
The managers also anticipate that the revised Management
Policy for the control structure at Gray's Bay will be approved
by the Department of Natural Resources in 1983 and that
operation of the structure during the spring thaw in 1983 will
commence under the revised policy.
BUDGET/J983
As required by law, the managers, pursuant to notice, held
a public hearing in September, ]982, on a proposed Administrative
Fund budget, a proposed Water Maintenance and Repair Fund budget
and on a proposed budget for a Watershed Management Planning Fund
as authorized by Laws Chapter 509, ]982. Following the hearing,
the managers adopted budgets for 1983 for these funds.
FINANCIAL RECORDS
The financial records of' the district are kept by a certified
public accountant. All financial transactions are recorded in
the minutes of its'meetings.
The treasurer of the district maintained separate records for
three funds in 1982: (1) its Administrative Fund; (.2) the Water
Maintenance and Repair Fund; and (3) the Data Acquisition Fund.
Records for each of these funds include the dates and amounts of
all expenditures, the names of individuals receiving payment and
the purposes for which payment is made.
The official depository for the district .is the Wayzata State
Bank, Wayzata, Minnesota.
The financial records of the district were audited for the
year 1982 and a copy of the audit was filed with the State
Auditor for the State of Minnesota.
Respectfully submitted,
David H. Cochran, President
Board of Managers of the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District
NOTICE OF MEETING
WESTONKA ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED HOUSING
CORPORATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Tuesday, April 12, 1983
7:30 P.M.
South Shore 'Park-Apartments
255 Mill Street
Excelsior, Minnesota
AGENDA
(1) Approval of Agenda
(2} Approval of Minutes of Last Meeting (October 26, 1982)*
(3) Conditional Commitment (attached)
(4) Architect Report
(5) Development Schedule
(6) Other Business
(7) Scheduling of Next Meeting
(8) Adjournment
No te:
The meeting will be hel~ at South Shore Park Apartments
in Excelsior, so that the board can tour the building
after the meeting. (map enclosed)
* The minutes of the October 26 meeting were mailed to the
Board on November S, 1982.
I AR 1 6 1S83
Mr. John L. Rocheford, Jr.
Westonka Elderly and Handicapped
Housing Corporation
328 West Sixth Street
St. Paul, MI~ 55102
U.S.' Department of Housing and Urban Development
Minneapolis St. Paul Area OffiCe, Region V
220 Second Street South
Bridge Place Building ' ~'~'-'- ' -
Minneapolis, ~q'~ ~'~--~1.
Minnesota 55401
Conditional Commitment on: Wes tonka Estates
Project No. 092-EH169-WAM-L8
M~46-T821-043
Mound, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Rocheford:
Your Request for a Firm Commitment for Direct Loan Financing on the captioned
project will be accepted at any time during the life of t~is commitment. Your
Request must conform in content to previous submissions in connection with the
proposal. (Requests for Firm Commitments must be accompanied by contract drawings
and detailed specifications, as well as firm cost estimates shown on FHA Form 2328).
The project will have the following characteristics:
Total Units - 42, Type Building - three-story wood frame with brick veneer, with
unit compositions of:
Monthly
Contract Utility Gross
Typ~ of Unit Sq. Ft. Number Rent Allowance Rent
One Bedroom 529 37 $410 ~8 $428
One Bedroom (HC) 539 4 $410 $18 $428
Two Bedroom 771 1 $515 $24 $539
TOTAL 42
Equipment and/or facilities to be included in the rent: Electric ranges and
refrigerators, air conditioned community room, patio, kitchen exhaust fans,
coin-operated laundry facilities, carpeting, trash chute, elevator, air conditioner
sleeves, mas~er television antenna, headbolt heater outlets, security system.
Services to be included in the rent: Gas heat and hot water, electricity for
common areas, water, sewer, trash and snow removal, grounds maintenance.
Number of Parking Spaces: Open - 27
Estimated Monthly Parking Rental - $0
Residential Accessory Income - $210.00 (laundry)
Page 2.
The estimated project development cost of this proposal iS $1,246,582 which
includes $1.00 as HUD's estimate of the value of the land with off-site improvements
installed, (NOTE: Since the land is being sold by a public body to the mortgagor,
the lesser of fair market value fully improved - minus excess costs resulting from
unusual on-site conditions, if any - or the sale price, is used as land value).
Included in the development cost estimates are the following items:
cost of structures and land improvements, carrying charges and financing, legal
cost certification and organizational expenses, consultant's fee, design and
supervisory architect's fee, bond premium, management fund, builder's profit,
and project contingency.
The maXimum loan amount supportable by the economics of the proposal is
$1,246,500. This represents a mortgage loan to development cost ratio of 100%. The
cash you will be expected to furnish at closing is estimated to be $6,314 (which
includes equity investment for capital expenditures, front money, etc., minimum
capital investment, and operating deficit, if applicable). Please contact Dewain
West, telephone (612) 349-3143, who will advise you on the correct preparation of
FHA Form 2328, Contractor's and/or Mortgagor's Cost Breakdown.
The above basic elements of the proposal upon which our estimates are computed
cannot be altered without affecting the conclusions contained herein. 'The completed
project must meet applicable code requirements and the HUD Minimum Property
'Standards.
Final development of the proposal must be coordinated with the HUD Design
Representative assigned to this project. He will be available to assist the
Borrower and the architect with the development of the final design and off-site
requirements.
Section $ Annual Contributions Contract Authority in the amount of $229,212 and
Budget Authority in the amount of $4,584,240 have been reserved for this project
(see Notification of Selection of a Section 202 Fund Reservation letter dated
September 24, 1982). The processing for Conditional Commitment indicates Section 8
Contract and Budget Authority needs of $217,044 and $4,340,880 - representing
decreases of $12,168 and $243,360 respectively. At this time, no r~duction in the
fund reservation will be processed. Final adjustment of the reservation will be
made upon issuance of the Firm Commitment.
Your application must be submitted within 90 days following the~date of this
letter, otherwise this Conditional Commitment will expire. Any renewal or extension
of th£s commitment may be based either upon this commitment or upon re-examination
of the proposal, at the option of this office.
Page
If none of the aforementioned project characteristics and figures established
herein are changed in the Request for Firm Commitment and if the final drawings and
specifications submitted with the Request and the firm cost estimates are acceptable
to HUD, HUD will issue a Direct Loan Commitment for a maximum loan in the amount
shown above.
CONDITIONS:
Plans and specifications submitted with the application for firm commitment
must comply with the requirements contained in our Architectural Letter
dated January 14, 1983.
2. The application for firm commitment must include an Affirmative Fair Housing
Marketing Plan revised in accordance with our letter of February 15, 1983.
3. Prior to initial endorsement, any land indebtedness and/or special
assessments must be paid in full.
The application for firm commitment must include four (4) executed Standard
Management Agreements and two (2) copies of the lease to be used. If there
are questions regarding these two items, please contact Jerry Kallas at
349-3082.
A current financial statement for the sponsor (with signed and dated 202
certification) must be included in the firm commitment application
(2 copies).
6. The Owner/Architect Agreement must be revised to include a 'fixed dollar
amount for all services.
If you have any questions concerning this commitment, please contact LoAnn
Crepeau, Multifamily Housing Representative, telephone (612) 349-3108.
Sincerely,
U.S. DEPARTMENT 0r HOUSING AND URBAN DEV£LOP~dEHT
FEU[R&L HOUSING ADMINI$1 RAIlON
REHTAL HOUSIHG
PROJECT INCOME A'HALYSIS AND APPRAISAL
PUNSTER
Westonka Kstates I 092-EH169-L8
~ SAMA
~-] Feasibility (Reh~b)
~.~ Condiiionn!
~ Fi~m
,. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
2461 Commerce I Mound{ I { Hennepin
,. S~.I, .nd Zip ¢~1. ,. Typ, of P,oJ.~,:. ~] EI.vnlor. ' ' [ ~J %%'alL" ' w/e 1~ 5 N"' ~'0"''' 3 V. Fou.d.,~o.: ~ 51~,1, ,,n Full {'a,I ,I
[3SJnb°n Grade ~K,i.,inR / 42 ~ ~ J . J Screened Balcony
SiT iNFORmATION BUILDING ;NFORmAT{ON
[I. W ii. er 44,12~.I. h. [~{M...{u{.'. ~{l'.m,q ..... .,~
Pe~ssive Wo~ Fra~ ~ ~ ~ s.~.m
~pe 4 Co.st. Wood Face Brick C~N
INFORMATION CONCERNING LAND OR PROPERTY:
Dste ~°'Purch ~se Price
Acq.ired
{$ See P. 3
I
A,Idilionnl Ca.~l~t,{, An , {Jul.~l.mdinA
I' .hi ,,r Aecn~ed J C,,,,;,,~I II~ni TnhJl Cn.~l lialrmce -
$ J$
P,~.nnl or thhcr Ileiw,,en
,%t,JJer nnd {lu)'er
site
site
{_'1 ..o, n,,,i,,,,.,. I:iuid, ~ ...... Ti,l,h.
[~ Od-.~ ¢%/.,,'rd~ Possible Indian burial moun~
'see soz~s report ~o~ pavement
C. ESTIMATE OF INCOME:
t'.No, .l Kn,'h
F.,,,{ ly 'l'ypr |hill
{7 (Type 1)
U :C.
(Types 2&3)
(Type 4)
Living A~,',,
529
539
771
28.
I~ ALtefldrd
~X.] Sell Park
30, Commer¢lml'
Arra-(;rn:m,I I,evr{
{hher I.,.vrl~
LR- DA, K ,B, 1BR
LR-DA,K,B, 1BR
LR-DA,K,B,2BR
I;llll IIcnl
(:lllllJ,o~hi~,ll ,.[ I,IlJl~ I','l
........... $ ._4_10
410
515
TOTAL ESTIMATED RENTALS FOR ALL FAMILY UNITS
TOTAL ESTIMATED GROSS PROJECT INCOME AT 100% OCCUPANCY
32.
32,915 .%1. F,.
J6.
Type el K,npIoy,.c
I uln{ '~h,.ihly {Irnl
I,',. Ilnil T).i.,
15170
1640
515
.. 17,325
210
17,535
PBE
18
18
24
TOTAL ANNUAL RENT III,J,, 31 · 12 m,,.~l,.~) . 210,420
l it. Nel JJenlnble Rfmid,..li~*l Areu- JJs. Net Re.18ble Commercial Ares-
22,500 ~1, ~.J ~. F,.
NON-REVENUE PRODUCING SPACE
(:ump.Mli,,. ,,{ Ilfl{t I,.,..,ILm nj Ih, il
IN..)h,,.,. I
D. EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES INCLUDED IN RENT:
311. SI':II V I (:F:.~
!(;AS: { ~{ II,',,I J'~J Ih,t W.h-r
J i.'J {:'"'kink I { Air (:,,ndiliunin~
j J l:,,,,ki.~ J J~i; E,,,.Ihi.nin~
J I I,i~hl~, ,.~,.. i. II.il
IH'lll,:ll ['lJl':l.: []'] II-:l ~-J Ih,l
3.7.
Comm. rm. only
~.~j kitrl,r. K,A,,u~t F',,n J' ] llr,,i,,.~
{ ~J {..un,iq' F,,,'Hi~h.~ COin-Op
L~] Olher t rash chute, L-J
qvator, security %,s., drnpo~ track,
:19. SI'I<C{'~ h
~_~ Nun-Prepsy.~le
h. Ibincipnl
None
Ilal;,m'u J
,. AnnunJ
J)nymrl]( ~
il.Jh'mainin~
'l','.. Y~'~
FHA-226.4 (5 71
E. EST. IMATE OF ANNUAL EXPENSE:
I. %,l,.,.rfi.~.g ............ S __420
2. XI,,..,~,,,.,,., ....... : .... 12000__
~. ()H.,~ .... : ........... ' __1890 ,
t, TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE- - '$ ....... 14 , 310
OPF, fl
5. I.:h.v.flor Uai,,. E~l,. - ..... ~' 840
G. Furl [lie. ting .n,l .
H.~s~ic Ilu~ g,.,'r) 0
?. I.iphdn~ & Mi~e. Pe. rr .... 2520
8. ~ntrr ................ 2520
9'. [;o~ ................. 9954
l ih [;ad~. & Tr~h Ile.,ev.I 1050
II, I',~ ~ell ............... 10000
~, {hl,,.~ ................ 630
I1, TOTAL OPERATING ......
~1 lin I'I.:N V~ (:l.'-
I.l. Ih,,.,,nili.~ ............ : $ 2100
I.',. Ih.p.,i~, ............... __1470
Id, I.:~lermin.,iin~- 210
17. In.ur.nee ............... 3~15 ,
IH, (;~nund ~:~p.~.e ......... ~ 1680
19. Od,er ................ 420
9~. TOTAL MAINTENANCE ...... $ 9~198 .
~1. Nepl.cemem Ile~crve (.0060
~uc~u~e* Line 41) ................
22. TOTAL OFERATING EXPENSE .... i 56,556
'I'A ~ E~-
V~Iu,,~ 218423
2067~
$ 94.676 prr~l~Oll---
1000
0
3T. Od.'~ ................. .
22,678
~8. TOTAL TAXE~ ............
( ~881 PU) 7~ ,234
~. TOTAL EXPEHSE (A..cb
F, INCOME COMPUTATIONS:
'2*
10. I<~timut*'d Proj*'ct
(;ro,~ Income [I.*o,. C 32 I'uge I) ...... ~_ 210,420
31- (Icc.p~n~? (En~irr
97
:1~. I,ilh.rd*e (;ros~ Income (IJ.~ 30 x I. Me 31) ' - ,__204,167'
33. 'l'olal I'~ol~cl Ezpcn~e.(I.i~ ~*0) ......... $ ,79,234
~4. ~.~ hwo,,~e I. P,oF, I {I.i.r 32 - I. mc 3J). -- = 124,873
H. MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE RENTAL ANALYSIS:
37.
11.
.l?.
39,277
All (ltl.., II,ihli,g.~ ........
TOTAL STRUCTURES ........ $ 922,394
C,..,.,.,I Ih.,i,,h,.,,,,.,,,.- ................. $ 33,657
39,811
$1I. DIhrr I"e~:e ........... 23,011
S 136,,928
:l'). TOTAL FEES ....... $ ,"i-132,206
r.tt TOT.I",,r all I ml,rmi..(l.in~- 36c,4l,.12 & 49) - -
%1. ~:-., I',., (;,--- ~q. Ft.- .............. $ 3~. 39
57. I.~.lu.,llr,I (:(m~..,'iihn Time ........... 8
,,.~ 1.~46,500 .%. $ 38,434
5 ~. '1'.,~,.- - .e~e~ ........ 0 Ins. Bas
~,%. h,..,.,,,,.,. .............. 1~700 . 1,021,81
%7. FII .% I.:~.... ~',.,. ((~.~%~ -
%11. FIIA I.-i-.,.. F,.,. (11.5%) -
59. Fi...ci.~ Fee ( %1 -
*,u.,~MXConting. (3%) 37.935
hI.I,'N%I..%,I;NMA FHa: ( %) -
h~.'l'ii h. & Ih.,.ohli.K ............ 3,200
80.~29
hJ. TOTAL CARRYING CHGS. & FINANCING ..... $ --
I,~GAI.i ORGANIZATIONi & AUDIT FEE
' b.I. Lei:al ................... $ 2/U0
6u. Cusl Cerli[icution Audit Fee ....
~7. TOTAL LEGAL, ORGANIZATION, AUDIT FEES S 8,200
U
i~. Uuihler ~nd Sponlor ~oEil ~ Ri~ .........
~1. CORpulent Fee ...................... J-- ~ '~
?O. ~u~lt, m~nt~lM.Mgem.nt Fu~ ........ "'' $ I;2~
; I, ~~xKDisb. -%% ..............
-- 9Z. TOTAL EST. DEVELOPMENT COST (Exel. nf 1,246,581
~3. W~rr*nted Price of Lend - - - J- 14(3)
.~,l. /~. .' ~ -- ~c, "1.
1,h TOTAL ESTIMATED REPLACE~EHT 1,246,582
COST OF PROJECT [ddd 72*732 ......... ~ *
1. Rent Form.la I|usidenliul Tol.I Bent Per Month
APARTMENT TYPe
0/1/81 FMRsxl.O5trendxl.05E
2. %lontl, l}' Admmis:ruiivc Ilrnl Li,nil~-
(,YOTE: Each lin:it .,u~t b; I,,llo.,cd
by E ]or.cxccpliutt .r R ].r rcgul,,r~
3. Personal I~en~{;~ I'~xp,,It~e~
4. Admi. i.lr~:tiv,' Rcnl [.italia [,esa
5. Ilnit lla~.ic Rent. .....................
6. t;ni! kk~rket lic.l~ by Rent I"or,nula ..........
lin. kiutkni R*,nl.~ hy Compari~o. ..........
172 (Rounded 17,325)
0 BEDROOM
BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM ] BEDROOM 4 BEDROOM
430 t 542 $ $
18 24 '
412 518
N/A N/A
410 515
N/A N/A
.T.. ESTIMATE OF OPER~,TIHG DEFICIT~*
,, I c; .... ,,,,..~. I o~,.... ;; I ~"... ~"?:' .
1
2, 2r~l '.: ii
3. TOT~.L OPERA-]
TING DEFICIT J$
F NA-2~'64 IS.?Q
.$-
I.-it~'~.~£ APPROACH TO VALUE:
Inron,e ,Ippru,. h h,
J. Hate ~rJected
t. ~Net Income [Lin~
L Cnpitnlized V~lue (L.~ne 4 + IJne .1~ - S N/A
.. COMPARISON APFROACH TO VALUE:
] I-
I. ~.ddress o[ Comparable Sale Dnte [}tit
It. h.licu..d Valu,..I SubJeCt b) C.tal,,.ismt $ N/A
APPRAISAL SUMMARY
CAPITALIZATION ~ N/A SUMMATION ~ ~r246~582 COMPARISON ~ N/A
The ~X~~ te~locemenl cost) of Jhe property, os ol ihs dali below, is S 1,246,582
d. TO BE COMPLETED BY CONSTRUCTION COST ANALYST:
COST NOT A'I'rRIIIUTAIII.K TO IIWI':I.I.IN(;
O. Parking .......................... $ 9~169
I. g mm ~x Commu~i-by. 4kx~m ............ 12,540
2. ~7~xwx~k ~M&4~ ~coi-le~c~ ........... -- 4,534
~t. Special Ext. I..nd tmprov.n,eat-~ ..........
4. Other - LOuo~;e .................... 6~419
5, TOTAL .............. $ 32,662
3.10
'i'()T~L EST. CO.~T OF OFF-SITF: RF:~!.IIItI.:MI.:NTS-
6. OIi-Si~e Eh,. (:trot
TOTAL OFF-SITE COSTS-- $
None
N. TO BE COMPLETED BY VALUATION SECTION:
CAI.CL'I.AI'ION OF I]IU)GETED CONSTRIICTION COST-
18, ~l;~i.,u., ~lurtgag,. Am,.ml
a26.1.) + ~ ,,, x tm)% .............. S 1,246,500
19. FIIA I.aml Vah..(Line ~ 73) $ 1.00
20. ('.atryi~ta {~harg~.. ,,nd )' i..- - ~O, 7'2~
21. I.egal.' Ora;miza tian." CO,~xrt i 8,200
Ih..i~. A.rhjh.cl .......
~,q..t~isury At, hilt, w1 ....
25. II.nd Premi.., .........
26.
27.
".8.
29.
3(I.
31.
I?.
qQ1,650
10,550
12,000
Supplrmen~al Man,,gement Fund 4,200
CXm N v~K~a~O(x~x~gisb. 1,246.
Othcr Fer~ ........... 23,011
Total 19 Ih,u 28 - II~duct - ~ 191,587
II~Jan~e mv~il, bh. (or con~t,uciion .......... $ 1,054 ~913
l'hi~ inciude~ huild~r's ice el
~ llldrs, Ovhd, I~M ol S 19,906
O. REMARKS, CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNATURES~
EXPLAIN-~] UNUSUAL LAND IMPROVEMENTS($cc.C 36u) HANDBOOK4465. i, PAGES2-~ AND2-3
OTHER FEES(Se¢.~ ,18/ HANDBOOK44S0.1, PAGE S-10['-~LOW MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
100 year flood elevation is 935. Proposed finish floor elev. is 941. Improvements are not
subject to flood damaqe. Plans and outline specs prepared by Dickey Kodet Architects I~,
Architectural Letter dated January 1983.
Ins. Basis ~ $1~165~479
Valuation processinq based on 95% occupancy/ FMR's dated 10/1/81 trended 1.05x1.05 e%derlvx
1.lO Area pr~roq,
Value of site not attributable = 0
/s/ Richard Sexton 1-14-83
3/10/83
/s/ Patrick F. Petit, Ron Jarchow 2-3°83
Fred Mischuk 2-17-83, 3/3/83
I ~,,st P~oc,sso~ II)ute)
/s/ Arthur W. Hultgren
(Arc&stectu,.l Hei,icmr~)
/S/ Ron Jarchow
Conclusion~: .
Processzng ~s contingent upon an ~ncrease ~n the FMR's 6f 5%.
??3-
metropolitan
munidpalitiee
TO:
AMM Member Cities
(Mayors and Managers/Administrators)
FROM: AMMStaff
We woul~ like to bring several items to your attention:
ANNUAL MEETING - THURSDAY EVENING, MAY 26, 1983
The 1983 AMMAnnual Meeting for the major purpose of electing officers and board
members has been set for Thursday evening, May 26, 1983. The location has not been
selected as yet but it will be a dinner meeting. A meeting notice with the complete
details and agenda will be mailed in early May but we wanted to inform you of the
date now so you can plan accordingly.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OFFICERS/DIRECTORS FOR 1983-84
A Nominating Committee was appointed by the Board of Directors at the March 3rd.
Board Meeting as required by the AMM By-Laws. The offices of President, Vice-
President and eight Board Directors are to be filled. If you have nominations/
recommendations for'these positions, please submit them to any Nominating Committee
membez 'or to the AMM office, attention: Vern Peterson by no later than Friday,
April 8, 1983. Th~ Committee members are Jim Krautkremer, Brooklyn Park Mayor,
Chairman; Patti Armstrong, Cottage Grove Councilmember; Marlis Overgard, Apple Valley
Mayor; Hank Sinda, Savage Administrator; Jackie Slater, Minneapolis Councilrmmber,
and Mary Schweiger, St. Paul Mayor's Office.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID - CURRENT ACTIVITY
Th~ AMM Board of Directors is continuing to monitor various issues and events
concerning the topic Of Local Government Aid. Because of the complexity of aid
formulas and questons related to the purpose LGA should serve as well as the diverse
membership opinions, the A34M has not adopted a distributions formula policy. The'
organizati°n does support LGA funding tied as a percentage to general state revenue
or sales tax revenue and the Board has adopted a policy urging an in. depth long
term legislatively supported study to develop a formula that is understandable,
practical, and equitable. However, the Board would like to be in a position of
reacDing if appropriate to various current proposals including the most recent
Governors Budget formula. Staff has been directed to gather better data on various
proposals and seek clarification of projected results as depicted in computer runs
Supplied by the state or proposing agency. As an example, the February 18, 1983
(No. 6) LMC Legislative Bulletin published a list supplied by the state of aid that
cities would receive in 1984 using the Governors proposed distribution. In reviewing
183'university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-5600 7~2
the results it a~pea~ed that some cities would receive either more or less aid
inconsistant with the perceived ability or need factors being used. Also, it ~.;as
noted.that 1981 assessed value and sales ratio data was used and that current year
information would create differences. The Board has indicated that current and correct
'information should be available before taking any additiona~ possible policy action.
The Tax Committees will be holding hearings in the next several weeks and as
part of those proceedings wlll at times be discussing LGA proposals.
BOARD REQUEST FOR MEMBER INPUT
In conjunction with the staff activity the Board would, also, like input from member
cities indicating individual city opinions or amticipated activities in regards to
LGA distribution proposals to help them in consideration of any possible additional
action.
BACKGROUND INFOrmATION ON LGA PROPOSALS
- AMMNewsletter, January 1983, issue No2 19 (general discussion)'
- LMC Legislative Bulletin~ February 18, 1983, issUe No. 6 (contains the Governor's
formula onpage W-3 and W-4)
- LMC Magazine, March, 1983, issue Vol. 68 - No. 3 (general discussion)
SUPER-FUND BILL (HF 76 - SF 220) PROBLEM
As reported in'the ~c Legislative Bulletin, March 4, 1983 isSue~'this bill' is moving"
through the Committee Process. One of the key-~rovisions's of this bill from the
standpoint of local government, is the provision which would retain the liabilit~
limits for cities and other political subdivision. Unfortunately, on a close vote
in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the limits on political subdivison liability were
removed. It is very important that these limits be reinstated and we would urge
you to contact 9our Senator (s) and discuss this matter as soon as possible. At the
appropriate time, an. amendment will be offered to reinstate the limits on political
subdivision liability. Please ask your Senator to support this amendment.
cc: AMM Board of Directors
g~<<
PROFILE
Carl Pohl'ad
With empires in banking and soda-pop bottling,
the head of MEI and F gzM Marquette has found the fruits
of diversification sweet.
By Donald R. Nelson
But for a thunderous knockout punch
thrown by the late Sonny Liston, Carl
Pohlad would have achieved ail of the
goals he set as a young man.
Pohlad, president of FgdVl Marquette
Nationai Bank and its holding company,
Bank Shares Inc., and chairman of fast-
growing MEI Corporation, decided at
an early age that he wanted eventually to
earn $100 per week, to own two suits,
and to see a heavyweight title fight. The
first two goais, modest in retrospect,
were eclipsed years ago. And Pohlad, a
semi-pro boxer in his youth, was at
ringside for one of the Liston-Floyd Pat-
terson title fights in the early 1960s.
Pohlad and his wife arrived just as the
bell rang opening round one. Mrs.
Pohlad dropped her purse, and Pohlad
gallantly bent to retrieve it. That was all
the time needed for Liston to dispatch
the overmatched Patterson. When
Pohlad looked up, the bout was over.
So Carl Pohlad has yet to see a heavy-
weight title fight. But he's still a goal-
setter, and there are precious few other
objectives that have eluded him. In
February, 1982, for example, Pohlad
earned a spot among the heavyweights
of the local banking industry by engi-
neering the surprising merger of Mar-
quette Nationai Bank and the troubled
Farmers and Mechanics Savings Bank, a
union that created the fourth largest
commerical bank in Minnesota.
Pohlad divides his time between bank-
ing and his stewardship of MEI, an ag-
gressive soft-drink bottler that has lately
been making strong inroads into the can-
dy business. Ten years ago, MEI was a
nearly defunct bus company; today it is
the third largest independent bottler of
Pepsi in the country, with annuai reve-
nues of nearly haif a billion dollars. MEI
is the envy of the soft-drink industry;
Pohlad is one of that industry's heroes.
In 1981, Pohlad was named the soft-
drink industry's top executive by the
Wall Street Transcript. In 1982, Pohlad
and Donaid Benson, MEI's president,
were runners-up in that same publica-
tion's annuai industry awards.
In addition to his interests in the soft-
drink and banking industries (beyond
F&M Marquette, Pohlad controls some
,30 Midwest ernJl_a_nks to~h~
78 CORPORATE R£POaT/M^RCH 1983
jly members~d business associatesl.
P°hla/~has holdings in airlines and regl
estate. He is currently helping to finance
the $90-million, 40-story Piper Tower in
downtown Minneapolis. He is active as
well in a wide rante of community or-
ganizations including the Boys' Clubs,
Methodist Hospitai in St. Louis Park,
the Minneapolis Chamber of Com-
merce, the Minnesota Association for
Mental Health, the United Fund, and
the Sister Kenny Fo6ndation. As long
ago'as 1964, Pohlad was cited for his ef-
forts'~o promote women in business. In
January, 1982, Governor Rudy Perpich
appointed Pohlad to head a special com-
mission on investment, and banking that
will recommend state-government ac-
tions to aid the flnanciai industry.
For all of that, Carl Pohlad's is hardly
a household name. Although he enjoys
close friendships with the famous, in-
cluding Robert Redford, Scan Connery,
and former race driver Jackie Stewart,
Pohlad has managed to maintain such a
low personal profile that he is almost
unknown outside the business communi-
ty. It's not that Pohlad shuns publicityt
he is gracious and cooperative when in-
terviewedtbut he does aimost nothing
to seek it. That is partly attributable to
modestytPohlad seems genuinely to
believe that nothing he has done is ex-
ceptionaltand partly to simple shyness.
Pohlad's friends describe him as a com-
plex and in some ways contradictory
manta reserved but personable busi-
nessman with a saintly demeanor and an
unflinching eye for the bottom line.
To be sure, Pohlad is not least bit shy
about pursuing what. he sees as a good
business opportunity. He is an aggres-
sive and acquisitive business executive, a
self-proclaimed "dreamer" who contin-
ualiy as. tonishes his associates and com-
petitors with the swiftness and sureness
of his bold strokes. Unafraid of risk,
Pohlad nevertheless insists that his risks
are uniformly well-calculated, based on
thorough research and planning. Still,
Pohlad confesses to deeply trusting his
"gut instincts" when the moment of
decision arrives.
"He's shy and reticent in certain situ-
· ations, but he gets what he wants," says
Matthew Levitt, Pohlad's attorney and
long-time friend. "He has imagination,
fortitude, and the ability to analyze a
situation."
"I've seen him sit in with the biggest
and the toughest. He commands the sit-
uation, no question about that," says
Margaret Majewski, assistant vice presi-
dent of Bank Shares Inc. At the same
time, Majewski says, Pohlad's naturai
charm puts people at ease.
"He has the ablility to win people
over," says Don Benson, who Pohlad
. describes as a younger version of him-
self. "He's an astute businessman, and
very fair. He's also very perceptive. He's
often two or three steps ahead of every-
one else in the room."
Pohlad likes to minimize the impor-
tance of his own contributions to the
success of MEI and F&M Marquette, at-
tributing that success to the joint efforts
of a good management team.
"I try not to fail into the trap of
thinking that I have to be the decision
maker," Pohlad says. "One of the most
important things today is to learn to
control your ego, to recognize when you
don't know something, and to go out
and find someone who does. You should
· never let-your ego stand in the way of
recognizing your deficiencies."
Pohlad's ego seems tolerably well
under control as he relates what he sees
as the secret to success--his own as well
as that Of would-be entreprenuers: "You
have to be lucky," he says. "You have
to be in the right spot at the right time.
You must seek out opportunity and rec-
ognize it when you see ittand then have
the courage to do something about it. If
you set your goals, and look long
enough, and work hard enough, and are
patient, your c_hances of achievement are
very good. , :. ,' .... -
Pohlad jokingly 'refers to his own
drive to succeed as a "disease" that he
contracted at a very early age. Pohlad
grew up in West Des Moines, Iowa, one
of eight children born to parents of
modest means. As a youngster, Pohlad
hauled laundry around town to help sup-
port the family. During high school, he
held down severai part-time jobs at local
banks and finance companies. Attend-
ing junior college in California, Pohlad
ran a used-car deaiership. He went on to
finish his education at Gonzaga Univer-
. sity in Spokane, Washington.
After graduation, Pohlad returned to
Carl Pohlad: Overcoming ego, overwhelming the competition.
Dubuque, Iowa, and bought into a
finance company owned by Russell
Stotesbery. World War II found Pohlad
in combat in Europe, where he won a
Bronze Star, several Purple Hearts, and
a battlefield commission. He returned to
Dubuque after the war to find that the
finance company in which he was now a
partner had bought control of Bank
Shares Inc. Pohlad moved to Minne-
apolis to keep an eye on the new proper-
ty, and when Stotesbery died in 1955,
Pohlad became president of Bank.
Share~ and Marquette National Bank.
Marquette's acquisition of F&M last
year surprised Observers in the banking
community.. It had been assumed that a
larger; out-of-state institution would be
the more .likely choice to take over Min-
nesota's only mutual savings bank.
F&M, which lost more than $28 million
in 1981, was in danger of collapse when
bank officers and state and federal bank
regulators agreed to try to sell it to a
commercial bank. When the FDIC made
its initial request for bids, it limited the
bidding to institutions with at least $2
billion in assets.
That should have left Marquette out
of the running, but Pohlad was unde-
terred. Two 'Weeks before the bidding
for F&M was to close, Pohlad convinced
FDIC bfficials to consider Marquette's
offer; ¥.W~' gave them an entirely new
appr'o~'Cl~ }it6i~-:solving' the problem,"
Pohlad-iiays~ ~i~iply2 The new approach
promised to' save F&M from liquida-
tions-which-FDIC officials estimated
would have ~ost .the federal government
$250 million in deposit payoffs--at a
projected net'cost of $38 million to
facilitate the merger with Marquette.
The merger negotiations turned into a
marathon, with representatives of Mar-
quette, F&M, state and federal regula-
tory. agencies, and all their attendant at-
torneys working virtually around the
clock for five days. As late as 7:30 p.m.
on Sunday, the fifth day of talks, .it
looked as though the deal might fall
through, Pohlad i'emembers. But by
10:30 p.m., "we started signing the
papers," and the deal was complete by
early Monday morning.
The merger has created a new, large
commercial bank in Minneapolis, a
bank that Pohlad promises will be an ag-
gressive competitor. "As a result of the
merger, we broke out of the pack [of
smaller banks]," says Pohlad. "We're
now a $1.5-billion organization. That
makes us a major competitive factor."
Pohlad claims that the merger has
thus far worked out better than even he
anticipated, with growth in some divi-
sions running one or two years ahead of
projections. The new bank is trying to
take advantage of F&M's strong consu-
mer identity, Pohlad says, as it strives to
reposition itself in the "financial services
business." In the future, Pohlad says,
banks will compete against a wider range
of financial institutions as regulations
ease and long-standing distinctions be-
tween financial institutions become in-
creasingly faint.
"We're all after the same customer,
and everybody's going to try to get into
the act," Pohlad says. "People are
starved for financial information and
planning. When we had high employ-
ment and high wages, people fell into a
standard of living beyond their incomes.
They had a tendency to mortgage their
futures."
More recently, Pohlad says, consu-
mers have become more aware of the
need for sound financial planning, par-
ticularly as the recession has taken its
toll. "The consumer has learned a les-
son," Pohlad says. "He isn't out there
buying ahead of himself. What he wants
is assistance. He doesn't want to get
burned again. The problem is how to
package it."
F&M Marquette's response has been
to Offer a complete financial-planning
service, including advice on everything
from investments to life insurance to
consumer loans. Seminars on the new
service have drawn overflow crowds,
Pohlad says. "The big thing in
future will be one-stop financ.
planfiing services. We .think we're far
ahead in that area."
Pohlad is demonstrably far ahead of
many competitors in the soft-drink-
bottling industry. His association with
MEI began in the 1960s, when the com-
pany still operated a commuter bus line.
In the early 70s, the Metropolitan Tran-
sit Commission bought out the bus serv-
ice after a hotly contested condemnation
suit, and MEI was seemingly headed for
oblivion. Pohlad, then an MEI board
member, sold the company a Pepsi fran-
chise he owned and helped MEI acquire
several more franchises. That was 1972,
and since then it has been a spectacular
and attention-getting fast-track for
MEI. The company now operates more
than 20.bottling plants in 14 Midwestern
and Western states, and in recent years
has diversified aggressively into snack
foods. Revenues soared from $42.2 mil.
lion in 1972 to $445 million in 1981;
earnings jumped from $1.7 million to
nearly $27 million during the same
period.
MEI's strategy has centered on ac-
'quiring contiguous franchises and con-
solidating production in newer, mot
ficient bottling plants. Stock ana.. ~
cite the clear success of that strategy, aa
reflected in the company's revenue and
earnings performance, as well as its su-
perb management and aggressive, well-
leveraged financing strategy as reasons
for the attention' MEI stock has been
getting on Wall Street.
"Pohlad knows finance and he knows
the [bottling] business," one analyst told
the Wall Street Transcript. "He has
made very, very few mistakes, which
isn't easy these days. He sticks to the
business he knows, but he went out on
the diversification front and came home
a winner. He's just a solid, shrewd
businessman. He's got the results to
back it up."
Characteristically, Pohlad points else-
where when asked to explain MEI's suc-
cess. He attrributes it in part to excellent
management at all leve!s, and in part to
Pepsi's nationwide marketing program.
"We have the product and the market-
ing,'' he says. "You also have to have
execution."
At 67, Carl Pohlad admits to no re-
tirement plans, nor even to any desire to
slow his frenetic pace. "I don't expect to
slow down," he says. "I enjoy what ' 4o
and I enjoy every day of life. Ever. j
is just great. I don't know anyone
who enjoys life more than I ~
do."
Donald R. Nelson is a Twin Cities free~
lance writer.
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
November 3, 1982
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Jom Elam
Public Works
Estimated Electricity costs for 1983.
For the year of 1983 the Street Dept. budgeted $55,000 for electricity.
In September NSP's rate increase went into effect, here is an estimated
out line of the costs for electricity for 1983.
STREETLIGHTS
350 - 175W Mercury $9.15 each per month = $3,202.50
23 - 250W Mercury $10.15 each per month = $233.45
12 - 175W Mercury (Parking Lots) $12.55 each per month = $150.60
7 - F72EHO Fluorescent (Shoreline)S23.10 each per month = $161.70
72 - 250 W Mercury (Downtown) $5.75 each per month = $414.00
The streetlights come to a total of $4,162.25 per month or $49,927.00 per
year. Also coming out of the electricity budget &s .$~2.00 per month for
the signal light and about $300.00 per year for a portion of the electricity
for the shop.
The total estimated costs for 1983 elec~ricty is about $50,991.00
Joyce Nelson
Public Works