The URL can be used to link to this page

83-05-03MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, May 3, 1983 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota AGENDA 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17; 7:30 P.M. - Council Chambers 1. Approval of Minutes of April 19, 1983, Regular Meeting 2. PUBLIC HEARING - "On & Off Sale Beer Licenses" - Robert C. Hilstrom - Three Points Blvd. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS MAP 3. CASE #83-114 - William D. Winter, 3343 Warner Lane . Lot 59, Whipple Shores SIDE YARD VARIANCE 4. CASE #83-122 - Terrance A. Nelson, 4555 Manchester Road Lots 16 & 17, Block 14, Avalon SIDE YARD VARIANCE 5. Set Date for Public Hearing -Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Map -Application for Conditional Use Permit Suggested Date: May 17, .19.~3.,. at 7:30 P.M. 6. Review Quotations for Replacement 'Pumps - Lift Station 7. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present 8. RePort on Tax Forfeit Property A. Resolution for Conveyance to the City B. Resolution to Sell Only to Adjoining Pro'perty Owners C. Resolution to Sell at Public Auction Halsted Avenue - Report from the Engineer Garden Lease Request for Extension of Preliminary Approval of Subdivision (Res. 82-84) until April 6, 1984 - LaVern W. Veit Review and Approve Cable T.V. Ordinance Ordinance - Adding Section 11.80 to the City Code Relating to Liability Insurance Proposed City Street Light Policy Request to Continue Lease on Anderson Building on a Month to Month Basis - Mike Smith - Smith Heating Payment of Bills INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Tonka Corp. - First Quarter Results B. Letter from NSP on Street Lights C. Information Letter ~n CDBG Program D. Lake Minnetonka Task Force Draft Report Pg. 899-911 Pg. 912-915 Pg. 916 Pg. 917-924 Pg. 925-933 Pg. 934 Pg. 935-938 Pg. 939-949 Pg. 950-959 Pg. 960-962 Pg. 963-970 Pg. 970 Pg. 972-975 Pg. 976-1048 Pg. 1049-1052 Pg. 1053-1054 Pg. 1055 Pg. 1056 Pg. 1057-1059 Pg. 1060 Pg. 1061 Pg. 1062-1105 Page 897 F. G. H. Ind. School District #277 Minutes - April 11, 19~3 Announcement of League of Cities Conference Flyer - West Hennepin Human Services Letter on Adult Corrections Facility Memos - LMCD J. ~Letter From Gen Olson K. Approved Parking Lot for Ice Center L. Report on Water Patrol for 1982 M. Painter Creek Watershed Report Pg. 1106-1107 Pg. 1108-1109 Pg. 1110 Pg. IIII Pg. 1112-1118 Pg. 1119 Pgt 1120-1121 Pg. 1122-1125 Pg. 1126-1135 Page 898 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCll. 60 April 19, 1983 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mound,. Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at 5341Maywood Road in. said City on April 19, 1983, at. 7:30 P.M. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Pinky Charon and Gary Paulsen. Councilmember Swenson was absent and excused. Councilmember Peterson arrived late at 8:25 P.M. Al'so present were: City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Manager Jon Elam, City Engineer John Cameron, Building Inspector dan Bertrand, Police Chief BrUce Wold, Insurance Consultant Bill Husbands, Insurance Agent Earl Bailey and the following interested citizens: Bob and Heidi Messer, Diane and John Drews, Gordy Tulberg, Charles and Orlando Pugh, Richard Olexa, Keith Kullberg, Perry and Dorene Hanson, Jacci Segnor, Paul Young, Bud Stannard, George Boyer. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. M I NUTES The Minutes of the April 5, 1983, Regular Meeting were presented for consideration. Charon moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the April 5, 1983, Regular Meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. ' P~UL'YOUNG''- 4785~RICHMOND-ROAD- COMPLAINT FROM MARCH 15TH & APRIL 5TH MEETING Mr. Young was present and stated that the situation on the City lot has~ improved but his concern now is the amount of rust in the water when the City trucks are cleaned. The City is using the hydrant for their water to clean the trucks and stirring up the rust in the lines. The problem is this is happening almost daily. The City Manager stated that this is the first time Mr. Young has brought this point to light and he will work with the residents of Richmond Road on the rusty water and the lot will be cleaned up shortly. PUBLIC HEARING DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for any comments from the citizens present on the list of delinquent utility billS. There were none. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The City Manager explained that the collection of the delinquent utility bills seems to be going quite well ~ince we started shutting-off water service and having people sign contracts to pay off their bills. Charon moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-56 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,419.93 AND AUTHORIZING THE STAFF TO SHUTOFF WATER SERVICE FOR THESE ACCOUNTS. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 61 APril 19, 1983 PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - JOHN DREWS - LOT 37, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT "F"- COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE The City Manager explained that the applicant is requested to start a "Sunlife of Mound" tanning studio with three tanning beds and'some exercise equipment. The Zoning. Administrator has stated that pursuant to Section 23.625.2 Service Shops and Offices are permitted in the B-1 Zoning District. Section 23.625.3 allows commercial recreation as a conditional use in the B-1 Zoning District and Section 23.302 (23) defines Commercial Recreation as "Recreational facilities such as bowling alleys, tennis courts, race tracks, etc., constructed and operated for profit, by private enterprise". The Planning Commission has recommended approval of this Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Drews stated that he will be blacktopping the 20' alley behind the building for extra parking. Councilmember Paulsen read an article from the January 12, 1981,· Sailor Newspaper concerning the use of certain drugs that are sun sensitizing. Mrs. Drews assured the Council that they have a list of all of these drugs and everyone who uses the tanning beds is questioned before use and signs.an affidavit stating that they understand about the use of sun sensitizing drugs when tanning. The Mayor opened 'the public hearing and asked for ~ny comments from citizens present. There were none. He they closed the public hearing. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded the following resolutiOn. RESOLUTION #83-57 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR A COMMERCIAL RECREATION FACILITY AT 2337 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOT 37, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT "F" PID #13-117-24 34 0059 Mayor Polston asked about the building's encroachment on the next lot. Mr. Tulberg, owner of the building stated he would get that problem solved with an easement privately. The Council asked if Mr. Drews planned to have a mini gym power rack and anti gravity hang as part of his exercise equipment as he has advertised in the newspaper. Mr. Drews stated yes that he would be adding some equipment. The Council asked to have these two pieces of equipment added to the list in the resolution. The City Attorney suggested that the City add licensing of massage parlors and saunas to the Zoning Ordinance. The vote in the resolution was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS CASE #83-115 - CHARLES & ORLANDO PUGH - 6201 RED OAK ROAD - VARIANCE OF ORDINANCE 60.02 - SIGNS ALONG PUBLIC THROUGHFARE The City Manager explained that the Pugh's have had a boutique in their home for 2 years.' They advertise this boutique by placing signs at several 62 April 19, 1983 signs at key intersections in Mound and the Planning Commission thought that because this is a regular weekend sale they should have a sign permit. The Planning Commission has recommended denial of the Pugh's request for a sign permit. The City Attorney stated that under Section 23.301 (54) of the Zoning Ordinance which defines "Nome Occupation" and regulates the activities it states in part," .... and shall not have special parking, lighting, advertising, or other facilities which would indicate its use for purposed other than a one-family private dwelling." This Zoning provision does not allow advertising to identify a home occupation in a residential district. Mr. Pugh stated that this boutique is no more than a garage sale and Mrs. Pugh picks up the signs every Saturday evenin9 so they are not left out any longer than 3 days a Week. Charon moved and Paulsen seconded.a motion to concur with the Planning Commission and deny the variance fore.signs~ for Charles and Orlando Pugh because if approved it would directly violate the zoning ordinance. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Councilmember Paulsen moved and Charon seconded a motion to return the filing fee for the variance because we couldn't even consider a variance. The vote was 2 in favor with Mayor Polston voting nay. Motion carried. Mayor Polston stated that he voted nay because his does not want 'to set~ a precedent of refunding variance fees because the variance is denied. Mayor Polston then suggested that the Staff look into expanding the':City's sign ordinance to include the type of signs the Pughs would llke to put up. CASE #83-117 - KEITH & DEBI KULLBERG - 1736 SHOREWOOD LANE - LOTS 20 & 21, BLOCK 4~ SHADYWOOD POINT - STREET FRONT & SIDEYARD VARIANCES - SUBDIVISION - PID #13-117-24 ll 0020 The City Manager explained that the Kullbergs currently have an extension on a street setback variance to remove part of the carport area and wall that sits too close to the street. They are now'requesting permission to build a garage on top of their existing flat-top/carport roof which is level with the road. They would be completing both actions at the same time. The setback variance after the removal of the encroachment would then be 9 to I1 feet and the sideyard variance is just the recognizing the present nonconformity. The Planning Commission has recommended approval. Polston movedand Paulsen seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-58 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROV. E THE STREET FRONT AND SIDE YARD VARIANCES AS REQUESTED FOR LOTS.20 AND 21, BLOCK 4, SHADYWOOD POINT (1736 SHOREWOOD LANE) PID #13-117-24 11 0020 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Councilmember Peterson arrived at 8:25 P.M. The City Manager explained that the subdivision/lot split on the lot line would leave one lot with over the required square footage and the other lot 63 '~ April 19, 1983 would be within 10% of the required 6,000 square feet. The City Attorney suggested that the division not be made on the lot line because by giving the lot that will be short by 10% in square footage part of the lot that is over in square footage would make two conforming lots. The applicant agreed and will be submitting a new survey with the corrected subdivision line that will make both lots at least 6,000 square feet. Charon moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-59 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 20 AND 22, BLOCK 4, SHADYWOOD POINT PID #13-117-24 11 0020 THAT WILL MAKE THE TWO LOTS CONFORMING WITH BOTH LOTS AT LEAST 6,000 SQUARE FEET The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE #83-119 - JOSEPH W. NELSON - 5205 SHORELINE BLVD. - BURGER CHEF -' PID #13-117-24' 43 Ol1! - SIGN VARIANCE The City Manager explained that the applicant is wants~to place a 4 foot by 6 foot temporary sign at his place of business. He will be replacing this temporary sign in July with a permanent reader board which will be within the current sign requirements. The Planning Commi~slon recommended approval. Charon moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-~O RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PLACEMENT OF A TEMPORARY SIGN ON LOTS 2 - 6, INCL., LOT 36, BLOCK i, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT "F" (5209 SHORELINE BLVD. - PID #13-117-24 43 0111 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE #83-118 - VALERIE SWENSON - 5505 AVON DRIVE - LOT 2~ BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT "B" - PID #24-117-24 14 0041 - MISCELLANEOUS VARIANCES The City Manager explained that the applicant is proposing to add a 20 foot by 20 foot attached garage to the northeast corner of the existing house and a 20 foot by 20 foot addition to the lakeside. This would require the following variances: side yard, front setback, lot width and lot size. The Planning Commission has recommehded denial of the request because they did not feel that this lot could accomodate this kind of construction. Charon moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to concur with the Planning Commission and deny the application. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE #83-121 - JACCI SEGNOR - 4574 DENBIGH ROAD - LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 3, AVALON - PID #19-117-23 24' OO12 - PARCEL SPLIT - VARIANCE RECOGNIZE ENCROACHMENT, SIDE YARD, PLUS OTHER CONDITIONS After some discussion on this item, the City Attorney advised that since 64 ~pr~l 19, 1983 Ms. Segnor is not going to construct anything on.either lot and all she 'wants to do is split intotwo tax parcels with both parcels meeting the square foQtage requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, all she need to do is file for a parcel spllt. He went on to emphasize to Ms. Segnor that the existing garage on Lot 2 is a nonconformanity and the existing house on LOt 1 that is encroaching o~ the Fire Lane is a nonconformity. No action was taken. Ms. Segnor was directed to see the City Staff about filing for a parcel split. Polston moved and Charon seconded a motion to.refund Ms. Segnor's filing fee for the variances she did not need and the lot split. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. RICHARD OLEXA-- 6609 BARTLETT BLVD. - SUBDIVISION - LOT 9 AND THE WEST 1/2' OF LOT lO, HALSTED HEIGHTS - PID #'s 22-117-24 43 O011/0012 The City M~nager explained that Mr. 01exa is requesting to take 20 feet off of PID #22-117-24 43 0012 and add it to PID #22-117-24 43 OOll. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-61 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SUBDIVISION AS REQUESTED - THAT PART OF LOT 9 AND THE WEST 1/2 OF LOT 10 LYING SOUTHERLY OF NORTHERLY 185 FEET, HALSTED HEIGHTS - PID #22-117-24 43 0011/OO12 The vote was unanimously 'in favor.' Motion carried. 'STREETCAR BOAT CENTER, INC. - EXTENSION OF OPTION ON LOST LAKE SITE Mayor Polston read a letter dated April. 19, 1983, from Buzz Sycks of the Mound Trolley.Boa't Center, Inc. which read as follows: "Since my last correspondence with you, I have met with my assOciates in the Mound Trolley Boat Center, Inc., and decided that the following action should be mutually satisfactory to the council and our group: 1) We enclose herewith, a check for $500 as a 60-day option payment. 2) This payment is to be deducted from the purchase price when our purchase is completed (same as we have with Tonka Toys). 3) In the event that a Court case is necessary to clear title and the property is awarded to the former owner, this option payment will be returned to the Mound Trolley Boat Center, Inc. 4) If it is necessary to extend our option for additional periods, it is hopes that this same formula will be applied. Trusting that this meets with you and the Council's approval, I remain, Very truly yours, signed M.L. "Buzz" Sycks, President Mound Trolley Boat Center, Inc." The City Attorney explained what the difference was between an Option and the Purchase Agreement. He reminded the Council that the Purchase Agreement has never been returned signed by the Mound Trolley Boat Center, Inc. therefore it really should be withdrawn. Mayor Polston stated that he doesn't want to do anything to discourage development 65 ~ April 19, 1983 of a shopping center in Mound. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded a motion to withdraw the Purchase Agreement that was submitted to Mr. Koenig on the Lost Lake Site. The vote was 3 in favor with Mayor Polston voting nay. Motion carried. The City Attorney pointed out that the City really has nothing to sell until the title questions are settled. The only thing the City could offer the Mound Trolley Boat Center, Inc. is a Quit Claim Deed at this point. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded a motion to direct the City Attorney and the City Manager to negotiate a legal option for the purchase of the Lost Lake Site with the Mound Trolley Boat Center, Inc. to sell whatever interest the City has in.the propecty and return it to the Council for approval. The vote was 2 in favor with Peterson and Polston voting nay. Motion dies. The Council then asked the City Attorney various questions about the terms in Mr. Sycks letter dated April 19, 1983. The City Attorney read the terms of the original Purchase Agreement. The Council then asked Mr. Stannard if the Mound Trolley Boat Center wants the $500 to apply to an option and if they did not pick up the option they would lose the $500. Mr. Stannard replied yes. The City Attorney' then asked the Council is they would like to'have an option.with the original terms in the Purchase Agreement, adding the $500 for 90 days. Peterson moved and Polston seconded a motion to authorize the City Attorney and the City Manager to prepare a legal option for the Mound Trolley Boat Center, Inc. to purchase the Lost Lake Site, to be executed by'the Mayor and the City Manager, with the same terms as the original Purchase Agreement, adding the $500 option payment for a 90 day period of time. The vote was 3 in favor with Paulsen voting nay. Motion carried. Councilmember Paulsen stated he voted nay because he felt a 60 day period of time was long enough. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT The Mayor asked if there were any comments or suggestions from the citizens present. There were none. OPEN BURNING PER~IT LETTER FROM THE P.C.A. The City Manager suggested that the Council appoint Fire Chief'Bob Cheney as the person authorized to issue Open Burning Permits. Charon moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION //83-62 RESOLUTION APPOINTING FIRE CHIEF BOB CHENEY AS THE PERSON AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE OPEN BURNING PERM ITS The vote was unanimously iR favor. Motion carried. FINAl PAYMENT - HARDRIVES FOR 1981 STREET PROJECT 66 April 19, 1983 The City Manager explained that this is the same request that was continued to this meeting on March 15, in order to have the City Engineer do soil borings on Bartlett Blvd. and.analyze the condition of the road, meet with Hardrives and see what work could be negotiated to be done on the road. That has now been done and the City Engineer will report on Bartlett Blvd. next. In the meantime the.Staff is urging the Council to approve the final payment for'the negotiated settlement. Polston moved and PeterSon seconded a motion to ·approve the final payment of $16,411.92 to Hardrives for the 1981 Street Project. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. REPORT OF BARTLETT BEVD. - JOHN CAMERON The City Engineer submitted a report dated April 19 on Bartlett Blvd. stating that theY have now completed an extensive evaluation of the condition of the bituminous paving on Bartlett Blvd. Braun Engineering TeSting took borings and did tests on the wear course. The asphalt contect and aggregate gradation are both within the recommended range to meet the MN/DOT specifications. The molsturecontent of the subgrade in Bartlett is high .in the Glendale Road area, but the material in the subgrade is consistent with.that in.other areas' of the job. The problem area between Norwood Lane and Fernside Lane is in the two joints. McCombs Knutson is recommending the following: 1. Approximately 200 feet of.the north joint should be cut out and patched. Also one larger area approximately 3' x 6' should be patched. 2. Remainder of the north joint and most of the.south joint to be cleaned and filled with joint sealer. 3. Seal coat a minimum of 4 feet wide the entire'length of both joints from Norwood Lane to Fernside Lane Station 19+75 to 24+75, which is 500 feet. . In addition to this work, a few Small areas between Fernsi, de and.'Fairview need to be cut out and patched and with joint sealer applied in a number of..spots. These areas along with previous patches should be seal coated. The section of Bartlett from Norwood to COunty Rdad 15 is in good condition and should not need any further work until it is seal coated in the normal schedule. From the letter submitted by Hardrives and the Engineer's conversation with them, the Engineer feels that Hardrives have already agreed to do all of the above mentioned work. On Bartlett Blvd., at the intersection with Glendale Road, construction was done in the usual manner. The material supplied by the contractor and the work done by him meets the specifications. There was a field judgement made, at the time, that the area would be okay. In a project the s'ize of Mound's street improvements, there are many instances where there is some risk. In this one situation, the result of the risk was unfavorable. As the report noted above, moisture content is high in the subgrade at the intersection of Bartlett and Glendale Road probably caused by unidentified sources of water getting into the subgrade. There is storm sewer in this intersection and the Engineer proposes that the corrective action consist of constructing an underdrain system, shaping the subbase to drain into.t,he 67 April 19, 1983 underdrain system which would empty into the storm sewer and then backfilling with three feet of granular material. This would then be paved with five inches of bituminous base and 1 1/2" wearing course. The length of this corrective action is approximately 180 feet. 'The cost of this is estimated at $15,000 to $20,000 and could be paid out of M.S.A. Maintenance Funds. The Engineer recommended delaying any repair'until 1985 or the Year before the scheduled seal coat. Hardrives has agreed to patch al.1 areas of Tuxedo in need of patching and will seal coat ravelled areas, approximately 1600 lln. ft. 1983 SEAL'COAT BIDS The City Manager repor'ted that the City received 4 bids on the 1983 Seal Coat Project. They were as follows: Allied Blacktop $39,386.50 Bituminous Roadways $41,902.50 Hi-Way Surfacing Co. $39,590.00 Midwest Paving $41,033.00 The staff is recommending the award go. to t'he low bid of Allied Blacktop. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-63 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE'BID OF ALLIED BLACKTOP IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,386.50 FOR THE 1983 SEAL COAT PROJECT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PETITION FOR.HARD SURFACING OF HALSTED AVENUE The City Manager reported that the City has received a petition from the property owners on Halsted Avenue to have Halsted Avenue hard surfaced from the Minnetrista Boundary to the easterly, lot line of Lot 17, Halsted Park. Charon moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-64 RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT FOR HARD SURFACING OF HALSTED AVENUE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1983 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT (ISLAND PARK) - PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS George Boyer of Eugene Hickok & Associates presented the Council with the plans and specifications for the following water system improvement for Island Park: 1. Watermain Extension 2. Booster Pump 3. 250,000 Gallon Water Storage Facility Mr. Boyer also presented landscape plans for both the booster pump area and the water storage facility'area. The project should take about 4 months from start to finish. 68 April 19, 1983 Paulsen moved and'Peterson seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-65 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE 1983 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT (ISLAND PARK) BID OPENING DATE JUNE 7, 1983 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ARCADE REPORT The City Manager presented a Memo from Police Chief Wold which stated that Mr. Thompson has removed all the video games from the Arcade because the games were not returning a big enough profit. No action was taken on this item. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING.- "ON & OFF SALE BEER" - THREE POINTS TAVERN Paulsen moved and Charon seconded a motion to set May 3, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. as the date for the public hearing to'consider the issuance of "On & Off Sale Beer Licenses" to Robert Hilstrom DBA Three Points Tavern. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PALM READER'S LICENSE RENEWAL Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to authorize the ~enewa'l~ of a Palm Reader's License to Linda Zeamyqk Klm Sano. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. RENEWAL OF-CERTAIN CITY LICENSES 1983-84 The City Manager explained that these licenses run from May l, 1983 through April 30, 1984. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to renew the following licenses to run from May 1, 1983 through April 30, 1984: Off Sale Beer: A1 & Alma's Supper Club, 5201 Piper' Road Grimm's Store, 3069 Brighton Boulevard Mound Super Valu, 2240 Commerce Blvd. "No Frills" Grocery, 5229 Shoreline Blvd. PDQ'Food Store, 5550 Three Points Blvd. Tom Thumb Superette, 2222 Commerce Bl'vd. On Sale Beer: A1 & Alma's Supper Club, 5201 Piper Road House of Moy, 5555 Shoreline Blvd. Mound Lanes, 2346 Cypress Lane Surfside, Inc., 2670 Commerce Blvd. Restaurants: A1 & Alma's Supper Club, 5201 Piper Road Burger Chef, 5205 Shoreline Blvd. Donnie's on the Lake, 4470 Wilshire Blvd. Hole-In'One Bake Shop, 5309 Shoreline Blvd. House of Moy, 5555 Shoreline Blvd. Martin & Son Boat Rental, 4850 Edgewater Drive Mound Lanes, 2346 Cypress Lane Mound Legion Post 398, 2333 Wilshire Blvd. Surfside, Inc. 2670 Commerce Blvd. Three Points Tavern, 5098 Three Points Blvd. ; APril 19, 1983 Tonka Toys Restaurant (Servomation Corp.) 5300 Shoreline Blvd. V,F.W. Club #5113, 2544 Commerce Blvd. Bowling Alleys: Mound Lanes, 2346 Cypress lane Games of Skill: A1 & Alma's Supper Club, 5201 Piper Road Pool Tables: duke Box: The vote was unanimously in favor. 8 Bowling Lanes 1 Machine 5 Machines 14 Machines 1 Machine 2 Machines Donnie's oh the Lake, 4470 Wilshire Blvd. Mound Lanes, 2346 Cypress Lane No Frills Food Market, 5229 Shoreline Blvd. Surfside, Inc., 2670 Commerce Blvd. Three Points Tavern, 5098 Three Points Blvd. 5 Machines V.F.W. Club #5113, 2544 Commerce Blvd. 2 Machines Three Points Tavern, 5098 Three Points Blvd. 2 Tables V.F.W. Club #5113 , 2544 Commerce Blvd. 1 Table Mound Legion Post #398, 2333 Wilshire Blvd. 1 duke Box' Donnie's on the Lake, 4470 Wilshire Blvd. ! duke Box Surfside, Inc., 2670 Commerce Blvd. 1 duke Box Three Points Tavern, 5098 Three Points Blvd. 1 duke Box V.F.W. Club #5113, 2544 Commerce Blvd. 1 duke Box Motion carried. INSURANCE PACKAGE FOR 1983 The City Manager complimented Insurance Agent Earl Bailey and Insurance Consultant Bill Husbands on their fine work for the City of Mound. The total insurance package this year will cost the City $75,422. This is $4,355 less than the 1982 cost. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-66 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE 1983 SUMMARY OF INSURANCE COVERAGES SUBMITTED BY R. L. YOUNGDAHL & ASSOCIATES The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Bill Husbands then submitted the revised policy statements for the Council's review. The policy statements are: Risk Management Statement Loss Prevention Statement Loss Control Statement One change is to be made on the Loss Prevention Statement. Delete the word rejected in the first sentence and insert "promoting policies which will prevent". Paulsen moved and Polston seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-67 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A RISK MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, A LOSS PREVENTION STATEMENT AND A LOSS CONTROL STATEMENT The vote was unanimously in favor.' Motion carried. 7O April 19, 1983 PROCLAMATION - JU. NE 1.0~ 11 & 12 "THE WESTONKA WEEKEND FOR KIDS" The City Manager stated that Larry Connolly, General Chairman For the Giant Sale and Parade and representative for the Shoreline Early Childhood Development Center, Inc., has requested that June 10, 11 and 12 be proclaimed "The Westonka Weekend for Kids". Charon moved and Peterson seconded the following proclamation. RESOLUTION #83-68 PROCLAIMING JUNE 10, il and 12, 1983, AS "THE WESTONKA WEEKEND FOR KIDS" The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT The City Manager presented a proposed development contract that would be used in pinning developers and others down once the Council approves their plats. The City Attorney, Engineer and the Building Official feel it is a valUable tool. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-69 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AS SUBMITTED The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT OF BILLS Charon moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve the bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $82,8~9.25, when funds are avai'lable. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. CHAMBER WAVES - chamber of Commerce Newsletter for April, ]983. B. POLICY STATEMENTS ON INSURANCE COVERAGE - Dealt with earlier. AL & ALMA'S LMCD APPLICATION - The City Manager, also Mound's representative on the LMCD reported that appears to be moving forward with a minimum of snags. D. AMERICAN LEGION GAMBLING REPORT - for March 1983 E. ARTICLE ON "CIVIL SERVICE GIANTS" F. AMM MEETING - April 28, 1983 - Subject: Public & Private Perspectives on Land Development Issues in the '80's - at the Sheraton Midway G. CITIZENS LEAGUE MEMO ON PROPERTY TAXES H. MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT - Agenda - April 21, 1983 and Minutes - March 10, 1983. ~ 71. April 19, 1983 APPOINTMENT OF ACTING MAYOR Mayor Polston suggested that for the time that Councilmember Swenson will be absent because of illness the Council consider appointing another Acting Mayor. Polston moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION # 83-70 RESOLUTION TO APPOINT COUNCILMEMBER KAROL "PINKY" CHARON AS ACTING MAYOR UNTIL COUNCILMEMBER SWENSON RETURNS The vote was unanimously in favor.. Motion carried. COUNCILMEMBER GORDON SWENSON Paulsen moved and Charon seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-71 RESOLUTION REGARDING COUNCILMEMBER SWENSON'S ILLNESS AND RECOVERY The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded a motion to adjourn at 11:30 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jon Elam, City Manager Fran Clark, City Clerk 8ILLS .... APRIL 19, Al r Corem American Chemical Ind Acro Minnesota Badger Meter Blackowiak & Son Holly Bostrom Burl ington Northern Butch's Bar Supply Brown Photo Carol Burlet Bradley Exterminating Bill Clark Standard Coast to Coast Continental Telephone Coca Cola B'ottling City Club Distributing Davies Water Equip Day Distributing East Side Beverage John Ewa i d Jon Elam First Bank Mpls Gerold Welding Gold Medal Beverage General Tire Service G 1 enwood Ing 1 ewood Henn Co. Finance Henn Co. Treas. Eugene Hickok & Assoc Hoffman Shoe Repair Henn Co. Chiefs of Hudson Map Co. Illies& Sons Island Park Skelly Kool Kube Ice L.O.G.I.S. The Laker Lyman Lumber Doris Lepsch L.M.C.D. Bob Lyckholm MacQueen Equip Marina Auto Supply McCombs Knutson Mi nnegasco Wm Mueller & Sons Midwest Wine Pol ice 2,386.00 161.95 16.46 1,524.80 54.OO 174.OO 533.33 183.75 249.80 15.00 19.OO 4,331.99 63.57 86.50 240.45 2,094.70 615.50 2,682.68 .3,592.50 ~:51.20 29.00 16.OO 35.00 128.55 138.55 43.80 297.30 256.00 7,272.20 2.00 55.OO 42.07 855.75 28.00 104.50 1,577.66 118;14 141.15 15.00 1,998.50 500.O0 5O.52 521.52 718.00 1,970.01 2,371.~4 534.37 Minnesota Wastewater Operators 5.00 Muni tech, Inc. 22.50 Mound Police Reserves 500.70 Mound Explorers 187.50 Mpls Oxygen 10.50 Martins Navarre 66 485.00 Navarre Hdwe 197.80 N.S.P. 6,183.84 Natl Fire Protection Assn 50.00 A.J. Ogle Co. .1,662.85 Popham, Haik, Schnobrlck 62.10 Pepsi Cola Bottling 195.O0 Pogreba Distributing 3,524.65 Reo Raj Kennels 687.00 Regal Window Cleaning 10.75 William Roth 142.91' Nels Schernau 5.06 Spring Park Car Wash 116.O0 Don Streicher Guns 152.25 Sterne Electric 59.00 Sun Newspapers 99.00 State Bank of Mound 14.O0 St. Boni Farm Store 30.45 Twin City Home Juice 22.24 Thurk Bros. Chev 346.58 Thorpe Distributing 4,766.35 Tonka Printing 98.00 Unitog Rental 226.07 Village Chevrolet 64.31 Widmer Bros. 280.00 Bruce Wold 6.00 Xerox, Inc. 924.68 AWWA 170.O0 Robert Cheney 334.00 Car-Co Auto Parts 85.15. Duwayne Dorfner 35.00 Stephen Grand 110.89 Greyhound Travel 238.00 Eugene Hoff 30.00 Johnson Paper &Supp]y' 172.20 Metro Waste Control 2,945.25 MACI-Star Cities Conf 40.00 Mound Fire Dept 4'489.95 Municipals 92. Sexual Offense Serv.-RamseyCo. 40. Griggs, Cooper 2,569. Johnson Bros. Liquor 4,074. Old Peoria 2,032. Ed Phillips 1,423. State Treasurer 1,381. P.E.R.A. 2,540. TOTAL BILLS 82,869. 75 O0 32 49 21 78 82 79 25 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 April 27, 1983 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Jon Elam, City Manager Licensing Department Three Points Tavern Licenses Robert C. Hilstrom is the new owner of Three Points Tavern. A public hearing has been set for May 3, 1983 to consider the issuance of "On and Off Sale Beer Licenses". In addition, Mr. Hilstrom has made application for the following licenses: Restaurant Games of Skill Pool Tables Juke Boxes Entertainment Mr. Hilstrom will also_be applyin.9 for a "Setup" permit from the State Liquor Control Commission. CITY of MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 To: From: Subj: May 3, 1983 City Manager; Jon Elam Police Chief; Bruce Wold License Applications of Robert Hilstrom The backround investigation of Mr. Hilstrom turned up no infor- mation that show Mr. Hilstrom unfit to operate under the licenses he applied for. All of the license applications submitted to the City of Mound have been approved by the police department. However, I have some reservations in approving the permit for live entertainment. The last public hearing for this tavern caused residents living near the tavern to object to the noise generated from the tavern. Some of these residents were specifically concerned with the use of live entertainment within the tavern° However, during the operation of the tavern under the previous owners only one noise complaint was received by the police department. I feel that Mr. Hilstrom should be required to operate within the requested use of his entertainment license. The stated use is for a guitar player and singer. If Mr. Hilstrom wishes to go beyond this use, and bring in other forms of live entertainment, then he should be required to file additional information with the City Of Mound. Should the noise get out of hand at the tavern, I feel that the noise ordinance is an appropriate tool to use to get Mr. Hilstrom to reduce the noise level. I don't expect to have any problems with noise from the tavern. CITY OF.MOUND Mound, Minnesota NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF "ON AND OFF SALE BEER LICENSES" NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT on Tuesday, May 3, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. at t'he City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, a public hearing will be held to consider the issuance of "On and Off Sale Beer Licenses" to Robert Hilstrom DBA Three Points Tavern, 5098 Three Points Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota, described as: Lots 12, 13, ]4 and 15, Block 2, Dreamwood. PropertY identi- fication numbers are: 13-117-24 12 OO19/0020/O02i and 0022. All persons appearing at said hearing will be given an oppor- tunity to be h'eard. Fr~an~ene C-. Ci~rk, City Clerk Annubl Fee $200.00 ON SALE $25.00 OF'F .SA~_~ CIT~ OF MOUND '5341Maywood Road Mound, MinneSota 55364 Date of Applicant Name: (Owner/Manager) APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL NON-INTOXICATI'NG MALT LIQUOR Application qil ~,l~ ~ I (First) (Middle) License Period: May 1 through April 30 of the fol 1 ow j.l~.g,~¥~a~ ........... ~ ..... !. '--, 12o ii APR 1'4 1983 ._'. :_ _'_2[. Original: .~ Renewal:~ (L~st) Applicant Date of Birth: Home Telephone No.: ~- ~~ Social First) - iddle) Drivers Lic. No.: City: D~O ~ ~' Zip: ~' Se rity -¥g / 'Compan~ Telephone No.: /~/7;;2-~-~ ~' City: ~0 u, ~ Zip: ~'~3~.gJ (Last) (D~te/of Birth) e (First) (Middle) (Last) (Date of Birth) Type of Business (Fi rst) (Middle) (Last) (Date of Birth) References: (List three - name and address of. each) Indicate whether you sold $10,000 or more of non-intoxicating malt liquor or wine in pre- vious year: Yes: No: All aopli'cants' are to ftle a copy of'the proof of insurance ~'ith the Commissioner of'Publi,~ S~fety'(Minn.'Stat., Sec. 340.11, Subd. 2i). ~ECTION 32.03. ~pplication for License.. All applications for any license to( sell non-intor~cating malt liquor: sha]_l be made on for~,s to be suppt~ed by the City setting forth the name of the person asking for such license~ his age, representations as to his chara'cter vi%h such references as may be reouired, his citizenship~ the location %.~ere such business is to be carried on, whether such application is for "on sale" or "off sales", the business in connection with ~ich the proposed license will operate, whether applicant is owner and operator of such business, the time such appl. icant bas been i~ that business at that place, and such other information as the governing body may reqoire from time to t~me. It sba]_l be unla~.~ul to make a false statement in an application. 8/22/197~' (Ord. 32 - b~/1933.- Ord. 322 - . q/q Department Approval/Denial (Submit memo if denied) Approved Den;~ Police Dept. Administrative Street Dept. Bldg..Dept. F~re Dept. Water & Sewer ~ept. INTEROFFICE MEMO r FROM: SUBJECT: Chief Bruce Wold f/~ /f 11;~3-"- DATE Feb~mry. 2R Sgt. William M. ~ Background Investigation on-Robert Charles Hilstrom, dob: 02-02-43 Based on information supplied on above applicant, a preliminary back- ground check was conducted and party was found to be clear of any apparent criminal record. ! I I I I I CASE NO. ~3-114 (Revised) CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota lanning Commission Agenda of April 25, 1983. Board or.Appeals Case No. 83-114 Location: 3343 Warner Lane Legal Desc.: Lot 59, Whipple Shores Request: Variance Zoning District: R-I Applicant William D. Winter' 3343 Warner Lane Mound, MN. 55364 Phone: 831-6656 The app]icant'has submitted revised plans dated April 18, 1983 indicatinq a sideyard setback of lO.feet on the north and 4 feet on the south side. The one story kitchen and deck addition wo°ld continue at the same 4 feet side yard as the existing struc- .ture. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 23.604.5(3), lots of record for the R-1 Zoning District, the side yards shall be a minimum of 10 feet and one side yard (Lot width 40 to less than 80) may be 6 feet. Section 23.604.5(2) requires a lot width of 60 feet. The other zoning requirements for area, lakeshore, and street front have been met. This structure is situated on a crest of a hill which falls off to the street and lakeshore. The. applicant will have difficulty placing a garaqe on the.site and maintain a driveway slope of 15~ maximum. The house to the south has cut into the lot with his garage and has a substantial retaining wall along his driveway. The Planni'ng Commi'ssion tabled the request from the'March 28, 1983 meeting to have the owner revi'se hl's request. Planning Commi]ss.i]on Mi'nute~ p~ Apr!l 25th-meeting: 2. Case No. 83-114 Variance Request for 3343 Warner Lane Lot 59, Whipple Shores Architect Bob Egge and Mrs, Wi'nter were present. The Building 0ff~ctal explained that a revtsed plan has been submitted; they have relocated the garage [2 story add~tton~ from where ~t was on the first pro- posal and now garage addition w~ll be 10 feet from the north property line and meets the setbacks. Previously structure was proposed at 4 feet to north prop- erty line. The request is now wi'th the exi'sti'ng:home on the south side to continue the line on the exi'stin9 ki'tchen out te add a 9 foot extension of the non-conforming 4 foot si'de.yard. Instead of the requi'red 6 foot sideyard, they'd like a 2 foot variance on south si'deyard Discussed steps to the deck; Chairman felt they should be pulled back and the Architect stated that would be no problem. Chairman asked about the 15© slope for drive; Architect stated there would be a nominally level 23 or 24 feet in front of garage. Commission asked if neighbors had seen the revised plan. Mrs. Winter responded that they had and they were much happier with the revised plan. Reese moved and Jensen seconded a motion to recommend accepting the plan and granting the variance. The Yore was unanimously in favor. be on the City Council Agenda of May 3rd. This item will i ~i". /C 7 ?~'- ~ ii CITY OF MOUND Ul ~OFUOUNeI (P1ease type the fo,,o, ing information) Application NJ. / Fee Paid 3~".oo Date Filed 2-25-83 l. Street Address of Property 3343 Warner Lane e Legal DesCription of Property: Addition Lot 59, Whipple Shores Owner's Name William D. Winter Address 3343 Warner Lane, Mound,-Minnesota Block PID No. 25-117-24 21 O128 Plat 37990 Parcel 6200 Day Phone No. 831-6656 4. Applicant (if other than owner): Name Day Phone No. Address 5. Type of Request: e (X) Variance.. ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other *If other, specify:.. Present Zoning District R-1 Existing Use(s) of Property. Private residence Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? No If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, actidn 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. I consent to the entry 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 b~ required by law. Signature of App1 icant~& _^~~,~ (~~~. Date Planning Commission Recommendation: Date Council Action: · Resolution No. ~/82 Date Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case # 8R-11h D0 Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional -information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff' and applicable Sectlons of .the Zoning Ordinance. I!1. Request for a Zoning Variance A. All information below, a slte 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 alljuse regulatlons for the zone district In which It ls located? Yes (~ No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Ce Do the existing structures co~ply with all area helght~and bulk regulations for the zone district In which It is.located? Yes If "no", specify each non-conforming use: O. Which unique physical characterlstlcs of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of 'the uses.permitted'in that zoning district? (V~ Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too small ( ) Drainage. ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) 'Other: Specify: The lot is too narrow to permit the addition'of a garage that will "fit" with the plan ot the exlsttng structure· E. 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 o~ a road? Yes (V~ No '( ) If yes, explain: G.. Are the conditions of hardship for'which, you request a variance peculiar only to the property described In this petition? Yes (If~) No ( ) If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? H. ~/hat is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that will permit you. to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, slte plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets,.~if necessar, y'.) ._~duce the sie yard setbacks to Zt feet on both si'des in lieu of 6 feet and lO feet·) · . · ~~: 3uuLl, 51d: ~Ul I'CIIL'~ CAI~L~ ~ I. Wi~ ~ :~J~g'"~f~-~"~'l'~'~e'b'e~''~at'e'~l-aT]y' d~r'j~'e~tal to property in the ~ same zone~, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? No, Refer to attached letters from adjacent property owners. CASE NO. 83-114 GRIS~v~FOLD AND RAUMA , ARCHITECTS March 15, 1983 City of Mound 5341Maywood Mound, Minnesota 55364 Attention: Jan Bertrand Refe fence: Proposed Addition to William Winter Residence Lot 59, Whipple Shores Jan: Enclosed you will find 10 copies each of the site plan,'basement floor plan, first'floor plan and second floor plan for this project. Hopefully, this material will help explain the reasons for the variance that is being requested. You will note that the proposed addition includes a new entry and entry hall that aligns with the existing entry on the first floor. We have preserved this entry alignment because a shift southward would conflict with an existing bathroom and a shift northward would be counter productive with respect to the north side setback. South of the entry hall we propose an expansion of the existing kitchen which extends the alignment of the south exterior wail in a easterly direction. Thus the kitchen expansion continues the existing 4'-O set- back on the south side. North of the entry hall we propose a double garage that is 22' wide. Thus the garage construction establishes a 4"-O setback on the north side. The second floor plan is self explanatory. Suffice to say that we are developing the full north-south width of the first floor and attempting to maximize view to the lake. Prior to selecting this scheme, we considered several altern'atives. However, a combination-of the plan of the existing house, the desire not to compromise lake views on the west, and the topography on the east dictated that this was the best arrangement. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the City grant the necessary variance. Please call me if you have any questions. ROBERT G. EGGE ~.~ ~ --~ cc: Mr. Bill Winter OAV~O ~. GR~SWOt. O A,A ~O~1~. RAUM~ ~A ~JACKSON W. (~R~$WOLO A~A ROBERT ~. E~GE A~,a CALVIN M. Or. iON A~A 7~0 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH NINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5540~:~ 838-3071 CASE NO. 83-114 To: Planning and Zoning Commission City of Mound We, the undersigned, have examined the Plan~ for 3343 Warner Lane, Mound, submitted by William D. Winter and Griswald and Rauma, architects,~add haye no objections to the construction of the planned addition. We encourage the planning commission to approve the variance as soon as possible. 0 CASE 83- 14 9 ~ ~tOSQNIN~ ~ Y' g ONo~n~to '¢ 19 qtt-~8 PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 83-114 RESOLUTION NO. 83- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A 2 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AS REQUESTED FOR LOT 59, WHIPPLE SHORES (3343 WARNER LANE) WHEREAS, the Owner, William D. Winter,.of the property described as Lot 59, Whipple Shores, PI~D.25-117-24 21 0128, has applied for a building setback variance of 2 feet from the south lot line to construct an addition onto the existing one story' ki'tchen portion of his home plus a two story addition with garage, and WHEREAS, Pursuant to the Zoning Ordi"nanCe~ Section 23.604.5(3)~ lots of record for the R-1 Zoning District, [he side yards shall be a minimum of 10 feet and one side yard may.be 6 feet (lot Widths of 40 to less than 80 feet), and WHEREAS., the zoning Ordinance Section 23~604~5(2) requireSa lot width of 60 feet and the existing.lot is 50 feet wide,' an'd WHEREAs, the Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended approval of this vari- ance, due to topography and narrowness of the lot, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIl OF THE.CITy OF MOUND~ MINNESOTA: That the City'Council does hereby concur with the Planning Commission recom- mendation to.approve a,two foot sideyard setback variance for Lot 59, Whipple Shores.(3.343 Warner Lane) to allow an extension of the existing ~ne story kitchen to be extended to the'~ast nine'feet along the south. ]or llne. CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Case 83-122 Planning Commission Agenda of April 25, 1983: Board of Appeals Case No. 83-122 Location - 4555 Manchester Road Legal Desc.: Lots 16 and 17, Block 14, Avalon Request: Variance Zoning District: Applicant: Terrance A. Nelson 4555 Manchester Road Mound, MN. Phone: 929-0647 The applicant has requested a variance to place an attached 24 foot by 24 foot garage 3 feet to the west property llne, adjacent to a 26.6 foot driveway easement, and 9 feet to the rear lot line. He has approximately 25 feet to his west lot line. He intends to face the garage doors west, to the side lot line. Pursuant to the R-3 Zoning District' Section 23.610.5(2) and (3), the side yards required is 6 feet and I0 feet. The request is for a 3 foot to the west and it is 15 feet on the east si'de. The rear yard required is 15 feet. The request is for a 9 foot setback to the rear lot line. I have requested he submit a new survey of the property as the survey the City has on file does not show his actual west boundary l~ne.' It was surveyed in 1977 to include the Easterly 26.6 feet of Lot 15. Recommend: i would recommend to grant the variance due to topography of the lot and locations of existing utilities. The abutting neighbors have been notified. Jan Bertrand Building Official JB/ms CASE NO., 83-122 Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1983 - Page 2 3. 'Case No[ 83-122 Variance'Request for 4555 Manchester Road Lots 16 and 17, Block 14, Avalon Terrance Nelson Was present. The Building Inspector explained that applicant is requesting'a side yard and rear yard variance to place an a~tached garage~ feet fro~ ~he ~lde property line and 9 feet from the rear property line,an~s-asking~ecoqnition of the road access easement as part of this property for driveway purposes..· The' neighbor behind applicant f.r°nt~on'Cumberland really doesn't have road access to Cumberland so when that home was put in,. it took access from Manchester and the 26.6 foot easement.:(part of Lot .15) is shared by the. two homes'for driveway and is dedicated as part of the deeds;.' [Requlred'.-slde yard for'lot of record is 6') · Applicant iS requesting ~hat he be allowed to place'the garage with doors facing west 3 feet from his property .line toward the driveway access. Variances needed· would be a '3 foot side yard and 6 foot rear yard. · Byrnes moved and Reese seconded a motion to recommend.g'~anting applicant the '.~ foot side yard variance and a.6 foot rear yard ~ariance.due to.the, topo- graphy and the easement on' Lot 15 for driveway purposes and with the further stipulation that a survey be furnished before issuing a building pArmit. The vote was unanimously in favor. This item will be on the May 3rd Cbuncil. Legal Descriptipn of Property: Lot #16 & 17 Fee Paid___~ Date Filed ~-/~. ~ Block #14. "Avalon" Addi tion ...... ~~ Owner's Name Lawrence Segn~r Address 8608 Park 'Ave. St. Bonifacius~ Mn. Applicant (if other than owner): PID No. 17-/17-23 31 .Day Phone NO. ,446-1228' 5537~ Name TerrsneP. A_. NelsoD .... - · Address 4555 M~nche'.~tP.~ Rd, Type. of Request: (X) Variance ( ( Mound ~, Mn. 55564 Day .Phone No~__~29-06~_.~.¥~) ( ) Conditi6nal Use Permit Zoning Interpretation & Aeview Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. \ ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other *If other, specify: . .. ~ )resent Zoning Distr.ict ~r~,ly ' ' ' 7. Existing Use(s) of Property Single Dwelling .-' 8. Nas an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for thls property?/9-J_~)-~ if so, .list date(s) of list/ date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.~s) Copies of previous resolutions sha~ accom~ny present request. - I certify that all'of the above statements and the statements contained in any required p~pers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the eh.try or upon the premises described in ·this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound foK the' purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining ~nd re~vlng such notices as may be required by l~w. ............ Signature of Applicant' Planning Commission Recommendation: Date Council Action: Re~olution No. Date Request fo~ Zonipg Variance Procedure (.2) Case # $3-122 D. Location of: Signs, easements~ underground utilities, 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. II!. Request for a Zoning Variance A. All.information below, a site plan,.as described in Part I!, and general application must be provided before a hearing.will be sCheduled. B. Does.the present'use of. the property'conform to all use regulations for the zone dlstrict in which it.is, located? Yes ("X') No ( )' If !'no't, specify each n~n-conforming use: i, Do-.the existing 'structures comply, with all'area height and'bulk.regulations for the zone district in'which i't Is.located7 Yes ~').No ' ( ) ...... If !'no!', specify each non-conforming use: D..Which unique physical characteristics of the subject propert~ prevent .its reasonable use for any of the uses .permitted in that zoning district? I! .Too narrov~ (.)Topography () Soil ) Too. small '- ( ) Drainage.. ( ) SUb-surface (/~') Too shal'low (.) Shape- ( ) Other: Specify: Was ~he hardship described abOVe'created'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 createa 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 pecul, iar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (/Y) No ( ) If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? What is the ~'minimumt~ 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 Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to'property in the same zone, or to the enf. orcem~nt of this ordinance? TO: SUBJECT: THE CITY OF MOUND REQUEST FOR ZONING VARIANCE FROM: PART III QUESTION H The minimum size garage that would be practical for me has the dimensions in the site plan provided. The reason I have applied for a variance is because of the normally required distance between the proposed garage and the property lines. The normally required distance on the side of the garage to property line is six (6) feet. The normally required distance from back of garage to property line is fifteen (15) feet. Since the distance to property line on the side and rear of proposed garage is less than normally required, a variance must be approved for a Building Permit to be issued. !Ramsey Minnesotn of the ~ret ~ ~ Car~ J. O~spez'hff and Snndra 1,. Gas~ec~ni, husband and'wl[~]-' ........................................................ 2 ................... , of th, D .,WIT~$S~TH, ~. the sat4 ~r~!~_of.t~e firp~ part, in co~ra~i~ of th, ~m o/__9ne ottat' ($~'.uv)nnt~ other vatuaote consrueratton ........... to_~.~...in hand ~ b~ the sa~ ~rties o/the second part, the receipt whereol ~ h~reb~ edged, do ..... h~b~ ~ant, B~rgain, 8cE, a~ Conv~ unto the said parties of the second ~ tennis and not as t~nts ~n c~n~n, thor ~dg~, the sur~vor o/said parties, and the h~ra ~i;ns oLihe ~rEivor, Forayer, dt the tract ..... or pared ..... o/land l~in~ a~ bein~ in th~ Count~ All of ~ots ten (10) and e~even (11): Lot twelve (12), except the Westerly thirteen'and forty-hundredths (W'Iy 13.40) feet of the Northerly thirty-five - (N'ly 35) feet thereof; and the Easterly twenty-six and sixty-hundredths (E'ly 25.50) feet of Lot fifteen (15), ail tn Block fourteen (14), Avalon, CttyofMound,, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds' in and for Hennepin County, Mt~esota. Mubject to an easement for driveway purposes over the Easterly twenty-s[~ nd sixty-hundredths '(E'iy 25. ~0) feet of Lot Fifteen (15) in favor of the owners f Lots Sixteen (1~) and Seventeen (17),: Block Fourteen (14), A~aton, City of o~nd. - , I TO HAVE AND T° HOLD THE SAME, Together with ail tbs hereditaments and thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, to the said parties o! the ~econd pa~, thdr ass{o~, survivor o/said pa~i~s, a~ the kdrs a~ ~ssig~ o/the ml~ivo.r, Forever, the said pa~ies of part takqng ~ joint I~nia and not ~.t~nanta in common. covenant with the ~aid ~rties o/th~ ~ec~d pa~, thdr ~ig~, the ~iuor o/said panics, and the h~irr and assigns o~ the ~ivor, t~t._~.~ff~._we~ seized in [~ o[ th~ lands and ~em~es aforesa~ and ha_Y~_~ood ~ght to sell and c~vey the same in manner and [o~ aforesaid, and t~t the sam~ ar~ /tee /rom all in~mbranc~, excepting and reserving to the State of Minnesota minerals and mineral rights tn and to said land. And the above bargained and granted lands and prrmi.ges, in the quiet and peaceable possesrion of tbs zaid parties o! the second part, their ~signs, the ~urvlvor o/said parties, and thc h~rs and ~Mg~ of th. ~rvivor, against all p~s~s ~w/uHy c~imin~ or to claim the. whole or any part thoro/, ~bject to in- ~mbrances, i/ any, herdnbe/or~ mentioned, the said part3~___o[ th~ first pa~ will Wa~ant and De/~d. 1N TESTIMONF WHEREOF, Th~ said va~g___ol th~ first part ~_YY__her~nto ~nd.E__the ~y and'year first abow w~tten. "e e ~ ~.~%- -Ct ' ~ ~- ................. ff ..... '\ El 9 ~[-[g 'ON a~ ,~ )t:31M~N PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 83-122 RESOLUTION NO. 83- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOM- MENDATION TO APPROVE A 6 FOOT REAR YARD AND A 7 FOOT SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE AS REQUESTED FOR LOTS 16 & 17, BLOCK 14, AVALON (4555 Manchester Road) WHEREAS, the applicant, Terrance A. Nelson, has requested for the owner, Lawrence Segner, of the property described as Lots 16 and 17, Block 14, Avalon, PID 19-117-23 31 0099, for a building setback variance of 6 feet to the rear property line and 3 feet to the side property line to allow con- struction of an attached 24 by 22 foot garage with the doors facing a 26.6 foot private driveway easement to the west of the property, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the R-3 Zoning District, Section 23.610.5(2) and (3), the side yards required are 6 and IO feet and the request is for 3 feet and 15 feet; the rear yard required is 15 feet and the request is for 9 feet to the rear lot line, and WHEREAS, the Planning'Commission has reviewed the request and recommends approval of the variances due to topography and the 26.6 foot shared driveway access by the two (2) property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the City Council does hereby concur with the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the 6 foot rear yard and 3 foot side yard variance as requested for Lots 16 and 17, Block 14, Avalon (4555 Man- chester Road). CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP AND ON THE APPLICATION FOR A CON- DITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 3 UNIT TOWNHOUSE AND' 2 UNIT TWINHOME NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN tha~ on Tuesday, May 17, 1983 at 7:30 P.M. at the Mound City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, the City Council will hold a hearlhg on the proposal to amend the Zoning Map, Mound Code of Ordinances, by removing from the Cen[ral Business District (B-l) and adding to the Multi-Family Residential District (R-4), the following described property: Lots 24,.25, 26 and 27, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit "F" in the City of Mound (PID 13-117-24 34 0046/0047/0048/0049) Location: Northwest corner of Wilshire Boulevard and Maywood Road. A hearing will also be held on the application for a Condition- al Use Permit for a 3 unit townhouse and a 2 uni't twinhome on the same site described above. All persons appearing at said hearing will be given an oppor- tunity to be heard. ~rancene C, Clar--k, City Cl~rk. April 29, 1983 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER Earlier this Spring we accepted the quotation from Hanson Pump Co. for a replacement pump in the lift station on Sunset Road. After that, Hanson Pump ran into financial difficulties and found itself unable to deliver on their quotation. Since then we resolicited quotations and have two: Waldor Pump $8,036.00 Tri'-State Drilling $9,272.00 I recommend acceptance of the Waldor Pump quotation. JE:fc WALDOR PUMP & EQUIPMENT CO. 9700 HUMBOLDT AVE. SO. M I N N EAPOLIS, M N. 55431 PHONE (612) 884-53~14 April 18, 1983 City of Mound Public Works Department City Hall 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Attn: Greg Skinner Subject: Lift Station A3 Dear Greg: Due to unfortunate circumstances involving Hanson Pump, we would like to submit the following equipment in lieu of the ABS products. Rob Wright has urged me to complete this job using his control panel supplier and other sub-contractors. Our equipment would be as manufactured by Flygt Corporation and will carry a five-year warranty. The equipment and labor breaks down as follows: QTY (2) Flygt model CP 3085, 230V,3 phase, capable of pumping 100 gpm at 33' TDH including discharge elbows and accessories.~ QTY (4) ENH-10 floats QTY (1) Cable rack QTY (4) 2" galvanized guide bars QTY (2) QTY (1) Flygt HDL 4" ball check valves 3 HP, 230V, 3 phase, duplex control panel as manufactured by Powertronics to be a duplidate to your existing station panel. ITEM: ITEM: Labor of installation to mount equipment using the city's quarter turn gate valves and some existing piping. Labor and materials to sandblast and paint interior of station with coal/tar epoxy paint. ITEM: Installation of electrical control panel. ITEM: One year warranty 6n panel and 5 year warranty on pumping equipment. DISTRIBUTORS OF PUMPS · COMPRESSORS · ELECTRICAL CONTROLS & INSTRUMENTATION· WATER & WASTEWATER TREATMENT EQUIPMENT Mr. Greg Skinner April 18, 1983 Page 2 ITEM: NOTE: NOTE: Start up City has all responsibility for the by-pass pumping of the station during the construction period. The existing equipment will be returned to the City. TOTAL DELIVERED PRICE OF EQUIPMENT INSTALLED: $8,036.00 F.O.B. factory with full freight allowed. Terms are net 30 days and price is firm for 30 days. Delivery is 4 to 6 weeks after receipt of order. No taxes are included. This quotation is made under the standard terms and conditions of Waldor Pump, a copy of which is attached. Thank you for the opportunity of quoting. We hope'we may be of further service. Sincerely, WALDOR PUMP & EQUIPMENT COMPANY Pete Reardon . Service Manager pr/la attach. 737 1'0: QUOTATION PUMP DIVISION ~ DRIWNG AND EOUIPME~ C0. 16940 HWY. 55 WEST · PLYMOUTH, MN · (612) 553-1234 * MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 252 * HAMEL, MN CITY OF MOUND Attn.: Mr. Crag Sk~nne~ 5~41Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55~64 PROJECT: Renovation of air ejector type DATE OF QUOTE April~11' Lift Station to Hydr-O-Matic Submersible type - 220 volt - ~ phase DATE OF BID OPENING. SPEC. REF. AKCHT./ENGR.. City Gentlemen: With refe,ence to the Subject Project. we are pleased to present for your consideration our proposal for furnishln: the followin! QTY. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE EXT£N$|O Lift Station A~ - 100 GPM Q~]' Furnishin9 of Pumps & Controls includes: 2 Ea. Hydr-0-Matic S4N]00 - ] H.P. 230/~ phase *Note 1 Ea. Duplex Control -Nema 3R - Pole Mount with running time meters condensation protective heaters and thermostat, hi-water alarm and lexan 100 watt red light, duplex outlet, 4 , mercury floats and hanger. Standard 2 pump alternator and overload protection. Your price F.O.B. Mound $5,~58.0( 1 Lot Labor to install pumps, coat interior of pump chamber With coaI-tar epoxy, electrical installations (not including trenching) I Set Piping for above installation - includes 2 Gray BCV - 4" Ball Check Valves 4 2" Galvanized guide bars .. I 4" CI Elbom ~ 15 Sets of nuts, bolts & gaskets I Lot misc. uniflanges and spacers to fit City to provide - 2 or 3, 4" plug-valves, I - 4. elbow, ' .~-- I - 4" tee - to be salvaged from present station. ~' Your p~ice F.O.B. Mound ~,914.0( *Note These pumps are in our inventory and are less .. ~~ expensive than the explosion p~oof S4NX~00 prevtOusl7 q~otsd. · _~ .. Very truly yours, T~6~A TE P UM ~,.~& T~E s t enso~ P.S.: Our last quotation was based'O,~ special pricin9 we recaived from suppliers on October 1~81. This price reflects 3 small increases electrical & mechanical cos, sin then. CITY of MOUND April 27, 1983 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY CLERK RE: TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE CITY SHOULD APPLY FOR CONVEYANCE The following property is needed for park, wetlands, drainage or storm sewer. The City should apply to have this property conveyed to it by the State. C__~PID # 13-117-24 ll 0068 13-117-24 31 0038 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 14, Block 20, Shadywood Point 13-117-24 31 0039 13-117-24 31 0042 t/' 13-117-24 32 OlO0 13-117-24 12 O170 23-117-24 23 0060 ~ 23-117-24 32 0055 ~23-117-24 42 0070 That pt. lying NEiy. of SWly. IO' of Lot 12, Block 6, Abraham Lincoln Addi- tion to Mound Lot 13, Block 6, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Mound That pt. lying NEly. of SWly. lO' of Lot 22, Block 6, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Mound Lot 33, Block 6, A.L. Crocker's Lake- side Park Lot 18, Block 9, Woodland Point Outlot.A, Woodcrest of Mound Outlot B, Woodcrest of Mound That part lying Wly. of Ely. 12' of Lot 9, Block 5, Minn. Baptist Summer Assembly ~4-117-24 11 0008 Lots 4, 5, & 6, Block 5, Seton .... ~ .... ...... tiff ....... ~ ._,. ~ , - ~/25-117-24 12 0197 That part of Lot 6, Block 28, lying N of S 15' thereof, Whipple Maps are attached showing these properties. the above conveyed to the City. STATUS Drainage of Storm Sewer Storm Sewer Storm Sewer Storm Sewer Part of Belmont Tot Lot - Keep for Park Wetlands Wetlands, Storm Sewer Wetlands, Storm Sewer Wetlands, Marsh Wetlands Wetlands We need a resolution to have fc · ~ V"l IVCl3'~ ~N0~38~ OOOMS$ NI::1 ??,,?.. '/% .( - '~Y (:,~,'ZL~Z- g..Zl;; #o, 1£ O00M'I3Z~ Z punol~l Jo .~ j. I=. z I NOIHDi~8 NOA~]O *ON el. 0 - A~NS×O~ -I CITY of MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 April 27, 1983 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY CLERK RE: TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY WHICH SHOULD ONLY BE SOLD TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS The following property should only be sold to adjoining property owners because it is unbuildable for various reasons, i.e. not enough square footage, etc. PID # LEGAL DESCRIPTION ~d'3-117-24 ll 0091 Lot 9, Block 24, Shadywood Point 19-117-23 32 0150 Lot 5, Block 14, Wychwood J19-117-23 33 0072 ~/~3-117-24 41 0014 -~3-117-24 31 0027 '~23-117-24 31 0044 ~/23-117-24 34 0060 v//~3-117-24 42 0089 ~24-117-24 41 0085 ,~24-117-24 44 0076 Lot 4, Block 9, Pembroke Lot 12, Block lO, The Highlands Lot 14, Block 11, The Highlands Lot 15, Block 12, The Highlands Part of Lots 14 & 15, Block 16, The Highlands Lot 6, Block 9, Minn. Baptist Summer Assembly Lot 3, Block 27, Wychwood Lot 6, Block 7, Arden STATUS Lack of square footage, unbuildable Lack of square footage, unbuildable Lack of square foota~- unbuildable Lack of square footage, unbuildable Lack of square footage, unbuildable Lack of square footage, unbuildable Lack of square footage, unbuildable Lack of square footage, unbuildable Lack of square footage, unbu|ldable Lack of square footage, unbuildable Maps are attached showing these properties. We need a resolution that these lots only be sold to adjoining property owners. fc May 3, 1983 RESOLUTION NO. 83-76 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COUNTY BOARD TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE SALE OF CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS AND TO RESTRICT THE SALE TO OWNERS OF ADJOINING LANDS WHEREAS, the City of Mound has been informed by the Department of Property Taxation of Hennepin County that certain lands within the City have been forfeited for non-payment of real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has a number of tax parcels which do not comply with the City's zoning ordinance and building codes because of a lack of minimum size, shape, frontage, access problems, or the parcels contain nuisances or dangerous conditions which are adverse to the health, safety and general welfare of residents of this City; and WHEREAS, the City was instrumental in obtaining legislation which would allow said parcels to be withheld from public-sale and sold at a negotiated sale to eliminate nuisances and dangerous conditions and to increase compliance with land use ordinances and Minnesota Laws of 1982, Chapter 523, Article 39, Sec. 6 was adopted to provide said authority to the City and the County; and WHEREAS, a specific list of tax forfeited lands has been provided the City and the City wishes to restrict and condition the sale of certain lands to bring them into conformance with the City ordinances and land use goals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Mound, Minnesota: 1. The County Board is hereby requested to impose conditions on the sale of the following described lands, and is further requested to sell such lands only to owners of lands adjoining at a non-public sale so that said lands will be combined for tax and land use purposes and will comply with City ordinances and regulations: REASONS FOR AND CONDITIONS TO BE PARCEL (PID #) IMPOSED 13-117-24 11 0091 Undersized lot to be sold only to and com- bined with adjoining properties SPECIALS BEFORE FORFEITURE LEVY # AMOUNT SPECIALS LEVIED SINCE FORFEITURE LEVY # AMOUNT May 3, 1983 PARCEL (PID #) REASONS FOR AND CONDITIONS TO BE IMPOSED SPECIALS BEFORE FORFEITURE LEVY # AMOUNT SPECIALS LEVIED SINCE FORFEITURE LEVY # AMOUNT 0 -% " 0 ~ N o ..04,, 0 .:. N I I aA'l!' Z 0 I-- LIJ NO^DO NOJ. HDI~i(~ N -.%. II 'ON April 27, 1983 CITY of MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO:', CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY CLERK RE: TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY THAT CAN BE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION The following parcels are bui'ldable lots and should be sold at public auction. PIDi# LEGAL DESCRIPTION STATUS 24o117-24 44 0074 Lot 4, Block 7, Arden Buildable (with variance in lot width), 8443 square feet R-2 Zoning (6000 square feet) 25-117-24 12 0109 Lots 1 & 2, Block 14, Whipple Buildable, 6400 square feet R-2 Zoning (6000 square ',~t) Maps are attached showing these properties. We need a resolution allowing these properties to be sold at public auction. fc NOZH91~8 NOA'~O ,' · : ~ - i",, I J I° .,4 '~. I I' i__- ,, - "J I N~0809 McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS April 26, 1983 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Subject: Mound, Minnesota Halsted Avenue Proposed Street Improvements #6792 Dear Mayor & Councilmembers, As requested we have investigated the upgrading of 150 feet of Halsted Avenue which lies in the very westerly portion of the City. This is the sec- tion which can only be reached by going thru Minnetrista. A few years back Minnetrista upgraded their portion with bituminous and a small amount of bitum- inous curb. The storm water is handled by ditches and metal culverts. We are suggesting three alternatives for upgrading this section of Halsted Avenue. Alternate No. i would involve minimum grading and only a bituminous mat ap- proximately 20' wide to match the existing Minnetrista paving with no curb or storm sewer. The existing ditch on the north side should be cleaned and reshaped at the same time. The proposed construction for this alternate would not proceed past the termination of Halsted Avenue right-of-way. The second alternate would carry Alternate i a step farther. The existing turn around at the end appears to be on private property but the City could ac- quire an easement and also include it in the improvements. We would suggest a minimum 40' radius cul-de-sac built to drain pretty much the same as it now does. Without first acquiring the land or an easement, we feel it would be impossible for the City to do any improvements beyond Lot 17, Halsted Park. Since the City has previously investigated extending access to the area east of the turn around, this may be a good time to look at it again as Alt. 3. As you will note from the drawing a section of dedicated right-of-way al- ready exists to the east in Halsted View. The property on both sides of this right-of-way, Lots 3 & 4, Block i and Lot l, Block 2 is tax forfeit land at this time. A cul-de-sac could be constructed as shown on the attached drawing. This would leave approximately 133 feet across lots i thru 5, Halsted Heights which would have to be acquired in order to connect the existing street to the proposed cul-de-sac. Enclosed are the cost estimates for all three alternates. The estimates do not include any expense whic~ may be incurred in obtaining easements or owner- ship of the property necessary for the extension past the present right-of-way as suggested in Alternates No. 2 & 3. printed on recycled paper With this extension of Halsted Avenue a number of choice building sites would be created, including a minimtm of 2 and possibly 3 on the state owned land. Sanitary sewer and water already exists within the limits of the pro- posed road. There are a number of methods that could be used to assess the cost of this project. For discussion purposes we will show the proposed assessment using the current policy which combines area, footage, and unit charges. btheeaY using this procedure the assessment for Alternate No. i against each of 3 lots, fronting on Halsted Avenue, Lots 15, 16 and 17, Halsted Park, would approximately $1,650.00. The 33 foot right-of-way width at the end of Halsted Heights was included, along with the unit charge for an assessment on this property of approximately $900.00. The north side of the right-of-way was not included since thi~property is in Minnetrista. __ For Alternate 2 we are proposing that Lots 15, 16 & 17 pay the equivalent cost of Alternate No. i which would be $1,950 each. The City would pay 15% of the total project which would leave approximately $5,730 to be assessed against the parcel containing the cul-de-sac, Lots l, 2 and 3, Halsted Heights. The assessment for Alternate No. 3 becomes a bit more complicated. We would suggest that the greater portion be placed against the state owned land since this alternate would give this property access and therefore make it much more valuabe then it is now. Each of the possible building sites created, ex- cept for the state land, be assessed 2 unit charges plus footage and area using the same dollar figures as Alternate 2. Lots 15, 16 & 17 would be charged $1,950.00 or the same as in Alternate No. 2. We have assumed that 9 new par- cels would be created including the three on state land. If this were the case the three parcels on state land would be paying approximately $8,700.00 each whereas the .other 6 would be assessed approximately $2,535.00 each. It is the opinion of the Engineer that the proposed improvement is feasible and can best be accomplished as described herein. Sincerely, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. William H. McCombs, P.E. President ORC:WHM:j printed on recycled paper II I - -/- - I ........ :..~'-,;~ ~, ' ~ ~ '~ ~ c ~ ". ~' ~ ,~' JtJ~/ ' ~ ~ ,' , ~ · ~ ~ ... . ,,~ ,,,,~ ~ ~ , ~ , ~ i ~~~.~~~~ - ....,. OMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ MINNEA~LIS a~ HUTCHINSON,MINNESOTA Cost Estimate Alternate No. 1 Common Excavation 3-1/2" Bituminous Base Mn/DOT 2331 l-l/2" Bituminous Wear Mn/DOT 2341 Bituminous Tack Coat Adjust Manhole Adjust Gate Valve Clean North Ditch Restoration Contingencies 50 C.Y. ~ $ 5.00/CY $ 250.00 70 TON ~ $ 28.00/TN 1,960.00 TON ~ $ 32.00/TN 960.00 17 GAL ~ $ 2.00/GA 34.00 2 EACH ~ $150.O0/EA 300.00 i EACH ~ $150.O0/EA 150.00 Lump Sum 300.00 Lump Sum 300.00 426.00 Total Estimated Construction Cost ........................... $4,680.00 Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs ........... $1~170.00 Total Estimated Cost ........................................ $5,850.00 OMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ ~~-- ~~--' Cost Estimate Alternate No. 2 Common Excavation 3-1/2" Bituminous Base Mn/DOT 2331 1-1/2" Bituminous Wear Mn/DOT 2341 Bituminous Tack Coat Adjust Manhole Adjust Gate Valve Clean North Ditch Restoration Contingencies 140 C.Y. ~ $ 5.00/CY $ 700.00 190 TON ~ $ 28.00/TN 5,320.00 80 TON ~ $ 32.00/TN 2,560.00 45 GAL ~ $ 2.00/GA 90.00 2 EACH ~ $150.O0/EA 300.00 i EACH ~ $150.O0/EA 150.00 Lump Sum 300.00 Lump Sum 500.00 980.00 Total Estimated Construction Cost .......................... $10,900.00 Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs .......... $ 2~725.00 Total Estimated Cost ....................................... $13,625.00 OU'R. OT I . f SC~LIr t t · 'Zoo FILE NO. /'"/9'7_ Cost Estimate Alternate No. 3 Common Excavation 3-1/2" Bituminous Base Mn/DOT 2331 l-l/2" Bituminous Wear Mn/DOT 2341 Bituminous Tack Coat Adjust Manhole Rebuild Manhole Adjust Gate Valve Concrete Curb & Gutter 12" RCR Storm Sewer Catchbasins Restoration Extend Sewer Service 1000 C.Y. ~ $ 5.00/CY 300 TON ~ $ 28.00/TN 125 TON ~ $ 32.00/TN 75 GAL $ $ 2.00/GA 3 EACH ~ $150.O0/EA 1 EACH ~ $500.O0/EA i EACH ~ $150.O0/EA 900 L.F. ~ $ 6.00/iF 270 L.F. $ $ 15.00/iF 2 EACH ~ $900.O0/EA Lump Sum 150 L.F. ~ $ 15.00/iF ~ $ iO.O0/LF Extend Water Service 150 L.F. Contingencies Total Estimated Construction Cost ...... Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs.. Total Estimated Cost ............................... $5,000.00 8,400.00 4,000.00 150.00 450.00 500.00 150.00 5,400.00 4,050.00 900.00 1,500.00 2,250.00 1,500.00 3~425.00 ........ $37,675.00 ........ $ 9~425.00 ........ $47,100.00 CITY of MOUND ' ~z~,.: ~ ": '"~ ~"" ' .,. ...... 7' -.._ ~ .'.:: 30 March 1:982 5341 MAYwOoD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA ES2f:-~ (612) 472-1155 TO: FROH: SUBJECT: Jon Elam, City Manager Marjorie Stutsman Lease of City Land for a Garden For several years the Ray Kramer's, 2373 Chateau Lane, have been leasing the City Land by Well # 3 for garden space. Attached is a copy of the letter requesting the land for the l~8~summer. Also attached is a copy of the lease agreement used in previous years. The token fee has been $1.00. --' If the Council wishes to lease thrs garden space again this year, we will need authorization for the Mayor and Manager to enter into the lease agreement. 1480 Westwood Drive Mouna, M~ February 8, 1983 City of Mound City Council 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound., 1~ 55364 Council Members: We respectfully request the continuation of the preli~ABary sub- division approval granted on April 6, 1982, Resolution ~82-84. April 6, 1982 Councilmember Swanson moved the following resolution. RESOLUTION NO 82-84 -- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PREL!M.INARY PLAT OF LOST LAKE ADDITION WHEREAS,' the plat of Lost. Lake Addition. has been'submitted'in the manner required for platting, under Section 22 of. the C.ity Code of the City of Mound and under Section 462 of. the MinnesOta Statutes, and WHEREAS, ~he Planning Commission of the.City of Mound has'reviewed said plat and fOund it to be consistent with the City plan and ordinances of the City of Mound, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT'RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: preliminary Plat Approval Request App].ication, Case #82-.105, Lo'st Lake Addition is approved contingent upon compliance with the following requirements: l. The filing of a revised plat w.ith the City..B~ildJng Officia.l's office exhibiting, a full cul-de-sac, with a radius of 50 feet, including all necessary easements. 2. The filing of a revised plat indicating surface water drainage patterns and proposed street grades. Also. before final plat approval by theCity Council, the Petitioner shall submit to the City Engineer for approval, construct.ion plans which will i'nclude gradlng, streets and utilities, 3. Submission to the City Bu.ilding. Official.of.a letter from the Hennepin County Highway Department documenting the approval of the proposed road access on County Road 125. 4. Submission t° the.City Build.ing Official 'of .results from soil boring tests, conducted on the site. 5. Submission to the City Bui..Iding'Offlcial of.evidence of approval by the. Minnehaha Creek watershed District for the proposed surface water drainage plan and systems.. 6. Furnishing a duly completed and executed performance bond, certified by the City Attorney as valid and enforceable, in the amount of $50,000. to cover (a) installation of grading, gravel and base for streets, (b) paving of streets, (c) installation of concrete curb and gutters, (d) installation of water systems, (e) installation of sanitary sewer systems, (f) insta]lation of storm sewersystems; all in conformance with City approved plans and specifications at the sole expense of the subdivider in conformance with Chapter 22.00 of the City Code. 7. The provision.of a ten (10) foot utility and drainage easement along the front, sides or corner lots, rear of ali lots, and ten (10) feet equally divided between each lot on interior side lot lines. 8. Before building permits for any homes constructed in said subdivision are issued, a certificate signed by a registered engineer must be provided. This certificate will state that April 6, 1982 all final lot and building grades ar'e in conformance to the drainage development plan and minimum floor elevation plans approved by the City. Engineer. 9. PursuaNt. to City of. Mound Resolution No. 72-433, the park dedication and open space requirements for'the subdivision are satisfied. 10. Approval of Title by the City Attorney. II. Failure on the.part of the petitioner to submit a final plant within one year from the date of this approval shall deem the preliminary.approval to be null and void (Section 22.13). 12. Submission to'the Building Official of evidence of approval by PCA and Minnesota Department of Health for sanitary sewer and watermain. 13. Submit street name for proposed plat. 14. An escroW fund of $1,500. (Minus Filing Fees) be established to cover City Engineering, Legal and Administrative Expense. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly-seconded by Councilmember Ulrick and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Charon, Polston, Swenson, Ulrlck and Lindlan; the following voted against the same:' none; whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature.attested by the City Clerk. Attest: City Clerk PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 83- RESOLUTION GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION NO. 82-84 (APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOST LAKE ADDITION) FOR ONE YEAR, UNTIL APRIL 6, 1984 WHEREAS, Resolution 82-84 was approved on April 6, 1982, and WHEREAS, this resolution approved the preliminary plat of the Lost Lake Addition (PID 24-117-24 22 OO18), and WHEREAS, Beachs|de Developers (Earl Nelson and LaVern Veit) have requested an extenSion of this resolution for one year because of current economic conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: Than an extension of one year is hereby granted for Resolution No. 82-84 (Approving the Preliminary Plat of Lost Lake Addition) for one year until April 6, 1984. Cable Television Franchise Ordinance City of Mound Prepared by: Thomas D. Creighton STF~, IAVlNE, ~, LIFSON, CREI6MTON & BUNIN, P.A. 5005 South Cedar Lake Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 Telephone: (612) 377-8620 FINDING~ A~ICLE I. ~ TITLE AND I~FINITIoNs Section 1. Short Title Section 2. Definitions AR~ICIE II. Section 1. Section 2. Section 3. Section 4. Section 5. Section 6. Section 7. Section 8. Section 9. Section 10. GRANT CF AUTHORITY AND GENERAL PIK3;ISI~ Grant of Franchise and Acceptance Authority Granted Agreement Franchise Term Area Police" Powers Use of Grantee Facilities Written Notice Rights of Individuals Certificate of Confirmation ARTICLE III. Section 1. Section 2. Section 3. Section 4. Section 5. DESIG~ CF SYSTEM Channel Capacity-S-Ubscriber Network Picture Quality and Technical Requirements Two-Way Capacity Facilities Special Channel and Access Requirements (i) Pa~e 1 3 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 11 12 12 14 14 14 Section 6. SeCtion 7. Section 8, Section 9. Section 10. Institutional Network Services to Public Buildings and Educational Institutions Interconnect ion Narrowcast~ Regional Channel Page 19 19 22 22 Section 1. Services and Programming Section 2. Interruption of Service and Complaints 2O 21 Section 1. Section 2. Section 3. Section 4. Section 5. Initial Service Area Line Extension Policy Construction Timetable Construction Standards Conditions on Use 23 23 23 25 28 ARTICLE VI. Section 1. Section 2. Section 3. Section 4. Information Availability Service Contract Subscriber Practices Franchise Fees, Rates, Charges, Changes in Fees and Procedures A. Rate Change Procedures B. Franchise Fee C. Rates and Other Charges (ii) 29 3O 31 32 32 33 33 Page Sectic~ 5. D. Rate Changes E. Periodic Reviews, Renegotiation and Technological Update of System Franchise Renewal 34 38 40 VII. (Reserved) 41 ARPI~R VIII. section 1. section 2. Section 3. section 4. section 5. INDEMNIFICATION, INSURANCE, LETTER CF CREDIT AND BGND General Indemnification and Insuranoe Insurance Letter of Credit Bonds 42 42 44 .~ 45 49 AR~ICSE IX. DEFAULT Section 1. Notice and Default 5O ARI~CrR X. Section 1. Section 2. Secti°n 3. FORECLOSURE, RECEIVERSHIP AND ~ Foreclosure Receivership Abandomment 52 52 53 AR~IC[~ XI. PURCHASE OF SYSTEM Section 1. General Section 2. Procedures 53 54 (iii) 97? Page ARTICLE XII. Section 1. Section 2. Section 3. Section 4. Section 5. .Section 6. MISC~.~ANE(TJS Transfer of Ownership or Control Removal After Termination or Revocation Work Performed by Others General Provision on Rights and Remedies Applicable Laws and Court Decisions: Severability Grantee Acknowledgement of Validity of Franchise 57 59 61 61 62 63 AR~ICI/~ )[III. Section 1. Section 2. Section 3. AIlqIN~TION AND ADVISORY BODY Administrator Advisory BOdy Delegation of Authority by City 64 64 64 ~/~TICLE XIV. JOINT SYSTEM, A~, INCORPORATION OF fFFERI/gG, EX~r~ITS, PUBLICATION Section 1. Other Franchises 65 (iv) SYSTEM IN %~HE CITY; SEITING FORTH (I)NDITIONS A(II/~ANYING THE GRANT (F FRAN(/4ISE; PN2UIDING FOR ~TION, AND USE CF ~HE SYSTEM; AND PRESCRIB~ P~ALTr~-~ FOR THE VIOLATION CF ITS PRU~/SI~ The City Council of the City of Mound ordains::" ~. . The City intends, by the adoption of this Franchise, to bring about the development of a Cable Cc~nunications System, and the continued operation of it. Such a development can contribute significantly to the cc~nunication needs and desires of .many. Further,. the City may achieve better utilization 'and improve- ment of public services with the develc~ment and operation of a Cable Communications System. Past studies, participated in by City, have led the way for organizing a means of procuring and securing a Cable Co~m/nications System which, in the judgement of the Council, is best suited to the City. This has resulted in the preparation and adoption of ~his Franchise. In the review of the proposal and application of Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Incorporated ("Grantee") , .and as a result of the public hearings, the City Council makes the following findings: A. The Grantee's technical ability, financial condition, legal qualifica- tions, and character were C°nsid~red and approved in a full public pro- ceeding after due notice and reasonable opportunity to be heard; CO De Grantee's plans for constructing and operating the System were con- sidered and found adequate and feasible in a full public proceeding after due notice and reasonable opportunity to be heard; The Franchise granted to Grantee'by City complies with the existing applicable Minnesota Statutes and regulations and Franchise standards of the Minnesota Cable C~L,,~nications Board; and The Franchise granted to Grantee is nonexclusive. SHOR~ TITLE AND IEFINITIONS SECTION 1. SHO~ TITLE This Ordinance shall be kncwn and cited as the Cable C~,,~nications Ordinance. SECTION 2. EEFINITIONS For the purpose of the Franchise, the follc~ing terms, Phrases, words and their derivations shall have the meaning given herein. When not incon- sistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future, words in the plural number include the singular number, and words in the singu' lar number include the plural number. The words "shal I. and "will" are man- datory and "may" is permissive, words not defined shall be given their co~m~n and ordinary-meaning. ae Bo De '~Basic Service" means the delivery by Grantee to ~ll subscribers of satellite 'delivered special interest progran~ning, automated programming, broadcast stations and access programming, and~ local origination chan- nels by Grantee as covered by regular monthly charges paid by all subscribers, which Service is initially described in Offering as Basic I and Basic II. This definition excludes optional services for which a separate charge is made. "Board" means the Minnesota Cable ~ications Board. "City" means City of Mound, a~ municipal corporation, in the State of Minnesota, acting by and thrOUgh its City Council. "Class IV Channel" means a signaling path provided by a System to transmit signals of any type frcm a subscriber terminal to another point in System. "Converter" means an electronic device, which converts signals to a frequency acceptable to a television receiver of a subscriber, and by 3 Je Ko an appropriate channel selector permits a subscriber to view subscriber signals included in the service. "Council" means the governing body of the City. "Drop" means the cable that connects the subscriber terminal to the nearest feeder cable of the system. "F~C" means the Federal Cc~munications C~,,,,{ssion and any legally appointed, designated or elected agent or successor. "Grantee" is Dca-Sat of Minnesota, Incorporated, a wholly owned sub- sidiary of Dowden C~,~,unications, its agents or employees. "Gross Revenues" means all revenue derived directly or indirectly by Grantee, its affiliates, subsidiaries, parent, and person in which Grantee has financial interest of five percent (5%) or more frcm or in c°nnec~ion with the operation of the System, including but not limited to, basic subscriber service monthly fees, pay cable fees, installation and reconnection fees, leased channel fees, converter ren- tals, studio rental, production equilm~ent and personnel fees, and advertising revenues,. The term does not include any taxes on services furnished by Grantee and imposed directly upon any subscriber or user by the State, City or other governmental unit. Gross Revenues shall not include revenues for signals originating in or passing through the franchise area for transmission to a cable system or subscriber without the franchise area unless Grantee receives revenue for such signal which has not already otherwise been directly or indirectly subject to a franchise fee or similar tax, in which case said revenues will be considered Gross Revenues for the purpose of this franchise. "Installation" means the connection of the System frc~ feeder cable to the point of connection. 4 No QO "Lockout Device" means an optio~a! n~hanical or electrical accessory to a subscriber's terminal which inhibits the viewing of a certain program, oertain channel or certain channels provided by way of the cable cc~nunications system. "Metropolitan Area" means the seven-county/Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota major metropolitan area. "Offering of Grantee" or "Offering" means that certain document' dated November 15, 1982, entitled "Application for Cable Television Franchise" and signed by Grantee, as amended frc~ time to time by mutual written agreement between Grantee and City or its delegatee, and that 'certain document entitled "Dcwden Communications, Inc. Response to Questions on the City of Mound Proposal", which documents are on file with the City Clerk. "Pay Cable" or "Service other than Basic Service" m~ans the delivery over the System of per channel or per program audio-visual sigma]~ in intelligible form to subscribers for a fee or charge, in addition to the charge for Basic Service.' "Prime Rate" means the interest charged frcm time to time by the First National Bank of Minneapolis for 90 day unsecured loans to cc~mercial borrowers of the highest credit rating. "Public Property" means any real property owned by city other than a Street. "Scrambler/Descrambler" refers respectively to the equipment installed in the cable ccmmunication system's headend equipment and subscriber terminal used to isolate pay cable and other ancillary service channels from basic service which is accomplished by electronically distorting 5 Ve the signal prior to its transmission thrOUgh the cable ~l..~nications system and r ~econstituting the signal at each authorized location for subsequent display. "Sidewalk" is the portion of a street delineated for pedestrian travel. "Street" means the surface of and the space above and below any public street, road, highway, freeway, lane, path, public way, alley, oourt, sidewalk, boulevard, parkway, drive or any easement or right-of- ~ay now or hereafter held by City. · "Subscriber" means any person or entity who subscribes to a service provided by Grantee by means of or in oonnection with the Syste~ regardless of whether a fee is paid for such service. "System" means a system of antennas, cables, wires, lines, towers, waveguides or other conductors, converters, equipment or facilities, designed and constructed for the purpose of' producing, receiving, transmitting, amplifying and distributing, audio, video and other forms of electronic electrical signals, located in City. Said definition shall not include any system wholly internal to one or more multiple unit dwellings under oc~mon ownership, control or management, and which does not use City streets or other public property. In any event, system as defined herein shall not be inconsistent with the definition as set out in the rules of the Board. ~ICI~ II. GRANT CF AUTHORITY AND GENERAL PROUTSI(I~ City hereby grants to Grantee, to be effective upon certification by Board, a nonexclusive franchise subject to ~11 of the terms and conditions as Grantee shall aocept this Franchise in the follc~ing manner, and not later than the time set out in Article XIV, Section 2: (1) This franchise will be properly executed and acknowledged by Grantee and delivered to City. (2) At the same tin~ as delivery of the executed Franchise, Grantee shall deposit with City its nonrefundable acceptance fee in a sum to be determined at the time of acceptance of this Franchise for the purpose of defraying the costs and expenses of developing this Franchise and for the enforcement and administration costs to be incurred until Franchise fees may be realized. After the ini- rial payment of the acceptance fee, should costs in excess of the acceptance fee be incurred by City prior to the payment of the first Franchise fee, City may charge such excess costs to Grantee and Grantee shall pay them on demand by City, as an advance on the payment of Franchise fees. (3) All security deposits, Letters of Credit, certificates of insurance, acceptances, bonds, attorneys' opinions, organizational and creation documents and guarantees required of Grantee by this Franchise, shall be delivered prior to the effective date of this Franchise with the executed Franchise and in accordance therewith. SECTION 2. AUTHORITY GRANTED A. City grants to Grantee permission to use Streets for erecting, constructing, operating and maintaining the System. Other rights neCessary for the System on other public or private property must be obtained by Grantee, but City shall have no obligation to give or grant or assist in obtaining the same. B. Grantee shall oonstruct and maintain the System so as not to interfere with other uses of Streets. Grantee shall make use of existing poles and other facilities available to Grantee. C. Notwithstanding the above grant to use Streets, no Street shall be used by Grantee if City in its sole opinion determines, that such use is inconsistent with the terms, conditions or provisions by which such Street was created or dedicated, or with the present use of the Street. SECTION 3. AGR~F~ A. Grantee agrees to be bound by all the terms and conditions of this Franchise. B. Grantee also agrees to provide all services specifically set forth in, and to ocmply with all provisions of, its Offering to provide a System within the boundaries of City. Failure of Grantee to provide a System as described in its Offering, at City's' option, shall be violation of the provisions of this Franchise. In the event of conflicts or discrepancies between the Offering of Grantee and the pro- visions of this Franchise, the' provisions which provide the greatest benefit to City, in the opinion of the Council, shall prevail. SECTION 4. FRANCHISE TERM This Franchise shall commence upon the effective date of the regular certificate of confirmation issued by Board and shall expire fifteen (15) years frcm date of acceptance. 8 This Franchise is granted for City as it exists frcm time to time during the tern of this Franchise. ' SECTION 6. POLICE AND EMINENT E(1MA1/q POg~ERS A. Grantee's rights are subject to the rights of eminent dcmain of the City and to the police power of City to adopt and enforce ordinanoes necessary to the health, safety and welfare of the public~i. ~ B. Any conflict between the provisions of this Franchise and any other present or future lawful exercise of the right of eminent d~nain and the police powers of City shall be resolved in favor of City. SECTION 7. UEE OF GRANTEE FACILIT~ City shall have the right to install and maintain, free of charge, upon the poles and within the underground pipes and conduits of Grantee any wires and fixtures desired by City. Grantee waives any claim against City arising from City's exerCise of these rights. ' SECTION 8. WRITiIEN NOTICE A] l notices, reports or demands required to be given in writing under this Franchise sh~l I be deemed to be given when delivered personal ]y to any officer of Grantee or City's Administrator of this Franchise or 48 hours after it-is deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered or certified mail postage prepaid thereon, addressed to the party to which notice is being given, as follc~s: If to City: City Manager - City of Mound 5341 Mayw~d Road F~nd, Minnesota 55364 If to Grantee: Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc. With a copy to: ATI~: System Manager Dcwden C~,,~nications, Inc. One PiedmDnt Center, Suite 220 3565 l~edmont Road, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30305 ~ 9 Such addresses may be changed by either party upon notice to the other party given as provided in this Section. Be NO signals, including signals of a Class IV Channel, shall be transmitted frcm a subscriber terminal except as required to provide a service authorized by this Franchise and the subscriber. Grantee and any other person shall neither initiate nor use any procedure or device for monitoring individual viewing patterns or practices or otherwise procuring or storing or selling information or data fr~m a subscriber's terminal(s) by any other means, without the prior authorization of the affected subscriber which shall not have been obtained frcm the subscriber as a oondition of providing service. The request for such authorization shall be contained in a separate document which prcmi- nently states that the subscriber is authorizing with full knowledge of the authorization provisions and which identifies the purpose for which the data or information is being gathered or stored. Such authoriza- tion shall be for a limited period of time not to exceed one year. 'The authorization shall be revocable at any time by the subscriber without penalty 'of any kind whatsoever. A separate authorization shall be required for each type or classification of data or information sought frcm a subscriber terminal. Grantee shall not, without the written authorization of the affected subscriber, provide to anyone data identifying or designating any subscriber. Any data, the collection of which is authorized, shall be -I0 - made available upon request by and without charge to the authorizing subscriber in understandable fashion, including specification of 'the purpose for which the information is being gathered and to whom and for what fee the information is to be sold. Do Grantee shall not tap or monitor, arrange for the tapping or moni- toring, or permit any other person to tap or monitor, any cable, line, signal input device, or subscriber outlet or receiver for any purpose whatsoever, without the prior written authorization of the affected subscriber as required by paragraph A of this Section. Nothing herein conta'ined shall prohibit Grantee from verifying System operation and the transmission of sig~l~ to an affected subscriber or from monitoring for the purpose' of billing. The information obtained pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to the provisions of this section relating to confidentialityl SECTION 10. C~RTIFICATE OF CONFIRMATION Grantee shill abide by the then current rules and regulations of Board regarding the application, approval, and renewal of a Certificate of Confirmation. Failure of Grantee to obtain a Certificate of Confirmation or a renewal thereof shall result in autc~at'ic termination of this Franchise, and this Franchise sh~l] cease to be of any force or effect. However, Grantee may operate the System while the Board is .cgnsidering an application for renewal of the Certificate of Confirmation. ARTIC~.R III. EESI(Ag CF SYSTEM SECTION 1. CHANNEL CAPACITY - SUBSCRIBER NETWDRK A. The System shall be capable of ·providing at least 54 downstream chan- nels and four upstream channels. The System shall provide access to information data bases with the capacity as detailed in the Offering. B. The System shall provide two tiers of basic subscriber service. Tier 1 shall be a minimmn 21 video channel Basic I Service Tier. Tier 2 shall be a minin~m 8 video-channel Basic II Service Tier. · The System shall produce a picture upon each subscriber's television SCreen in black and white or color, depending upon whether color is being telecast and provided the subscriber's television set is capable of producing a color picture, that is not materially distorted and that is free fr~n ghost images, without material degradation of color fide- lity. The System shall produce a sound that is not materially distorted on any receiver of a subscriber. Grantee, at its expense, shall install and maintain the System so as not to interfere with any subscriber's ability to receive local broadcast stations. The System shall transmit or distribute signals to all television and radio receivers of ail subscribers without causing unreasonable crossmDdulation in the cables or unreasonably interfering, in the sole opinion of City, with other electrical or electronic systems or the reception of other television or radio reoeivers. 12 Ee Grantee shall construct and maintai~ a System that at least meets mini- ~ technlcal standards now or hereafter prcmulgated by the FCC relating to cable communication systems; provided, however, that in no event shall the technical standards required to be met by Grantee be less stringent than the FCC standards in effect at the time of the adoption of the Ordinance, nor shall Grantee be required to meet mini- mum FCC technical standards which apply solely to cable ccmmunicati~ systems for which franchises are granted subsequent to the acceptance of this Franchise. The FCC technical standards relating to cable ~ munications systems contained in subpart K of part 76 of the FCC rules are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part hereof. In any event, Grantee shall, at a minimum, cc~ply with the technical standards of the Offering. The System shall be designed for and operated on a 24 hours a day con- tinuous operation basis. Grantee shall initia~!y and subsequently test the technical capacity of the System according to the procedures delineated in the Offering. Additionally, Grantee agrees to ~llow City to select a consultant if City deems it is necessary to review and perform such testing proce- dure. The results of any tests required by the FEE shall be filed within ten days of the conduct of such tests with the City and the Board. Other representatives of City may be present during testing. Tests may be done annually at such times as is determined by City, with notice to Grantee. The expenses Of any tests required by the FCC shall be paid by Grantee. The expenses of tests required by City in addition to FGC required tests .shall be paid by City frcm the Franchise fee. J Should the tests show System to be not in compliance with this Franchise, Grantee shall pay upon demand of City all expenses asso-~ ciated with City - required tests. SECTION 3. Tg~Y CAPACITY Grantee shall initially activate and thereafter maintain a two-way capable System (audio, video and data impulse). Grantee shall fully activate one upstream channels at the time of System activation. Upstream service from the Cc~unity Center will be activated at turn-on. If subscriber interest exists, upstream capacity will be activated in the system's third year of opera- tion by installing diplex filters and. reverse amplifiers in all active com- ponents. SECTION 4. FACILIT~ The Grantee shall construct, maintain and continue to provide all faci- lities and equipment set forth in the Offering including, but not limited to, the headend, hubs, distribution system, studios, equipment and other facilities. Grantee's plan, as set forth in the Offering, for implementing the construction, utilization, System performance, and maintenance of these facilities, i~cluding its plans for acccmodatinmg future grcwth and changing needs and desires, shall be fUlly and timely performed. SECTION 5. SPECIAL CHANN~r. AND ACCFRS REQUIREMENTS A. Grantee will carry broadcast stations in accordance with FCC rules as fr(m~ time to time revised. B. Channel nineteen (19) shall be dedicated as an emergency override channel operated by City. C. Grantee will provide an audi6/video emergency alert override system that will permit the interruption by designated City officials of all audio (including FM) and video progranming, instructing citizens to switch to Channel 19 for emergency announcements. D. Grantee shall provide at least four (4) channels for access use for the following uses: educatioDal, government, public and leased. 14 AIl residential subscribers who re0eive ~]] or any part of the total services offered on the System sha3] also receive all of said four (4) access channels at no additioD_~! charge. Ail channels shall be activated upon System activation and thereafter maintained. Grantee . shall establish rules and regulations prior to System activation for the use of access channels which shall be approved by City' before implementation and thereafter shall not be altered or amended without approval of City. In preparing such rules: (1) Grantee shall provide an equal opportunity for use of access ser- vices. (2) Grantee will consider and use its best effort to implen~nt needs assessments prepared by City. (3) The hours of operation of the access studios shall be established by Grantee with the prior written approval of City and shall not be modified without the prior written approval of City. (4) Grantee will oc~ply, at a minimum, with the requirements of City and the Board now or hereafter adopted or determined by City or the Board regarding access channels. Such requirements of the Board are hereby made a part of this ordinance and include the (a) Grantee shall, to the extent of the System's available channel capacity, provide to each of its subscribers who receive all or any part of the total services offered on 'the System, reception on at least one specially designated nonoz~nercial public access channel available for use by the general public on a first ,~3me, nondiscriminatory basis; at least one spe- 15 cially designated access channel for use by local educational authorities; at least one specially designated access channel for local government use; and at least one specially designated access channel available for lease on a first ccme, nondiscriminatory basis by commercial and noncc~m~rcial users (the preceding hereinafter referred to as the "access channels"). Subscribers receiving only alarm system services or only data transmission services for ocmputer operated functions shall be exempt from this requirement. The VHF spectrum shall be used for at least one of the specially designated noncommercial public access channels required. No charges shall be made for channel time or playback of Prere- corded .progra~ng on at least one of the specially designated nonccmmerclal public access channels. Any fees for use of public access channels shall be consistent with the goal of affording the public a low cost means of television access. Access facilities, equipment and/or channel time will be made available to the general public, any group or individual resi- dent in City for the production and/or cablecasting of nonccm- mercial programming free of charge on a first oc~e, non- discriminatory basis. (b) Whenever any of the access channels is in use during 80 per- cent of the weekdays (Monday-Friday), for 80 percent of the time during any consecutive three hour period for six weeks running, and there is demand for use of an additional channel for the same purpose, Grantee shall then have six months in which to provide .a new specially designated access channel for the same purpose at no additional cost to subscribers. . 16 (c) The rules and regulations established by the Grantee and approved by City governing the access channels shall be filed with the Board within 90 days after any such channels are put (d) Subscribers receiving programs on one or more special service channels without a~so receiving the regular subscriber ser- vices may receive only one specially designated cc~poslte access channel ccmposed of the programming on access channels. This °croP°Site channel shall not include programming fr(m% the leased access channel. Subscibers receiving only alarm system services or only data transmission services for ccmputer operated functions shall not be included in this requirement. The Grantee shall ocmply, at a ~ini~um, with the requirements of City and Board, nc~ or hereafter adopted by City or Board regarding public use of its equiPment, including but not limited to the foll~ing: (&) Grantee shall make readily available for public use at least minimal equipment as stated in Offering necessary for the pro- ductlon of programming and playback of prerecorded programs for the specially designated non-commercial public access channel. Grantee shall also make readily available upon need being shcwn, the minimum equipment as stated in Offering necessary to make if possible to record progams at remote locations with battery operated portable equipment. (b) Need within the meaning of this paragraph sh~]l be determined 17 by subscriber petition. Said petitions must contain the signatures of at least 10 percent of the subscribers of System, but in no case more than 500 nor fewer than 100 signa- tures. SERVICE TO PUBLIC BUILDING AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS Grantee shall provide, at a minimum, one free installation and free Basic II service to City Ha!l, Shirley Hills School, the Cc~nunity Services building, the public library, Our Lady of the Lake School, the Mound Public Works Building, and such other public institutions as City may frcm time to time designate in substitution thereof or in addition thereto: 18 .SECTION 7. Grantee will cc~ply with ~l~ present and future rules, regulations and orders of the Board regarding interconnect ion of systems, and will cooperate with any agencies or utilities involve] with interconnection. At such times as intercon- nection is required, Grantee shall accomplish this without additioma? charge to subscribers. System shall be initially COnstructed so that other systems now or hereafter COnstructed in any area adjacent to System or within the metropolitan area (if technologically feasible) may be interconneqted with System upon request of City and agreement with other System's Grantor and Cable Company. Grantee owns geographically contiguous systems they shall be interconnected with System upon request of City in ~l! situations and to such extent such intercon- nection is technically and econcmically feasible. Grantee shall interconnect channels designated by City with channels of other systems in all cases in which other system(s) indicate in writing a' desire to provide an adequate share of facilities and budget for such interconection. In any event, both parties to this~ agreement desire interconnection of the system to the greatest extend of technical and econcmic feasibility. SECTION 8. REGIONAL CI~ANNk~, The standard·VHF Channel 6 is hereby designated for unifom regional channel usage. However, until the regional channel beccmes operational, Grantee may utilize the standard VHF Channel 6 as it deems appropriate. Use of time on .the regional channel shall be made available without charge. Grantee shall provide those services and progranming as specified in its City r~niz~ that services ~ l~ogr~ning in c~le c~ic~ti<~ is rapidly ch~ing. While any additi~ or d~leti~ of progr~n~nir~ or services will not' ~uire the an~~t of this Franchise~ any addition or c~letion of progran]ning will be subject to all terms and conditions of this Franchise. ' ~- City and Grantee reoognize that certain programming was proposed by Grantee in its Offering 'and that Grantee was selected at least in part on the pr.graining that it offered. ~%~ther, Grantee in its Offering pledged that it would not offer X-rated progran~ning that offended the standards of decency of the City. Therefore, Grantee agrees:~ 1. Progr~ning sha~l not be deleted unless it is unavailable or can be replaced by progranming of similar type and quality which is acceptable to City, such acceptance not being unreasonably withheld or delayed; 2. Progranming shall not be added to the System which City determines violates Grantee's pledge in its Offering regarding the type and quality of progran~ning offere~ on System. In any event, City sb~ not unreasonably withhold its consent, to the addition of progranming which is consistant with the type and quality of progrmming which was origi- nally offered on the System. Whenever it is necessary to shut off or interrupt service, Grantee shall do so during periods of minimum use of the System. Unless such interruption is unforeseen and in~ediately necessary, Grantee sh~l! give reasonable notice thereof to subscribers. All costs incurred in repairing System and handling cc~plaints shall be paid by Grantee, and if service is interrupted or discontinued for a total period of more than 48 hours in any 30 day period, subscribers shall be credited pro rata for such interruption. The cause of any such interruption shall be removed and service restored as prc~ptly as reasonably possible. Grantee shall maintain an office in City which shall be open during all usual business hours, have a listed local telephone, and be so ~perated that complaints and requests for repairs or adjustments may be received at any time, seven days per week, COnsistent with the procedures for same in the Offering. (1) Notice of this information shall be provided to ~ll new subscri- bers at time of subscription and to existing subscribers annually. (2) Grantee shall not engage in the sale of television sets or provide other television repair' service, but in the event such service is required, shall prcmptly notify subscriber of that need for ser- vice. (3) All complaints by City,' subscribers, or other perSOns regarding the quality of service, equipment m~lfunction, billing disputes, and any other matters relative to the System, shal] be investi- gated and responded to by a service representative at the location (4) of the cc~plaint by Grantee within 24 hours. If reascnably possible, Grantee shall rectify the cause of all valid ocmplaints. If a ccmplaint is not rectified within seven days, the complainant may then file the complaint with City. City and Grantee shall prepare and maintain a record of :all '" ':' '" complaints made to them. If at any time after the filing of a. -< complaint with City, City determines, in its sole discretion, that the ccmPlaint represents a violation of this Franchise, any law, .- ordinance or' regulation, or represents a failure in the Perfor- : - mance of Grantee pursuant to this Franchise, City may, in addition to any other remedy available to it, issue written notice ' '-:- specifying the nature of the Go.plaint and ordering Grantee to appear at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting or at a special meeting of the Council called for this purpose. At said Council meeting, Grantee shall explain its failure to rectify the cc~plaint and show cause why the Council should not institute default proceedings. Failure .by Grantee to appear may result, at the sole discreiton of City, in the termination of this Franchise. 22 LINE EXTENSI~ AND (30N~ON STANDARD~ SECTION 1. INITIAL SERVICE AREA Grantee sh~11 construct as the initial service area all areas con- taining dwelling units within the corporate city limits of Mound, as designated in the Offering. Grantee shall extend service to any area within or contiguous to the designated initial service area which was not constructed as a part of the initial service area, which sub- . sequently exceeds a density of 30 dwelling units per street mile or greater, at the same rates and charges which are set forth in Exhibit "A" of this Franchise. SECTION 2. LINE EXTENSION POLICY Grantee shall extend service to any area within or contiguous to .the designated initial service area, which was not constructed as part of the initial service area, where the density meets 'or exceeds 30 dwelling units per street mile. Grantee Shall extend service to any other areas on a cost of material and labor basis. Service to extended areas will be provided at the same rates and charges as those units within the initial service area. However, Installation rates for ser- vice drops over 200 feet, as well as special or unusual installations, shall be charged at the ccmp~n, y's oost. SECTION 3. ~ION TIMETABLE A. Within 90 days after the effective date of the Board Certification of Franchise, Grantee shall apply for all necessary permits, licenses, 23 Ioo3 Co certificates and authorizations which are required in the conduct of its business, including, but not limited to, any joint use attachment agreements, micrcwave carrier licenses, or any other permits, licenses and authorizations to be granted by duly constituted regulatory .agencies having jurisdiction over the operation of cable ocm~unication systems, or their associated microwave transmission facilities. If after one year frcm the cc~nencement of Franchise term, Grantee has not received the permits, licenses, 'certificates and authorizations described in this paragraph, City my terminate this Franchise without regard to fault for delay in obtaining such permits, license, es, cer- tificates and authorizations. Within 90 days after obtaining all necessary permits, licenses, cer- tificates and authorizations, Grantee shall give written notice thereof to City and cc~mence construction and installation of System. Grantee shall construct all areas of the initial service area which contain dwelling units within twelve months of the granting of the state cer- tificate of confirmation so that persons along the route of the energized cable will have individual "drops" as desired during the same period of time. Any delays in the construction timetable or cc~men~nt of construc- tion shall result in penalties as provided in this Franchise, and con- tinued delays may result in the termination of this Franchise and ail rights and privileges of Grantee hereunder. (1) Grantee shall prc~ptly notify City in writing of all delays known or anticipated in the construction of System. 24 (2) City may extend the time for beginning construction or may extend the oonstructlon timetable in the event Grantee, acting in good faith, experiences delays by reason of circumstances beyond its oontrol. Grantee shall not open or disturb the surface of any streets or public property without first obtaining a permit frcm City fo~ which permit city may impose a reasonable fee to be paid by Grantee. The lines, conduits, cables and other property placed in the Streets, Public, or private Property pursuant to such permit shall be located in such part of the Street, Public, or private Property as shall be determined bY City. Grantee .shaLl, upon ocmpletion of any work requiring the opening of any Streets, Public, or private Property, restore the same, including the pavement and its grounds to as good a condition as for- merly and in a manner and quality approved by City, and shall exercise reasonable care to maintain the same thereafter in good condition. Such work shal~ be performed with diligence and due care, and if Grantee shall fail to perform the work promptly, to remove all dirt and rubbish and to put the Street, Public, or private Property back into the condition required hereby, City shall have the right after seven b~siness days notice to Grantee to put the Streets, Public, or private Property back into good condition at the expense of Grantee. Grantee shall, upon demand, pay to City the reasonable cost of such work done or performed. A] ~ wires, conduits cable and other property and facilities of Grantee shall be so located, constructed, installed and maintained as not to Be 25 Ce Do endanger or unnecessarily interfere with the usual and custcmary trade, traffic and travel upon, or other use of, the streets and public pro- . perry of City. Grantee shall keep and maintain ali of its property in good condition, order and repair so that the same shall not menace or endanger the life or property of any person. City shal 1 have the right to inspect and examine at all reasonable times and upon reasonable notice the property .(~ned or used, in part or in whole, by Grantee. Grantee shall keep accurate maps and records of all of its wires, con- duits, cables and other prcperty'aDx~ facilities located, constructed and maintained in the City. Further, Grantee shall, without charge, fur- nish copies of such maps and records fr~ time to time as requested by City. A']l wires, conduits, cables and other property and facilities of Grantee, shall be constructed and installed in an orderly and work- manlike manner. ~ll wires, conduits and cables shall be installed, where possible, parallel with electric and telephone lines. Multiple cable configurations shall be arranged in parallel and bundled with due respect for engineering considerations. Grantee shall at all times ccmply with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and oodes, federal, state and local. In any event, the installation, operation or maintenance of System shall not endanger 26 10o or interfere with the ~safety 0f persons or property in the City. Whenever City shall undertake any public improvement which affects Grantee's equipment or facilities, City shall, with due regard to reasonable w~rking oonditions and with reasonable notice, direct Grantee to remove its wires, conduits, cables and other property located in Streets, Public, or private Property. Grantee shall relo- cate or protect its wires, conduits, cables and other property at its Grantee's plans for constucting its System, and the construction of the System~ shall be in accordance with its Offering. However, Grantee shall ccmply with the following minimum requirements: . (2) (3) Grantee shall construct underground in any area where all other utility lines are underground. Grantee shall change frc~ aerial to underground, at its ~n expense, in any area where (i) a33 other lines are hereafter charged frcm aerial to underground or (ii) any aerial line is changed to underground by the open trench method and City requests Grantee to share the trench. To enable .Grantee reasonable opportunity to change its wiring frcm aerial to underground, and also to allow it to prewire all new multiple dwelling units, subdivisions or new development areas, City shall provide Grantee with at least 15 days prior written notice of the following, but in no event shall City have any 27 ao liability for failure to provide notice of the following: (a) Any changes of which City has knowledge, or which City may order, regarding a change fr~ aerial to underground of any line (telephone or electrical) within its boundaries. (b) Any underground trenching, that may be pending. (c) All subdividers or developers of new subdivisions and deve- lopments shall be notified of the Franchise and the System. (d) Ail Franchise changes affecting the wiring of the System. CONDITIONS OF 13SE . Grantee shall not place poles or other fixtures where the same will interfere with any.gas, electric or telephone fixture, water hydrant or main, or sewer line. Grantee, at the request of any person holding a building mOVing permit and with not less than five days advance notice, shall temporarily remove, raise or lc~er is wires, conduits and cables. The expense of such temporary removal, raising or lowering of wires, conduits and cables shall be'paid by person(s) requesting the same, and Grantee shall have the authority to require such payment in advance. Grantee shall have the authority, upon written consent by the City and to the extent the City has authority to grant the same, to trim trees upon or overhanging any Street or Public Property only to the extent reasonably necessary to prevent the branches' of such trees from ccming in contact with the wires, conduits and cables of Grantee. 28 Do ae Be trin~ing for the benefit of Grantee shall be done under the supervision and direction of City and at the expense of Grantee. Any activities of the Grantee which are undertaken pursuant to authority granted under this paragraph~ are specifically made subject to the indemnification and insurance provisions of Article VIII, Section 2 of this franchise. Nothing contained in this Franchise shall relieve any person, other than City, frcm liability arising out of the failure to exercise reaso- nable care to avoid injuring the Grantee's facilities while performing · any work connected with grading' regrading or changing the line of any street or public place or with the construction or reconstruction of any sewer or water system. SYSTEMS OPERATIONS INFORMATION AVAI~AB ILITY Throughout the' term of this Franchise, Grantee shall maintain books and records in accordance with normal and accepted bookkeeping and accounting practices for the cable commmicatlons industry, and allow for inspection and copying of them by City at reasonable times at Grantee's designated office. City shall give Grantee at least 24 hours notice before making inspec- tions of any books or records of Grantee. City, its agents and representatives shall have authority to arrange for and conduct an audit of 'and copy the books and records of Grantee. 29 )007 The City and Grantee shall establish reasonable procedures to protect the oonfidentiality of information. Grantee shall first be given five days notice of the audit request, the description of and purpose for the audit, and description, to the best of City's ability, of the books, reoords and documents it wants to review. Grantee shall receive at least 24 bouts notice before an actual inspection of such books,. records and documents. S~L-TIC{q 2. SElZ'v'ICE ~ A. If a service contract is used the service oontract shall include, at a minimum, a schedule of ail applicable rates and charges, description of services, instructions on the use of the system, billing and collection- practices. Grantee shall have authority to promulgate such rules, regulations, terms and conditions governing the conduct of its business as shall be reasonably necessary to enable Grantee to exercise its rights and per- form its obiligations under this Franchise and to assure uninterrupted service to each and all of its subscribers; ~rovided, however, that such rules, regulations, terms and conditions shall not be in oonflict with the provisions of this Franchise, ordinances of City, and laws of the State of Minnesota or the United States. Each subscriber shall be provided with instructions o~ filing cc~plaints or otherwise obtaining information or assistance frcm .Ail items described in this section shall be provided to each new subscriber at the time a contract is entered into or service begun, and 3O to all existing subscribers not less than once each year. The term of a subscriber contract shall not be for more than 12 months. duration. The contract may be terminated by the subscriber at his option at any time, with no penalty to subscriber. SECTION 3. SLBSCRIBER PRACTICER A. There shall be no charge for disconnection of any installation or outlet. If any subscriber falls, to pay a properly due monthly subsciber fee, or any other properly due fee or charge, Grantee may disconnect the subscriber's service outlet, provided, however, that such disconnection shall not be effected until after the later of (i) 45 days after the due date of said delinquent fee or charge or (ii) ten days after delivery to subscriber of written notice of the intent to disconnect. 'If a subscriber pays before expiration of the later of (i) or (ii), Grantee shall not disconnect. After disconnection, upon payment in f.,ll of the delinquent fee or charge and the payment of a reoonnection charge, Grantee shall prc~ptly reinstate the subscriber's cable service. B. Refunds to subscribers shall be made or determined in the following manner: (1) If Grantee fails, upon request by a subscriber, to provide any service then being offered, Grantee shall within 60 days of subscriber request refund ~ll~ deposits or advance charges paid for the service in question by said subscriber. This provision does not alter Grantee's responsibility to subscribers under any 31 Do separate contractual agreement or relieve Grantee of any other liability. (2) If any subscriber terminates any monthly service because of failure of Grantee to render the service in accordance with Franchise, Grantee shall refund to such subscriber the propor- tionate share of the charges paid by the subscriber for the ser- vices not received provided that the proportionate share of such charges due the subscriber are one dollar or greater, This provision does not relieve Grantee of liability established in other provisions of this Franchise. If any subscriber terminates any monthly service Prior to the end of a prepaid period, a proportionate amount of any prepaid' subscriber ser- vice fee, using the number of days as a basis, shall be refunded to the subscriber by Grantee. Continued failure by Grantee to provide services required by this Franchise may, in the discretion of City, be cause for imposition of a peDa!ty or termination of this Franchise. Rate Change Procedure. To the extent permitted by law, all increases in subscriber rates' and charges sb~] ] be charged by Grantee in a manner prOVided for herein. Grantee, as a condition precedent' to its acceptance of this Franchise hereby knowingly and voluntarily consents to these procedures for the term of this Franchise of all rates and charges. 32 (2) The territory for rates applicable to System shall be City. Franchise Fee. (1) For the first two years of this Franchise, Grantee shall pay to City, within 60 days after the end of each fiscal year of Grantee, an annual Franchise fee of five percent (5%) of all Gross Revenues, excluding revenues for pay cable services for the third year of this franchise and thrOUghout the remainder of the term of this Franchise, Grantee shall pay to city within 60 days after the end of each fiscal year of Grantee, an annual franchise fee of five percent (5%) of all Gross Revenues, excluding the revenue which Grantee passes on to the suppliers of pay cable services. No payment will be al lowed of any franchise fee that is different from five percent, other than the filing fee and payment required of the succesful applicant as established by City to recover the costs of franchising and any other additional payments which are required by the terms of this Franchise. Grantee agrees to sup- . port any waiver required by the FOC for the established franchise fee. The annual fee may be subject to renegotiation at any time after the fourth year of this Franchise. If Grantee and City do not agree in renegotiations, the Franchise fee shall remain (2) Payment will be made to City with an itemization of the Gross Revenues o Rates and Other Charges: (1) Rates and charges charged by Grantee for monthly service and 33 )..o.../¥ ..... installation and other charges hereunder shall be uniform, fair and reasonable and designed to meet all necessary costs of ser- vice, including a fair rate of return on the original cost, less depreciation, of the properties devoted to such service (without regard to any subsequent sale or transfer price or cost of such properties). (2) For one year after the date. of the beginning of continuous service to regular subscribers within the initial service area, the maxi- mum rates shall be the specified rates of Grantee as included in F~ibit A, attached hereto and made a part of this Franchise and known as Grantee Schedule of Rates. (3) Service requests for maintenance or repair of Grantee's property shall be performed at no charge to a subscriber. If such main- tenance or repair is reqdired as a result of damage caused by subscriber, Grantee my charge to the subscriber as a maximum its direct costs: for material and labor for service calls to subscriber's home. (4) Rates .for new or additional services not initially included in Offering of Grantee and therefore not listed in Exhibit A sh~11 be established by resolution of Council of City according to the terms of this Franchise. Rate Changes (1) The standards for reviewing a proposed Basic Service rate change will include at least the following: (a) The ability of the Grantee to render System services and to derive a reascnable profit'therefrcm under the existing rate schedule a~..d proposed rate schedule; 34 All revenues and profits or actual losses derived from' System; (c) Tax benefits and tax c~sts received by Grantee, its partners or shareholders, as the result of their investment in the . System; (d) Cash flow generated by System; (e) The efficiency of Grantee; (f) The quality of the service offered by Grantee; (g) The original cost of the system, less depreciation. (h) A fair rate of return with respect to investments having similar risks to that of providing cable oc~m~nication services; (i) The extent to which Grantee has adhered to the terms of this Franchise; (j) Fairness to residents and subscribers; (k) Capital expenditures (actual and, if the situation so warrants, projected) by Grantee in providing updated tech- nology and service to subscribers; (1) The extent to which Grantee has then provided service to schools, hospitals, libraries, publicly owned or leased buildings and similar institutions within City; (m) The extent to whic~ Grantee has technologically upgraded the System; and (n) Increased or decreased expenses incurred by Grantee in' the purchase of services; and Such other factors as City or Grantee may deem relevant. The procedures to be followed in changing a Basic Service rate or 35 (o) '(2) charge shall include at least the following: (a) Grantee sh~] ] give City written notice of any requested Basic Service rate increase. (b) The application shall be supported by statistical and other proof indicating that the existing rate or charge is quate and unreasonable and that the proposed increases are required to enable Grantee to render service to fulfill its obligations under this' Franchise and to derive a reasonable profit therefr~. (c) The notice sh~ll include current financial and other infor- mation with at least the following: 1. Balance Sheet; 2. Incc~e Statement; 3. Statement of sources and applications of funds; 4. Detailed supporting schedules of expenses, income, assets and other items as may be required by City; : 5. Statement of current and projected subscribers; 6. A current list of rates and charges of Grantee applicable to systems owned or operated by its parent corporation ok other subsidiaries or affiliates of its parent cor- poration at other locations; 7. ' A current' list of rates and charges for other systems in the seven oount4y Metropolitan area; 8. Cash flow derived frcm System services since the commencement of this Franchise; and 9. Statement of tax benefits received by Grantee, its part- nets or shareholders, as a result of their investment in (d) City shall notify Grantee and Board and sba] 1 schedule a public hearing on the requested increase in Basle Service rates within two weeks frcm the date of receipt of the request. Grantee will notify the public through providing notice for one week, each day between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on two lowest tier channels of the date, place and time of the hearing. City will publish notice ten 'days prior to hearing in its official newspaper. (e) After closing the public hearing, city will have 60 days within which to make its determination~ Approval of City shall not be unreasonably withheld. (f) City may utilize a rate consultant to advise it on proposed rate changes and to assist it in maintaining uniform rates within the rate territory. A rate consultant may be any per- son who has sufficient background and experience, in the sole opinion of City, properly to evaluate and analyze rates and charges. (g) All costs for the review of a request for a BaSic Service rate or .charge change shall be paid by City frcm the Franchise fee. (h) Any time limit may be waived only if City and Grantee consent. 37 Eo (i) If City fails to approve the change of Basic Service rates, -Grantee may appeal said determination, to the Board. (3) In the event the law should provide for the regulation of other than Basic Service rates by City, the procedure for the change of other than Basic Service rates shall be as outlined above. - --- Periodic Reviews,' Renegotiations and Technological Update of System.: The field of cable cC~munications 'is a relatively new and rapidly ' changing one which sb~]l no doubt see many regulatory, technical, financial, marketing and legal changes during the term' of the - Franchise. Therefore', in order to provide for a maximum d~ree of flexibility in this Franchise, and to help achieve a continued advanced and modern system, the following renegotiation provisions will apply: (1) City reserves the right to adopt rules and regulations controlling the procedures and subjects for periodic reviews and renego- tiation. In the absence of any City' action taken to exercise these rights, Grantee shall be subject to at least the procedures and requirements described in this section. (2) City may require, in its sole discretion, System performance eva- luation sessions at any time during the term of this Franchise or as required by federal or state law. In addition to these discre- tionary evaluation sessions, regular evaluation sessions shall be conducted by City withiB 30 days of the third, fifth and. eighth anniversary dates of the date of acceptance of this Franchise by Grantee. (3) All evaluation sessions sh~]l be open to the public and notice of sessions published in the same way as a legal notice. Grantee (4) (s) (6)' shall notify its subscribers of all evaluation sessions by announ- cement on at least two channels of the system between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. for five consecutive days preceding each session. T6pics which may be discussed at any evaluation session may include, but not be limited to, service rate structures; franchise fee; penalties; free or discounted services; application of new technologies; system performance; services provided; programming offered; c~munity access; local origination; custcmer co~plaints; privacy.; amendments to this Franchise; judicial, Board and F(32 rulings; line extension policies; and Grantee or City Rules. During a review and evaluation by City, Grantee shall fully cooperate with City and shall provide without cost such infor- mation and documents as City may request to reasonably perform the evaluation. If at any time during its review, City determines that reasonable evidence exists of inad~/uate System performance, it may require Grantee to perform tests and analysis directed tcward such suspected inadequacies at the Grantee's cwn expense. Grantee shall f~lly cooperate with City in performing such testing and shall prepare results and a report, if requested, within 30 days after notice. The report prepared by Grantee shall include at least: _ (a) A description of the problem in System performance which pre- cipitated the special tests. 39 -(7) (b) What System component was tested. (c) The equipment used and procedures employed in testing. (d) The m~thod, if any, by which such System performance problem was resolved. (e) Any other information pertinent to said tests and analyses which may be required by City, or determined when the test is performed. City may require that tests be supervised at Grantee's expense by a consultant designated by City. The consultant shall sign ali records of special tests and forward to City such records with a report interpreting the results of the tests and recu,..,ending actions to be taken. If no such inadequacy is found to exist, City shall pay all expenses of such tests frcm the franchise fee. Grantee sh~] ? exercise its best efforts to maintain a modern state-of-the-art System which is cdmparable to other operating cable television systems similarly situated. As a result of the periodic review sessions, City may request Grantee to modify or to upgrade the System, or to provide addditional services, and authorize rate increases sufficient to insure the econcmic feasibility of these changes. SECTION 5. FRANCHI~ ~ A. Grantee may apply for renewal of this Franchise at any time prior to the expiration of this Franchise on forms provided by City. In any 4O Be Ce Do event renegotiation shall co,hence at least 12 ~onths before the expiration of the Franchise term, unless the City determines not to reissue the Franchise to Grantee or desires to oonsider additional applicants, for a franchise. Grantee may be approved, and this Franchise or-modification to it may be renewed' by City in accordance with then existing rules of the FOC, the Board, the City and all other applicable laws, ordinances, rules or regulations. ·. Nothing in this Franchise shall be construed to require renewal of this Franchise..i City shall conduct an investigation and evaluation of the Grantee and the System and the renewal application. This investigation and eva- luatlon shall be ccmpleted by City within six months after receipt of the application and determination by City of its ccmpleteness. Renewal of this Franchise may be for any length of time but not more than fifteen years, unless otherwise permitted by federal or state law, and may be on a year-to-year basis in the sole discretion of City. AIrieR VII. (Reserved) ARlenE VIII, INs~cE, LET1F.~ Cf' CREDIT AND BClqD rights of Ci.ty pursuant to indemnification, insurance, Letter of Credit or Bond, as provided for by this Franchise, are in addition to all other rights the City may have under this Franchise or any other ordinance', rule, regulation or law. The exercise or failure to exercise by City of any rights pursuant to any section of this Franchise shall not affect in any way the right of City to subsequently exercise any such rights or any other right of City under this Franchise or any Other ordinance, rule, regulation or SECTION 2. INEEMNIFICATION AND INSUPANCE A. Grantee shall fully~ indemnify, defend and hold harmless, City, its officers, boards, o~..~.{ssions, elected officials, agents and employees against any and all costs, damage, expense, claims, suits, actions, liability and jUdgments for damages, incl{~ing but not .limited to, expenses for legal fees, whether suit be brought or not, and disbur- sements and liabilities incurred by City related to this Franchise or the System in connection with: (1) Damage to persons or property, in any way arising out of or through the acts or emissions of Grantee, their respective set- vants, officials, agents, or employees or to which Grantee's negligence or that of their respective servants, agents, officials or e~ployees shall in any way contribute; (2) Any claim for invasion of the right of privacy, for · defamation of any person, firm or corporation, or the violation or Bo Ce Do inf~ingea~n~ of any copyright, trademark, trade name, service mark or patent, or of any other right of any person, firm or cot- (3) potation, except claims because of City's cwn progra~m~ing; or Grantee's failure to ccmply with the provisions of this F~anchise, any federal, state or local law, ordinance or regulation applicable to Grantee or the system. ~ Grantee shall release, discharge, acquit, or absolve City in oonnection with any and all claims' which Grantee may now or hereafter have or claim to have against City, its servants, agents, employees or offi- cials, due to or arising'~out of damage to any of Grantee's property or equipment, including, without limitation, resulting or consequential loss of inccme, injury to reputation, or any other resulting or con- sequential damages of any kind, caused by or resulting frcm acts or cmissions of City or any of its servants, agents employees or offi- cials. If suit be brought or threatened against City, either independently or jointly with Grantee, or with any person or municipality, Grantee, upon notice given by City, shall defend City at the cost of Grantee, and if final judgment is obtained against City, either independently or jointly with Grantee, or any other defendants, Grantee shall indemnify City and pay such judgment with ~l 1 costs and satisfy and discharge the samee City reserves the right to c~operate with Grantee and participate in the defense of any litigation either through intervention or otherwise. Grantee shall pay upon receipt of written demand frcm City, all expen- ses incurred by City in defending itself with regard to any matters in this section. These expenses shall include, but not be limited to, attorney's fees, and the reasonable value of services (as determined by City) rendered by City or any employees, agents or representatives of City. SECTION 3. Grantee shall maintain .liability insurance covering its obligations of indemnificaiton provided for-in or as a result of the exercise of this Franchise covering both the city and Grantee an~ sb~] ] maintain said insurance during the entire tern of this Franchise in the minimum amount of: .... ~...~.... .. - - (1) $500,000 for property damage to any one person; (2) $2,000,000 for property damage in any one act or occurence; (3) $1,000,000 for personal injury to any one person; and (4) $2,000,000 for personal injury in any one act or occurence. Be Such insurance shall be with a company acceptable to City and shall otherwise be in form and substance acceptable to City. Such insurance policy with written evidence of payment of required premiums shall be filed and maintained with City during the term of the Franchise. The' above minin~m amounts shall be changed from time to time by Grantee as reqUested by City. Grantee shall in~ediately give notice to City of any threatened or pending litigation affecting this insurance. Ce Neither the provisions of this section nor any damages reoovered by City or any individual shall be construed to, or shall limit the liabi- lity of Grantee. No recovery by City of any sum by reason of the Letter of Credit or Bond required in this Franchise shall be any limitation upon the liabi- lity of Grantee to City under the terms of this section, except that the sum so received by City from such Letter of Credit or Bond shall be · "i'. . ,'i!: .: ' ::~:..~.... ~' '' -. _~ . .::.: ,.- . .-: I :'"i.:).!: i. '4'i ":': -' :'". '... "' Bm Co deducted from a reoovery by City under this section, if for the same act or occurrence. All insurance policies maintained pursuant to this Franchise shall con- tain the following endorsement: It is hereby understood and agreed that this insurance policy may not be cancelled nor may a refusal to renew beocme effective until 60 days after receipt by City, by registered mail, of written notice of such intention to c~ncel' or not to renew. LETI~R OF CREDIT At the time of acceptance of this Franchise, Grantee shall deliver to City an irrevocable and unconditional Letter of Credit, in form and substance acceptable to City, frcm a NatioD~] or State bank apprOVed by City, in the amount of $10,000.00. The amount of the Letter of Credit may be reduced by City. The Letter of Credit shall provide that funds will be paid to City, upon written' demand o~ City, and in an amount solely determined by City in payment for penalties charged pursUant to this section, in payment for any m~nies cwed by Grantee pursuant to its obligations under this Franchise, or in payment for any damage incurred as a result of any acts or missions by Grantee pursuant to this Franchise. In addition to reoovery of any m~nies owed by Grantee to City or dama- ges to City as a result of any acts or cmissions by Grantee pursuant to the Franchise, City in its s~le discretion may charge to and collect frcm the Letter of Credit the following penalties: (1) For failure to ccmplete System construction in accordance with Grantee's initial service area plan, unless City approved the delay, the penalty shall be Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 45 (2) (3) (4) (s) For failure to provide data, documents, reports or information or to cooperate with City during an application process or System review, the penalty shall be Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or ~ontinues. For failure to oamply with any of the provision Of this Franchise for which a peDa!ty is not otherwise specifically provided pur-i- suant to this Paragraph C, the penalty sh~l] be Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continueSl ' .'~'-~ For failure to test, analyze and report on the performance of the System following a request by City, the penalty shall be'Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per day for each day, or part thereof,i such failure occurs or continues. Forty-five days following notice frcm City of a failure of Grantee to ccmply with construction, operation or maintenance standards, the penalty shall be TwoHundredDollars ($200.00) per day for ' each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues; (6) For failure to provide the services Grantee has proposed, including but not limited to the implementation add the utiliza- tion of the access channels and the making available for use of the equipment and other facilities, the penalty sh~llbeTwo Hundred dollars ($200.00) per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or 6ontinues. 46 (7) Each violation of any provision of this Franchise sh~ll be oon- sidered a separate violation for which a separate penal ty can be Whenever City finds that. Grantee has violated one or more terms, con- ditions or provisions of this Franchise, a written notice ~hall be given to Grantee informing it of such violation. At any time after fifteen days follcwing local receipt of notice, provided Grantee remains in violation of one or more terms, conditions or provisions of this Franchise, in the sole opinion of City, City may. draw frcm the Letter of Credit all penalties and other monies due City. Whenever a penalty has been assessed, Grantee may, within thirty days of local receipt of notice, notify City that there is a dispute as to whether a violation or failure has, in. fact, occured. Such notice by Grantee to City shall specify with particularity the matters disputed by Grantee. (1) City shall hear Grantee's dispute at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. City shall supplement the Council decision With written findings of fact. (2) Upon~ determination by'City that no violation ba_~ taken place, City shall refund to Grantee without interest all monies drawn frc~ the Letter of Credit by reason of the alleged violation. If said Letter of Credit or any subsequent Letter of Credit delivered pursuant hereto expires prior to 15 months after the expiration of the term of this Franchise, it shall be renewed or replaced during the term of this Franchise to provide that it will not expire earlier than 15 47 months after the expiration of this Franchise. The renewed or replaced Letter of Credit shall be on the same form and with a bank authorized herein and for the f,,· · amount stated in paragraph A of this section. Failure to renew or replace the Letter of Credit shall be grounds for termination of this Franchise. If City draws upon the Letter of Credit or any subsequent Letter of Credit delivered pursuant hereto, in whole or in part, Grantee replace the same within 'fifteen 'days and shall deliver to City a like replacement Letter of Credit for the full amount stated in paragraph A of this section as a substitution of the previous Letter of Credit. If any Letter of Credit is not so replaced, City may draw on said Letter of Credit for the whole amount thereof and hold the proceeds, without interest, and use the proceeds to pay costs incurred by City in performing and paying for any or all of the obligations, duties and responsibilities of Grantee under this Franchise that are not perfOrmed or paid for by Grantee pursuant hereto, including attorneys' fees incurred by the City in so performing and paying. The failure to replace any Letter of Credit may also, at the option of the City, be deemed a default by Grantee under this Franchise. The drawing on the Letter of Credit by City, and use of the money so obtained for payment or performance of the obligations, duties and responsibilities of Grantee which are in default, shall not be a waiver or release of such default. The oollection by City of any damages, m~nies or penalties frcm the Letter of Credit shall not affect any other right or remedy available to City, nor shall any act, or failure to act, by City pursuant to the letter of Credit, be deemed a waiver of any right of City pursuant to this Franchise or otherwise. . .... .A. Be BONn~ At the ccmmen~nt of this Franchise, and at all times thereafter until Grantee ~-~ liquidated ~11 of its obligations with City, Grantee shall maintain with City a bond in the total sum~ of Seventy-five Thousand and N0/100 Dollars ($75,000.00) in such form and with such sureties as shall be acceptable to City, conditioned upon the faithful performance by Grantee of this Franchise and the acceptance hereof given by Grantee and upon the further condition that in the event Grantee shall fail to comply with any law, ordinance or regulation, there shal] be recoverable jointly and severally frcm the principal and surety of the bond, any damages or losses suffered by City as a result, including the f~,l~ amount of any compensation, indemnification or cost of removal of any property of Grantee, including a reasonable allowance for attorneys' fees and costs (with interest at two percent (2%) in excess of the then Prime Rate), up to the fu]? amount of the bond, and which bond shall further guarantee payment by Grantee of all claims and : liens against City or any public property, and taxes due to City, which arise by reason of the construction, operation, maintenance or use of the System. The rights reserved by City with respect to the bond are in addition to all other rights the City may have under this Franchise or any other law. City may, in its sole discretion, reduce the amount of the bond upon the cce~letion of constrUction of the initial service area to not less than $1,000.00. 49 ao AR~I~ IX. EEFAULT NOTICE AND E~FAULT City shall give written notice of default to Grantee if City, in its sole discretion, determines that Grantee has: (1) Violated .any material provision of this Franchise or the accep- tance hereof, or any rule, order, regulation or determination of the City, state~ or federal government, not in conflict with this .. Franchise; . (2) Attempted to evade any provision of this Franchise or the accep- tanoe hereof; (3) Practiced any fraud or deceit upon City or subscribers; (4) Made a material misrepresentation of fact in the application for or negotiation of the Franchise; or (5) Incurred a six (6) month or more delay in the-construction sche- dule. If Grantee fails to cure such default within thirty (30) days after the giving of such notice (or if such default is of such a character as to require more than thirty (30) days within which to cure the same, and Grantee fails to oc~mence to cure the sam~, within said thirty (30) days period and thereafter fails to use reasonable diligence, in City's sole opinion, to cure such default as soon as possible), then and in any event, such default shall-be a substantial breach of. this Franchise and City, at its option may elect to either cure the default or ter- minate and cancel this Franchise and all rights and privileges of this Franchise as follows: 50 {2) City may cure any default and all sums expended by City, including attorney's fees incurred in curing such default, whether suit be brought or not, with interest thereon at a rate per annum of two percent (2%) in excess of the then Prime Rate, shall be paid by Grantee to City, upon demand, and failure to so pay upon demand likewise may be ~c~med by City to be a default under this Franchise. City may place the issue of revocation and termination of the Franchise before the Council at a regular or special meeting of the City Council. If City decides there is cause or reason to terminate, the following procedure shall be followed: (a) City shall provide Grantee with a written notice of City's intention to terminate the Franchise and the reason or cause for proposed termination. City shall allcw Grantee a minimum of thirty (30) days' subsequent to receipt of the notice in which to correct the default. (b) Grantee shall be provided with an opportunity to be heard at a public hearing prior to 'any decision to terminate this Frand3ise. (c) In the event that City determines to terminate this Franchise, the Grantee sb~33 have a period of thirty (30) days, beginning the day next following written notice to Grantee of such decision, within which to file an appeal with the Board, pursuant to the then applicable statutes and pro- cedures of the Board. Any such appeal to the Board shall be a contested case to which the Board shall not be a party. During such thirty (30) day period and until the Board deter- the Franchise shall mines the appeal, if~an appeal is taken, 51 (d) remain in full force and effect, unless the term thereof sooner expires. Grantee shall pay all costs of any unsuc- cessful appeal, including reasonable attorneys fees incurred city. If Board approves of the action of City, the Franchise shall terminate iamediately. If Board disapproves of the action of City , the Franchise. shall remain in full force and effect for the f,;ql term here6f unless sooner terminated in acco. r- dance with the provisions hereof, or applicable law or rules of ]~d. '- Upon the foreclosure or other judicial sale of all or a part of the .System, Grantee shall notify City of such fact and'such notification shall be treated as a notification that a change in control of Grantee has taken place, and the provisions of this Franchise governing the ~onsent to transfer or change in .ownership occurred. SECTION 2. RECEIVERShIp City shall have the right to cancel this Franchise 120 days after the appointment of a receiver or trustee to take over and conduct the business of Grantee, whether in receivership, reorganization, bankruptcy or other action or 52 proceeding', unless such receivership or trusteeship shall have bee~ vacated · prior to the expiration of said 120 days, or unless: (a) within 120 days after his election or appointn~nt, such receiver or trustee shall have f.,1 l y complied with all the provisions of this Franchise and remedied all defaults hereunder; and . ~'~. ~ ~ ~ (b) Such receiver or trustee, within said 120 days, sh~l have executed an agreement' with City duly approved by the Court having jurisdiction in the premises, whereby such receiver or trustee assumes and agrees to be bound by each and every provision of this Franchise SECTIGN 3 o ABANDONMENT Grantee may not abandon any portion of System without having given not less than three months prior notice to City and Board. Further, Grantee may not abandon any portiOn of System without cc~pensating City for damages resulting fr~x~ the abandomaent. The amount of damages resulting from abandonment and due city shall be determined in the sole discretion of City. An abandonment of any portion of the System as determined in the sole discretion of City shall be a cause for termination of this Franchise by City. AR~I~.E XI. PtSgfI{~E fl~ SY~fEM A. If at any time Grantee offers' System for sale, City shall have the right to purchase System. If at any time Grantee receives a bona fide purchase offer for the System which Grantee is willing to accept, a complete oopy of such offer shall prcmptly be given to City and City sb~l I hav~ the right to purchase the System according to the terms of that offer. City shall eXercise such right by suk~itting to Grantee, within 60 days after City's actual receipt of the bona fide offer, notioe that City desires to purchase the System pursuant to said offer. If City does not exercise such right the System may be sold, but only - ' 'on the terms SUbmitted to City. If any changes are made in the · i'~ ..... ~_ . '~' ~'~rchase Offer given to City, such purchase offer, as so changed, shall again be given to City and City .sba]! have 60 days frc~ actual receipt by City of the Offer, as changed, within which to exercise its right to purchase the System pursuant to the offer, as changed, all as above provided. If City does not exercise its right to purchase the System pursuant to any offer given to City pursuant to this paragraph, and the System is not sold to the buyer and on the terms set out in the offer given to' City, then the right of .City to purchase the System shall con- tinue, and all subsequent purchase offers shall be given to City pur- suant to this .paragraph~ Also, the City's right to purchase pursuant to this paragraph' shall survive every sale to a buyer and shall con- tinue to be binding upon every buyer of the System. Upon forfeiture, revocation or termination of this Franchise, City shall have the right to purchase the System. Such right sba] 1 be exer- cised upon written notice to Grantee within six months after the occurrence 'of any such event. In the event City elects to exercise its right to purchase the System as provided in Section lB of this Article, the following sh~l~ then apply: City and Grantee shall negotiate all terms and conditions of the (3) purchase of the System. If City and Grantee cannot agree upon the terms and oonditions of the purchase, City shall have the right to proceed to arbitration. Arbitrati°n shall ccmmence and proceed according to applicable Minnesota law except as follows.. (1) The parties shall, within 15 days of City's decision to proceed to arbitration, appoint one arbitrator each who is experienced and , knowledgeable in the purchase and valuation of business property.. Arbitrators shall each agree upon the selection of a third arbitrator, similarly qualified, within 15 days after appointment of the seoond arbitrator. (2) Within 30 days after appointment of all arbitrators and upon ten days written notice to parties, the arbitrators shall c~',,~nce a hearing on the terms and oonditions of the purchase in dispute. The hearing shall be recorded and may be transcribed at the request and expense of either party. All hearing proceedings, debates and : deliberations shall be open to the public and at such times and places as contained in the notice or as thereafter publiclY stated in the order to adjourn. (4) The arbitration panel sb~]l be required to determine the purchase price of the System according to the standards established in paragraph C below. (5) At the close of the hearings and within 30 days, the arbitrators shall prepare written findings and make a written decision agreed upon by a majority of the arbitrators which shall be served by mail upon City 55 (6) (7) and Grantee. The decision of a majority of the arbitrators shall be binding upon both parties except that City may, in its sole discretion and without any penalty or cost to City of any kind, withdraw its offer to purchase within' 90 days of re°eipt of the final decision of a majority Either party my seek judicial .relief to the extent authorized under Minnesota Statutes, §572.09 and ~572.19 as the same may be amended, and in addition, under the following circumstances: (a) A party fails to select an arbitrator; (b) The arbitrators fail to select a third arbitrator; (c) One or m~re arbitrator is unqualified; (d) Designated time limits have been exceeded; (e) The arbitrators have not proceeded expeditiously; or (8) (f) Based upon the record the arbitrators abused their discretion. J In the event a ~x~rt of ~'t~tent ju~"i?~:licq:ion determines the arbitra- tots have abused their discretion, it may order the arbitration proce- dure repeated and issue findings, orders and directions, with costs of suit to be awarded to the prevailing party. Co (9) Cost of arbitration shall be borne equally. Reasonable attorneys fees shall'be borne by the party who retains an attorney. In the event of forfeiture, revocation or termination, the purchase price of the System shall be the fair market value of material and equipment in place. Good will shall not be included in the purchase price of the System, D. In the event City is purchasing upon normal expiration of the Franchise, the purchase price shall be the value of an ongoing business. Grantee expressly waives .its rights, if any, to relocation costs that might otherwise be provlde~ by law. The date of valuation shall be the date City makes a written offer for the System. ARtieR )III. MISC~.r ANEOU~ SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF ~IP OR ~ A. This Franchise shall not be assigned or tranSferred~ either in whole or in part, or leased, sublet or mortgaged in any manner, nor shall title thereto, either legal or equitable or any right, interest or property therein, pass to or Vest in any person without the prior written consent of City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Further, Grantee shall not sell or transfer any stock or ownership interest so as to create a new controlling interest except with the consent of City, which oonsent shall not be unreaso .ngbly withheld. The transfers described in this paragraph shall, in the sole discretion of City, be considered a sale or transfer of Franchise within the meaning and intent in the following paragraph. B. Any sale or transfer of Franchise, including a sale or transfer by means of a fundamental corporate change, requires the written approval of City.. Any sale or transfer of Franchise shall be subject to the provisions of Board rules prohibiting certain ownership. The parties to the sale or transfer of Franchise shall make a written request to City' of its oon- sent. City shall reply in writing within 30 days of actual receipt of the request and shall indicate its approval of the request or its determination 57 that a public hearing is necessary. City shall conduct a public hearing on E the request within 30 days of such detennination if it determines that a sale or transfer of Franchise may adversely affect the Grantee' s-subscri- Unless otherwise already provided for by local law, notice of any such ... hearing shall be given 14 days prior to the hearing by publishing notice >;'..~.//::} ~ thereof once in a newspaper of general circula%ion in the City. The notice shall contain the date, tim~. and place of the hearing and shall, briefly _:'. state the substance of the action to be considered by'City. -: ::...¢i..~'.: ;.:.'. Within 30 days after the public hearing, City shall approve or deny. in writing the sale or transfer request. ' "'~- '. Any sale or transfer of Franchise, including a sale or transfer by means of a fundan~n~al corl:~orate ch~ar~e, roquires notifi~:"ttion to the Bo~d by - City. The notification shall be acccmpanied by the written certification ( of the transferee that it mo~ts al 1 of the rc~luir~'n~nts established by City for original Grantee including but not limited to technical ability and ' financial stability. City shall cause to be sent to the Board at Grantee's expense a copy of all public documents related, to sale' or transfer of the Franchise. F. The parties to the sale or transfer of only this Franchise, without the inclusion of the System in which at least substantial construction has com- menced, shall be required to establish to the sole satisfaction Of city that the sale or transfer of onl~ this Franchise is in the public interest. G. For purposes of this section, a fundamental corporate change means any sale or transfer of the stock of a corporation which results in a change of controlling interest or the sale or transfer of all or a majorityof a corporation's assets, merger (including a parent and its subsidiary corporation), consolidation or creation of a subsidiary corporation. 58 '., -~-'. i'?-~. . ' '~ . : .,. :,.. _. ~. , ..,. . · He' The Word "control", or the phrase "controlling interest", as used herein, ~S not 'limited to major stockholders, but includes actual working control ~n whatever manner exercised. As a minimum, "control", as used herein, means a legal or beneficial interest (even though actual working control does not exist) of at least five (5%) percent. Every change, transfer or acquisition of control of Grantee shall make the Franchise subject to can- cellation unless and until City shall have consented in writing thereto, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. For the purpose of determining whether it shall consent to such change, transfer or acquisi- tion of control, City may inqUire into the qUalifications of the prospec- tive controlling party, and Grantee shall assist City in any such inquiry and pay all costs incurred by City in so inqUiring, including City staff time at a value determined by City. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, City will not approve any transfer or assignment of the Franchise prior to substantial ccmpletion of construction of System, as determined solely by City. Je In no event shall a transfer or assignment of ownership or control be approved without transferee beccming a signator to this Franchise. Any transferee shall be subordinate to any right, title or interest of City. ~- SECTION 2. REMiArAL AFTER TERMINATION OR REVOCATION A. At the expiration of the term for which this Franchise is granted, or upon its revocation or termination, as provided for herein, City shall 59 have the right to require Grantee to remove, at Grantee's expense, al! or any aerial portion of the System frcm all Streets, Public or private Property within City. In so removing the System, Grantee shall refill and ocmpact at its own expense any excavation that shall be made by it and shall leave all Streets, Public and private Property in as good a condition as that prevailing prior to Grantee's removal of the System, and without affecting, altering or. disturbing in any way electric, telephone or other'uti'lity cables, wires or attachment. City shall have the right to inspect and approve the condition of such Streets, public and.private Property after removal. The Letter of Credit, Bonds, Insurance, Indemnity and Penalty provisions of this Franchise shall remain in full force and effect during the entire term of removal. ~ Be Io o If, in the sole discretion of City, Grantee has failed to ccemence removal of system, or such part thereof as was deS'ignated by City, within 30 days after written notice of citY's'demand for removal is given, or if Grantee has failed to complete such removal within one year after written' notice of City's demand for removal is given, City shall have the right to exercise one of the following options: (1) Declare all right title and interest to the system to be in City With all rights of ownership including, but not limited to, the right to operate the Sys. tem or transfer the System to another for operation .by it. Insurance, Letter of Credit or Performance Bond proceeds my be used to remove any encumbrance on System. (2) Declare the System abandoned and cause the SyStem, or such part thereof as City shall designate, to be rem~v~ at no cost to City. The cost. of said .removal shall be recoverable frcm the Letter of Credit, Bonds, Insurance, Indemnification and Penalties provided for in this Franchise, or from Grantee directly as a liquidated damage. Co Any portion of the System not designated by City for removal shall belong to and become the property of City without payment to Grantee and Grantee shall execute and deliver such documents, as City shall request, in form'and substance acceptable to City, cwnership by City. SECTION 3. WORK PERFORmeD BY CTHERS to evidence such Grantee shall give notice to City specifying the names and addresses of any other entity, other than Grantee, which performs services pursuant to this Franchise, provided, however, that all provisions of this Franchise remain the responsibility of Grantee. All provisions of this Franchise shall apply to any subcontractor or others performing an~ ~rk or services 'pursuant to the provisions of this Franchise. All rights and remedies given to City by 'this Franchise shall be in addition to and cumulative with any and all other rights or remedies, existing or implied, now or hereafter available to City at law or in equity, and such rights and remedies shall not be exclusive, but each and every right and remedy specifically given by this Franchise or otherwise existing or given may be exercised frcm time to time and as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by City, and the Bo exercise of one or ~ore rights or remedies shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to exercise at the same time or thereafter any other right or remedy. No delay or cmission of City in the exercise of any right or remedy shall impair any such right or remedy, nor shall any such delay or emission be construed to be a waiver of or acquiescence to any default. The exercise of any such right or remedy by City shall not release Grantee frcm its obligations, or any liability, under this Franchise · In addition to ~ll other remedies granted or available t° City, City shall be entitled to the restraint by injunction of the violation, or attempted or threatened violation, by Grantee of any terms or provi- sions of this Franchise, or to a decree cea%selling perfommance by Grantee of any term or provision of this Franchise. APPLICABLE LA~ANDCOUKP EECISIONS: SEVERABILITY 'This Franchise shall at all times be in compliance with the rules of the Board. Grantee and City shall, at all times, comply with all laws, ordinances and regulation~ of federal, state and City government relating to System and this Franchise, as they become effective. If any Law, ordinance or regulation shall require or permit Grantee to perform any service or shall prohibit Grantee frcm performing any ser- vice which may be in conflict, with the terms of this Franchise, then as soon a possible following knowledge thereof, Grantee shall notify City of the point of conflict believed to exist between such law, ordinance or regulation and this Franchise. If City determi~s that .any pr~ision of this Franchise is effected by · such law, ordinance or regulation, City shall have the right to amend, modify, alter or repeal any of the provisions of this Franchise to such reasonable extent as may be necessary to carry out the intent and pur- pose of this Franchise, and Grantee hereby agrees to such amendment, m~dification, alteration or repeal of this Franchise. TO the extent any provision of the Offering is not specifically set out in this Franchise or not validly inoorporated herein by reference, City from1 time to time may amend this Franchise to include such provision effective as of the date of CCml~e~nt of the Franchise term or any such rule effective as of the date of ocmm~_ncement of the Franchise. term or adoption of the rule, which is later. Grantee, by a. cceptance of this Franchise, consents to and agrees to be bound by any such amendments. Fo If any term, condition or provision of this Franchise or the applica- tion thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be heTM to be invalid or ~enforceable, the remainder hereof and the application of such term, condition and provision to persons and cir-' cumstances other than those as to wh~ i~ shall be held invalid or unenforceable shall not be affected thereby, and this Franchise and all the te~ms, provisions and conditions hereof shall, in all other respects, continue to be effective and to be cc~plied with, subject to the rights of City as delineated in paragraph D of this Section. GRANTEE ACKNOWTRr~f OF VALIDITY OF FRANCHISE Grantee acknc~ledges that it has had an opportunity to review the tenms and conditions of this Franchise and that under current law Grantee believes that said terms and conditions are not unreasonable or arbitrary, and that Grantee believes the City b_~ the power to make the terms and conditions con- tained in this Franchise. AIIMINISTRATION AND AU4TSORY BODY The City Administrator or such other person or persons as designated by the City shall be responsible for the continuing administration of this Franchise' The administrator .may be changed by City. from time to time by writ- ten notice given to Grantee.~ ~..' - - ' '-- . . SECTION 2. ADVISORY BODY City may appoint an advisory body to monitor the performance of Grantee in executing the provisions of this Franchise. The advisory body shall perform all functions required of it by the Council and applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. r~.F.~TION OF AUTHORITY BY CITY 'City reserves the right to delegate and redelegate frcm time to time any of its rights or obligations under this Franchise to any body or organization. Any delegation by citY shall be effective upon written notice by City to Grantee of such delegation. Upon receipt of notice by Grantee of City's delegation, Grantee shall be bound by all terms and conditions of this delegation not in conflict with this Franchise. Any such delegation, revocation or redelegation, no matter how often. made, shall not be deemed an amendment to this Franchise or require any consent of Grantee. INCORPORATION CF (FFERING, EXHIBITS, PUBLICATION TIME OF ACCEPTANCE; GUARANTEE; INCORPORATION Grantee shall have 30 days frcm the date of adoption of the Franchise to accept this Franchise in form and substance acceptable to City. Hc~ever, in no event will accep.tance occur later than 90 days after the effective date of this Franchise, unless the time for acceptance is extended by City. Such acceptance by Grantee shall be da~--med the grant of this Franchise for all purposes. ' ~ Upon acceptance of this Franchise, Grantee shall be bound by all the terms and conditions contained herein. Grantee Shall provide all ser- vices and offerings specifically set forth in the Offer.lng to provide cable oc~m~mnication service within City and, by its acceptance of this Franchise, Grantee specifically agrees that the Offering of Grantee, including ~]~ prcmises, offers, representations and inducements con- rained therein, is specifically incorporated by reference and made part of this Franchise. The failure to refer to the Offering in any speci- fic provisions of this Franchise shall not be a limitation on the obli- gation of Grantee to ocmply fully with the Offering. Grantee further acknowledges that all prcmises, offers, representations and inducements contained in the Offering of Grantee were freely and voluntarily made to City by Grantee. ' The Offering shall be permanently kept and filed in ~he Office of the City Clerk and the originals or reproductions thereof shall be " .-. available for inspection by the public during normal business hours. ': Also, the Grantee may sunmarize the Offering in a manner aoceptable to - ... City or reproduce the entire Offering, and sb_~]! have either at the · -~ _~.. .... :%.. following locations in the following quantities: '"-.- · :-. : (2).. Administrator designated in this Franchise - 1 copy; (4') ' th ity e¥ -" '- - "'"--~-"--' .... - Office of e C Attorn 1 copy; · ,.-!',~ . .. (5) County Law Library - 1 copy each; .. "'. "'"'' (6). Local office of Grantee - 1 copy; · (7) Office of any School DistriCt in City - 1 copy; - ~ ." · . (8) l~nneso~. ~:~le O:amunications Board. D. In the event of conflicts or diSCrepancies between any part of the · ~ . Offering 'and the provisions of this Franchise or between any part of · - · ~ the .sunmary made by Grantee and the Offering, those provisions which provide the greatest benefit to City, in the opinion of the Council, shall prevail. _ .' Grantee shall have continuing responsibility for this Franchise, and if Grantee be a subsidiary or wholly owned corporate entity of a parent ~'corporation, performance of this Franchise shall be secured by guaran- tees of the parent corporation in form and substance acceptable to City, which sh~]~ be delivered at time of, and as part of, acceptance 'of this Franchise. Fo With its acceptance, Grantee also shall deliver to City an opinion frcm its legal counsel, acceptable ~to City, stating that this Franchise has been duly accepted by Grantee, that the guarantees have been duly exe- cuted and delivered, that this Franchise and the guarantees are enfor- Ceable against Grantee and the guarantors in accordance with their respective terms, and 'which opinion sh~]] otherwise be in form and substance acceptable to City. With its acceptance, Grantee also shall deliver to City true and correct copies of documents creating Grantee and evidencing the power and authority referred to in the c~inion of Grantee's counsel, cer- tified as of a then current date by public office holders to the extent possible and otherwise by an officer of Grantee. He Each exhibit is part of this Franchise and each is specifically incor- porated herein by reference. The exhibits are as follcws: Exhibit A - Grantee Schedule of Rates Exhibit B - Offering of Grantee Passed and adopted this day of , 1983. AgTEST: By By. Mayor 67 This Franchise is accepted, and we agree to be bound by all its terms and con- ditions. Dow-Sat of Minnesota DATED: By. Its By By. Its 68 ; .A. THOMAS WURST, CURTIS .~. ,JOSEPH THOMAS JOHN J. BOWOEN LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD I100 FIRST BANK laLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SS40:~ April 13, 1983 TELEPHONE (61 =,) 33a-4aoo Mrs. Fran Clark City Clerk City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Liability Insurance (Dram Shop) for Intoxicating, Non- Intoxicating Liquor and Wine Licenses Dear Fran: The 1982 legislature adopted new legislation requiring that all licensees selling intoxicating liquor, non-intoxicating malt liquor or wine on-sale or off-sale, will be required to demon- strate proqf of financial Cesponsibility and to file that proof with the Commissioner of Public Safety. I am enclosing herewith a proposed ordinance for consideration by the Mound council which will spell out that requirement in our licensing laws and will require all linensees in the future to provide this insurance certification. The first sections, being (a), (b) and (c), are essentially the same as the stare'statute with the exception of requiring the higher amounts of insurance set forth in Section 11:50, Subd. 14 of our code. Subdivision (e) is something that you will want to review carefully. The law provides an exception for non-intoxicating liquor and wine for licensees who show sales of less than $10,000 per year. The League of Municipalities has suggested that the only way the City can protect itself on this type of matter is to have an affidavit from a CPA that the licensee's sales are under $10,000 and then have a written commitment from the licensee that if sales reach $10,000 they will discontinue selling until they provide you with the necessary insurance. Vel trul~ ~rs, C~r t~i~A~a r~~s on City Attorney CAP:ms Enclosure Ordinance AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 11.80 TO THE CITY CODE RELATING TO LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR RETAIL SELLERS OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR, NON- INTOXICATING LIQUOR AND WINE AT ON SALE OR OFF SALE The City of Mound does Ordain: Section 11.80 is hereby added to the City Code and shall read as follows: Section 11.80. Liability Insurance for Sellers of Intoxieating~ Non-Intoxicating Liquor and Wine. Every person licensed to sell at retail intoxicating liquor, non- intoxicating malt liquor or wine at on-sale or off-sale in the City shall, after March 1, 1983, demonstrate proof of financial responsibility with regard to liability imposed by Minnesota Statutes Section 340.95, to the City Clerk and to the Commissioner of Public Safety as a condition of the issuance or renewal of his license. Proof of financial responsibility may be given by filing: (a) A certificate that there is in effect an insurance policy or pool providing the following minimum coverages or such higher amounts as prescribed by Section 11:50, Subd. 14 of the City Code for on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses: (1) $50,000 beeause of bodily injury to any one person in any one occurrence, and, subject to the limit for one person, in the amount of $100,000 because of bodily injury to two or more persons in any one occurrence, and in the amount of $10,000 because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one occurrence. (2) $50,000 for loss of means of support of any one person in any one occurrence, and, subject to the limit for one person, $100,000 for loss of means of support of two or more persons in any one occurrenees*~lK (3) The certificate shall provide that no payment of any claim by the insurance company shall in any manner decrease the coverage provided for in respect to any other claim or claims brought against the insured or company thereafter. (b) A bond of a surety company with minimum coverages as provided in clause (a), or (c) A certificate of the state treasurer that the licensee has deposited with him $100,000 in cash or securities which may legally be purchased by savings banks or for trust funds having a market value of $100,000. (d) The licensee shall provide the certificate and proof to the City Clerk at the time he applies for a new license or renewal of his license. The certificate of insurance shall show that all coverages meet or exceed the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 340.11, Subd. 21 and that the insurance company can not cancel said insurance until at least 30 days written notice of said cancellation has been served upon the City. If a new certificate of insurance is not filed with the City Clerk during the 30 day period after notice of cancellation, the license to sell at retail intoxicating, non-intoxicating malt liquor or wine shall be suspended until a new certificate of insurance is filed °with the City Clerk and the Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety. (e) The City Clerk is hereby authorized to waive the foregoing requirements for nonintoxicating liquor and wine licensees with sales of less than $10,000 per year if said licensee files an affidavit from a Certified Public Accountant to show that sales are under $10,000 per year. The licensee must also file a written commitment with the City Clerk that if sales reach $].0~000, the licensee will not continue to sell non-intoxicating liquor or wine until he has filed a certificate of insurance meeting the requirements set forth in 11.80, Subsections (a) through (d) of this ordinance. (f) Coverages contained in this ordinance shall be considered minimum to meet the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 340.11 Subd. 21 and shall apply to all intoxicating, non-intoxicating malt liquor and wine licenses issued by the City. Section 11.50 Subd. 14 of the code prescribes higher limits for on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses. The higher limits contained in said section shall apply to on-sale licenses of intoxicating liquor and all other requirements established by state law shall be met by the licensee in addition to the requirements of Section 11.50 Subd. 14. Attest: Mayor City Clerk Adopted by the City Council Published Official Newspaper )oS! Liquor Licenses -- Dram Shop When must cities take' action con- cerning the mandatory dram shop law? The Liquor Control Division has in- terpreted its responsibility under the mandatory dram shop law to begin with license renewals after March 1, 1983. The division based its position on an Attorney General's opinion in- terpreting the following language from M.5. 340.11, 5ubd. 21: "Every person licensed to sell at retail intox- icating liquor or nonintoxicating malt liquor at on-sale or off-sale shall after March 1, 1982, demonstrate proof of financial responsibility..." The language could mean that the mandatory dram shop program becomes effective on March 1 and that Minnesotans could rely on coverage after that date, given that between enactment of the law and its effective date, licensees had months to get coverage. Regardless of how the courts or legislature finally decide this issue, after March 1, 1983 a city which allows licensees without dram shop coverage to sell liquor, wine, and beer risks at least the costs of pro- riding legal defense to claims for harm resulting from illegal sales of alcohol. If the city has not enacted an or- dinance requiring all beer and wine license applicants to provide cer- tificates of dram shop coverage, what are Ihe city's responsibilities when faced with a license applica- tion? The city clerk will .need to furnish the Liquor Control Division with cer- tification of dram shop insurance coverage in cases where the appli- cant has the insurance. The statute exempts from the insurance require- ment beer and wine licensees with sales of less than $10,000 annually. The city can, however, extend the in- surance requirement to these licensees if it wishes. If the city does not require insurance, and the appli- cant claims sales of under $10,000, the city should determine what evidence of sales will be acceptable. For example, some cities are con- sidering accepting a written commit- ment from the license applicant to cease sale of beer or wine at that point in the license year when retail sales of either reach $9,950. Such a commitment should probably also contain a description of the means of keeping separate account of wine or beer sales or both. In addition to the written commitment, the city will probably want an affidavit or a letter from the applicant's accountant that sales in the preceding year did not exceed $10,000. The Liquor Control Division will accept evidence like the written commitment and accountant's af- fidavit as sufficient to show that sales are under $10,000 per year. To help protect the city, the city clerk should pass the evidence of sales volume on to the division, rather than the city itself making any certification of sales volume. But, even with affidavits and written commitments, the city could conceivably experience litigation and other costs if licensees inac- curately report or estimate beer or wine sales. Hopefully most wine and beer licence applicants will determine that it is only good business to carry the insurance. The prospect of extra ac- countant's fees and the bother of written certificates might prompt most applicants to furnish the in- surance certificate. What is the cost of dram shop in- surance? Costs of coverage will depend upon dollar volume, type of sales, past claims experience of the retailer and other factors. For beer sales, on. sale or off-sale, of less than $10,000 per year, annual premiums are generally between $180 and $400; the premium for wine sellers with less than $10,000 in sales is likely to be about $800 or less. With aggregate limits in the policy what happens when coverage limits are used up? Virtually all dram shop policies in Minnesota contain annual aggregate limits of liability. If dram shop claims against a beer or liquor retailer go over the aggregate limits in the policy, persons with injuries from separate incidents may have no in- surance coverage from which to draw. Some cities are considering enacting ordinances which would re- quire the licensee to buy additional coverage after any claim during the license year in order to retain the license. The law is unclear as to cit responsibility on limits and this ques- tion along with several others may be addressed by. amendments the legislature will probably review dur- ing the 1983 session. What should the city look for in evaluating whether a certificate of insurance is adequate? The city should require that the certificate show two things: First, that the policy's limits of coverage are at least equal to the amounts the law re- quires; and second, that the policy includes a provision that the insurer may not cancel coverage without 10 days written notice to the city. (A standard certificale of insurance form contains a provision stating that the company will "endeavor" to give the city notice but disclaiming liability for failure to do so; such a statement is not adequate.) Of course, the cer- tificate should also show the names of the insurance company and age cy, policy number, and policy expiro tion date. MINNESOTA CITIES April 12, 1983 CItY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA STREET LIGHTING POLICY WHEREAS, it is deemed necessary that a un~£orm po]~cy For the placement of street lights in the City be established, the following shall constitute the policy for installation of street lights in the City of Mound: 1. A street light'be installed at every intersection open for traffic wi'thin the City. On any streets with a curS~to--curb width in excess of 52 feet, and where there is normally a significant amount of pedestrian traffic, two street lights may be instal]ed at each intersection. Mid-block street lights may be installed in any block in which the centerline to centerline distance between cross streets is greater than 600 feet, upon receipt of a petition signed by a majority of the residents on the block, including the signatures of the residents adjacent to the specific location where such mid-block light is requested. In such instances, additional street lights shall be installed so that the distance between street lights does not exceed 600 feet. Additional street lights will be considered for individual approval upon receipt of a petition from the property owners in the affected area, or upon recommendation from the Chief of Police or from the City Manager when such petition or recommendation demonstrates a specific warrant affecting traffic safety. The type of street lights installed under the provisions of the above three paragraphs shall be as follows: If the electrical distribution system within the area is overhead, the street light shall consist of a steel mast arm and luminaire mounted on a conventional wood pole with overhead electrical service. be If the electrical distribution system within the area is under- ground, the street light shall consist of a steel mast arm and luminaire mounted on a conventional wood pole with underground electrical service. c. Developers and/or residents in residential areas may. peti.'tion the the City for the placement of decorative li~gh, tilng in residential neighborhoods. If such installation is approved by the City Council, the property owners petitioning such decorative lighting shall pay Northern States Power directly for installation, maintenance and monthly charges for the light or lights.~~ d. Residents or homeowners who wish to install lights outside of these policies may do so by petition, but the lights shall be ~'~\ the responsibility of the homeowner to pay the entire cost of the light including installation, operation and maintenance where required. e. The size of lumina|res to be installed shall be as follows: '- On collector and arterial streets - On local streets, at marked crosswalks. - On local streets, where no marked crosswalks exist Mercury High Pressure Vapor OR Sodium 400 watt 250 watt 250 watt 150 watt 175 watt 100 watt 5.- All street lighting requests and installations should be coordinated through the City Manager. April 26, 1983 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Sir: The following is our bid for the 1983 Spring Cleanup: $5,100.00 flat fee including dumping charges. Sincerely, John Zuccaro Westonka Sanitation 472 1379 Page No. of pages NAME: PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO: ! ( d,',&4. : .-.-,.-,"-. STATE: We hereby submit specifications and estimates for: STREET: /; '-~....~/ : CITY: j STATE: ARCHITECT: ,. IDATE OF pLANS: We hereby propose to furnish labor and materials -- complete in accordance with the above specifications, for the sum of: dollars ($ ) with payment to be made as follows: All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs, will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge aver and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance. Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's Compensoti0nJnsurance. Authorized Signature NOTE: This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within days. The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. ..~gp~lY~l: Signature Date Signature Form 118 -- Copyright 1960 New England Business ,Service, Inc.. Townsend. Mass. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 April 29, 1983 TO: Jon Elam FROM: Greg Skinner SUBJECT: Meters at Tonka Toys The %~ter Dept. will be upgrading the four water meters at the Tonka Toys plant in the very near future. The reason for this is that all four meters are at or above their maximum flow for accurate readings. The procedure we will be following for upgrading will be to purchase two 6" Turbo meters with remotes to replace the two existing 4" Turbos at the east end of the building. These are meter numbers 1 & 5. We will then send out~ the' two 4"Turbos to be tested and calibrated. When this is completed we will then remove the two 3" Turbos that are at the west end of the building. These are meter numbers 3 & 4 and put in the two 4" Turbos that have been tested and calibrated. I have semttthe 2 bids along with this letter. Badger is the low bidder. I would also like to recommend that the city pays for the meters so that we own all rights to the meters. The total cost of this upgrade will be approximately $3,500 to $4,000 and will have to be done on a Sunday or Holiday or when Tonka Toys is shut down. Respect fully, r~ Skinner Water Supt. OS/jcn ,,_,=.2IA U..,=S NO 1 711'78 SI NOII t;,'l,Od_~U Ur?O,, 'T~T~m ST~ uo no~ 9~onb o~ ~Tun~oddo 9q~ aog noa · punoN 'g'O'a p~nbIg s~ ~oT~d ~Aoq~ ~q& 00'9~I ................................... sabueId s$~I uoTI~D ~In~ ~ auTq~n& ~u~I~ .9 'I~Tg~m DUT~OIIOg ~q~ uo no~ ~onb o~ p~se~id ~xe ~M g@UUT~S :u~¥ P9£SS NH 'punoM punoN go £86I '6I IIad¥ 6i~t, Si9 V/OSBNNIIAI 'SI-1OdVBNNIIA/ 'ON '3AV 3ZBBk18 3NVq 0L0t:' xa~E~EZ~N. LLI l I I 1 111\ i~, ,~,i1~2 (.._11 I I I I ill 1 '% to _ Badger Meter, lnc. Flow Products Division 4545 w. Brown Deer Road, P.O. Box 23099 Milwaukee, WI 53223 (414) 355-0400 April 21, 1983 Mr. Greg Skinner, Supt. City of Mound Water Department 341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject: Price Quotation City of Mound, Minnesota - Water Department Dear Mr. Skinner: At the request of our sales representative, Tim McCool, we are pleased to quote as follows: QUANTITY DESCRIPTION PRICE 2 Badger 6" Recordall Turbo Meter, w/ROM, L/Connections @ $1,356.69 each Terms are net 30 days. Freight will be prepaid and allowed on all orders of $1,000.00 or more. "Prices are firm for acceptance within 60 days, and an order placed within that time period will indicate acceptance. Either party shall have the option of price renegotiation six months from the date of the order." Attached is bulletin RT-1, descriptive and illustrative of the meters we are quoting. The bulletin describes the features, operations, and sizes of our water meters in a broad, general way. The products are warranted to meet or exceed AWWA accuracy standards. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity of placing this quotation before you and hope it meets with your approval. Very truly yours, BADGER METER, INC. A:"/''',J/. '~erse Northern Region Sales Manager AJD/dls · s~×e:l Jo s~]:3!J!::ln Jo..l ~jq!suods~J 3ou s! ~ss~l sAep O[ uo Aue le ~se~1 s!q~ ~eu!~Ja~ 03 ~4§!J a43 SaAJaS~J JOSSa[ O0'OOI *,'m~"~ 001/00 pue pajpunH au0 ............ i ........... ~l ''I~(':" ~ ........ BILLS ..... MAY 3, 1983 Air Comm All Star Electric Anchor Paper Acro-Minnesota Badger Meter Holly Bostrom Burlington Northern Babler Automotive Bowman Distribution Braun Engineering Jan Bertrand Borchert Ingersoll The Brass Bell Fran Clark Dependable Services Dictaphone D & V Sales Fire Control Geotechnical Engineering Henn Co. Treas Hoffman Shoe Repair Henn Coop Seed Exch Henn Co. Sheriff Interntl Conf Bldg Offic. Instrumentation Serv. Lawco Co. McCombs Knutson Mound Locksmith Munitech, Inc. Metro Fone Mpls Star & Trib Mtka Boat-Auto Clean Natl Roofing Contractors Office Products of MN Popham Haik Pitney Bowes Real One Acquisition Don Streicher Guns Stevens Well Co. Thrifty Snyder Drug V & R Heating Wurst Pearson Hamilton Waconia Ridgeview Hosp Widmer Bros Woodland Venture 96.00 474.39 174.18 238.80 848.47 266.00 533.33' 1,440.00 253.33 981.75 46.84 16.52 29.70 20.75 33.00 64.00 299.65 69.80 1,436.00 5,397.O0 4.OO 128.50 56.10 12.OO 61.OO 31.60 2,411.OO 18.OO 303.40 23.6O 134.40 59.95 10.OO 170.OO 1,781..45 26.00 675.OO 706.15 204.35 15.99 15O.OO 6,641.89 6.88 232.00 7.5O Xerox Corp State Treas P.E.R.A. Michael Callinan Commiss of Revenue Steve Grand Griggs, Cooper Johnson Bros. Liq Mound Postmaster City of Mound Midwest Wine City of Mound Mound Postmaster Metro Waste Control Old Peoria David Nelson Jerry Palmer Ford Charles Pugh Ed Phillips State Bank of Mound State Treas. Jacqulyn Segnor Security Alarm Univ of MN TOTAL BILLS 48.50 1,449.76 2,462.78 50.OO 4,878.58 36.16 2,545.09 4,051,33 6OO.OO 35.52 563.00 252.50 118.~,: 26,126. 1,34~. 67. 17,079.~-, 35.00 3,275.25 5,000.00 264.15 35.00 386.19 110.O0 97,410.2! For Release: NEWS RELEASE 3:15 p.m., Monday, April 25, 1983 FROM: FOR: CONTACT: BRUM & ANDERSON PUBLIC RELATIONS, INC. 425 Lumber Exchange Building 10 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 TON~A CORPORATION 4144 Shoreline Boulevard P.O. Box 445 Spring Park, MN 55384 L. Martin LeBus TONKA: (612)475-9500 or Tom Vandervoort/Sally Anderson B&A: (612) 375-1190 HOME: (612) 690-1042/432-9623 TONKA REPORTS FIRST QUARTER RESULTS SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA -- Tonka Corporation today announced financial results for the first quarter of 1983. For the quarter, Tonka reported a net loss of $1,570,000 or $1.46 per share compared to a net loss of $253,000 or $.24 per share for the same period in 1982. First quarter 1983 net sales were $11,661,000, a decrease of 14 percent from first quarter sales of $13,537,000 last year. "The first quarter sales decline resulted from the late receipt of orders reflecting a continuing conservative posture on the part of retailers," said Stephen G. Shank, Tonka President - more - Tonka Corporation 4144 Shoreline Boulevard, P.O. Box 445, Spring Park, Minnesota 55384 612/475-9500 TONKA CORPORATION STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED EARNINGS Three Months Ended April 2, 1983 ($000) Net Sales Cost of Products Sold Gross Profit Expenses: Research and Development Advertising Other Selling, Administrative and General Expenses Earnings (Loss) Before Interest and Taxes Interest Expense (Income)-Net Earnings (Loss) Before Taxes Income Taxes Net Earnings (Loss) 11,661 9,113 2,548 494 970 3,956 (2,872) 173 ( ,045) (3,475) $ (1.570> Earnings (Loss) Per Share $ (1.46) Common Shares Outstanding 1,072,796 TONKA CORPORATION SUMMARY OF CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL POSITION ASSETS Cash. and Short-Term Investments Inventories Other Current Assets Total Current Assets Net Property, Plant and Equipment Other Assets As of April 2, 1983 ($ooo) $ 4,029 15,695 19,118 38,842 26,222 336 $ 65.400 April 3, 1982 ($000) 13,537 9,313 4,224 472 934 3,892 (1,074) (304) (770) (517) 2533 $ (.24) 1,072,796 As of April 3, 1982 ($ooo) 2,639 16,798 16,137 35,574 17,510 139 $ 53,223 LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUIT~ Trade Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses Notes Payable to Banks Total Current Liabilities Long Term Debt Deferred Income Taxes Stockholders' Equity 13,190 9,680 22,870 10,544 1,507 30,479 65.400 13,621 2,617 16,238 893 763 35,329 23.223 / oJF For Release: NEWS RELEASE April 28, 1983 TONKA RETAINS REALTY ADVISORY FIRM Spring Park, Minnesota -- Tonka Corporation announced today that it has retained the Realty Advisory Group of Security Pacific Financial Services to assist Tonka in planning for new uses for the Tonka buildings located in Mound and Spring Park, Minnesota. The planning process will provide recommended options for new uses and the eventual sale of these buildings. The planning effort, which will be closely coordinated with City officials, should be completed by the end of September. As previously announced, Tonka is in the process of transferring its domestic manufacturing facilities to E1 Paso, Texas. Tonka expects to continue manufacturing operations in its Minnesota facilities through most of 1983. Headquartered in New York City, Security Pacific Realty Advisory Group has had 20 years of experience in representing other companies in similar projects. Tonk~ Corporati6n is a worldwide manufacturer and marketer of quality toys under the Tonka brand name. The Company is listed on the New York Stock Exchange and is traded under the symbol TKA. Contact: L. Martin LeBus, Senior Vice President and Chief Tonka Corporation 4144 Shoreline Boulevard, P.O. Box 445, Spring Park, Minnesota 55384 612/475-9500 Northem States Power Company Minnetonks Division 5505 County Road 19 P.O. Box 10 Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Telephone (612) 474-8881 April 26, 1983 Mr. Joe Elam, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mr. Elam; We received your letter dated April 8, 1983, concerning the conversion of mercury vapor fixtures to sodium vapor units. Thank you for your prompt action and we will continue to serve your present system to the best of our ability. Sincerely, Marlow E. Peterson Design Supervisor MEP:lm /oEO HENNEilN DATE: TO: FROM: ,.SUBJECT: April'25, 1983 Urban Hennepfn County CDBG Program Participants Hennepin County ~ office of Planning and Development · GENERAL MEETING/JOBS BILL ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION TO CDBG PROGRAM Please plan to attend a meeting on Monday, May 9,. 1983, 1:30 PM, at the Minnetonka City Hall, Council Chambers. The meeting is scheduled to discuss the process for requesting funds made available to CDBG entitlement recipients through the Jobs Bill signed by the President March 24. You will recall that Urban Hennepin County received an additional allocation of $1;051,000 under the terms of that bill. The process for requesting the funds will include objectives for their use, schedule of events, Citizen Advisory Committee role, proposal review criteria, public hearing requirements and other pertinent issues. lw Report of the Lake Minne t o n ka Task Force LAKE MINNETONKA °% June 1953 REPORT OF THE LAKE NINNETONKA TASK FORCE Revised D~o~t ~ Ap= 83 Robe=t L. Se~=les, Chai=man Ka=en Loechle= Thomas R. Mulcahy E.F. "Bud" Robb, Joseph E. Size= Rosemaz-y, Dineen 'Wallace E. Ess David Coch=an Thomas H~p]e Robe=t Tipton B=own R~cha=d O. Smith Wayne LeBoeuf David B=as]au Pau! Pond Robe=t Thrift Ho]calm Reid Robe=t E. Wagne= B=od Van Nest III. IV. Ve VI. TABLE OF CONTENTS Fo=ewa=d Public Access Al Int=oduction ' BI Imp=oving Existing Launch Facilities Cl Ne~ 'Fishing Boat and Saall Rec=eation Boot' Launch Facilities DJ Sho=e Access . . El Island Rec=eotion Fi Comme=cial Access to the Lake Gl' Winte= Access HI Table 1 Il Maps Su=face Use A} Noio= Focto=s Affecting The Lake Bi Su=face Use Conflicts C! Education Effo=ts fo= Using the Loke Law Enrac'cement Al Cu==ent Laws Adequate Bi LNCD Should Have P=ima=yHanagement Role CI Potential Fo= Confusion - 20 Agencies D! Negotiated Ju=isdiction El Law Enfo=cement Suggestions F) Five Funding Options Fo= Law Enfo=cement ? Appendices Al Backg=ound To Lake Minnetonka Task Fo=ce Fo=motion BI G=ays Boy Causeway Resolution Bibliog=aphy Page 8 16 11 21 23 27 28 The Lake Minnetonka Task Fo=ce was fo=med in July of 1982 to p=epa=e a =epo=t and make=ecommendat~ons to the Gore=no= and Hinnesota Legis[atu=e' conce=n[ng the adequacy of oppo=tunities fo= the =egional public on Lake Hinnetonka. The three a=eas studied we=e.1) adequacy of public access,'2} su~f~ce use ,patte=ns and conflicts, and 3J adequacy of ]°k~ and enfo=cement p=og=ams. While the Task Fo=ce found that oppo=tunities fo= both boat ~nd Sho=eline access we=e inadequate in some a=eas of' th~ lake, it also found that du=ing peak weekend afte=noons, boat density in some pa=ts of the lake p~esents potentially, haza=dous conditions. Conflicts exist in the fo=m of big boats vs. smalle= boats, fast boats vs. sloWe= boats, swimming/diving vs. boating, and fishing-vs, pleasu=e boating. The body of existing law and =egulations w~s found to be adequate, but enfo=cement is l~mited by inadequate funding. The Task Fo=ce =ecommends that new boat and sho=eline access oppo=tunities be established in ce=rain ~=eas of the lake and that some ex~sting access facilities be expanded andYo= imp=oved. The Lake H~nnetonk~ Conservation Dist=ict should, continue to be the p~ima=y agency in coo=dinat~ng the study, monitoring, and =egu]ating of =ec=eationa] use'patte=ns that will balance the needs of the =egiona] public and p=otect~on of the lake. Finally, adequate personnel and funding a=e ~equi=ed on a continuing basis to implement these =ecommendations and to maintain the management of Lake Hinnetonka fo= the continued assu=ance of a quality and visito=s. Histo=ically, Lake'Minnetonka was once a wilde=ness used exclusively fo= hunting, fishing .and 't=apping. Indian comps we=e "common and thickly inte=spe=sed on the sho=e of the Lake". In 1852, when the U.S. Senate =atified. the Sioux t=eaties t=ansfe=ing Indian title to its sho=e, wild =ice was obse=ved standing in fou= feet of wate= "like a field of cultivated g=ain." Fa=ming, loggi~g and the fi=st dam at Minnetonka Mills followed soon the=eafte=; The'fi=st t=ails f=om St. Anthony to Minnetonka we=e su=veyed by Hennepin County in 1855-56. Only 30 yea=s late=, in the late 1BBO's, steamboats and hotels we=e cate=ing nationally to app=oximately 100,000 summe= tau=lets. Following Wo=ld Wa= II, =egional population g=owth was =apid 'because of imp=ovements in t=anspo=tation, installation of utilities, development of =ec=eational"equipment, const=uction of se=vice facilities and changes in life style. Today Lake Minnetonk~ has become a beehive of activity uniquely o=iented to =ec=eation fo= l,O00,O00 people living within minutes of its sometimes sro=my, sometimes placid su=face. Lake Minnetonka =ec=eationa! planning is complicated by the fact that 1~ municipalities with app=oximately 50,000 =esidents abut its sba=eS. Much of the land was plotted and'p=ivately developed long ago. Plamning then could not anticipate today's 02 26 Ap=.83 needs., The p~ob!em now is that g~e~t ~ec~eational use of the '?' surface of the lake, limited publicly owned lakesho~e0 and increasiIy high lakeshore p~ope~ty values, fu~the~ diminish opportunities to p~ovide fo~ f~ee public use of a valuable and extremely att~ctive body of public wcte~. ~1. PUBLIC ACCESS Al INTRODUCTION= The Ta~k Fo:ce =ecognizes Lake Minnetonka as a unique natu:a] and :ec=eationa! :esou:ce because of its size and location within a majo:,'dense]y-populated met:opo]~tan a=ea. The lake's public significance Js b=oade: than the ]oca! communities which su==ound ~ts sho=es and :ec~eationa! planning ~esou:ce must be app=oached f:om a =eg~onal pe=spective. The Task Fo=ce finds that the:e a:e times when po=t~ons of Lake H~nnetonka a=e ove=-c=owded and unsafe. Howeve=, much' of the t~me~ such =s weekdays, and weekends when wea~he= conditions a:e not idea]'~ the lake is not ove:-u~i]ized no= uns=fe. The Task Fo=ce finds that the=e ~s-a need fo= access to Lake H~nnetonka to se=ye pe=sons who want to fish boa~s and f=om;¥he sho=e]ine. The'=e ~s no demons~:ated need'fo= medium size o= ]a~ge size boats to gain addit~ona! lake access. Because existing pub]~c]y-owned boat launch sites a=e located p=ima=i]y on the no=th and east sho=es of L~ke H~nne[onka, i% :ecommended, whe=e possible0 additiona! public boat launch oppo:tun~ties be p:ov~ded- on the south and west sho=es. identifying new access sites, the Task Fo=ce finds that the mos~ idea] locations a:e in non-:es~ent~a] a=eas which a:e accessible f:om p:ima:y highways and in a=eas whe:e othe: k~nds of public .use have been common ore= the yea:s. Fu:the:, the=e ~s oppo:tun~ty fo: imp:ovement of ex~sti'ng boat launch :amps and scen~c'sho=e s~tes on Lake H~nnetonka. ~he=e p~ct~cal, both 26'Ap= 83 docks to allow the tempo:a:y holding of boats entering and lea¥~ng the ]aka, Doubling :amp capocit¥ should be conside:ed a~ some existing s~tes. The Task Fo=ce concluded that a key facto= to p=oviding the public with access to Lake Hinnetonka ts the p=o¥is~on of adequate, legal, safe ca~/t=aile: pa=king within a =easonable distance f~om a launching =amp. On,st=eat pa~king .of ca~/t~aile: units, though sometimes necessaz3/, is less desi:able than~ off-st=eat pa=k~ng. Fo= on-st:eat pa~king locations to be conside=ed =eliable, they should be suppo=ted by w=itten agreement between the app=op=iate public o= p=ivate g=oup and the LMCD, and they should be p=ope=ly identified with signs as approved access pa~king. It should be noted that some pa:k~ng spaces a:e obviously svpe=io: to othe:s. P~=king long distances f:om launch =amps causes inconveniences to boate=s, could =esult ~n stolen · equipment Iwhen ongle=s a=e fo:ced-to leave boots and geo= unattended), and often c=eates long de]oys in launching and =et:~eving boats. Th=oughout the Task Fo=ce de)ibe=ot~ons on public access, the des~=abiity of and need fo~ additional on-s~e po~king at )aunch~ng ~amp sites, old o~ new~ was almost token as a "given" Jn any discussion. At. the same .time, lakesho=e mo=ket vo]ues make the achievement of this goal an expensive p=o)ect. These mo=kef va]ues ~vn as h~gh as $~,000.00 a f:ont foot making a 05 ~& Ap= 83 ]akesho:e pa:king lot an expensive public facility. This fact of. life fo:ces the task fo:ce to :ecognize pa:king availability on-st:eet, neat on access site, os the best olte:notive-open to US now. While not intending to igno:e any use: g:oup, the Lake Minnetonka Task Fo:ce focused ma~o: ella:ts on meeting the needs of angle:s who wovld like additional access to Lake Minnetonko and the excellent fishing oppo:tvnities it p:ovides. The Task Fo:ce finds that p:oviding additional boot launching facilities fo: small fishing boats would not significantly add to wate: su:face ove:c:owding o: unsafe conditions. The Task Fo:ce :ecognizes the p:oblems inhe:ent with attempting to monito: and enfo:ce boot o: moto: size limitations at boot accesses, but also is awo:e that launching facilities con be designed to :est:iht use to ce:rain kinds of wate:c:oft. Limiting focto:s might include shallow ware: :amps, ave:head ba::ie:s, low b:idges, vnde:wate: ba::ie:s., atones, etc. It was dete:mined that since most existing launch :amps ate capable of- handling a va:iety of moro: sizes and boat types, new boot launch :amps developed on Lake Minnetonka should be designed to :est:ici use'to fishing c:of~ and small mec:eation boats. B) IMPROVING EXISTING LAUNCH FACILITIES: The Task Fo:ce finds that boot launching facilities and co:/t:aile: po:king could be enhanced at Lake Hinnetonko by imp:oving and/o= expanding some existing facilities. Existing 06 26 Ap: 83 boat launch facilities ~=e p=ima~ily located on ~he east and no~thern a~eas of the lake and a=e deemed to meet the.needs of oil types of boot uses th=oughout the lake except fo= fishing c~aft and small =ec=eotion boats. The Task Fo=ce finds that the following common imp=ovements. shou)d be made at all existing boot launching sites. 1. Const=uction of make-=eady docks. e Pa=king ag=eemen~s between local units of gove=nment and the LMCD. . Signs showing the locations of off-site pa=king. Adequate landscaping. Toilets, t=ash containe=s, and public telephones. The Task Fo=ce finds that the following boat launching facilities should be imp=oved: 1. .The Sp=ing Pa=k access should be imp=oved.by adding o wave =eta=ding device in con~vnction with the · const=uction of a make-=eady dock. A second launch =amp should be instal]ed and imp=ovements made to the t=offic flow to facilitate fast.= launching and =et=ieva] of boats. 2. The Task Fo=ce =ecbmmends expansion ~nd imp=ovement of the G=ays Bay Causeway site, including on/off st=.et and co=/t=oile= pa~king facilities, in o=de= to meet =egional =ec=eational needs. On Feb=ua~/ B, 1P83, the Task Fo=ce passed a =.solution endo=sing =.development of this s~te {Appendix BI. This =,development, which O? Ap= should obse=ve and maintain sound envi=onmental policies, should limit the =amp. and pa=king to the G=ays Bay.side and enhance aesthetic and passive uses.on the Wayzata Bay side. The G=ays Bay Dam site should be maintained as a fishing c=aft and small =ec=eation boat access site. -. The Wayzata/A=lington access should be imp=oved by acqui=ing land west of the p=esent site to p=ovide space fo= safe launching and =et=ieval of boats without the need to back in di=ectly f=om the st=eet. The Williams St=eet access on Halstead~s Bay should be imp=oved to facilitate the launching of fishing c=aft and small =ec=eation boats. Additional land should be acqui=ed to pcovide on-site o= nea=by off-st=eet pa=king. C) NEW "FISHING CRAFT AND SHALL RECREATION BOAT" ACCESS SITES= A=guments have been made both fo= and against additional boating access to Lake Hinnetonka. The Task Fo=ce engaged in long and lively debates on the subject befo=e coming to its conclusions. The two main a=eas of contention conce=ned: l! Lake Su=face Ca=~ying CapaCity, and 21 Pa=king Space Capacity, fo= the l~,O00 ac=es [app=oximately] of'Lake Minnetonka wote~ su=face. 1.. Lake Su=face'Capacity=' Boots in use at a given moment may va=y f~om essentially .none to mo=e than 2,000. LMCD data fo= 1982'showed 2,28~ boats in use du=ing one spot check, which amounts to one boat fo= eve=y 6 ac=es of ware=. 08 26 Ap= 83 Pa=king Space Capacity: ~he Task Fo=ce identified 1,172 f:ee ca=/t=aile= spaces including off-site/on-st=eot and on-site locations. One-h~lf of which a~e on-site Ox within 1,000 feet and al! a=e within 1500 feet of existing public launch facilities (map 1, page 00}, which amounts to one space fo= eve=3/ 1~ ac=es of ware= su=face. The Task Fo=ce finds that although these f=ee/un=est=icted pa=king spaces mo=e than meet the DNR~s numerical standa=d overall0 the DNR not met. The Task Fo=ce finds that the existing dist=ibvtion of boat' launch facilities0 while adequate fo= al! othe= boa~s0 is not adequate fo= Small fishing boats. P~esen~ location of some =amps =eqvi=e fishe=men to make long and sometimes difficult wa~e~ 'c=ossings to find des~=abl.e a=eas to f~sh. High.winds~ sro=ms ~nd l~=ge boat w~kes add to the p=ob]em causing unsafe conditions fo= small fishing boats. To ~dd=ess the dist=ibution of accesses fo= "fishing c~aft. ~nd small =ec=e~tion boats"} the Task Fo=ce divided the lake-into six zones (see map 2, page 00}; The ]a~ge size and complexity of the lake made a six zone division useful ~nd it immediately highlighted the gene~ai obse=vation tha~ existing accesses appea=ed to meet the needs of a=eas 1,~,~ and 5, when viewed ~s isolated zones, leaving the othe~ zones sho=t of access capacity OP 26 Ap= 83 (see Table 1, page 00}. The zone lines a=e a=bit=a=y and the Task. Fo=ce =ecogn/zed that all boats including fishing ==aft and small =ec=eation boats move f=om bay to bay and do not necessa=i]y stay in any one zone. Fu=the= analysis shows that this sho=tage of access capacity in some zones has significance fo= small,, open boots w~th low-f=eeboa=d/low-powe=, not fo= medium size and/o= high-powe=ed c=aft. In fact, the p=inc~pa! pv=pose of launching this =athe=' p=edominate medium size class of boat is to c=uise a=ound the lake. Howeve=, the zone app=oach has significance fo= the fishing c=aft and sma]! =ec=eation boats, which a=e ]ow-powe=ed, and not p=otected f=om swamping by high waves o= b~g boat wakes. This type of sma]] c=aft is exemplified by a =ange of boats f=om canoes to the standa=d 16 foot aluminum fishing boat sometimes ca==ying as' much as.a 50 ho=sepowe= moro: but usual]y. less than that. The Task Fo=ce is intentiona]]y not setting desc=iptive limits on what constitutes =fishing c=aft and small =ec=eation boats." since %he=e is such a g=eat va=iety of boats fa)ling in this catego=y. Dispe=sal of access sites fo= this catago=y is a desi=able goal and the zone ana]ysis of the )ake confi=med that implementing agencies shoU)d· take =easonable steps to p=ovide access fo= fishing ==aft and small =ec=eation boats on the south and southwest sba=es of the lake. 10 26 Ap: 83 Using the state's stando=ds of ohe'on-site co=/t=oi]e= po=king space pe: 20 ac=es of wore= o zone analysis p=Oduces the 'following summa=y: ZONE 2 3 5 TABLE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF CAR/TRAILER PARKING. FACILITIES BY ZONE ACRES DNR EXISTING OF STANDARDS SPACES WATER ONE/20 ACRES IN USE TODAY OVER/UNDER 1,600 80 ~bP + BP 3,000 150 ~0~ +25? 3,540 177 BO - P7 1,9~0 97 2P5 +198 2,640 132 2~9 + 87' 1,280 64 0 .- 64 1~,000 700 1,172 +472 Sou=ce: DNR Memo, Janua=y 6, 1983 A look at existing po=king space availability fo= the who]e )oke shows 1,172 spaces o= 6?% mo=e than the 700 spaces acco=ding to store stonda=ds. It should be noted that only o 'po=tion of the ],172 spoces ovoi]oble fo~ f=ee public occess po=king o=e on-site, o quality diffe=entiol 'which should be imp=oved os public money ~s .available. Emphasis should be placed on the need to achieve site dispe=sol, with '~ts necessa=y po=king capacity, in o=de= to se=ve the sm~l] boot pub]lc at vo=ious po=ts o¢ the )oke. The=e is no demonst=oted need fo= medium size o= )o=ge size boots to gain additional ]ake access. To assist i.n the dispe=sal of access sites, the Task Fo=ce has =ecommended elsewhe=e in this =epo=t thor the LMCD should =equi=e all existing and new comme=cio] lake sho~e Facilities to p=ovide some pub]ic se=v~ces in =etu=n fo= the =ight to ope=ate 26 Ap= 83 /075 ~omm~clo~ aocKs in the public' wate=s. Boat access is one of those se=vices which may be =equi=ed and may in itself help to p=ovide and dist=ibute access in some a=eas of the lake p=esently unde=-se=ved. The following is an invento=y of boat access and existing comme=cial lake sho=e facilities by zone,: .Zone 1: No=th A=m/Hend=ickson public launch =amp; C=ystal Bay Se=vice; Gayles Ma=ina; Choska Ha=ine; No=th' Sho=e Ma=ina; Zone 2= Wayzata/A=lington Public Launch Ramp; G=ays Bay 'Causeway Public L~unch R~mp~ G=ays B~y D~m Public Zone 3: Zone Zone S: Zone Launch Ramp; Windwa=d Ma=ine; Minnetonko Boat Wo=ks-O=ono; Hinnetonka Boat Wa=ks-Wayzata; ~=ays Bay'Ma~in~; - Ca=son~s Bay Public Launch Ramp; Sailo=s Wo=ld : Ha=ina; Tonka Bay Boat Wa=ks; Cv=ly's Ma=ina; Sho=e~ood Yacht Club Ha=ina; Coch=an~s Boat Ya=d; G=eenwood Ha=ina; Excelsio= Boot and Moro= Mo=t; Sp=ing Pa=k Public Launch Romp~ Phelps Bay Public Launch Ramp% Hound Pa=k Public Launch Ramp; 'Wi]liams St=eet Public Launch Ramp; Howa=d's Point Ha=ina; · Rockvam~s Boat Ya=ds~ Ma=tin and Son Boat Rental~ The Task Fo=ce =ecommends that implementing agencies and ]akesho=e municipa]~ties coope=ate ~n monito=~ng Ony futu=e ]and use changes'at existing comme=cio] access s~tes. Conside=ation should be given to c=ea~on of a public access site ~t any 2~ Ap= 83 .exzs--~ng comme~ access ocation p=io= =ezoning of such a site to mu)tip]e dwelling o= othe= non-]ake eccess use. The'Task Fo=ce has developed the following c=~te=ia which should be used in selecting and eValuating potential new small fishing boat access sites. Relationship to =esidentia) a=eas - positive and negative impacts of access sites on ad}acent =esidential a=eas~ including distance between a site and. neamby homes, .sc=een~ng the site foam homes, and c=eating new access oppo=tunities fo= neo=by off-lake =esidents. 2. Accessibility %o p=ima=y highways - potential sites nec~ ma~o= h~ghways {State H~ghways ? and 301, County Roods'39 and 35 a=e examp]es} can =educe t~affic impact on =esidentia! st=eets. 3. Public use p~ecedent - sites ol=eody in public owne=ship o= in comme=cial o= indust=~al use,: have the least neighbo=hood impact, whe=e, public facilities o= se=vices have been p=ovided and accepted. Intensity of boating use nea= a potential access site - sections of the lake whe=e the=e is intense boating use shou]d be avoided ~hen' possible. 5. Wind and ice exposu=e'of site - sites p=otected foam p=edominant winds and ice action we=e p=efe==ed. Cost of acquisition - ]mp]ementing agencies should oppl¥ a pe=-boat-)aunched and a-pe=-ca=/t=ai)e=-pa=ked cost analysis. 33 Ap= B3 /07 7 rnys:cai aeveiopmen[ cons~=ain=s m~nlmlz~ng the amount of site alte=ation needed on land and in the ware= to make the potential site usable. lO. Ability to bvffe= site f=om su==ounding land.uses - The site should be la=ge enough to suppo=t adequate vegetation to sc=.eh the site f=om ad)ac.hr land uses. Ba==ie=s such as low b=idges that limit the accessibility to the main lake - This can be both on advantage o= disadvantage. Fo= example in Zone 3, o potentiol occess site on.the south side of Ninnetonko Blvd. would only allow small boats access to the loke. Howeve=, la=ge= boots could be launched f=om the exist'ing access no=th of Hinnetonka Blvd.' Hulti.ple use Oppo=tunities fo= the site - Sites that could p=ovide sho=e fishing olong with boot access 'p=efe==ed. Based on the following the Task Fo=ce finds that additional 'fishing c=aft and small =ec=eation boat' accesses a=e desi=able in-zones 3 and S. 1. No additional fishing c=aft and small =ec=eationa] boot occess is needed in zones 1,2 and ~. These zones o=e adequately se=ve'd by existing public lounch =amps and existing comme=ical ma=inas. Because of the la=ge a=ea of open ware= in CooE~s and Smithtown boys, additional fishing c=aft and small =ec=eotion boot occess sites a=e desi=able in the southe=n po=t~on of Smithtown bay in zone S. 2~ Ap= 83 e p=ox~m~ A=m/Hende=ickson public launch =amp (zone 11, the Sp=ing Pa=k public launch =amp (zone ~!, Rockvams ~nd Ha=tins (zone 6l, the potential futu=e public access f=om existing ma=(nas which do not now have public boat access but may in the futu=e, and conside=ing the p=otected nature f=om the p=evailing winds and quiet ware= posting in this zone, the Task Fo=ce concluded that no new boat access is needed in zone ~. Although many sites we=e discussed by the Task Fo=ce, none of these we=e =anked in any p=io=ity no= we=e they discussed in sufficient detail to date=mine the(= ultimate potential o= . . suitability fo= fishing c=aft and small =ec=eation boat launching facilities. Howeve= the Task Fo=ce does want to call attention to the following: Zone 3 Zone 5 Two sites in Gideons bay that were identified at a site west of the Sho=ewood Yacht Club and. at the Tonka Bay City. Hall location. 1) The Task Fo=ce finds that a site in Lost Lake in Hound =ep=esents a special challenge and oppo=tunity fo= a ma}o=access which seldom comes along at Lake Minnetonka. It is potentially of la=ge capacity, ~d~ocent to downtown activit, ies, may have multiple use potential, en}oys local suppo=t, and is located in an unde=-se=ved a=ea. Successful development of this Site would ve=y likely have the effect of =educing ove=-c=owding at othe= existing boat access sites. 15 alte=n~tive to the sou~he=n portion of Smithtown bay. This site has g~eat potential p=ovided the envi~onment'al conce=ns of installing a new small boat passage unde= smithtown Road can be mitigated. D) Sho=e Access: The Task Fo=ce finds that the=~ is potential fo~ imp=oving sho=e access fo= non-boating use=s of Lake Hinnetonka. Oppo=tunities exist to inc=ease sho=e use and maintain a high qua]i%y =ec=eation expe=ience th=ough be~te= development and management of p=esent public lakesho=e.- ]n a=eas whe=e =ands a=e adjacent to ]akesho=e, whe=e b=idges c=o'ss [he 'lake channels, and in pub]ic pa=ks, the Task F~=ce notes that the=e a=e many oppo=tunities fo=.imp=oving facilities. All existing and new sites should have benches, t=ash containe=s and toilets. The Task Fo=ce =ec°mmends imp=ovements of sho=e facilities on nine sites= 1. Ho]]y's Co~ne=/B=own's Bay - Secu=e .pa=king and const=uct a fishing pie= on B=own's Bay. 2. Noe=enbe=g B=idge - Imp=ave landscaping. 3.. Coffee B=idge - ]mp=ove landscaping. 'Black Lake - Secu=e st=eet pa=king and const=uct a fishing pie= on Black Lake. 5. Eme=ald Lake/Cooks Bay - Secu=e st=eet pa=king. Hound Pa=k - Const=uct a fishing pie= on Cooks Bay. 7. Zimme=man's Pas~ - Secu=e st=eet pa=king. 16 26 Apr 83 s~o= nons- Const=uct a fishing pie=. G=ay~s Bay Causeway - Landscape the site and p=ovlde non-boating passive use on the W~yz~t~ B~y Side. In addition the Task Fo=ce =ecommends that when County Road 1S between Wayzata and Nava==e ne'eds imp=ovement, it~should be designed and'managed as a two-lane scenic pa=kway p=ese=ving the ' histo=ical scenic vistas of this unique lakesho=e =oadway. This =oadway cuts th=ough the center of the lake and offe=s many. unique and spectacula= views of Lake Hinnetonka. Futu=e improvements of the scenic parkway should p=ovide, whe=e envi=onmentally poss~ble~ bike and hiking trails, and scenic lookout pa=k~ng a=eas. Vith p=oper landscaping and development this =oadway can =emain one of the p=emie= scenic pa=kways in the met=opolitcn area. County and state classification and const=uction s~anda=ds should be modified to allow thi~ =oadway to'be classified and used as a two-lane scenic pa=kway. The Task Fo=ce also =eviewed t=a~] system pl. ans prepa=ed by most of the Lake Hinnetonka Communities. These inte=connected t=ail systems a=e well planned and can p=ovide access to public ]akesho=e =ec~eation a=eas. The Task Force =ecommends that the Lake Minnetonka communities implement thei= t=ail plans. The Task Fo=ce =ecognized'that ~n °=de= fo= improvements o= additions of access facilities to effectively se=ve the publJc~ they must be adequately maintained. Implementing agencies should set ~s~de adequate maintenance funds fo= these facilities. 17 The Task Fo=ce concluded that significant potentja! exists fo= expansion of island =ec=eation in Lake Ninnetonka. Two islands, Waw~tasso and Wild Goose Chase, a=e p6blic]¥ owned r the Hennepin County. Pa=k Rese=ve District IHCPRDI. The Task Fo=ce =ecommends that Dee=ing Island and the Big ]sland Vete=ans Camp be acqui=ed fo= pa=k pu=poses. The State of Hinnesota should obtain full and cleo= title to the Big Island Vete=ans Camp. Afte= title p~oblems' a=e cleo=ed up, the HCPRD should develop and manage the Big Island Vete=ans Camp Site in Conjunction ~ith the'A=thu= Allen Wildlife'Sanctua=¥ as a The development of an island ~ec=eation system in Lake Hinnetonka might include a fe==y boat system. A public o~ p=ivate fe~=y boat system could make t-hese island pa~ks avail to non-boate=s. ]t also has the advantage of increasing lake enjoyment withou~ a co=~espond~ng inc=ease in boat useage. This ~ecommendation should be integ=ated ~nto the p=esent l~ght =ail t=ansit study of the Hennepin Count~ owned =ail=o~d =ight-of-way which extends f=om Vic~o=ia th=ough Excels~o= to Hopkins ~nd which may be extended to Hinneapolis. 1. e The developmen[ of a 'fe=~'3/. boat system will mo=e off-]akesho=e sites fo= public pa=king. Sites in the vicinity of'Wayzata, Exceisio= and Ca=sons Bay Jn Deephaven should be investigated.. These sites should be potential mass t=anspo=tat~on =outes. The potentia! deve]opmen~ of a Lost Lake access site would p=ovide one mo=e 26 Ap= 83 serve island fe==y system. '. ' FI COHHERCZAL ACCESS TO THE LAKE: The=e a=e two p=incipal fo=ms of p=ivateiy owned lake access facilities: m~=~nas, and food/ente=tainment establishments. The Task Fo=ce concluded the=e a=e few places whe=e b6ate=s o=' sho=e use=s can find =est=ooms, fishing docks, etc. Cu==ent]y, the LMCD Code [Ch~pte= III~ Section 3.08! =equi=es that any new ma=ina p=oposal which would need a special density use pe=mit must p=ovide "ce=rain amenities deemed beneficial to the Lake and to the gene=a] public use of the Lake", such as boat accesses, fishing boat =en[al0 fishing pie=s, =est=ooms, telephones, etc. The Task.Fo=ce =ecommends that the LHCD =equi=ement be expanded to =equi=e 'all ma=inas.-- new and existing -- to p=ovide p=ope=ly identified public service facilities. This policy would =epay the public fo= the ma=in'a's use of public wate=s fo= docking boats. The Task Fo=ce identified seve=al potential p=oblems with this =ecommendation, including a general lack of on-site Ima=ina) pa=king space, the difficulty of enfo=cing the =egulati°ns, ina=eased c~= and boat t=affic congestion, and conflicts between day-use=s and lessees. A vse= fee fo= the se=vice, p=ovided the fees a=e =easonable, is =ecommended. Owne=s of existing ma=inas should be given ample time to i~plement any new license =equi=ements involving additional service obligations on thei= pa=t. Boat =enta! service whe=e available, provides an impo=rant access option to the non-boating-owning public and should be · encou=aged. Food/ente=tainment estab]ishments.a]so p=ovide valuable se=vices to lake use=s. Ha)o= =estau=ant facilities se=ye as destination and p=ovide boate=s with food, ente=tainment and =est=oom facilities. In addition the establ~shments p=ovide facilities f=om which to view the lake fo= both boate=s and non-boate=s. The p=ese~-vation of.~his type of sho=e use ~s an impo=rant publiC'benefit, G! WINTER ACCESS~ :~ The Task Force finds that wJnte= access is adequate and wel]-dis~=ibuted. A wide va=iety of w~nte: activities p=evai], including ~ce-boating, snowmobiling, c=oss-count~, skiing, an~ f~shing in-the-open and in small "cities" of fishing houses.. 20 2~ Ap= 83 III. SURFACE USE (see Ap=il 13, 1983 REPORT OF THE LAKE MINNETONKA TASK FORCE A. 'LAKE SURFACE USE MAjC,',:: F'A[tTORS AFFECTING LAKE SURFACE USE Many factors affect, and/or, aFe affected by Lake Minnetonka surface use. The number of uses and users varies greatly depending upon weather, ~time of day, ~'~eek, n'~:,nth and year, and signi'ficant conflicts between these uses and users exist, particularly during "peak" hours on 10 to 20 "peak" days. Speed, darkness and area of the lake are contributing factors, but most conflicts seem to result from carelessness and thoughtlessness. While common sense, courtesy, respect for the dangers of water activities, and education of the users are 'ti~e preferred means for mitigating these conflicts, a' ccns~ ....able body of law and regulati~]ns already exists and is enforced. The lake surface is a finite resource (approximately 14,2iO acres). The total are,] 'is d]rectly related to the lake level (928 to 930 feet above sea level) which is regUlated by U~e Minnehaha ~r_ek Watershed District through the op.?at'c:5, of Gray's Bay da~:.. Variations of the lake level have a significant e~ t~.~,~ .... c;n ~.le recreational use of the lake Unl i~'~ roads', which can be reb~; it to accommodate heavier traffic, the lake level and consequently the la!<e ~.:,~.~:face area limits t.e amount and t.'/pes of recceaticnal use the lake can s~,.: ;.', ,'-.t any one ,-.~,-~ 1 e I) 1. The Public Access Committee 2. The Laws and Law Enforcement Committee 3. The Surface Use Committee The committee .reports were cons01ida~ed to form the Report of the Lake r Table I LEVELS 1930- 1982 This chart created by Dick G~ay shows the woter levels and their vuriances For 1930 (dotted line}, 1931 {dash) and 1,932 (solid). 1'he horizontal oxi$ represents months and the vertical feel above sea level. ExcerpL from "Lake ;.:innetonka Sun '~" " ,,=..,s, January 5, 1983. The primary boating season on Lake Minnetonka occurs from mid-May (fishing season opener) to late September. Peak boating use of the lake occurs on July 4 and warm weather weekendsJ-approximately 10 to 20 days during the season. At present the recreational use of Lake..Minn. e.tonka during the boating season is influenced by natural features _of the'lake_,such as water depth, size of bays and'open water, the high ratio of shoreline to open water; and man-made features such 'as limited clearance under bridges and sh°reland~d~velopment. Al.thoi~gh 0nly :lO to 15 Percent 'of boats stored at 'a marina are"in use at one time, increasing the on-or-off-lake stor'age capacity of a marina increases-the number of boats that co'uld use the lake at any time. .There also appears to be - ! .- ~. '~ ;. -.~ . an 'increase in trailered 20-to-26-foot boa'tS using the· lake due to an observed increase ~in slip/storage costs at marinas "~:"' ~ ~' ~'" "--'.- The amount-of dock space at l'ake-front 'restaurants' may have an indirect influence' on the size of b~ats using the lake, ~s well as' ha'ring a'direct. effect 6n the boating density (:number of b~ats per acre) on' that area of the lake. S"~:~ USE CONFLICTS Recr(:3tional use conflicts on c,~t,~gorized as big boats versus the lake .during the boating season little boats; fast boats versus slow boats; can be u:'.~.::.wa.oe:~ diving or swimming vers:~s boati.~' and ~ ,~nlng ,~'ersus..boating. For shore fish(:~o at ,])an:~,!s can c. :m ''' ' ~' a Conflict WltA p''.Sin~ boats The ttennepin County Water Patrol has found that· the main cause of boating accidents is ina[tentive driving, which can be exacerbated by higher boat speed or driving while under the 'influence of alcohol. Recreational use conflicts which may lead to an accident are primarily caused by careless or inconsiderate beat operation--not by-tile fact there are more l ar§er and faster boats, on. the lake. One method of controlling 'use conflicts is to regulate the type, length or m,~,,.or size of boats using a lake.. Such regulations must apply to lakesi~ore as ;:~,l as general public boaters in order to be legally enforceable. An alternative method, re§ulating the operation of a boat (e.g. speed limits, quiet water zones, etc.) regardless of boat type, length or motor size can also reduce use conflicts. This method is used by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) through their code of ordinances. ;.n e×ampie of ho'.,,: the LF'CD c~:de regulates surface use follows: overtaking anci;c;red boats ar. higi~ spea:~, especially fishing beats, can ~reate safety h.-~zards and diminish tile quality of fishing. Ti~e LtqCD Code of Ordinances, .-;-~.~n :1.14, S~bdivisi~n lc, ~r.:)hibits speeds o~ ,:,,.'er six :niles per hour on several areas of ti~e lake un,er certain conditons including t~a~ area within 150 feet of an aqchored raft er watercraft. The purpose behind such speed reg~lations is ti~.t a boater is responsible for the wake i~is/her boat creates. The Task Force concluded that the permit process used by~ the LMCD for ~chedul~ng special events, such as fishing tournaments and races~ has worked well in reducing potential user conflicts. The Task' Force recommends that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District should schedule as many special events as possible for weekdays--not weekends or' weekday evenin§s--'in order to reduce the potential for water surface use conflicts. : Observation has shown that the use Of a particular area of~..the lake is determined. ,by the predominant Use in that ar~a... FOr. examPle, iwaterskiing prevents f!shing, if skiing is the predominant use on that part.°f_.the lake. The following Task Force fi~din§s suggest surface use conflicts 'will increase in the future years: . .- .~...~:... .... : - The number of boats using the l'ake at one time (boating' density), has been increasin§ from 1973 to 1982; .. , -goats can be .leased on a short-term basis (usuallY'~throe years)'. Consequently'people can afford to temporari.ly own l arge~..boats... - It has been observed that larger boats are a ·large part of the sales i)~ventory of ''~'~0~ Ninnetonka a_rea boat dealers. ~.creo~d boating densities, more research The Task Force concluded t~.at with of ia'~:? activities and their ~nterac~i~n witq ot~er facters is'n_~d,.d.~ · The. Task Force recommends that more data should be collected to determine the ecological and sociological carrying capacity of the lake in order to predict when and where certain use activities and hence conflicts could occur. Based on the data ~ollected the Lake ~!innetonka Conservation District should develop ' a framework for lake use conflict definition and resolution. EDUCAT.TON EFFORTS FOR USING THE Education is just as important as enforcement in controlling lake surface uses. Observation has shav. n that the la'<e is used by .many "new boat owners" v:.ho 'may not have any previous boating operation experience--especially in light of the fact that .there is no required tr.aining for adult recreational boat operation. An observation was made that approximately 50 percent of the warning tickets given by the Water Patrol are given to violators who claimed no kno~:,ledge of the LMCD boater/surface use rules. The Task Force recommends that the Minnesota Legislature si~ould consider legislat ion requiring r~.c;'eat~oqal boat operators to be license:~ by Dassiq9 v.,ritten and on-the-water .._~ '-~ subject to drunk driv;ng laws. This wouid .t.~s:-- .~m~ that boat operaLors u.: . improve proper operation.af beats and increase boater s~fety. research inuicatin,~ +;',~ up to aa De.r.ce~ of Lake ~iinnetonka boaCe:'s ....... ~. resioe~s ~,4CD ~:.,ds out ~ boatln~ rule syno,;sis to ;uec~ive users in .... ver the L~.iCD admits that this effort cc, es ),,~,. re2cg everyone ~:~"se there ~ many" ,, ..... l]e,v userS" of A map/brochure of Lake Minnetonka produced by the Hennepin County Department of Transportation Planning and Programming Division is distributed to'boaters at 'public boat launch sites, through the Hennepin County Water Patrol, bait shops, and marinas serving Lake Minnetonka. The map. was revised to' include LMCD boating/surface use rUles in 1982. The Task Fo~c'e recommends that the Lake Minnetonka map/brOchure should be-. improved by .iilustr'ating the sailboal; racing courses, the $'chedule of sailboat races and the' "quiet"~,,at6~- zoneS~'' IV, LAW ENPOM~M~Ni (see Ap=il 13, 1983 d=aft) 26 Ap= 83 B. LAW ENFORCEMENT CIJRRENT LAWS ADEQUATE After a thorough examination of the existing laws and regulations covering more than 20 public agencies that cl~ifn or could claim some jurisdictional authority over lake use, the Task Force concluded that there is a sufficent body of law to allow for complete and total lake regulation. Consequently, there is no further need for regulatory enabling legislation by any level of government. LNCD SHOULD HAVE PRIMARY MANAGEMENT ROLE The state has granted the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD), the most extensive and comprehensive auti~oritv to regul +~ ~ . a.. lake use. ~ncluded among the more important regulatory......,~,'~-::~.~ ti~at the LM£D controls are surface use, dock densities and configurati,_.,}, boati~g speed,' marina location, special events aqd pollution. In addition, the Lb;£D car~ raise revenue through t~xat~on and marina 1'~ o . ~. ~,.ens~ fees Via rr, otractual agreement, tile Hennepin C~,~.'-.b, Sheriff's Water Pa:'r.'~. ,~ provi:~s s~,-.FF, e~:~'~-~'~t.,.~,.,.,, and other fa,;iliti~s in order to enforce ,the L~.qCD Code.-.,~ Depa,-tmen~'. of Natural !b]sources Co:-:sf-:rvation Officer is available to enfe~,:e sta~.'-~ boatino, snowm~bili:;g and 9arno. and fish laws. The Task Force recc,:'::,~e,':~s that the LF. CD should continue ~.s ,,~.n._ primary lake :nan~em:nt.~ a~ency. POTENTIAL FOR CONFUSION - 20 AGENCIES While it appears that existing laws and regulations are adeq~Jate to regulate general lake use, it also appears that there is potenl~ial for confusion and conflict among the more than 20 governmental agencies.'having':aUthorit7.' on specific, matters For instance, tn,'ee a§encies, the-'-' "~ . ' ,.N,.,D, 'DN~(~':'~nd ~' local -: .- municipality are involved .'in :. the routine .development of ' a"' boat: access. · :. . special circumstances, 'such as' those su?rounding:'the Gray;s Bay Causeway site · ' - ' - "-' '~"-" '.' ..L. ~..-'! ...' :.,.-'., . may require', the involvement of still more agencies.; In the case:'of'a dredging pro~.:,sal, agencies such ..as local municipalitie's, the LMCD, DNR,' M:innehaha . - . - . . . .:~.'.' ]..'.. '. Cr~ek Watershed District, and. possibly ~he U.S.':.Army Corps of. En'gineers can become involved. Jurisdictional overlap occurs'with other common.lake'..issues as :.,,ell ranging from boat access to dock placement. '-:.-.:..~:' ' . . . · . ~. :.:. '. ,,..~.;.j.:,??...,.,..~.:'~ ! -, .:.,~ ..-..~. ...- ..- .!....,;..-~.'.. :.. . . - ..;:? ~:_ '. :.. :.-...,.:'. - · Oc,'.;';¢usly, this situation causes confusion among.'the general ~ub'i.ic}resulting . ~. ' ,... -; . -~' · ...',[......" .'. .: ..':,.; . .'.:- ' '% · in ~.'.a:~y inadvertent la,;: violations and the possible~ risk.of loss.of public · Ta.,., Fm<:e recommends th~,t..:the agencies re~.pect for law.' COnsequently, the ;:,' ' . . ,- .:....-:~-::' .~.. .... ;=.. ,.o negotiate and assi§n primary responsibility'for dev.~l~pmental and r~,c.:~-,.tery_:. , authority 'in each speci[ie area of concern. resulting in a ~ormal ..?., .... .-.nd.~m of Understanding. Once tqi~ task .is completed the 'Task Force r~-~c,::~?:ends that the §eneral public should be i~formed of the rules governing !.-:~:,'-: use and the identity of public agen.~es responsible for 'sPecific-rule. ~'"'~' '3~?ent. This imc?::.,.,if.'..;1 S '.: !.:::: .')fl ~--' .- ...,-,~ on signs, maps .a~nd br;ochuJ'es, J OFFICE CONSOLIDATION The LMCD maintaics administrative offices and full time staff in Wayzata. The Hennepin Coudty Si~eriff's Water Patrol headquarters is in Spring Park. The DNR conservation officer operates o'ut of his home. The Minnehaha Creek ...~=: ~ned District is locateo i:l Wayzata. ,n, s scattered organizational s: ~,~tu)e inhibits coordination. Even with a Memorandum of Understanding and a u~ified public information campaign, inter-agency coordination could be ur, necessarily difficult, time consuming and expensive. In its response to ~ ~.~_. situation, tqe Task Force r~co~nends_ that ~)~a ~,~D, u~,, (conservation c~icer), ~JaterscaJ District ano Sheriff's !<Jter Patrol offices be physically co~sol idated (b~..t not merged) to more e~ficiently implement existing iAter-agency cocr~ination and the public information recommendations. With important lake info~ati.on and staff located in one place, cooperation and -'.-, ,-dination woul~ be much simpler. Public relations could be.improved by -,~.,~i~)ng the ge"eral public with a single telephon~ number for infon~ation ~'.~ts rangiFc fro~ cock densities t~ .:.'~'.:.nistroLive cc~t~ ~:~.' ~Iso be ~educud f~om s~aFin] of support seKvices. are oppor~'nities to incr~..ase the ~ , ,~,, ecti,;e~:ess oF lake nlanage~!ent ,~:'~ :,,.s. In adsi~!on to improving ~'~ pu'Jli 's av:a,'e,~'~ss CF lake use rules .::. ~ublic info~- a i.~'~ on ~eeneral lake use, tile ,~Js:< roJce recom;~encts l) FIVE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT The Task Force recognized that the Sheriff's-Water Patrol has done a good job, given the limited financial resources that are currently available. However, ' the Patrol's current efforts will probably not be adequate if there' is either an increase in regulations or an increase in surface use activitY.. Moreover, funding levels for the ~,~ater Patrol nave fluctuated greatlY 'in. the past decade. Because of the current, financial crunch on government .'funding at all levels and' because of the relative priority those governmental: le~tels may ass~:_~ to'. financing outdoor recreat.i~n, the Task Force concluded that inno?.~ti,,e, user oriented fundin,q proposals migh't.be-necessary .in order' to properly finance the Water Patrol.' Following is a list~in~ of.'fi~/e funding options that the Task Force reviewed, with' .some comments on their relative feasibility, The fir.~.t Water Patrol financing alternative studied was the'.s, ale of lake use stic!-:~;'~ or permits. This concer..t would require everyone who'-"O'ant'ed' to use the ic;:,~ to porchase and display a speci*l Lake Minn:~tonka permit. · r!~r_. ,::,s~ of the per,nit ,ni.qht ',,a;-;~ depending on the' size and power of the ~,~....-.:~.~ =~'t. Under the premise that large, powerful, boats create more pot,~,'~t~,al for trouble and, therefore, a .~reater need for law enforcement ore.':,:~.."-~ than small :~.oats do, it was ~:J~g,'-sted that permits fo~ large boats sho.:i.'J cost more than per:ni%s for .s,',~ll boats. "" ~..= major prob'=?'~, '.;it..q -.::? '~.,,)~,,j'~ch. Fi"st and foremost is t)'.e fact have to be amended to implement this alter~ative. It was also noted that this approach could lead to the proliferation o'f similar permits elsewhere, {e.§. St. Croix River permjts, Lake' Mille Lacs permits, Gull Lake permits, etc.). Another prob,lem with the specia1 permit is the necessity of creatin§ .an- administrative structure to sell the peri, its during the boating season at -.:It~ple locations. Enforce:rent cf this ai~arnative would simply be an added :~,-oen for the Water Patro ~.,ougn the LYCD would be ~he logical, choice to i;:plement th~s program, ti~ere could oe a Substantial cost involved. Therefore, a thorough cost/benefit analysis should precede any formal proposal , ~ islature. ?? ~ne leg ~. second financing alternative would invoIve..a new fee for use of public accesses during peak lake use periods,' (i.e. v~,eekends and holidays)° This alternative could be implemented by stationing an employee at each access or by' placing a railroad type crossi~)g gate at the access entrance. Obvious ~ The ir~c~nsistency of charging the ~.'oblems wi~h this alternative include: l.~ c:~erai p:~blic. ~or. us~,.. of tt~e 1-'-...~_ v, hile :s~,,:'~.'s. of ~easona!!y. docked or moored ~:.:.~ts and riparian c~,'ner's pay ne pe~':' .... use =ee, and ~) A conflict w~'~,, ti~e ..~. s legal obligation to ~rovide fre~ an~ acequate access to public waters of ~'-: s~ .... ' ..... ' it d .... laus. ,- t~i,:-,s alternative considered ri) :n~ Task r.rCe :'.'aS FOr' the L~.,uD to 'increasE. z.-~ a,'~n~u.-~l .marina licensing fee ~qd dedica;e the pr[~,-:~eds to l:~w enforcement ..... ...~-'i.n]. Tile ratlof,c~;e ~or tni ~ approa,;~,, is "u;~" the t~reseace of marinas ~- ...~r,:~ the ]ake cock,- i butes ...... rc, wd.:;: oec~t: :'~r,s at pea',: use t~l~e:,, . ' ~' *;" ' " ''- i' r~.,C~q':qq ~ [rC'i '-'t~ L- b, u,,e ~:'~ri~ ':. &,,':tr~, ...~-: ..... -~ : '~ -~'~d ~'~ ',~ ;~m~er :- 1' . ': l'~q~-:--.' ' ~ .,:".'~]r-' ...:~" *, ~ · -': .... ~- ~',i"~ ~'"li" ': .'- '-.,,~cil:i~.. ~. . ],,'~ '." ,,~ ........ t' ~ ' ''" -. ' , ._~.' ;'~'~, ~'~'i~;i~':'~,.-':.--.,, ,. /o7% other segments 'of the boating public do 6°t pay, .This alter'~a'6'ive could'be considered in conjunction with the previo.us alternatives .to provide greater equity, but' it 'is 'noted that'riparian owners would'not be charged in this .... m ~ m dppru~¢n.. Tile fo,Jrth alternative involves the fuller use. of the existing 'funding mechanism of the. LMCD. Each of the 14 communities adjoining Lake Minnetonka I+ m ' mmi ]:' ' ' ' ' '..... ~operty Within th'elf cities t~o' may leTM a.tax:of one-third mill pro'vide roi;' support of the [HCD. Currently the 'LMCD-requests less than half th.:~t amount' from the communities for 'its operations. Unlik~'~the lake use per.mit~, alternative, this funding mechanism is currently in Pl~'ce and' is' administratively Possible to implement. ~owever, once..again the-question of who' should 'pay for. additional lake enforecment, arises. This funding .method would further tax non-riparian owners and/or' non-users of Lake"~Minnetonka livin~ in 'the i4 .cities'. Furthermore,. those boaters who do not' reside in tne~e-~.ities would not be ta~ed, The Task Force 'conclUded that, while it is · ~.- ,~l. 1 ~. ;'e ~ ~ ~.' m .''' ' ': to fund basic LMCD Support services at their present.level from the ie;:y t~n property in the '14 Cities, ~dditional support,, parti:.'ularly for . i.' ': ' -} · - ' enfor£ementI activities, si~ould be provided from a broader funding base. - ,h:..rift~ and simplest'alternative would be to 'increase the state watercraft - l ic~;,.;e fees. Watercraft license fees are currently the primary source for f~ .... .'ing county water patrols t,,roughout the stat~, so the administrative ,,.~ ..... :..sm is already in place. There was a general concensus of the Task '--. . ......ns._ for large and hi~n..p.m.:ered boats .-,,:'.-:::? .;;~::,bers that current st,;'~' l i~,~ m. ..... J '~ ~ J ""' 'th'~ fees CO1 l~ct~d are used for There must APPEI~IX A BACKGROUND TO LAKE MINNETONKA TASK FORCE 'FORMATION In Feb=ua~/ 1P82, a controve=sy fla=ed when the Minnesota Department of Natu=a] Resources. (DNR! announced p]:ns to ~cqui=e a boat access site on Lake Minnetonka. Local citizen opposition prompted Governor Quie to di=ect the DNR to abandon thei= plans. The ensuing dialogue between the Gove=no=~s office, the legislature, the DNR and Lake Hinnetonka area =es~dents resulted ~n a decision to create a Task Force to study alt rec=eational uses of the lake and to prepare a =epo=t on their findings. The ta=get date for the completion of the repo=t was set fo= dune l, 1983. In July, ~982 the Lake Hinnetonk~ Task Fo=ce was appointed by the'Commissione=s of the Hinne~ot~ Depa=tment of N~tu=a! Resou=ces~ Energy, Planning and Development, and the .Chairman of the Metropolitan Council. In o=de= to assu=e a well ba]~nced, objective membe=sh~p, .the T~sk Force was comp=ised of ten citizen members, nzne gove=nment offici=ls and a chairman. The ten c~tizen membe=s .were selected as follows: Fou= membe=s f=om non-Hinnet0nk& A=ea communities: Thomas R. Hulcahy Wayne LeBoeuf David B:asl~y Bill Hoogest~at lresigned} Th=ee membe=s f=om Hinnetonka A=e~ commbnities: Paul Pond Rosema~/Dineen Van Nest One membe= each =ep=esenting boating, sailing and fishing 'inte=ests: · '- -' Reheat E. Wagne= - Boating Thomas Haple - Sailing .- . Richa=d D..Smith - Fishing =ep=esentatives we=e selected f=om the following gove=nmenta! agencies: ' Ka=en LeeCh]e= - Minnesota Depa=tment of Natu=al Resou=ces Joseph E. Size= - Hinnesota. Depa=tment of Ene=gy, Planning ' "'"" and Developement Di=k deV=ies - Het=opolitan Council ' Robe=t Tipton B=own - Lake Minnetonka Conse=vation Oist=ict ' Robe=t Th=irt - F=eshwate= BiologiCal Institute E.F. 'Bud" Robb, J=. - Hennepin County Wallace E. Ess - Ca=ye= County David Coch=an - Hinnehaha C=eek Wate=shed Dist=ict CHARGE TO THE TASK FORCE The cha=ge to the Task Fo=ce membe=s was to p=epa=e a =epo=t that add=esses the =ec=eational use of Lake Minnetonk~ and adiocent public land, including bvt not limited to the following topics: Evaluation of present =ec=eational management p=og=ams, including l~w enfo=cement and maintenance, with. 26 Ap= 83 =ec~mmendotions fo= imp=ovements to those p=og=ams if needed. Adequacy of existing public access to the lake, including o comp=ehensive invento~ of public on'd p=ivote comme=ciol lake access facilities and lake-o=ientated =ec=eotional facilities such as beaches and.po=ks. Recommendations fo= imp=ovement to existing facilities and p=oposols fo= additional facilities should be made if necessc~-~. ' e Evaluation of =ec=eotional wore= su=face use porte=ns on the loke~ including identification of su=face, use conflicts and ~ecommendo{ions fo= =esolving those conflicts. To=get dote fo= c:ompletion of the plan was June 1, 1983, at which time it will be submitted to the Gave=no=, the Legislotu=e and othe= opp=op=iate units of gove=nment. In o=de~ to mo=e efficiently manage the limited available time and the'=elotively lo=ge g=oup, the Task Fo=ce was divided into th=ee committees. Each committee was assigned to study one component of the cha=ge and =ePo=t thei= findings, conclusions and =ecommendations to'the full Task Fo=ce. The th=ee committees. we=e known as: 2! The Public Access Committee 21 The Lows and Law Enfo=cement Committee 3}.The Su=face Use Committee. This o=ganizationol st=ucture =esulted in th=ee separate 25 26 Ap= 83 committee ~'epo=~s which we=e consolidated to fo=m the Repo=~ of the LQke N~nnetonkQ T~sk Fo=ce. BI BL IOGRAP HY -:, Lake Minnetonka Sun newspaper article regarding the fluctuation of lake 'levels over seve~'al years (October 3, 1982). Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Accident Reports (Summaries for' )979Z81; Apr{1 1976; and June 1982). 3. I " I4 ~ ..aLe innetonka Conservation District ,,ode of Ordinances as amended 4. Minnesota Waters and Watercraft Safety La~,:s and Rules. 5. Minnesota Snowmobile Safety Laws and Rules. 6. Laws of Minnesota, Chapt. 907 (1967)' as amended. The enabling legislation for the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD). =;o,:~.. and Cooperative Agreement (for law enforcement between Hennepin Cuu,~,y and LSCD). "A Creel Census of Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County Minnesc:ta From May 17 to October 19, 1975;" Minn. Department of Natural Resouwces (January 1978). 9. "Lake Management Program Priorities Report, October 1976 - October 1979"; Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (December 1979). 10. Carrying Capacity Controls on Lake Niqnetonka - Rough DraFt"~ City of Or.nno (1977). i!. "",.:-z,~se] TraFFic Management Teci~niques Cot Recreational Waters"; U.S. Coast O'~..-~.~ (July 1982). LaZe ~';innetonka Conservation District. · , .~.,,. ~: of the 1997' f' ,.,%u ,'~.:.~v ll, 1974). ;5. "~"i:'ic ~,ccess Sum:~a:-Z:,"' LNCI) ~'Februar'3 l['?,°) ,o. -,/ s Eauo~v, ay uake A,;cess Oa':;a .:~ ......... ..,y , HCPRO (1931.) 17, . "~':~:t."Opo!i[.ia Rec;-e*!'iDn,.., . Dema..qd Study -- ._,,:,,-=,_ A.:cess, 1'')n?''-.-,¢~ , memorandu,n by · ~,. Si.,::f'ferad and C. S-.,iti~; ~!etropolit~,', Cou,'~cil-, (January 3, '~.?",.,~o~. ~0 League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference June 14-17, 1983 Bloomington Theme: "Turning Challenges Into Opportunities" Unlike Ed McMahon of the Johnny Carson show, the League Conference Committee does not prom- ise to include "everything you ever wanted to' know" about ciO] governance in the schedule for June 14-17. But, just about. You can count on the 1983 annual conference to: · focus on timely, priority topics ranging from staying out of court to negotiating labor contracts. * address issues of particular interest to your city, whether small, medium, or large; union or non- union; automated or manual; developed, developing, or redeveloping · feature top-notch speakers from around the · facilitate the sharing of ideas with your cone. agues · provide an opportunity to participate in deciding League policy · offer a variety of activities in pursuit of relaxation, recreation, and sociability · reflect this year's theme by packing s/x days' worth of program into three. Highlights Kickoff Session -- a thought-provoking exploration of an area of personal and professional development -- a "don't miss" event for many conference attendees. Mini-Conference -- a'day addressing the concerns of ciries under 5,000 population. Thursday is Mini- Conference day; however., small city officials may want to take note of excellent programs on other days as well. Table Talk -- featuring representatives of various organizations which provide resources to cities. The schedule includes four to five agencies at a time, with Table Talk extending throughout Wednesday and Thursday. New this year City Exchange Sessions -- a chance to meet informally with your colleagues to share ideas and information. Small groups w~l look into a wide variety of specialized topics ranging from joint powers agreements to the Star Cities program. Help others learn from your dty's experiences during City Exchange on Wednesday from 3 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. and Thursday from 2 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. Mobile Tour -- if we get enough interest, our host city will treat conference attendees to a tour of "Bloomington -- From a City Off~Jal's Perspective" on Tuesday afternoon. Social events City Night -- festivities at L'hotel Sofitel which the City of Bloomington arranged. Take a short stroll to the neighboring hotel and enter a, world of European charm. League Banquet -- an evening of good times, fine food, congenial company, and prized awards. Agenda Tuesday, June 14 7:00 p.m. Special Kick-Off Program 9:00 p.m..Reception/Cash Bar Wednesday, June 15 9:00 a.m. Opening Session/Keynote Address 10:30- Concurrent Workshops 11:45 a.m. (choose one) · Cities and the "Information Soci- ety'' -- Overview * Labor Rehtions -- Overview * Staying Out of Court -- Current Issues · City Leadership -- Financial Man- agement Exhibitors' Lunch 11:45- Iris p.m. 1:15- 2:45 p.m. 3:00- 4:45 p.m. 5:30- 10:30 p.m. Concurrent Workshops (choose one) · Data Processing Alternatives · Negotiating with Less Money · Staying Out of Court -- Zoning (with Mock Hearing) · City Leadership -- Lobbying Skins Concurrent Workshops (choose one) · Structured Hands-On Time with Computers · Labor Contract Administration and Employee Relations · Data Practices and Your City · City Exchange Sessions :' City Night -- L'hotel Sofitel //(~ Minnesota Cities Thursday, June 1'6 Mini-Conference Day Program General Conference Program 10:30 a.m. Concurrent Workshops (choose one) · Legislative Update · Managing with Less -- Overview and Case Studies * Volunteer Fire Departments -- Part I · City Leadership -- Representing Your Constituency 10:40- Concurrent Workshops 12:10 p.m. (choose one) · Timely Issues ('including Solid Waste) * Tools for Managing with Less -Contracting Out -Shared Services · Volunteer Fire Departments -- Part II · City Leadership -- Preparing for Public Debate 12:15- 1:45 p.m. 2:00- 3:15 p.m. 3:30- 5:00 p.m. 6:30 p.m. Mayors Association and Mini-Conference Luncheon Concurrent Workshops (choose one) · City Exchange Sessions · Personnel Issues/Non-Union Cities · Improving Police Productivity · City Leadership -- How to Run a Meeting League Annual Meeting LMC Reception/Banquet Friday, June 17 8:30- Concurrent Workshops 11:00 a.m. (choose one) · Economic Development · Maintaining Infrastructure and Capital Improvements · A Look at City Finances · Municipal Liquor Stores -- Cur- rent Topics -, 11:15- Final Brunch/Speaker 12:45 p.m. LMC Annual Conference. Registration Form General Delegate Registration June 14-17, 1983 Advance Registration ........................ $85.00 (On or before June 1, 1983) Registration at Conference ................... $95.00 -The registration fee includes a badge and admission to all general sessions and workshops and tickets for the regular meal functions listed on the offidal program -- Wednesday and Thursday, coffee and rolls; Wednesday, lunch; Thursday banquet, and Friday brunch. Extra tickets for meal functions, including MAYORS LUNCHEON, may be purchased separately. If you register in advance, you w~l receive a postcard acknowledgement which you must present at the prepaid registration desk. Name of City We wish to purchase advance registration packages at $85.00 each for the following persons: Print or type name Name of spouse and p,o, sition: if attending Mini-ConferenCe Thursday, June 16 Advance Registration ........................ $40.00 Registration at Conference .............. : .... $45.00 If you plan to attend the Thursday banquet, please order tickets in the second column above. On Thursday, June 16, there will be a full day of Mira'- Conference programming. The registration fee includes a badge, registration, coffee and rolls, and luncheon. If you register in advance, you will receive a postcard acknowledgement which you must present at the prepaid registration desk. Name of City We wish to purchase advance registrations at $40.00 each for the following persons: Print or type name Name of spouse and position: if attending Registered delegates to the General Conference are welcome to attend Mini-Conference sessions and DO NOT NEED TO PURCHASE SPECIAL ~ REGISTRATIONS. (OVER) ///~: ::{DI WES - . .~,:~'..~ ' ~'. , .... '~': ~.. >:'.;V-..::~:..7;-i:~';~'.~.:,'~-3-.'":-::.'~.,- ~.-,?k,-..:,.~,,~..:,'".~;~:- .':.-- · .... ~ .~ . ~'.'. - . . ',. :';,~::"- '..;~ '-'~-'..~'~.-~',:;-~.-~-,.~-~ ~: .... ~-'~+ -.- ~ = .. :.'~h ;.'~-. !'~ . . · . 7";: .' ..- ..- .~' .~.:.. ~ .:.j:..w:~:.~,:.~:;.~ ;..<.~:::.: %~. [.,~;.:~-/./ i..~ ~ >~ · ~ -.. ;:.~.. , ~:~-~ ~.-.. , ;.j.... .. : ...., .: .~- ._.,.~.~.~ o~onsore~ ~. ., ~, :...-: .. West Hennepin H~an Services Planning:Board Hennep~n Count'~ Transportation Coordination Project Senior Citizen Centers of Grea~er Minneapolis Greater ~inneapoli~ Council of Churches - ///o ADU" ' S FACIEITY Ply uth, ] _ff- .esof 55447 TO: All Jurisdictions Committing Residents to the Adult Corrections Facility, The Adult Corrections Facility 'has implemented a computerized billing system. Transfer to this system required considerable pl.anning and input effort, therefore, our January and February 1983 billings were delayed. Jurisdictions who have had sentenced persons In the facility during the months of January, February and March of 1983 will find your appropriate billings attached. The new bi11.ing format should assist each jurisdiction as well as the Adult Corrections Facility in auditing and, if necessary, correcting individual board bills. You have been sent notice of our 1983 rate schedule but to refresh your information they are: $37.00 per prisoner day for straight-time inmates $20.50 per prisoner day for Work/Study Release inmates .. The daily charge for employed Work/Study R~lease inmates wi11 be split between the' committing jurisdiction and the employed inmate; $15.50 to the committing jurisdiction and $5.00 to the resident. You will note that the charge for straight-time inmates has decreased from 1982 rates. This is due to the increased population of the facility. - Addit{onally, please note as of February I, 1983 on any person committed on a 2-day or 48'hour commitment for a DWI or related offense, that the ndmb6r Of days bi. 11ed will remain three (counting days or any portion of a day as one), however, the rate per day was reduced to $25.00 per day.. Therefore, the 3-day charge for this type of commitment will be $75.00 compared to the 2-day charge of $74.00 total. .It would be extremely helpful if each committing jurisdiction would note on each commitment whether the offense tisted is DWI related. This is easily determined when the offense is .10% BAC or DWI, but it becomes more difficult when the offense is listed as for example; "Hazardous Speed" and is actually an alcohol-related charge.which has.been reduced. It would also be helpful during this system transfer if all billing inquiries would bQ directed to: Katherine Cady at 612-475-4206. It is anticipated that this system will.result in fewer billing inaccuracies but initially it is reasonable to assume some errors wili occur because of the three month billing volume. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, ,~ Sigmund L. Fine Superi ntendent SLF:nlb HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer Ilil req re~i~ation numb li theyd° n°t'meet the Visibility requirements while under sail at night,~or when at anchor. The Sheriff's Water Patrol will be emphasizing lighting requirements while on patrol this coming boating season ..... . It is also brOUght to our attention that there is'considerable~deviation from state requirements for displaying registrations on the boat. Pie~se post-th~ 'attached notice use and guidance of your boaters this:season. 'We ~'YOur assistance in encouraging them to che~k their equipment ~0~ .b~"'~re :that they meet the requirements. If you want additional .copies of the notice for distribution, please call us at 473-7033. Thank you for your cooperation. . jm Eno. cc/enc: LMCD municipalities Other LMCD licensees Northland Yachts, Inc. ///2_ ~:: LAKE MI~ ~ KA CONSERVATION iN 0 -T ... ~ ::."'i~,~> ~: .i~I CODE ~( II~N~ 'S'eCti( ~. 20; "-'[ LIGHTS. : 'operating -o~(the lake,, un( rway.: ": ,.:time' between SunS'e[~f'.and sunrise ,': shalt carry, an( ·-the :d ~[.specified~.in'': ?his 'se.ction'.for sUch' water( ~'as:'-uSed. in.~:thzs:-sedtibn means visible, on::a- a tmo s' '-.¥ Subd. 2; ~/. Running .LightS' atercr'aft shall be::equ~ppe( with".and'have in¥..operation a red 10 'point .light to pOrt -(left) '~'' and:a green 10 p0int, :light' .to s~arboard .(right) in the` fc ' section of the.watercraft, visible at least one 'mile, ,:~.and a .~' ~' white light-Visible'.all' around ~he'horizon at'~a distance of two' miles or more.'. No' watercraft 0tlie~il. than an authoriZed.sheriff,~ .:ij. boat or other Police.watercraft'.Shall:.use or .dis' -."other than a red running~!igh . or drifting must, show-.a f6~'_'a.diStance of on~ '~ie'~ s~se~' t0.[ s~r[se i :4.01. watercrazl ::light: vis ib le -from suCh..light Shall. be 'l~i*fi'~.~ from' 'DEFIN~TIONS ' ~ 'Subd[, "Watercraft":' means any contrivance used or designated for ig on water.. Boat registratiOnS~ '~st.be properly displayed: 0n boa~' as ~equ[red-. under_Minnesota statutes.- 4-18-83 LAKE MIN N ETON KA CONSERVATION DISTRICT AGENDA Regular Meeting, 8 p.m., Wednesday, April 27, 1983 TONKA BAY VILLAGE HALL 4901 Manitou Road (County Road 19), Tonka Bay 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Minutes: March 23, 1983 4. Treasurer's Report A. Monthly Financial Report B. Bills 5. Upper Watershed Pro~ect Review - MCWD 6. Committee Reports A. LAKE USE COMMITTEE (1) Committee Report (a) Sp Ev: D & M (b) " " Sail Race (c) " " Innertube Race (d) " " Women Anglers (e) " " Boat Show (2) Action Items Ye (f) Sailboat Race Schedule Review (g) Fishing Contest Criteria (h) License Fee Sharing (i) Lighting Notice (j) Water Patrol Report (a) sp Event: D & M Promotions (b) " "~ Fletchers Race Schedule (c) " " Fletchers Innertube Race (d)" " Women'Anglers of Minnesota (e) " " Fletchers Boat Show (3) Other B. WATER STRUCTURES & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE (1) Committee Report (a) .Hennepin County Letter: Amendment Request lb) Public Hearing Report: Harborage (c) 1983 Dock License Report (d) Violations Report (e) Lakeside Assembly: Minor Change (f) Other (2) Action Items (a).Public Hearing Report: Harborage (b) 1983 Dock Licenses (c) Lakeside Assembly: Minor Change (3) Other Variance Order: Arvidson Other A. Office Remodeling B. Public Officials Lake Conference C. LMCD Lake Inspection D. Other 9. Adjournment 4-22-83. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION' DISTRICT REGULAR MEETING. TONKA BAY VILLAGE HALL March 23, 1983 The regular meeting'of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation Districtwas called to order by Chairman Brown at 8 p.m., Wednesday, March 23, 1983 at the Tonka Bay Village Hall. Members present:..Richard Garwood (Deephaven), Robert Brown (Greenwood), Donald Boynton (Minnetonka Beach), Alan Fasching (Minnetrista), Jon Elam (Mound), Robert Rascop (Shorewood), Robert Wagner (Spring Park), Ed Bauman (Tonka Bay), Richard Soderberg '(Victoria), and Robert Slocum (Woodland). Communities represented: Ten (10). MacNamara Moved~ Garwood Seconded that the minutes of the February 16, 1983 meeting be.approved, Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0). Rascop Moved, Elam Seconded that the Treasurer's report be approved and the bills paid. Motion, Ayes'(10), Nays (0). LAKE USE COMMITTEE: Bauman reported t~at at its 2-21-83 meeting the committee reviewed and made recommendations on the public hearing reports for Coffee Cove and North Arm Neck, reviewed Special Event Permit ap- plication forwindsurfers,.and reviewed Spring Park's letter regarding Special Events. The committee also reviewed the placements of Quiet Waters buoys, and recommended changes for GraysBay, Carsons Bay, and Black Lake. Navigation buoys were also reviewed and recommendations made. It wasrecommended that the 1983 Slow buoy program be approved, subject to joint inspections by the Water Patrol and the LMCD. Fish housecleanupletters had been mailed. The committee reviewed slides of the 1982 boat'count and accepted the 1982 Lake Use Study;'they also reviewed~the intended continuation of the aerial study for 1983. At the 3-21-83 committee meeting,.Special Event Permit applications were reviewed and recommendations made forthe Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club race schedule; the Lower Lake Consolidated Race Schedule; Lord Fletchers Sunfish.race, log rolling and sky diving events; and the ' Antique Boat Parade. .Permit requirements for summer fishing contests were discussed and a preliminary set of criteria'requested. The 1983 buoy program was modified to include changes in Carsons Bay, and North Arm Neck; changes for Goose Island area have not yet been determined. The Water Patrol reported to the committee that because of the warm weather this.winter and the snow cover, vandalism on the Lake was down, there was less snowmobiling, and there were fewer fish housebreak-ins. The Water Patrol participated~in the fish house count for the LMCD cleanup mailing. The Patrol also made the recommendation for the North Arm Neck buoy arrangement. Elam Moved, Bauman Seconded'that the committee report be accepted. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0). CALLED TO ORDER ATTENDANCE MINUTES TREASURER'S REPORT WATER PATROL REPORT LMCD Board Minutes March 23, 1983 Page 2 Elam Moved,.Rascop Seconded that Quiet Waters be permanently established COFFEE in Coffee Cove, with the west line. extending from Fagerness Point to Park COVE Lane extended (Lot 17). Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0). Q.W. MacNamara Moved, Boynton Seconded that Quiet Waters be continued at North Arm Neck and that two Quiet Waters buoys with channel markings be used for'one year, with review prior to 1984. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0). Bauman.Moved,.MacNamara Seconded that the'following Special Event Permit applications be approved as stipulated: 1. Le Ski Hut for winds'~rfing races, 1983 renewal, Excelsior Bay to Wayzata Bay, their schedule having been coordinated with the Consol- idated Lower Lake Racing Schedule. 2. Upper Lake Minnetonka.Yacht Club renewal for 1983 and for two regattas, with the following stipulations: A. that buoys 'be removed immediately after each regatta; B. that state regulation mooring buoys (blue and.white) be used; C. that the mooring buoys be'kept inside the point, line at Wawatosa '~.. Island; D.' that lagoon channel traffic northeast of the Yacht Club grounds- will not be blocked; that race courses be laid'out so that they do not interfere with regular, boating traffic_in the Casco Point area or the Cedar Point West area; - F. that~all bo~ts use lights.as.required by law; and G. registration.numbers must be affixed' to all boats, according to statute. Lower Lake. Consolidated RaceSchedule for 1983 renewal; while the Task Force'ma~ make recommendations concerning.races during high use periods, this year's races include regattas involving fewer boats; to be approved with the following Stipulations: A.~ that course locations not interfere with Spirit Island or West Point'Passage; B. that for any Big Island race, boats run (rather than beat-through) West Point Passage; C. that ten minute intervals be maintained between each class of boat for races through the West Point Passage; · NORTH ARM NECK Q.W. SPECIAL EVENTS: WINDSURFERS; UPPER LAKE SCHEDULE; LOWER LAKE SCHEDULE; LMCD Board Minutes March 23, 1983 Page 3 D. that sailboats, during races, are'exempt from speed restrictions while passing downwind through West Point Passage; E. that all boats use lights as required by law; and F. registration numbers mpst be affixed to all boats, according to statute.· 4. Lord Fletchers of the Lake.log rolling permit for renewal in 1983, subject to periodic review by the Sheriff's Water Patrol. 5. Lord Fletchers of the Lake sky diving events for renewal in 1983, subject to the following: A. approval and supervision by the Water Patrol, B. that the Water Patrol be present during the events, and · C. cancellation by.the Water Patrol at any time if needed. 6. Land-O-Lakes Chapter~ Antique and Classic ·Boat Society for 1983, subject to completion of the application (date and route map need to be completed), and subject to the following: A. the speed be limited to the LMCD maximum of 40 mph; B. the fly-by in Wayzata Bay be held at least 300 feet from shore; one marker may be placed at each end of the fly-by, markers are to be placed and removed th~ same day; D. subject to clearance of the race markers around Huntington Point, and coordinated with existing boat race schedules; and E. this activity will be coordinated.with the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol, with .the Water Patrol in presence and with authorization to cancel the event if needed. Motion, Ayes~(lO), Nays (0). Bauman Moved, Rascop Seconded that the following actions be taken regarding Quiet Waters: 1. In Grays Bay, the proposed sign and buoy placement be approved. 2. The Carsons Bay proposal be modified to include one additional Slow buoy in the south central Carsons Bay area, and that the effective- ness of the modifications be reviewed for 1984 to determine the need for continuing the ~xtra buoy. SPECIAL EVENTS (cont) FLETCHERS LOG ROLLING; FLETCHERS SKY DIVING; and A~TIQU~ BOAT PARADE G~YS BAY Q.W. CARSONS BAY Q.W. I~CD Board Minutes March 23, 1983 Page 4 3. The Black Lake Quiet Water area signsand buoys be approved. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0). Bauman Moved, Boynton Seconded that the 1983 buoy placement program as modified, be approved. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0). WATER STRUCTURES & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE: Rascop reported that the com- mittee reviewed dock licenses and mooring areas, the public hearings scheduled for April 6, deicing permit procedures, .the residential boat storage density study, the Arvidson variance Order, and the pending variances.. The committee requested a draft Code amendment in connection with the Water Patrol's questions On the sequence of handling deicing permits, inspections, and violations;the draftwould accommodate the objections of the WAter Patrol and at the same time provide for immediate enforcement response where public safety is involved. In reviewing the residential boat storage matter,.the~committee recommended that a boat- perrlot study be made in conjunction with the 1983 Lake Use Study. The committee recommended that the Board make ho.fee waivers for 1982-1983 late fees on deicing permits. Director Hansen of the Gray FWBI will be requested to report on the progress~of, their Lake modeling program at an upcoming meeting. Wagner Moved,' Garwood~Seconded that the committee report be accepted. Motion, Ayes ~(10), Nays (0). Elam Moved, Boynton Seconded that deicing waivers for late fees not be granted. Motion, Ayes (10),.Nays (0). OTHER BUSINESS: Brown reported that the Governor's Task Force is expected to have a draft report the beginning'of April. ADJOURNMENT: Elam Moved, MacNamara,.Seconded at 8:40 p.m. that the meeting be adjourned. BLACK LAKE Q.W. 1983 BUOY PLACEMENT NO FEE WAIVERS ADJOURNED Submitted by JoEllen Hurr, Secretary Approved. by Robert Tipton Brown, Chairman SENATOR GEN OLSON District 43 Room 116, State Office Bldg. St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 612-296-1282 Senate State of Minnesota April 21, 1983 Jon Elam, Manager City of mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Jon, Please accept my apologies for delay in responding to your letter regarding statute change requiring recording with the County Re- corder/Registrar of Titles every approved variance or conditional use permit. It had gotten buried in the ensuing inundation of paper. The issue you raise is an interesting one. Minnetrista, at the advice of our city attorney, Bruce Malkerson, has filed those documents in the chain of title of affected property for several years in the interest of the city and, therefore, at no charge. The reasoning was that it not only puts future buyers On notice when title is searched, but protects the city if the seller should misrepresent prior city action in any way. While the County does not like it, boiler plate in our city resolu- tions state, even now, that it is in the city's interest that the document is being filed, therefore, the fee is not paid. I'm not aware of any legislation to change these provisions this session, but I am certainly open to discussing this concern with you and your council. I~m not supportive of mandates any more than you are, however, one can view this issue from more than one per- pective. Local government aid and property tax issues are starting to gel. If you and your council would like, I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you during one of your upcoming council meetings. Let me know and we'll schedule it to discuss any issues you would like. Sincerely, GEN OLSON State Senator GO:lmh ///7 SCHOELL & MADSON, INO. TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission, City of Mound Mark Koegler, Consulting Planner April 20,'1983 SUBJECT: Site Plan Review - Parking.Lot Construction APPLICANT: Harold J. Pond Sport Center PROPOSAL: The Sport Center is seeking site plan'approval for a ~ car parking lot at the rear of the existing facility. The bituminous lot features one entry/exit point at Alder Road and uses a 45 degree parking design. · Stalls along the rear of the building contain concrete wheel stops to prevent structural damage· SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site is relatively flat and with'the exception of several existing concrete slabs, does not contain 'existing paving. GRADING/DRAINAGE: The site plan does not contain adequate' spot elevations to definitely determine drainage. From the contours that are indicated, it appears that surface drainage will occur to the west. COMMENT: In previous .actions (Resolution #80405), the City. waived the parking requirement for the Sports Center because "of parking available at the school and throughout the CBD." Sports centers typically require one parking stall for every .20 seats. .Applying this standard to the arena's 400 seat capacity yields a,requirement of 80 spaces. The proposed parking lot will accommodate 38 percent of the total required parking. Additional parking and overflow parking is available at the school which lies immediately west and south of the Sports Center. RECOMmeNDATION: Staff recommends that the' parking lot site plan for the Harold J. Pond Sport Center be approved contingent upon the following: 1. Approval of the drainage plan by the City Engineer. Submission of a landscaping plan showing appropriate street trees and shrub plantings. Arrows should be painted on the bituminous surface near the entrance point to indicate traffic movement. Signs should be erected, consistent with the City's sign ordinance,' to direct vehicles to overflow parking. The applicants site plan should be amended to show a trash dumpster and appropriate screening. TO: Planning Commission, City of Mound Page Two April 20, 19 83 Since these recommendations are relatively minor in nature, the Planning Commission could approve the application subject to staff review to assure that all concerns have been addressed. 1141 SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT 6 Courthouse Minneapolis, Minnesota 554i 5 Don .Omodt, Sheriff April 5, 1983 Mr. Robert T. Brown, Chairman Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 402 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Bob: Attached is the statistical report indicating all activity engaged in by the Water Patrol on Lake Minnetonka during the year 1982. I have prepared a summary of activity for Lake Minnetonka by report category and compared those figures to last'year's annual report. Following are the results of that comparison along with possible explanations for the variances I have noted. 9000 - Thefts. The number of thefts reported to the Water Patrol has fa!]eQ_b~_46~ percent. This is due primarily to a dramatic fall in the number of thefts from fishhouses during the winter months of January, February, and December of 1982. Those three months were characterized by unusually heavy snowfall amounts which almost eliminated access to fishhouse colonies by motor vehicle. Lacking their usual means of access to the fishhouse colonies, most thieves turned their talents to easier targets on shore. 9100 - Citations. The number of citations written on Lake Minnetonka increased bY 77 percent over last year. This is due to the increasing willingness of Water Patrol special deputies to use what is generally considered by this supervisor to be a more effective method of dealing with wilful viola- tions, rather than issuing written or verbal warnings. 9200 - Warnings. This category stayed almost the same as 1981 with a d~op of two percent. 9300 - Recovered Property. This Category registered 38 percent less activity than in 1981. This decrease corresponds to the dr~p in Cat~l~ry 9000 - Thefts. 9400 - Boat and Snowmobile Accidents. This category f._ell 16 p.erceQ%. This reduction is due primarily to a fall in the number of snowmobile acci- dents reported in 1982. 9500 - Drownings and Water Related Accidents. There were no drownings on Lake Minnetonka during 1982. In 1981 two drownings occurred. Water-~'j HENNEPI.N COUNTY an equal opportunlh/employer Mr. Robert T. Brown, Chairman 2 April 5, 1983 related accidents fell from 29 in 1981 to 10 in 1982. The fall in water related accidents (s due to fewer accidents involving cars falling through thin ice~ 9700 - Medicals. The number of medicals during 1981 fell from 18 to 12. 9800 - Miscellaneous Criminal. This category fell from 33 in 1981 to 5 in 1982. Most of this activity stems from vandalism to fishhouses that results from being struck by motor vehicles. Heavy snows again account for the reduction in this category of activity experienced in 1982. 9900 - Miscellaneous Incidents. This category includes aids and assists, disturbance calls, placing thin ice signs, and checking permits. The increase of nine percent in this category is generally indicative of increased demand for services by a growing population of boaters. Total activity increased by four percent. This increase reflects the increased efficiency of the Water Patrol'in delivering services and increases in demand for those services. Attached you also find a revised activity comparison showing the rank order of activity that occurred in the 42 UILM areas for 1982. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, DON OMODT, SHERIFF ~ ' · By: A/Sgt. Dave C. Rasmussen Sheriff's Water Patrol dks Encs. HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 1982 LAKE MINNETONKA ACTIVITY COMPARISON Activity Rank Total UILM Order Activity Number 1 225 36 2 213 30 3 170 19 4 127 11 5 118 29 6 101 20 7 84 12 8 83 25 9 79' 39 10 74 26 11 69 15 12 68 3 13 65 9 14 65 22 15 65 17 16 56 4 Area' Excelsior Bay Gray's Bay Coffee Cove Spring Park Bay Wayzata Bay West Crystal Bay Black Lake Lafayette Bay Carson's Bay Smith's Bay Harrison's Bay Cook's Bay Carman's Bay North Arm Bay West Arm Bay West Upper Lake 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 51 5O 48 44 38 14 41 7 37 42 40 4O Echo Bay Seton Lake Lower Lake South Phelps Bay Gideon's Bay Big Island Passage Halstead's Bay Lower Lake 25 26 27 28 39 40 37 13 35 21 29 8 Veteran's Bay Emerald Lake East Cryal Bay East Upper Lake 29 22 2 30 20 10 31 19 33 32 15 6 33 14 18 34 14 5 35 12 16 36 12 24 37 11 35 38 10 23 39 7 32 40 6 28 Priest's Bay Old Channel Bay St. Louis Bay Smithtown Bay Forest Lake South Upper Lake Jennings Bay Maxwell Bay St. Albans Bay Stubbs Bay Robinson's Bay Brown's Bay 41 6 31 42 3 27 Libbs Lake Tanager Lake MEMORANDUM TO: Lake Minnetonka Conservation District FROM: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District DATE. March 2, 1983 SUBJECT: Executive Summary Preliminary Engineer's Report dated October, 1982 Upper Watershed Storage and Retention Project Cooperative Project No. CP-5. Painter Creek Watershed As requested by Mr. Robert T. Brown, Chairman, LMCD, the MCWD staff has prepared.the attached executive summary as an aid for LMCD (petitioner) review of the subject report which is presently in draft form. Please be aware that the cost estimates in the draft report, have been revised as shown in this summary and will be included in'the final report submitted to the Board of Managers. Also, keep in mind that the draft Engineer's Report is substantially more detailed than this summary and includes information not contained herein. Should any LMCD member representative have questions regarding the draft Engineer's Report or this summary please feel free to contact Mike Panzer, P.E., E. A. Hickok and Associates, at 473-4224. I. Abstract In response to petitions filed by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) dated July 15, 1975 and June 3, 1977, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) undertook studies in the Upper Watershed to investigate the feasibility of improvements requested by the petitions· On December 11, 1980 the MGWD initiated an investigative study of the Painter Creek Watershed as' a first phase of a larger project entitled "Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Upper Watershed Storage and Retention Project"· The preliminary draft Engineer's Report for CP-5 Painter Creek Watershed dated October, 1982 was distributed to the petitioner for review and comment in November, 1982. The draft report was also reviewed by the MCWD Board and its staff. This executive summary of the preliminary Engineer's Report reflects comments received to date as well as major revisions that will be included in the final document to be filed with the MCWD Board. II. Painter Creek Watershed Study The study initiated on December 11°, 1980 consisted of a seven (7) task work plan to enable the MCWD Board to decide whether a project in the Painter Creek Watershed would be feasible, practical and in the public interest. A comprehensive review of all work accomplished by the MCWD after receipt of the initial LMCD petition was undertaken. Concurrently, an advisory committee was established to assist and advise the MCWD Board and to coordinate public and governmental input. e. Field reconnaissance and surveys were performed to identify potential sites within the study limits where improvements requested by the petitions could be constructed. All data collected were incorporated in an interactive computer model to simulate existing and possible future hydrologic and hydraulic conditions within the study limits. The model assisted in identifying specific sites for further study where improvements requested by the petitions could be constructed. Environmental, social and economic effects of implementing the improvements requested by the petitions were examined. A draft Engineer's Report dated October, 1982 was prepared. The draft report contains all general elements required by M.S. Chapter 112 and describes in detail the preliminary findings of the PaiNter Creek Watershed Study. Upon filing of the final document with the MCWD Board, a public hearing(s) will be conducted to determine whether the improvements recommended in the Engineer's Report are feasible and practical. III. Recommended Improvements The Engineer's Report recommends four (4) new flow control structures be construc~S~d in the Painter Creek channel in d'o-~c~'J'On~wit-~ two (2~) new in-channel Sedimentation basins along Peak rates of flow in the channel would be substantially reduced and chemical and physical water quality is expected to be enhanced under a wide range of runoff events. Under 100 year return frequency regional storm conditions an additional 900 Acre-Feet (1 Acre-Foot = 43,560 Cubic Feet) of storage capacity will be utilized in the Painter Creek Watershed after full development of the land as a result of the improvements. This is the equivalent of approximately 0.75 inches of water on Lake Minnetonka. S. d~ w0. uld be 6eleased at a slower rate than presently occurs t~ereby ~educin~ lake level fluctuation and nutrient/sediment loadings. IV. Anticipated Benefits and Effects The benefits and effects associated with construction of new flow controls in the Painter Creek Watershed are discussed in detail in the draft Engineer's Report dated October, 1982. In simplified terms, the recommended improvements will: Reduce the rate at which lake levels may rise due to heavy runoff originating in the Upper Watershed. Reduce peak lake levels resulting from heavy runoff originating in the upper watershed. .3. Reduce peak-rates of flow from Painter Creek into Jennings Bay,. Increase the ability of the Headwaters Control StrUcture to reduce flooding and to reduce the range of lake level fluctuation. Increase nutrient and pollutant assimilation in natural stormwater detention areas in the Painter Creek Watershed. Other anticipated benefits and effects are discussed in detail in the draft Engineer's Report. V. Estimated Project Costs Construction, easement acquisition and total project cost estimates are illustrated in the summary tables that follow. These cost estimates have been updated from the draft Engineer's Report to reflect anticipated construction and easement acquisition cost increases. The Total Project Cost will depend, in part, upon optional methods of determining whether or not costs incurred prior to the Painter Creek Watershed Study should be included in whole, or in part. Optional Method No. 2 deletes these incurred costs altogether. The actual method of' cost apportionment would be determined by the Board of Managers after public hearing. TABLE 1 Project Costs Prior to Painter Creek Watershed Study Total Engineering, Year Administrative and Legal Expense 1975 $ 2,655 1976 28,353 1977 13,284 1978 1,007 1979 3,545 1980 (through July) 2,243 Total ~ TABLE 2 Project Costs Attributable to French Lake Basin Study Year 1977 1978 Total Estimated Engineering, Administrative and Legal Expense Directly Attributable to the French Lake Basin Study $3,694 948 Total $4,642 TABLE 3 Project Costs for Painter Creek Study August 1980 through August 1982 Year 1980 (August-December) 1981 1982 (through August) Total Engineering, Administrative and Lesal Expenses $ 5,448 22,002 9,970 Total $37,420 TABL~ 4 Estimated Project Costs for Painter Creek Study After August 1982 Engineering $4,700 Administrative 1,300 Legal 1,500 Total Estimated Cost: $7,500 Project 1 2 3 5 6 TABLE 5 Summary of Estimated Construction Costs CP-5 Painter Creek Project Name Lake Katrina Outlet Control Structure South Katrina Marsh Channel Improvements South Katrina Outlet Control Structure Painter Marsh Channel Improvements Painter Outlet Control Structure Pond 937 Outlet Control Structure Total Estimated Construction Cost: Contingencies - 10% Engineering - 12% Legal and Administrative - 5% Total Estimated Cost NOTE: Ail costs are 1982 dollars. Annualized Maintenance Cost (1989 dollars) (Based upon interest rate of 12% and an assumed interval of 5 years between maintenance operationg.) Estimated Construction Cost $ 24,000 24,535 11,250 62,245 27,616 '20,430 $170,076 17,008 20,409 8,504 $215,997 $ 7,427 -92- TABLE Upper Watershed Storage and Retention Project Summary of Costs and Estimated Costs Since Receipt of Petition(3) through Completion of the CP-5 Painter Creek Total Year Annual Cost Estimated Cost Attributable to CP-5 Painter Creek by (4) Possible Apportionment Methods Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Method 4 1975 $ 2,655 1976 28,353 1977 13,284 1978 1,007 1979 3,545 1980 2,243 (1) Subtotal: $51,087 $ 51,087 -0- N/A N/A (2) Less: 4,642 (Costs Attributable to French Lake Basin Study) (3) Subtotal: $46,445 N/A N/A $ 9,340 $ 8,079 (4) Actual Painter Creek Watershed Study Costs (August 1980 through August 1982) 37,420 $ 37,42O $ 37,420 $ 37,420 (5) Estimated Costs to Complete Painter Creek Watershed Study ?,500 7,500 ?,500 7,500 (6) Subtotal $ 96,007 $ 44,920 $ 54,260 $ 52,999' (7) Total Estimated Construction Cost CP-5 Painter Creek from Table No. 5 (1982 dollars) 215,997 215,997 215,997 215,997 (8) Estimated Easement Acquisition Cost CP-5 Painter Creek (1982 dollars) 89,050 89,050 89,050 89,050 (9) Total Estimated Project Cost CP-5 Painter-Creek (1982 dollars) $401,054 $349,96? $359,30? $358,046 (10) Total Estimated Project Cost CP-5 Painter Creek (1984 dollars)* $444,120 $393,033 $402,373 $401,112 *Line Item (7) has been increased 8% per year and Line Item (8) has. been__ increased by 8%. For the purpose of estimating total project costs, the cost of easement acquisiton is estimated as follows: Detailed Topographic Maps Baseline Field Surveys Easement Descriptions 2,000 acres @ $15/acre 80 man-hours @ $25/man-hour 60 man-hours @ $25/man-hour $30,000 $ 2,000 $ 1,500 *Land Acquisition **Easement Negotiations $28,000 to $73,000 $ 2,800 to $ 7,300 Total Cost $64,300 to $113,800 * Dependen~ upon fair market value Judgment of affected lands. ** 10 percent of land acquisition cost. VI. Financing The draft Engineer's Report recommends that the costs of the improvements be financed by a District-wi valor ax levy, spread over two years, and payab~J during the calendar years 1984 an.~_d ~. The l!~6~4~levy would be approximately 19B-5--tax levy would range from approximately $44,920 to $96,007 depending upon which cost apportionment method is determined to apply. The 1984 levy would cover anticipated construction costs in that year. VII. Final Recommendations The draft Engineer's Report concludes that the recommended improvements conform to the intent of Chapter 112 MSA and to the policies of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Overall Plan for Water Management. The report also concludes that the recommended improvements will directly address the actions requested in the petition and suppliment to the petition. Therefore, the draft report recomme'nds that the improvements be authorized, that the Managers decide upon a method of apportioning the Upper Watershed Storage and Retention Project costs and to finance the improvements by a District-wide levy in accordance with Chapter 112 MSA. WNEREAS~ the City of has executed a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County establishing participation in the Urban Hennepin County Communi.ty Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS~ the City has developed a proposal for the use of Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it; and WHER£AS~ the proposed use of Community Development Block Grant ,funds by the City has been developed consistent with the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives and the Housing and. Community Development Act of 1974; as amended~ and WHEREAS~ the proposed use of Community Development Block Grant funds was developed in cooperation with local citizens and the appro- ~priate Urban Hennepin County Planning Area Citizen Advisory Committee; BE IT RESOLVED: that City Council of approves the proposed program for use of Year IX urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds by the City and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for consideration for inclusion i~ the Year IX Urban Hennepin County Community DeveloPment Block Grant Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, Mayor