Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
83-08-23
CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, August 23, 1983 7:30 P.M. - Council Chambers 1. Approve Minutes of August 9, 1983, Regular Meeting Pg. 2080-2088 2. Presentation from Interested Citizens on City Finances 3. PUBLIC HEARING - On the Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Zero Lot Line Twinhome on Lots 6,7,8 & 9, Block 10, Wychwood Case #83-244 - Ron Gehring - 4737/4743 Dorchester Rd. . Pg. 2089-2102 4. PUBLIC HEARING - To Amend the Zoning Map, Mound Code of Ordinances by Removing from the Residential R-1 District and Adding to the Two Family R-3 District - Lot'6, Block 18, Seton Addition Case #83-239 - Richard Smith - 4800 Block of Wilshire Blvd. Pg. 2103-2111 5. PUBLIC HEARING - Delinquent Utility Bills for August Pg. 2112 6. CASE #83-245 - Robert L. Olson, 4424 Denbigh Road - Lot 91, Phelps Island Park 1st Division Request: Nonconforming Lot, No Public Right-Of-Way Frontage MAP 7-C Pg. 2113-2123 7. CASE #83~243 - Kevin Hetchler, 4913 Island View Drive Lot 14, Block 14, Devon MAP 15-B ReqUest: Nonconforming Lot Size, 2 Foot Side Yard Variance and Structure Size Pg. 2124-2130 8. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present 9. PropoSal from Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. for a Study of Public Works Building Needs in the City Pg. 2131-2134 IO. Proposed Transfer of Funds within CDBG for Land Appraisal of Downtown Development Projects Pg. 2135-2136 ll. Applications from Westonka-0rono Sports Center, Inc. for Public Dance Permit, 3.2 Beer Permit & Set-Up License for Charitable Organization Pg. 2137-2140 12. Reconveyance of Tax-FOrfeited Lane - Lots 14,15,16 & 17, Block 12, Arden Pg. 2141 13. Downtown CBD Parking Lease - Coast to Coast Store Pg. 2142-2146 14. Transfer of Cemetery Lots from Herbert F. Sandhoff to Elwood C. and Sally A. Uner Pg. 2147 15. Review of Proposed Parking Improvement Plan for Mound Post Office Pg. 2148-2149 16. Review of City Insurance Claims Report Pg. 2150-2156 17. Payment Request Fire Station Addition - $15,320.00 to Falls & Nyhusmoen Construction, Inc. Pg. 2157-2162 18. Payment Request #2 - F. F. Jedlicki, Inc. 1983 Water System Improvements - $20,525.75 Pg. 2163-2164 Page 2078 Ao B. C. D. P~yment of Bills INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Report on Status of Tonka Community Coordinating Committee Article from Time on Company Job Placement/Training Weed Machine for Lake Update on Cable T.V. - Channel L~st~ng and Verbal Report E. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Agenda & Minutes F. Report of the Legislative Commission on Metropolitan Governance G. Metro Council "Review" H. independent School Dist. #277 - Minutes I. Twin City Labor Market Information J. American Legion Post 398 - Gambling Report K. Census Report - Housing L. Westonka Chamber Report M. League of Cities Regional Meeting N. 1984-85 Hennep|n County Community Health Services Plan. O. Hennepin County Park Reserve District Materials P. Notice - Lake Minnetonka Task Force Availability Q. Clai'm Notice - David & Marie Ziskin R. Notice Continental Phone Hearings S. Minnesota Cable Communications Board T. Metropolitan Council - Interim Economic Development Policy U. Public Services Redesign Project - Postal Service Pg. 2165 Pg. 2166-2167 Pg. 2168 Pg. 2169-2175 Pg. 2176 Pg. 2177-2216 Pg. 2217-2233 Pg. 2234-2235 Pg. 2236-2237 Pg. 2238-2241 Pg. 2242 Pg 2243-2256 Pg 2257-2264 Pg 2265-2266 Pg 2267-2271 Pg 2272-2283 Pg 2284 Pg 2285 Pg 2286 Pg 2287-2288 Pg 2289-2314 Pg 2315-2328 Page 2079 August 9, 1983 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CItY COUNCIL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at 5341Maywood Road in said City on August 9, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. Those present were: Mayor Robert Polston, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen and Russ Peterson. Also present were: City Manager Elam, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jan Bertrand, City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: Ron Gehring, Buss Sycks, Vince Cough[in, Bud Stannard,'Kaye Westerlund, Bill Koenig, Harley Jordan, Hilary Hortsc~, Ron Norstrem, Bill Husbands and Mr. & Mrs. Prince. The Mayor opened the Meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. M I NUTES The Minutes of the July 19, 1983, Regular Meeting were presented'for consideration. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the July 19, 1983, Regular.Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Minutes of the July 20, 1983, Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority were presented for consideration. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the July 20, 1983, Special.Joint Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanlmously in favor. Motion carried. 3. KRAUS-ANDERSON/MOUND TROLLEY BOAT CENTER The City Manager explained that the City has received a letter from Kraus- Anderson Realty Co. regarding the Lost. Lake site which the Mound Trolley Boat Center as an option to purchase. Kraus-Anderson is looking toward a "predom- inently residential" concept for this property which also might include ancillary uses including recreational and special commercial, that compliment the housing component. Their interest in pursuing this development concept further is predicated on the availability of City participation in the project and a more definitive survey of the primary market area (Mound being primary and the surrounding areas being secondary).' They are requesting the opportunity to explore, with the City, the prospects of a preliminary agreement with the City of Mound wherein Kraus-Anderson's development team, at its own expense, would immediately proceed on a detailed study of the site's potential while the City, simultaneously, would: 1. Designate Krause-Anderson as developer of this site. 2. Undertake a tax increment feasibility study for this site. 3. Commission a consultant to .undertake and complete the housing market survey described above. Kraus-A~derson is asking that they be a participant in both the consultant selection process and in the drafting of the scope of work to insure that the final product is sufficient to form the basis for a marketing program. It 137 August 9, 1983 is also their intention to share the information they develop with the City as it is generated. ' A letter has also been received from the Mound Trolley Boat Center, Inc. agreeing with the points, outlined above in the'Kraus-Anderson letter. Peterson moved and Charon seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #83-133 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING KRAUS-ANDERSON REALTY CO. AS THE OFFICIAL DEVELOPER OF THE LOST LAKE SITE WHICH THE MOUND TROLLEY BOAT CENTER, INC. HAS AN OPTION TO PURCHASE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. : Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-134 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE UNDERTAKING OF A PRELIMINARY TAX INCREMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY ON THE LOST LAKE SITE LIMITING COSTS TO UP TO $2,500.00 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Charon moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #83-135 RESOLUTION TO. COMMISSION A CONSULTANT TO UNDERTAKE AND COMPLETE THE HOUSING MARKET SURVEY DESCRIBED IN THE KRAUS-ANDERSON REALTY LETTER DATED JULY 19, 1983 The vote was unanimously in favor.. Motion carried. 4. LOST LAKE WETLANDS PLAN City Planner Mark Koegler presented a plan for the Lost Lake wetlands that he had prepared fora preliminary application for a LAWCON Grant. Because of the action taken above on the Lost Lake site, the City has decided not to.apply for LAWCON funds this year but will keep this plan on file and incorporate it into the development site. It is a plan that will be an asset to the community with a canoe, access, floating walkways and obser- vation towers. The Counci1 decided to table any action on this item until next year for.a possible application for LAWCON funds. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 5. CASE #83-238 - HARLEY JORDAN, 2193 CEDAR LANE - LOT 18 & SOUTH 38 FEET OF LOT 19, BLOCK 2, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDN. LAKESIDE PARK - PID #13-117- 24 32 0015 - 14 FOOT FRONT YARD VARIANCE The City Manager explained that Mr. Jordan has applied for a 14 foot front yard variance to allow the construction of a two story attached 24' by 24' garage with living area above. It would be within 16 feet of the Church Road right-of-way property line at the closest point and an additional 6 feet (plus or minus) to the curb line of the street. The required setback for the R-3 Zoning District is 30 feet. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of this variance due to the shape of the lot. Peterson moved and Charon seconded the following resolution: 138 -'. ugust 9, lg83 RESOLUTION #83-136 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE FRONT YARD 14 FOOT VARIANCE AS REQUESTED FOR LOT 18 AND THE SOUTH 38 FEET OF LOT 19, BLOCK 2, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION LAKESIDE PARK - PID #1.3-117-24 32 0015 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE #83-238 - HILARY HORTSCH, 5226 LYWOOD BLVD' - METES & BOUNDS DESCRIPTION IN BLOCK 2, REARRANGEMENT OF BLOCK 10, ABRAHAM.LINCOLN ADDI.TION TO LAKESIDE PARK - PID #13-117-24 34 O017 - NONCONFORMING L.OT~ NO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY The City-Manager explained that Mr. Hortsch has applied for a variance on a nonconforming lot which does not front on an improved public right-of-way to allow the construction of a second story over. an existing garage foundation; and to do structural foundation repairs to his existing house wall. Mayor Polston asked if there was any way to m~ke the lot conforming as far as abutting a public ri.ght-of-way. Mr. Hortsch stated all the properties back in this area have private easements to the public right-of-way. The City Attorney stated that because of the private easements granted for each property.owners there should be no problem with the property not abutting a public right-of-way. : The Planning Commission has reviewed the application, and does recommend approval'of, the variance to.allow the homeowner reasonable use of his property. Polston moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #83-I37 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR~WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE STRUCTURAL EXPANSION ON A NONCONFORMING LOT FOR PID #13-117-24 32 0017 IN " BLOCKS I AND 2, REARRANGEMENT OF BLOCK 10, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK (5226 LYNWOOD BLVD.) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE #83-241 - RON NORSTREM, 4957 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE - LOTS 4,5 & 6, BLOCK 23, DEVON - PID #25-117-24 12 0003 - RECOGNIZING EXISTING NONCON- FORMING GARAGE; VARYING LAKESHORE & REAR YARD SETBACK The City Manager explained that Mr. Norstrem has applied for variances to construct a deck and addition to his home and has had previous approval as per Resolution #81-86 with current building permits to construct that addition to his'home. The variance is recognizing an existing nonconforming detached garage structure on the property, to allow a .2 foot setback to the property line and a 17 foot (plus or minus) setback to the lakeshore at the closest point inclduing the deck which was previously approved under Resolution #81-86. He is now requesting approval to add another addition and deck to his'first proposal. The new deck will be set back 1.4 feet from the property line and approximately 62 feet (plus or minus) to the lakeshore. The Planning Commission recommended approval of these variances to allow the property owner reasonable use of his land. August 9, 1983 Polston moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #83-138 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES AS REQUESTED FOR LOTS 4,5 & 6, BLOCK 23, DEVON - PID #25-117-24 12 O003 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE #83-243 - KEVIN HETCHLER, 4913 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE - LOT 14, BLOCK 14, DEVON - PID #25-117-24 11 0043 - NONCONFORMING LOT SIZE, 2 FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE AND STRUCTURE SIZE The City. Manager stated that the Hetchlers have asked that this item.be postponed until the August 23rd meeting because of a death in the family. They have requested, however, that the Council amend Resolution #82-250 to . allow the changing of the roof pitch from flat to angled on the east s.ide of their residence. The Building Official explained that this was mistakenly left out of Resolution #82-250 and that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the amendment. Peterson moved and Charon seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #83-139 RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION #82-250 ALLOWING A ROOF PITCH CHANGE ON THE EASE SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mr. & Mrs. Prince were present to comment on the item that will be presented to the City Council on August 23rd, a 2 foot side yard variance. They stated that they are against the granting of this variance because it will allow Hetchler's garage to be placed within 3 feet 8 inches'of their property line.. The Princes noted that when they moved to Mound they had to abide by the code and in doing so tore down their house and rebuilt to conform to all the codes including setbacks and square footage. The Council assured the Princes that they would take their comments into consideration if and when this item comes up on August 23rd. 9. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ZERO LOT LINE TWINHOME ON LOTS 6,7,8 & 9, BLOCK 10, WYCHWOOD - PID #19-117-23 32 O1OO F 10. AND O101 Charon moved and Peterson seconded a motion to set the da-re for a public hearing on an application for a Conditional Use Permit for zero lot line twinhome on Lots 6,7,8 & 9, Block 10, Wychwood for August 23, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP FROM R-1 TO R-3 FOR LOT 6, BLOCK i8, SETON ADDITION - PID #24-117-24 14 OO13 Charon moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to set the date for a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Map from R-1 to R-3 for Lot 6, Block 18, Seton Addition for August 23, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council ll. Chambers. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS& SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT 14o August 9, 19B3 The Mayor asked if there were any comments, or suggestions from the citizens present. There were none. 12. QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR OUTLOT "A", MILL POND The City Manager explained the Mr. McLeod who represents the Golden Valley Bank called and stated that they were sending the City of Mound a Quit Claim Deed for Outlot A, Mill Pond. Th.is outlot was to be the subdivision's park dedication in lieu of a fee. The Building Official and City Engineer told of numerous problems with drain- age on this lot. The City AttOrney suggested that the Council tab]e any action on this lot until he had time to review the file on the s6bdivision. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded a motion to table this item until the City Attorney .has had time to review the'subdivision file. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 13. CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH BILL HUSBANDS-FOR INSURANCE RISK MANAGEMENT The City Manager explained Mr. Husband's work for the'City of Mound and complimented him for his work with The Home Insurance Co; Mr. Husbands went over the services he wil] be performing for the City in the risk management area. They include: 1. Being available for.decisions or advice concerning ongoing insurance and risk management problems. 2. Holding meetings with emplOYee? as n~eded, concerning activities as outlined in the risk management, loss prevention and loss control policy statements. 3. Reviewing workers compensation loss runs to determine all charges are from City employees. 4. Reviewing workers compensation'losses with current carrier to determine accuracy of reserves. 5. Assisting in the insurance renewal process. 6. Reviewing the medical insurance program. '7. Holding, as needed, any safety meetings on a departmental basis. Mr. Husbands went over some of his background for Councilmember Jessen. Councilmember Peterson stated that he felt this area deserves and expert and he supports this contract. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to.authorize the City Manager to rene~ theContract with Mr. Bill Husbands, risk management consultant, from August 1, 1983 to August 1, 1984, at a total compensation of $4,800 to be paid at a rate of $400 per month. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 141 August 9, 1983 14. FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST - ALLIED BLACKTOP - 1983 SEAL COAT PROGRAM - $40,885.50 15. Peterson moved and Jessen seconded a motion to approve the final payment request from Allied Blacktop for the 1983 Seal Coat Program in the amount of $40,855.50. The vote was unanimous!y in favor. Motion carried. PAYHENT REQUEST #1 - BUFFALO BITUMINOUS - 1983 STREET REPAIR PROGRAM - Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve payment request #1 from Buffalo Bituminous for the 1983 Street Repair Program in the amount of $26,807.00. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 16. PROMOTION Of ENERGY AUDITS BY WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES 17. The City Manager reported that about one month ago the State Energy Agency contacted him and requested that the City undertake an effort to promote the use of NSP and Minnegasco Energy Audit Program. He explained to them that the City of Mound just doesn't have the Staff to get involved in such a new effort, but suggested that this would be a logical program for West Hennepin Human Services. West Hennepin Human Services has submitted a letter to the City of Mound.expressing their interest in applying for the Minnesota Energy Conservation Service funds earmarked for the promotion of energy audits in the Mound area. They are now asking that the City of Mound endorse this effort and allow the use of its name on promotional materials. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #83-140 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING WEST'HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES OF THE OFFICIAL AGENCY TO PROMOTE ENERGY AUDITS IN THE CITY OF MOUND The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT ON THE TENNIS COURT PROPOSAL FOR THE BLUFFS The City Manager and the City Engineer went over the preliminary engineering report for the tennis courts on Outlot A, The Bluffs. The Council discussed various items in the report such are the size of the courts, setbacks, costs and assessments. There are some problems with the size of the court, the setbacks and a parking problem. After this discussion, it was decided to have the City Engineer and the City Manager meet with the residents of the neighborhood and determine if building these courts is feasible as presented. No action was taken. 18. SANITARY SEWER BACK-UPS CAUSED BY dULY STORMS The City Manager explained his memo to the City Council on the sanitary sewer back-ups in two homes on the Island that were caused by the July storms. He felt that maybe the City should install back pressure valves in these homes to eliminate this problem in the future. The City Attorney reminded the Council that they cannot use public funds for private improvements. The Mayor 142 'August 9, 1983 stated that back pressure"valves or gate valves do not always work and probably would not be the answer to the problem. No actionwas taken. 19. PAYMENT OF BILLS Charon moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve the bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $186,707.24, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 20. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS 21. A. Updated phone and address sheet B, Notice of claim in Bellcourt case. C. Letter on approval of Jan Bertrand, ICBO Certification as a Building InsPector. D. Ind. School Dist. #277 Minutes of July ll, 19~3. E. Update on lake water samples taken from Pembroke Beach. F. Notice of WAFTA Open House on August 21, 1983, at 1:OO P.M. at the WAFTA training site. G. LPA Newsletter - Summer 1983 (Local Planning Assistance). H. Letter from Tom Reese to Frank Mixa, LMCD regarding weed cutting and removal- operation on the Lake.' I. We'stonka Chamber Waves - Newsletter August 1983. J. Notice of Volunteer Meeting - August 16, i983, at 2:30 P.M. in the Community Room at St. Louis Park City Hall. K. Metro Council "Review"- July 15, 1983. L. Minnehaha Watershed District Letter - Notice of Public Hearing in the matter of the petition of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District for an Upper Watershed Storage and Retention Project/CP-5. M. Elected officials salary.survey from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, July 1983. N. Miscellaneous materials regarding Continental's rate increase. O. Twin Cities LaP'Market Information - July 1983. LOT 28, BLOCK ), ARDEN The City Manager explained that this was not included in the Procedings Subsequent that was done on Lots 29,30,31 and 32, Block 1, Arden. We now have someone who would like to purchase this lot and combine it with Lot 27 which this person also owns to build a home on. We will have to reconvey Lot 28 back'to the State and request that it only be sold to an adjoining property owner. 143 August 9, 1983 Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #83-141 RESOLUTION RECONVEYING CERTAIN TAX F~RFEIT LANDS BACK TO THE STATE AND REQUESTING THE COUNTY BOARD TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE SALE OF SAID TAX FORFEIT LANDS AND.TO RESTRICT THE SALE TO OWNERS OF ADJOINING LANDS - LOT 28, BLOCK 1, ARDEN The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 22. DOW-SAT OF MINNESOTA - TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION TRAILER The City Manager explained that Dow-Sat of Minnesota, the City's cable system operator~ has submitted a letter of progress to the City indicating that they are experiencing delays in getting their new office building construction underway. They are requesting that the City allow them to install a temporary headend on their property at Wilshlre and Maywood. It would be an 8"x 30' mobile construction trailer to be set on the westehn edge of the lot. The trailer shoUld only be on the site for no more than 60 days. The City Manager explained that he just wanted the City Council to be aware of the trailer being on the lot in case anyone asked the circumstances. 11. QUIT CLAIM DEED - OUTLOT "A" - MILL POND The City Attorney advised that he has now had the opportunity to go over the subdivision file on Mill Pond. He read from a letter he sent to the City Manager on January 15, 1982, which stated'the following: 1. Outlot A is owned by the Golden Valley State Bank. 2. The entire lot is covered by drainage and utility easements. This means that we do have the right to utilize Outlot A even though the fee ownership is with the Golden Valley'State Bank, but such usage is strict]y for utility and drainage purposes. The Council discussed not accepting the Quit Qlaim Deed and the fact that the Golden Valley Bank would probably then let the parcel go tax forfeit and we would end up with it anyway. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to accept the Quit Claim Deed from the Golden Valley Bank for Outlot A', Mill Pond. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Council then instructed the City Engineer to figure the cost of putting an underground piping system to drain this tot and keep the drainage from overflowing onto adjacent properties. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded a motion to adjourn at 9:45 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jon Elam, City Manager Fran Clark, City Clerk CITY of MOUND August 22, 1983 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER Enclosed is a supplemental report on City finances and how the various expenses are distributed among City Departments. As a way to provide a perspective on these breakdowns, I have used them to analyze the City property taxes paid by the three people who will be speaking or involved in discussing City taxes tomorrow. Particularly you may want to note Buzz Sycks record of tax payments. The final section may be helpful to some of you who want to understand how your individual taxes are figured and how the changes done by the Legislature will affect them. JE:fc BREAKDOWN OF 1983'S CITY BUDGET Gen. Govt. Gen. Govt. Gen. Govt. Gen. Govt. Gen. Govt. Gen. Govt. Pub. Safety Pub. Safety Pub. Safety Pub. Works Pub. Works Parks Other Other Pub. Safety City Council City Manager Elections Assessing Finance Legal Police Planning & Inspections Civil Defense Street Shop & Store Park City Property * Contingency Transfers (Fire) Bonds & Interest DEPT. TOTAL 30,947 83,475 1,O00 34,550 112 155 49,8O0 466,169 75,445 2,876 280,018 41,992 117,572 71,538 15,634 68,379 1,451,55Q 53,265 1,546,091 BREAKDOWN BY STATE AUDITOR'S CLASSIFICATIONS 1983 Gen. Govt. $ 383,465 24.80% Pub. Safety 654,145 42.31% Pub. Works 322,010 20.83% Parks 117,572 7.60% Other 1.~,634 1.01% Bonds & Interest 53,265 3.45% $1,546,091 100 % The City's overhead rate for 1983 is 24.80%. PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL 2.01 5.40 .06 2.23 7.25 3.22 30.15 4.88 .19 18.11 2.72 7.60 4.63 1.01 7.O9 3.45 100 1982 27...32% 39.32% 20.68% 6.86% 5.82% 100 % I know of no private company that has a rate anywhere close to that. Our engineering firm, for instance, take the employee's hourly rate and multiply it by 225%. Our overhead rate was reduced 2½% in 1983 from 1982, thus increasing the provision of direct services. REPORT Comparing the above analysis: as examples for those presenting the tax report to the City Council on their Homesteaded Properties. *Majority of this goes to pay special assessments on City owned property. -1- Steven & Cynthia Smith 2616 Tyrone Lane Mound, MN. 55364 Land Building Taxable Market Value Taxable Assessed Value Di stributed among City of Mound Ind. School Dist. #277 Vocational School Misc. Levies Watershed District Hennepin County Cost breakdown of City City Council City Manager Elections Assessing Finance Legal Police Planning & Inspections Civil Defense Streets Shop & Store Parks City Property Contingency Fire Bonds & Interest TOTALS $ 15,000 48,300 $ 63,300 $ 12,864 1983 General Tax State Homestead Credit Total Tax the various taxing bodies: 15.19% x 662.30 50.73% x 662.30 1.10% x 662.30 5.01% x 662.30 .09% x 662.30 27.88% x 662.30 100% costs: 2.01% x 5.40% x .06% x 2.23% x 7.25.% x 3.22% x 30.15% x 4.88% x · 19% x 18.11% x 2.72% x 7.60% x 4.6 3% x 1 .O1% x 7.09% x 3.45% x 100.60 100.60 100.60 100.60 100.60 100.60 lO0.60 OO.6O OO.6O OO.6O OO.6O OO.6O OO.6O oo.6o OO.6O OO.6O lOO% $1,312.30 650.00 $ 662.30 lO0.60 335.98 7.29 33.18 .60 184.65 662.30 2.02 5.43 .06 2.24 7.29 3.24 30.33 4.91 .19 18.22 2.74 7~65 4.66 1.02 7.13 3~47 100.60 -2- M. L. Sycks 5900 Beachwood Road Mound, MN. 55364 Land $ 20,300 Building 60,900 Taxable Market Value $ 81,200 Taxable Assessed Value $ 17,876 1983 General Tax State Homestead Credit Total Tax Dist..ribut.~d among various taxing bodies: City of Mound Ind. School Dist #277 Vocational School Misc. Levies Watershed District Hennepin County $1,823.59 650.00 $1,173.59 * 178.27 595.36 12.91 58.8O 1.06 327.19 $1,173.59 Cost breakdown of City costs: General Government 24.80% x 178.27 = $ 44.21 Public Safety 42.31% x 178.27 = 75.43 Public Works 20.83% x 178.27 = 37.13 Parks 7.60% x 178.27 = 13.55 Other 1.Ol% x 178.27 = 1.80 Bonds & Interest 3.45% x 178.27 = 6.15 TOTALS 100 % $ 178.27 * In reviewing material, we discovered that Mr. Sycks has not paid any property taxes on this homestead property since 1980, while the State has fully paid its Homestead share for 1981, 1982 and 1983 of $1,950.00. His delinquency, including special assessments, as of Friday, August 19th was $3,840.28. Thus he has not paid any taxes at all during the time I have been City Manager. Somewhat ironic!! -3- H. E. Wolner Box 125 (2660 Lakewood Lane) Mound, MN. 55364 Land Building Taxable Market Value Taxable Assessed Value $ 103,000 57,9OO $ 160,900 $ 40,192 1983 General Tax State Homestead Credit Total Tax Distributed among various taxing bodies: City of Mound Ind. School District #277 Vocational School Misc. Levies Watershed District Hennepin County Cost breakdown of City costs: General Government Public Safety Public Works Parks Other Bonds & Interest TOTALS 24.80% 42.31% x 20.83% x 7.60% x 1.01% x 3.45% x 100 % x 524 08 524.08 524 08 524 08 524.08 524.08 $ 4,100.14 650.00 $ 3,45O. 14 $ 524.O8 1,750.26 37.95 172.85 3.10 961.90 $ 3,45O. 14 = $ 129.97 = 221.74 = 109.17 = 39.83 = 5.29 = 18.08 $ 524.08 -4- As you look at these three properties, you can see the potential for inequities that exist when using a property tax system. All are single family households that for the most part receive similar services, but all three paid very different levels of taxes. Value Tax Paid Steve Smith $ 63,300 $ 662.30 M. L. Sycks 81,200 1,173.59 H. E. Wolner 160,900 3,450.14 The reason for this is the formula that the Legislature adopted to assess property and to put a lid on the Homestead property relief that could be secured for individual properties, stacking it for houses under $90,000 in value. Based on preliminary data that we have for 1984, the City assessed value in 1984 will be almost exactly the same as in 1983. This means, probably, a couple of things for Mound, a shift in the tax base from the low valued commercial properties to the residential properties and within the residential properties from properties having market values of from $34,000 to $117,000 to those over that amount, i.e. Herb Wolner. STATE PROPERTY ASSESSED VALUE FORMULA Non Ag. 1st. Base (Residential) 16% Non Ag. 2nd. Base (Residential) 22% Non Ag. Excess 28% 3CC Non Ag. 1st. 5% 3CC Non Ag. 2nd. 22% 3CC Non Ag. Excess 28% 1983 1984 1st. $27,000 17% 1st. $30,000 2nd. $27,000 19% 2nd. $30,000 Excess 30% Excess 1st. $35,000 5% 1st. $30,000 2nd. $19,O00 19% 2nd. $30,000 Excess 30% Excess COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL Com/Ind. Base 40% 1st. $50,000 34% 1st. $50,000 Com/Ind. Excess 43% Excess 43% Excess (lst $50,000 applies to only one parcel per owner of several parcels) Example of Homestead Assessed Value Calculation Market Value - $80,000 Base Value A $27,000 x .16 Base Value B $27,000 x .22 Excess Value $26,000 x .28 Assessed or Taxable Value 1983 1984 = $ 4,320 $30,000 x .17 = $ 5,100 = 5,940 $30,000 x .19 = 5,700 = 7,280 $20,000 x .30 = 6,000 $17,540 $16,800 Comment: The new rates used to calculate homestead residential assessed value will result in a decrease of total residential assessed value which will generally speaking, cause an increase in mill rate and a shift of property tax burden to other classes of property. Assessed value will be less for homes between $34,000 and $117,000. -5- Under this revised formula for 1984, our three examples will have the following assessed values assuming no change in market value. 1984 1983 Change % Steve Smith $11,790 $12,864 (-$1,074) -8.3% M. L. Sycks 17,160 17,876 (- 716) -4.0% H. E. Wolner 41,070 40,192 (+ 878) +2.2% $70,020 $70,932 Finally, to figure out the total property tax bill, you take the assessed value of the property, i.e. Steve Smith $12,864 and multiply it by the total mill rate - 102.014. That way you come up with his total of $1,312.30. Subtracting his Homestead Credit payment of $650.00 or 58% (whichever is more) you arrive at the net taxes payable or $662.30. JE:fc -6- BILLS .... AUGUST 9, 198~3 Acro Minnesota 166.46 A i rComm 100. O0 Autocon ln, dustries 72.29 Anchor paper 66.15 Air Hyd~aQllc Systems 2OB.OD i/a--ackow-ki/ Son . oo Holly Bo~r~ 326.00 Burlington Northern 533.33 Bury & Carlson 179.20 Bryan Rock Products 358.08 Butchs Bar Supply 416.63 Gayle Burns 26.64 Business Furniture 279.OO Baldwin Supply 352.80 Bo~an Barnes 165.O6 Jan Bertrand 31.68 Bill Clark Standard 4,011.28 Coca Cola Bottling 300.35 City Club Distributing 4,184.60 Dependable Services 33.O0 Duane's 66 Service 20.00 Day Distributing 4,274.05 East Side Beverage 4,681.50 Judy Fisher 28.12 G1 en~od i ng 1 ewood 35.80 Geotechnical Engineering 478.O0 Henri Co. Treas 74.OO Henn Co. Sheriff Dept 33.66 Jones Ch~ical 176.OO Robt E. Johnson 47.O8 Island Park Skelly 26.00 J & R' Radiator 89.75 Johnson Credit Corp 1,969.00 K~I Kube Ice 639.70 Lathrop Paint Supply 108.68 The Laker 59.74 Long Lake Ford Tractor 10.O9 Long Lake Tire Barn 53.50 Long pre ' s 18~. OO City of Minnetrista 16.OO M.F.O.A. 9.50 Marina Auto Supply 756.99 McCombs Knutson 2,478. OO Mound Medical Clinic 281.O0. Mound Super Valu 92.78 Metro Fone Co~unication 23.60 Minnesota UC Fund 781.66 Maple Plain Diesel 23.20 Mtka Boat-Auto Clean 30.00 Navarre Hdwe 250.57 N.S.P. 3,113.35 Allied Blacktop 40, Buffalo Bituminous 26,807.00 A.J. Ogle 2,140,25 Alan P. Olson 450.00 Popham Haik 1,215.O4 Pepsi Cola/7 Up . 300.25 Pogreba Distributing 5,165.00 Pitney Bowes Credlt 2~.OO ,Perk)ns Landscape 3)S. OO Roya'l Crown Beverage 153.65 Roto-Rooter 206.25 Rustique Decorating 363.20 Real One Acquisition 675.00 'Regal Window Clean 10.75 Nels Schernau 7.26 Smith Heating & Air 3OO.OO Shepherds Rental Rugs 53.00 Don Streicher Guns : 21.10 J.L. Shiely Co. 98.28 Sutphen Corp 400.00 Servlcemaster 71.'44 Twin City Home Juice 50.44 T &.T Maintenance 25.75 Thrifty Snyder Drug 5.70 Thorpe Distributing 6,567.55 Wurst, Pearson, Hamltn 4,665.00 Water Produc~s 808.50 Waldor Pump 8,O36.OO Widmer Bros. 422.00 Westonka Sanitation 1OO.OO Wallin'Heating & Air 33.16 Xerox 825.00 R.L. Youngdahl 4,456.00 Commissioner of Revenue 3,067.09 Driver & Vehicle Serv 8.25 Stan Drahos 50.00 Griggs Cooper 4,O38.19 Johnson Bros. Liquor 5,083.02 Johnson Paper & Supply 253.09 Information Publishers 168.OO Indiana State Univ 205.00 Mound Postmaster 723.00 Minnesota Zoo 43.60 Metro Waste Control 26,126.47 City of Mound 39.94 Newhouse.Bldrs 2,207.00 Old Peoria 3,OO9.31 Curt Nichols 345.00 Ed Phillips 1,713.83 Terry Sincheff 22.O1 Trust acct of James Dickinson 20.48 Western Tree Serv 385.00 CITY OF MOUND HOund, Hinnesota CASE NO. 83-244 NOTI.CE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL'USE PERMIT FOR zERo LOT LI'NE TWINHOME NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, August 23, 1983, at 7:30 P.'M..at the Mound City Hail, 5341oMaywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, a hearing will be held.on the application for Conditional use Permit for .Zero lot L'ine Twinhome on Lots 6~ 7, 8'and 9, Block lO., Wychwood,. PID # 19-117-23 32 O100 ~nd 19-117-23.32 O1'O1. Addresses would be 473'7 and'4743 Dorch'es~er Road. There may also be a possible sewer main extension on Dorchester Road. All persons appear; lng at said hearing will be given an" opportunity to be heard. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk Publish in the Laker August 9, 1983. CASE NO. 83-244 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of July 25, 1983: Board of Appeals Case No. 83-244 Location: 4737/4743 Dorchester Road Legal Desc.: .Lots 6,7,8.& 9, Block 10, Wychwood Request: Conditional Use'~ Zer6 lot line twinhomes Zoning District: R-3 Applicant: Ron Gehring 3215 Charles Lane Mound, MN. Phone: 472-3557 The applicant., Ron Gehring, is requesting that the property described above be used as a site for (2) two single family 'units with (2) two side yards for the building to be zerolfoot setbacks. The other side yard to have a setback of 50± feet. A double bungalow will have the division of the (2) units between Lots 7 and 8. Pursuant to ordinance amending Chapter 23 (Ordinance 444), a zero lot line twinhome may be allowed only by conditional use in the R-3 Zoning District subject to the conditions set forth amending Section 23.610.3. The following is the relating con- ditions: (a) Lots 6,7,8 & 9 will be equally divided between the two'(2).units. (b) The lot area for each unit will have 6400 square feet with a lot width of 80 feet. I would recommend that surveys be submitted after the foundations have been placed to indicate the utility connections, lot lines relating to structure location, lot area, legal description of each dwelling parcel, proposed elevations at garage, etc. .The City Engineer will forward a recom- mendation to complete the right-of-way to serve these lots with a revamping of the present rock retaining wall, and the'utility connection available. (c) Not all setbacks are intended to comply with the Zoning Ordinance; one side~ yard of zero foot setback and a front yard of 24 to 25 feet. The required setback for a newly platted lot would be 30 feet with the two (2) side yards of 10 feet.. Due to the grade change at this side, I would recommend the 30 foot front yard setback for a newly platted lot. (d) All utilities are to have separate connections from the property line to the structure properly sized to service each unit. (e) The structures will be built side-by-side and used as 'a single family residence. (f) The common walls are intended to comply with the Building Code for two (2) one hour rated walls and sound transmission standard, but drawings to that effect have not been submitted. (g) The declarati6ns, covenants, conditions shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney and a copy filed with the City Clerk. (h) The property is not intended to be subdivided but only deeded as the PID's exist (19-117-23 32 OlO0 and 19-117-23 32 0101) Tentative Public Hearing date to be August 23, 1983. Jan Bertrand Building Official JB/ms ~ASE NO, 83-244 :'Planning Commission MinutesI B. Case No. 83-244 Conditional Use for Zero Lot Line Twlnhomes 4737 & 4743 Dor- chester Road - Lots 6-7 & 8-~, Block 10, Wychwood Ron GehrJng was present. : Applicant is requesting a conditional use for twinhomes with zero lot line; this division to be between Lots 7 and 8. The Building Inspector has recom- mended the use with conditions. The City Engineer also has made re~ommenda- tlons for extending sewer, water and street as a requirement for granting thls use. Ordinance calls for each unit of twinhomes to have separate services. Gehring doesn't want to extend sewer, believes they did put in services for' these lots although our records do not show anything to 7 and 6. He has no objection to extending the street for turn around and being able to push'-' snow past driveways. .Vargo moved to approve %he conditional use for zero lot lines for twinhome. as requested with She provision that sanita, ry sewer and water services be provided to each individual unit as per Ordinance requirement and that the1 'street 5e improved as per Engineer's recommendation in Item 3. The vote Was unanimously in favor. CASE NO. 83:-2/4/4 COMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS I LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS July 20, 1983 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Ms. Jan Bertrand City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN '.55364 Subject': Conditional Use Permit Application Ron Gehring Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9, Block 10, Wychwood File #2113, General Dear Jan: As requested, we have reviewed the above application for a zero lot line twin home. At the present time the improved street ends at about the center of Lot 9 with one 4" sewer service and a ~ingle 1" water service also serving Lot 9: A twin home would require separate sewer and water services for each side. The following recommendations we believe should be a requirement.~o~: the conditional use permit. 1. The sanitary sewer extended approximatelY 125 feet with a new manhole and two individual services. 2. An additiona] 1" water service be. extended from the 6" main to Lot 7. 3. The street be extended approximately 95 feet, which would include concrete curb and gutter and bituminous paving. Enclosed are two drawings, one which shows the conditions as they now exist and the other shows our recommendations, it is possible that these improvements could be done either by the developer or by the City and then assessed back to the property. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, JC:sj Enclosure McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC' /77 11/I J L ...... City OF MOUND CITY OF MOUND CASE NO. 83-244F~e ~aid Date Fi led APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) Street Address of Property ~'?~.7 -~- 2. Legal'Des~ripti.on of Property: Lot 3. Owner's Name ~o.~/~ Block PID No., /~- //7,Z m ~ · Day Phone No. ~?.~- ~'~-~-9 4. Applicant '(if other than owner): Name Day Phone No. .Address 5. Type. of Request: (.) Variance (x~ Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. \ ( ) Amendment ( ] Sign Permit ( )*Other *If other, specify: . ~9~' (~, Present Zoning Distr.lct .~- 7. Existing Use(s). of Property Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? ~O If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) .... I certify that all'of the above statements and papers or plans to be submitted herewith are or upon the premises described in .this of Mound for the' purpose of inspecting, notices as may be required by law. Signature of Applicant~-~?~,~/.~ Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany pi s and the s' are true an, appllca~ion b' or of postin! Planning Commission Recommendation: Council Action: ..... "P'rocedure for Conditional Use Permit Case # 8)-244 D. Location of: Signs, easement~, under,round utilities, etc.' E. Indicate North ~omPass direction. F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections. of the Zoning Ordinance. · III Request for a Conditional Use A. All information requested below, a site plan as described in Part II, and a development schedule providing reasonable guarantees for the completion'. of the construction must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. a Conditi Permit s B. Type of development for which,f~"l~ onal Use i requested: 1. Conditional Use (Specify). 2. Current Zoning and Designation in the future Land Use Plan i~or Mound C. Development Schedule: 1. A development schedule shall.be attached to this .application providing reasonable guarantees for ~he completion of the proposed development. 2. Estimate of. cost of. the project: ~. Density {for residential developments only): I. ~umber of structures: 2. Dwelling Units Per Structure: a. Number of'type: .- EfficienCYll 1 Bedrobm 2 Bedroom / .3 Bedroom 3- Lot area per dwelling unit: '~___~/ IV. Effects of the Proposed Use A.I List impacts the proposed use will.have on property in the vicinity, in- cluding, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and, describe the steps taken to-mitigate or ~liminate the impacts. ESS~EX · ~ STRATFORD LA CASE NO. 83' - J~ 0 ID ' ~.J 0 o 207_2 CASE.,Nn. ~-2~a .~ 00'o8 63% Reduction 0 ~ O0 'o9 CASE NO. R3-244 Reduction OO'O'8, '© 0 0 06) '0~.1 August 1, 1983 Mound City Council: As it is my intention to construct an'~O" lot line twin home on Lots 6,7,6, & 9 Block 10 Wychwood and I recognize the fact that Dorchester Road will need ~o be extended to properly serve these units, it is my intention to do these projects in the logical sequence. That is, to do the street work after all the heavy excavation, construction, filling and utility connections are completed. Given this situation, I feel construction should be allowed to commence with the agreed condition that Certificates of Occupancy not be issued until the street has been adequately improved. Sincerely, 3215 Charles Lane Mound, MN 5536~ August 1, 1983 Mound City Council: RE: Proposed utilities extension - Dorchester Rd. As owner of lots 5,6,7,27 & 28 Block 11 Wychwood, I am requesting that the sewer and or water mains not be extended in Dorchester Road. We have no need for them at the present and we do not see any possibility of their need in the future. Sincerely, Grant 0'Hair 4725 Richmond Road ound, 55364 PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 83-244 RESOLUTION NO. 83- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE ZERO LOT LINE TWINHOMES ON LOTS 6,7,8 AND 9, BLOCK lO, WYCHWOOD ADDITION WHEREAS, the applicant, Ron Gehring, has requested that the above described parcels, PID # 19-117-23 32 O100 and OlO1, contain two single family structures with each dwelling to have one side yard zero feet'to the lot line, and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Ordinance 444, it may be allowed only by Conditional Use in the R-3 Zoning District, subject to the conditions set forth under Section 23.601.3 and WHEREAS, pursuant to due and proper notice according to law and Chapter 23 of the City Code, a public hearing was held on the 23rd day of August, 1983, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval with conditions,~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE' IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the application for a conditional use permit to construct two single family dwellings (1 twinhome~with one side yard of each structure to be zero feet to the lot line located on the parcel described as Lot 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 10, Wychwood is'approVed subject to the following conditions: 1. Property survey be resubmitted after the foundations have been placed to indicate the lot line relating to actual fire walls to each structure and the utility connection locations when under ground. 2. All other structure setbacks are to comply with the R-3 Zoning Districts for lots of record. 3. All conditions set forth in City Code Section 23.610.3 are to be met including the filing of the Declarations, Covenants and con- ditions and restrictions as approved by the City Attorney. 4. The City Engineer's recommendation letter that the street be extended approximately 95 feet which would include curb and gutter and bitumin. ous paving to meet City specifications. August 1, 1983 Mound City Council: RE: Proposed utilities extension - Dorchester Rd. Dorches r Road. 'We have no need for them at the present and we do not see any possibility of their need in the future. Grant 0 'Hair 4725 Richmond Road Mound,MN 55364 RESOLUTION NO. 83- PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 83-244 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE ZERO LOT LINE TWINHOMES ON LOTS 6,7,8 AND 9, BLOCK 10, WYCHWOOD ADDITION WHEREAS, the applicant, Ron Gehring, has requested that the above described parcels, PID ~ 19-117.Z.23 32 0100 and OlO1, contain~.t;~ structure~(,w~ to have one side yard zero feet'to the lot 1 ine, and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Ordinance 444, it may be allowed only by Conditional Use in the R-3 Zoning District, subject to the conditions set forth under Section 23.601.3 and WHEREAS, pursuant to due and proper notice according to law and Chapter 23 of the City Code, a public hearing was held on the 23rd day of August, 1983, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval with conditions,. NOW, THEREFORE, BE' IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the application for a conditional use permit to construct two s,ng~e fa~mJly dwell~r~-~{~--~mfl~with one side yard of each~.st~re to be zero feet to the lot llne located on the parcel described as Lot 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 10, Wychwood is'appro;~ed subject to the following condi t ions: 1. Property survey be resubmitted after the foundations have been placed to indicate the lot line relating to actual fire walls to each structure and the utility connection locations when under ground. 2. All other structure setbacks are to comply with the R-3 Zoning Districts for lots of record. 3. All conditions set forth in City Code Section 23.610.3 are to be met including the filing of the Declarations, Covenants and con- ditions and restrictions as approved by the City Attorney. 4. The City Engineer's recommendation letter that the street be extended approximately 95 feet which would include curb and gutter and bitumin- ous paving to meetCity specifications. PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 83-244 5. The Cit~ recomm~, , r that~the sanitary sew~'be'extended~a~;~ly 125 feet wit h a new manhole and ~two.. 4 inch~in~ dua 1 ser-F~71-c-es-~ 6. The City Engineer's recommendation letter that an additional 1 ,inch water,~r¥,~ be ez/;ended from the existing, 6 inch water main to Lot 7. (2) CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota CASE NO. 83-239 NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on August 23, 1983 at 7:30 P.M., at the City Hall, 5341Maywood Road,.Mound, Minnesota, the Mound City Council will hold a hearing on the proposal to amend the Zoning'Map, Mound Code of Ordinances, by removing from the Residential R-1 District and adding to the Residential R-3 (Two-Family) District, the following described property: Lot 6, Block 18, Seton Addition (PID # 24-117-24 14 OO13) All persons appearing at said hearing Will be given.an opportunity to be heard. Francene C..Clark, City Clerk Publish in the Laker August 9, 1983. PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 83-244 5. The City Engineer's recommendation letter that the sanitary sewer be extended approximately 125 feet with a new manhole and two 4 inch individual services, 6. The City Engineer's recommendation letter that an additional 1 inch water service be extended from the existing 6 inch water main to Lot 7. (2) CITY OF HOUND Hound, Minnesota CASE NO. 83-239 NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on August 23, 1983 at 7:30 P.M.. at the City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, the Mound City Council will hold a hearing on the proposal to amend the Zoning~Map, Mound Code of Ordinances, by removing from the Residential R-1 District=and adding to the Residential R-3.(Two-Family) District, the following described property: Lot 6, Block 18, Seton Addition (PID # 24-117-24 14 OO13) All persons appearing at said hearing will be given.an opportunity to be heard. Francene C..Clark, City Clerk Publish in the Laker August 9, 1983. CASE NO. ~3-239 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 18, 1983 S[IBJ: Rezoning Request APPLICANT: Richard Smith CASE NO: 83-239 LOCATION: 4800 Block of Wilshire Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: R-1 and R-3 PROPOSAL: Mr. Smith is requesting that the R-1 portion of his property be rezoned to R-3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The subject parcel consists of 1.9+ acres of land of which approximately 0.3 acres is presently zoned R-3 (east)-and 1.6 acres are zoned R-1 (west). The 929.4 contour bisects the site and delineates the buildable area from the wetlands. The buildable area appears to have been filled in the past and contains a stand of cottonwood trees scattered throughout most of the property. The City of Mound has a 600 sq. ft. easement for a lift station along Wilshire Boulevard roughly at the midpoint of the street frontage. The surrounding land uses include a duplex on the east fronting of Wilshire Boulevard, wetlands to the north and west, and single-family residential (R-2) to the south. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES: Since the request does not involve a.site plan review, this information is not required. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan depicts the parcel as wetland. COMMENTS: The preliminary plat drawing which was submitted in conjunction with the rezoning request divides the parcel into six lots ranging in size from 6,000 sq. ft. to 35,730 sq. ft. As such, each of these lots meets the minimum size criteria for single-family detached uses. Additionall. y, R-3 zoning would permit the applicant to construct six duplex units (three structures) on the site. Planning Commission Page Two July 18, 1983 CASE NO. 83-239 In reviewing the subject proposal for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission should remember that the document and accompanying maps are general in nature and not site specific. Because the Smith property is only 1.9 acres in size, its scale may have been insufficient for delineation on the future land use map. Therefore, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan can be assumed providing that the Planning Commission finds the R-3 rezoning consistent with the surrounding land uses and general city policies. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Smith rezoning proposal since the request seems consistent with the surrounding development pattern. The wetlands on the north and west sides of the site somewhat isolate the parcel and prevent further expansion of the R-3 zoning. Should the City ultimately approve the subject request, the applicant is reminded that the site plan review of any development proposal for the property will consider impacts on the adjacent wetlands and that any development proposal will require review by the Minnehaha Watershed District. MINNETRISTA il JE. NNI~ PLAy 83-239 ORONO HAJ::~PJSO N S RAY SPRING PARK. SETON LAKE DUPLEX MUI~i-FAMIW COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL ! PROPOSED CONCEPT ~ R-~ ~o,ooo ~q.f~ ~ R2 6,000 sq.f i / I ~ BERG i ' ~ RIESENBERO : ~.% CHELSETH AND WETLANDS ~<~ ~ ~ ,~o~,.~ CITY OF MOUND · street Address of Property Fee Paid !a-~., oo~ ' CITY OF MOUND ~ F3-.9.3~ ' Date Fi led ~'-z3 -~' APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following infarction) .. Legal'Des~riptl.on .of Property: AdditiOn Seton. Owner's Name 48X~ W~]~hlr~ Blvd. Lot 6, Block 18~ Lot'7:B:9: Block 29 Blocl~o~7 · 0038 PID No2~-1.17-24-]4- Q03~ 0013 .Day Phone No. ~41~54~6" Addres~ 6&O0 klohowk ?ra~l: Edina. ~inn~n~n Applicant '(if other than owner): 'Name Day .Phone No. -Address Type. of Request: ( *If other, specify: Variance ( ) Conditibnal Use Permit Zoning Interpretation & Review Wetland Permit (. ) P.U.D. \ (~ Amendment ( ] Sign Permit ( )*Other Present Zoning Distr.ict. R-1 and Existing Use(s). of Property. vacant 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 dateCs) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all'of the above statements and the statements contained In any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the en. try in or upon the pr~nises described in .this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the' purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Signatur.e of Applicant ..... Planning Commission Recommendation: D, ate Council Action: Regolution No.. IO2 h Da te Procedure for Zoning Amendments (2) : Case # 83-23~ 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 ~ III.An Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (Answer either. A or B below) A. It is..requested that Section of the Zoning Ordinance be amended as follows: Reason for Amendment: Amendment to Map: it is requested that the property described below and shown on the attached site plan be rezoned'from .... R~I''' to R-3 · Address of Property: 48XXWilshire Blvd.' Legal description of property (lot, block, subdivision or metes'and bounds) Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Lot 6, Block 18~ SETON Present Use of Property: . VoEant · Reason for Amendment: The character of the oreo would be consistent with the adjoining property to the east also owned by the applicant Note: No application of a property owner for an amendment to the text of the ordi- nance or the zoning map shall be considered by the Planning Commission within one year period following a denial of such request. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1983 CASE NO. 83-239 Case No. 83-239 Request to rezone the R-1 portion of land to R-3 48XX Wilshire Boulevard - Lot 6, Block 18 & Lots 7,8 & 9, Block 29, Seton Tom Bergquist and Owner, Richard Smith, were present regarding this request. The Building Inspector explained that part of this parcel is zoned R-3 and the applicant's request is to move the line to include the R-1 portion in the R-3 District. The R-3 zoning would permit the applicant to construct six duplex units (3 structures) on the site. They would have to come back for a condi- tional use for zero lot line twinhomes~and a subdf¥ision of land. Bergquist explained that basically the land is a peninsula sticking out there that they would like to have rezoned to match the rest of the land; He thinks that 3 double homes on this land would make a more attractive package--more open space with twinhomes. Asking for variance of from 30 feet to 12 feet to keep units 50 feet from wetlands. The City Planner recommended the request be approved becaus~ it is isolated and it is a reasonable use. Owner and developer, Richard Smith, reviewed some of his projects which include the Bluffs and the first 46 homes in Woodcrest and stated that he tries to have larger lots to give more breathing room. He feels the viability of this project lies with the three twinhomes. He has owned the land since 1975. The problem of the lift station in the front yard', drainage from the'hill and wetlands., etc. were discussed.- ~eese moved and Fillbrandt seconded a motion to approve the proposed rezoning. Vargo asked the square foot of the dry land? Smith stated total acreage of parcel is 1.67 acres, but they.expect.to run into soil conditions as they go to the west. Originally each lot had over 6,000 square feet of dry land, but lot lines changed some because of the lift station. The vote on the motion was Byrnes.against, all others in favor. Byrnes stated he's basically against because of what he feels is coming up in the future -- too close to Wilshlre and eventually will be too close to other lot lines because I anticipate other variances wanted for multiple houses. Smith addressed that by saying therewould neyer be a request for more than 3 double bungalows. Council to be asked to set the public hearing for August 23rd. Case No. 83-240 Zoning Amendment Request to change the definition of a Class 1 restaurant to include live entertainment and the serving of intoxi- cating liquor Lot 2 & the West 45 feet front & rear of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision 170 Paul Pond was present representing Bo Shun Moy & Fi Yin Moy of the House of Moy, 5555 Shoreline Boulevard The City Planner explained the difference between Class 1 and Class 11 restau- rants and stated the question here is, "does the Planning Commission care to recommend to the City Council that liquor is appropriate to be served !n a PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 83-239 RESOLUTION NO. 83- RESOLUTION TO REZONE LOT 6, BLOCK 18, SETON WHEREAS, the owner of the property described as Lot 6, Block 18, Seton has requested that the property be rezoned frcm (R-l) single family residential to (R-3) two family residential, and WHEREAS, the rezoning of Lot 6, Block 18, Seton to (R-3) t~o family residential would not create a spot zoning situation as the area would be an expansion of the existin~ (R-3) two-family residential area lyir~3 immediately east of the subject property, and ~EREAS, the Planning Co'm'~'tission has reviewed the proposal and found it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan since it abuts (R-3) two family family residential to the east. NC~ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the Council does hereby approve the request to rezone Lot 6, Block 18, Seton to (R-3) two family residential from presently zoned (R-l) single family residential. PROPOSED ORDINANCE CASE NO, 83-239 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF MOUND OFFICIAL ZONING MAP BY REZONING CERTAIN LANDS FRCM R-1 RESIDENTIAL TO R-3 RESIDENTIAL City of Mound does ordain: Lot 6, Block 18, Seton is amended on the official zoning map to rezone the described property to (R-3) two family residential from its present (R-l) single family residential. The Zoning Map of the City on file with the City Clerk is hereby amended in accordance with the rezoning provision. PROPOSED ORDINANCE CASE NO. 83-239 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF MOUND OFFICIAL ZONING MAP BY REZONING CERTAIN LANDS FROM R-1 RESIDENTIAL TO R-3 RESIDENTIAL _~7~ ~ ~'t ~ ' U ' ' S rdain .... ~~~C/~-'! _-~7 ~1 y or Mo no ooe O : ~ ~ . ~/.~'9~r~ ~/,/~,~~-_ . Lot 6, Bloc~ k 18, Seto~ is a'mended o'n the official zoning map to rezo({e the described property to (R-3) two family residential from its present (R-l) single family residential. ~~. The Zoning Map of the City on file with the City Clerk is hereby amended in accordance with the rezoning provision. PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 83-239 RESOLUTION NO. 8 3- RESOLUTION TO REZONE LOT 6, BLOCK 18, SETON WHEREAS, the owner of the property described as Lot 6, Block 18, Seton has requested that the property be rezoned fram (R-l) single family residential to (R-3) two family residential, and WHEREAS, the rezoning of Lot 6, Block 18, Seton to (R-3) two family residential would not create a spot zoning situation as the area would be an expansion of the existing (R-3) two-family residential area lying ~iately east of the subject property, and WHEREAS, the Planning Cc~nission has reviewed the proposal and found it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan since it abuts (R-3) two family family residential to the east. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the Council does hereby approve the request to rezone Lot 6, Block 18, Seton to (R-3) t~m family residential fram presently zoned (R-l) single family residential. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1983 CASE NO. 83-239 Case No. 83-239 Request to rezone the R-1 portion of land to R-3 48XX Wilshire Boulevard ~,~,~ Block ~8 & Lats 7,8 & 9, Block 29, Seton Tom Bergquist and Owner, Richard Smith, were present regarding this request. ,..~,~ R-3 and the The Building Inspector explained that part of this parcel is zoged applicant's request is to move the line to include the R-1 port,on~ in the R-3 District. The R-3 zoning would permit the applicant to construct slx duplex units (3~structures) on the site They would have to come back for~.a ¢~nd~~ tional use for zero lo~'~l~ne twlnhomes~and a subdi~i¥ision ~f land, Bergquist explained that basically the land is a peninsula sticking out there that they would like to have rezoned to match the rest of the land~ He thinks that 3 double homes on this land would make a more attractive package--more open space with twinhomes. Asking for variance of from 30 feet to 12 feet to keep units 50 feet from wetlands. The City Pl,anner recommended the request be approved beca~us~,i~ is isolated and it is a reasonable use. Owner and developer, Richard Smith, reviewed some of his projects which include the Bluffs and the first 46 homes in Woodcrest and stated t~at he have la~ger lots to give more breathing room. H~ feels the viability of this project lies with the three twinhomes. He has owned the land since 1975. The problem.of the lift s~ation in the front yard, drainage from the'hill and wetlands., etc. were discussed. Reese moved and Fillbrandt seconded a motion to approve the proposed rezoning. Vargo asked the square foot of the dry land?., Smith stated total acreage of parcet~ is 1.67 acres, but they.expect t© run'into soil conditions as they go to the west, Originally each lot'had over 6,000 square feet of dry land, but lot lines changed some because of the lift station. The vote on the motion was Byrnes.against, all others in favor. Byrnes state~~ he's basiCallY aga~hSt because ~f what he fe~Is i.s coming up in the futur~ ~ too close to W~lShire and e~ent~ally ~11 be t~g cloie to ~ther lot"~l'i'~e~'becaUse'l anticipate other'var'iances'Wante8 ~o~ Smith addressed that by saying there, would ne~er be a request for more than 3 double bungalows. Council to be asked to set the public hearing for August 23rd. l o? Case No. 83-240 Zoning Amendment Request to change the definition of a Class I restaurant to include live entertainment and the serving of intoxi- cating liquor Lot 2 & the West 45 feet front & rear of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision 170 Paul Pond was present representing Bo Shun Moy & Fi Y~n Moy of the House of Hoy, 5555 Shoreline Boulevard The City Rlanner explained the difference between.Class I and Class II restau- rants and stated the question here is, "does the Planning Commission care to recommend to the City Council that liquor is appropriate to be served !~ a Procedure for Zoning Amendments 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 ' III.An Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (Answer either-A or B below) A. It is..requested that Section as follows: · of the Zoning Ordinance be amended Reason for Amendment Amendment to Map: .- It is requested that the property described below and shown on the attached site plan be rezoned'from .... R~I'" to R-3 · Address of Property: 48XXWilshire Blvd.' Legal description of property (lot., block, subdivision or metes'and bounds) Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Lot &f Block 18f SETON Present Use of Property:. Vadant · Reason for Amendment: The character of the area wouId be consistent with the adjoining property to the east also owned by the applicant Note: No application of a property owner for an. amendment to the text of the ordi- nance or the zoning map shall be considered by the Planning Commission within one year period fol)owing a denial of such request. .?.iTY OF MOUND street Address of Property Le. gal'Des~riptl.on .of Property: Addi ti°n Seton Fee Paid_/~-~. o o ' Date Filed ~-/~-~' APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Piease type the followlng inforrn~tlon) . ., 48)0( W( l ~h~ r~ B1 vd &, Block 18~ LotlT~9: B]om~ 2~ BIoc~A17 · 0038 PID No24-117-24-14- 003? 0013 ~' ,Day Phone No. ~41~5476" Addres~ &dO0 k~hawk ?,rail: Ed~na: ~nn~ntn ~S~4~ App)icant '(if other than owner): Name Day .Phone No. -Address ;. Type. of request: ,. ( *if other, specify: Variance ( ) Conditlbnal Use Permit Zoning interpretation ~ Keview ~etland Permit (.) P.U.D. \ (J~) Amenament ( ~ Sign Permit ( )*Other Present Zoning Distr.ict. R-1 and R-~ Existing Use(s). of Property, vacanl ' . ·" ~as 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 Ii'st date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No,(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all'of the above statements and the statements contained In any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the eh. try In or upon the premises described in ·this appIica~ion by any authorized official of the City of Mound for th~ purpose of Inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. S ignatur.e of Appl Planning Commission Recommendation: Date Cooncil Action: Re~olution No'.' MINNETRISTA JENNINC.,,S BAY 83-239 ORONO HARRI..~ON S BAY llillIIll~! SPRING PARK PROPOSED ZONING CONCE.PT R-1 10,000 sq.f R-2 6,000 sq.f DUPLEX · MULTI-FAMILY ~,~ COMMERCIAL' ~INDUSTRIAL ~ WETLANDS ISBERG ~ ~4~ RIESENBERG ~.~' CHELSETH AND ~ a.~y ~ ASSOCIATES ~,,.~,,~ ,,~_, ~..,._, ,,~,,~' ~ ~/~/_ P1 anning Commission Page Two July 18, 1983 CASE NO. 83-239 In reviewing the subject proposal for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission should remember that the document and accompanying maps are general in nature and not site specific. Because the Smith property is only 1.9 acres in size, its scale may have been insufficient for delineation on the future land use map. Therefore, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan can be assumed providing that the Planning Commission finds the R-3 rezoning consistent with the surrounding land uses and general city policies. RECOMMENDATION: i,$~ff recOrdS approval' of the Smith rezonfng proposal since the request se~nt~ ~c~~ , ~ ~ -,~ ~eni~ pat.tern. The wetlands :~n the north and west ~side~~~'~he parce)~ a~ prevent further' expansion of the ~3 ZOning. Should the City ultimately approve the subject request, the applicant is reminded 'that the'~Site plan ~v'ie~:of any 'aevel°Pment proPos~!., for the property Will ConSider impacts ~on the adjacent Wetlands a~d that any development Proposal will require review by the 'Minneha~ Wate'rshed'~Dfstrict. CASE NO. 83-23~ 3030 Harbor L~,ne North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 18, 1983 SUBJ: Rezoning Request APPLICANT: Richard Smith CASE NO: LOCATION: 83-239 4800 Block of Wilshire Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: R-1 and R-3 PROPOSAL: Mr. Smith is requesting that the R-1 portion of his property be rezoned to R-3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The subject parcel consists of 1.9+ acres of land of which approximately 0.3 acres is presently zoned R-3 (east)--and 1.6 acres are zoned R-1 (west). The 929.4 contour bisects the site and delineates the buildable area from the wetlands. The buildable area appears to have been filled in the past and contains a stand of cottonwood trees scattered throughout most of the property. The City of Mound has a 600 sq. ft. easement for a lift station along Wilshire Boulevard roughly at the midpoint of the street frontage. The surrounding land uses include a duplex on the east fronting of Wilshire Boulevard, wetlands to the north and west, and single-family residential (R-2) to the south. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES: Since the request does not involve a site plan review, this information is not required. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan depicts the parcel as wetland. COMMENTS: The preliminary plat drawing which was submitted in conjunction with the rezoning request divides the parcel into six lots ranging in size from 6,000 sq. ft. to 35,730 sq. ft. As such, each of these lots meets the minimum size criteria for single-family detached uses. Additionally, R-3 zoning would permit the applicant to construct six duplex units (three structures) on the site. 11-O16-1656-11 11-022-1708-81 11-O25-1578-81 11-O28-1601-21 11-O28-1610-31 11 -O28-1656-61 11-O31-1583-61 11-046-1746-71 11 -O52-5001-11 11-O55-5139-21 11-058-5043-O1 11 -O67-1904-81 11-076--1772-O1 11-082-1767-81 11 -O85-4960-91 11-O85-5084-71 11-O88-2147-91 11 -O88-5773-91 11-O94-2044-61 11-103-5984-91 11-112-5912-11 11-112-5971-71 11-112-6001-21 11-124-6090-01 11-145-6347-91 11-169-5280-31 11-175-5444-21 11-175-5511-81 11. 187-5444-71 11-187-5570-91 11-190-2172-11 11-193-2135-21 11-193-2146-91 11-211-2136-O1 11-220-2180-91 John Lovseth Leanne Turnbloom James Brown Orva Byers Ron Bisek Ron Nelson Greg Hoseth Stewart Perry Jerry Pehrson A. Hofstadter M.Wroe Wayne Burkhalter Richard Williams Joan Shields Tom Harty Roger Drews David Heinsch Robert Crabtree Dennis O connor Elmer Gunion John Simar Arnold Meridith Sharon Walton Doug Rodewald Rodney Biehle Steven Pahl David Leopley Evaline Bashams Cy Niccum Deanna Mohn B Bjorstad Delinquent Water $65.5O and Sewer 02.60 81.70 56.16 94.O2 72.88 74.20 61.97 91.52 79.34 118.62 64.20 44.85 313.85 236.62 134.99 57.7O 66.78 85.74 72.94 66.98 159.49 136.50 88.7O 55.46 67.70 9i.70 72.9O 130.50 44.76 131.O2 52.90 151.50 192.10 75.27 109.12 $3537.28 3151.43 1656 1708 1 578 1601 1610 1656 1583 1746 5001 5137 5043 1904 1772 1767 4960 5O84 2147 5773 2044 5984 5912 5971 6OO1 Made 6347 Paid 5444 Paid Paid 557O Made 2135 2146 Paid Paid 8-18-83 Bluebird Ln. Dove Ln. Eagle Ln. Finch Ln. Finch Ln. Finch Ln. Gull Ln. Sumach Ln. Crestview Rd, Woodland Rd. Enchanted Rd. Shorewood Ln. Resthaven Rd. Wildhurst Rd. Three Pts. Three Pts. Grandview Blvd. Grandview Blvd Bellaire Ln. Sunset Rd. Grandview Blvd. Gumwood Rd. Gumwood Rd. arrangements Rambler Rd. Spruce Rd. $65.00 Tonkawood Rd. arrangements Cedar Ln. Cedar Ln. 11-016-1656-11 11-022-1708-81 11-025-1578-8ix 11-028-1601-21 11-028-1610-31 11-028-1656-61 11-031-1583-61 11-o46-1746-71 11 -o52-5OOl -11 11-055-5139-21 11-o58-5o43-Ol 11-067-1904-81 11-076~,1772-01 11-082-1767-81 11-o85-496o-91 11-085-5084-71 11-o88-2147-91 11-088-5773-91 11-094-2044-61 11-103-5984-91 11-112-5912-11 11-112-5971-71 11-112-6001-21 11-124-6o90-01 ] 1-145-6347-91 11-169-5280-31 11-175-5444-21 11-175-5511-81 11. t87-5444-71 11-187-5570-91 11-190-2172-11 11-193-2135-21 11-193-2146-91 11-211-2136-01 11-220-2180-91 Delinquent Water John Lovseth Leanne Turnbloom James Brown Orva Byers Ron Bisek Ron Nelson Greg Hoseth Stewart Perry Jerry Pehrson A, Hofstadter M. Wro'e ~aync Burkhal Richard Williams Joan Shields (uiJV/~ ~L \~ Tom Harty Roger Drews Day. id Heinsch Robert Crabt~ee Dennis 0 connor Elmer Gunidn John Sim~r Arnold Meridith Sharon Walton, Doug Rodewa!d Rodney Biehle Steven Pahl David Leopley __$65.50 Evaline Bashams Cy N i ccum Deanna Mohn B B]orstad and Sewer 02.60 81.70 56.16 94.02 72.88 74.20 61.97 91,52 79.34 118.62 64.20 44.85 i 313.85 236.62 134.99 57.7O 66.78 85.74 72.94 66.98 159.49 136.50 · 88.70' 55.46 67.70 9i.70 72.9O 130.50 44.76 131,02 52,90 151.50 192.10 75.27 109.12 $3537.28 3151.43 1656 Bluebird Ln. 1708 Dove Ln. 1578 Eagle Ln. 1601 Finch Ln. 1610 Finch Ln. 1656 Finch Ln. 1583 Gull Ln. 1746 Sumach Ln. 5001 Crestv~ew Rd, 5137 Woodland Rd. 5043 Enchanted Rd. -J 90/~ S hot c',.:ood 1772 Resthaven Rd, 1767 Wi ]dhurst Rd, 4960 Three Pts, 5084 Three Pts, 2147 Grandview B]vd, 5773 Orandview B]vd 2044 Bellaire Ln, 5984 Sunset Rd. 5912 Grandview Blvd. 5971 Gumwood Rd. '6001 Gumwood Rd. Made arrangements 6347 Rambler Rd. Paid 5444 Spruce Rd. Paid $65.00 Paid 5570 Tonkawood Rd. Made arrangements 2135 Cedar Ln. 2146 Cedar Ln. Paid Paid 11-016-1656-11 11-022-1708-81 11-025-1578-81 11-028-1601-21 11-028-1610-31 11-028-1656-61 11-031-1583-61 11-046-1746-71 11-052-5001-11. 11-055-5139-21 11-058-5043-01 11 -067-1904-81 11-076~1772-01 11-082-1767-81 11-085-4960-91 11 -085-5084-71 11-088-2147-91 11-088-5773-91 11-094-2044-61 11-103-5984-91 .11-112-5912-11 11-112-5971-71 11-112-6001 -21 11-124-6090-01 :l :l-145-6347-91 11-169-5280-31 11-175-5444-21 11-175-5511-81 11. 187-5444-71 11-187-5570-91 11-190-2172-11 11-193-2135-21 11-193-2146-91 11-211-2136-01 11-220-2180-91 Delinquent Water and Sewer O2.6O 8~.7o 56.16 94.02 72.88 74.20 61.97 91.52 79.34 '118162: 64.20 44.85 313.85 236.62 134.99 57.7O 66.78 85.74 · 72.94 66.98 1 59.49 136.50 88.7O 55.46 67.70 9).70 72.90 1 30.50 44 .'76 1'31'. 02 52.90 1'51.50 192.1o 75.27 109.12 $3618.18 8-18-83 11-016-1656-11 11-022-1708-81 11-025-1578-81 11-028-1601-21 11-028-1610-31 11-028-1656-61 11-031-1583-61 11-046-1746-71 11-052-5o01-11. 11-055-5139-21 11-058-5043-01 11-067-1904-81 11-076'~ 1772-01 11-082-1767-81 11-085-4960-91 11-085-5o84-71 11-088-2147-91 11-088-5773-91 11-094-2044-61 11-103-5984-91 .11-112-5912-11 11-112-5971-71 11-112-6001-21 11-124-6090-01 l :l-145-6347-91 11-169-5280-31 11-175-5444-21 11-175-5511-81 11. 187-5444-71 11-187-5570-91 11-190-2172-11 11-193-2135-21 11-193-2146,-91 11-211-2136-01 11-220-2180-91 belinquent Water and Sewer $102.60 '~:: 81.70 56.16 94. O2 72.88 74.2O 61.97 91.52 79.34 118~62 ' 64.20 44.85 313.85 236.62 134.99 57.7o 66.78 85.74 · 72.94 66.98 159.49 136.50 88.70 55.46 67.70 9~.70 72.9O 1 3O. 5O 44.76 1'31.02 52.90 1'51.50 192.10 75.27 lO9.12 $3618.18 8-18-83 /: CASE No. 83-245 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of August 8, 1983: ' Boacd'Of.'Appeals Case No, 83-245 Location 4424 Denblgh Road Legal Desc.: Lot 91, Phelps Island Park 1st Division AppliCant: Robert L. Olson 4424 Oenbigh Road Phone: 472-3119/831-5002 Request.: Nonconforming Lot, No public right-of,way frontage Zoning District: R-2 The. applicant, Mr. Olson, is requesting to construct a detached 24 foot by 24 foot garage on his property. .He has. submitted drawings to indicate a setback of approximately 22 feet to the property line. Pursuant to the Zoning Code Section 23,403 "A lot of record in a residential district may be used for single fami'ly detached dwelling purposes provided the area thereof meets all setbacks and minimum lot area requirements of this Ordtnance; provided: 1) it has frontage on an'improved.public right-of-way. 2) it was under separate ownership from abutting lands upon or prior to the effective date of this Ordinance," Section 23,404(7) sta'tes "Normal maintenance of a building or other structure containing or relating to a lawful non-conforming use is permitted, including necessary non-structural repairs and incidental alterations which do not extend or intensify the non-codforming use". Comments: 'Mr. Olson d~d not submi't asurvey of the property with a building. permit.application. The deed,' copy'attached, does not indicate a private easement description for access to his property. I have asked the City Engineer to submit a report for Utilities service of the area, The Si:(e has a one story, slab on grade, house which has been recently sided with a pitch roof constructed. Mr. Olson thought he could obtain a permit to construct the garage with a drawing marked ff l'attached and he thinks the easement is 20 feet wide; 10 feet of Lot'91 and 10 feet from the adjoining .lot 96. With n° public-access to the property dedicated for street, utility and drainage, it is difficult to obtain proper bank financing. Also, it appears the'closest fire hydrant is 130'feet± from the property. Mr.. Olson stated the neighbors stopped a previous request to dedicate the easement to the City of Mound. Recon~endation: Jan Bertrand Staff recommends approval upon the condition that a survey be' submitted indicating the private easement, a setback of 10 feet, due to topography, be maintained to the easement, utility connections to the present structure be indicated when underground. Planning Commission Hinutes August 8, 1983 - Page 2 Case No. B3-2z~5 Board of Appeals 1. Case No. 83-~45 Variance for nonconforming lot & no public right-of-way frontage Lot 91, Phelps Island. Park 1st Division - Address: 4424 Denbigh Road Robert L. Olson was not present. The Building Inspector explained that the applicant is requesting to construct a detached 24 by 24 foot garage on his property. There is only a private ease- ment for the street and utilities. The Building Inspector reported that there is a water line looped through there, but the drawings have not been located. There are water shut offs all along the dirt road and it comes around and out between Lots 98 and 99 to Wilshlre. The sewer line runs on the lakeside of the properties. Question is where should 20 foot setback be for garage when there is no public right-of-way? There is no description of easement on Owner's copy of the deed. It was discussed that the 4 garages on the street seem to be the same distance back from the private street. Width of access was not known. Byrnes mentioned proposed garage would stick.up above the applicant's house. Discussed that a survey should be required that .would show the easements of record. Byrnes moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the variance so the accessory building requested can be constructed; it's use be limited to garage and storage with the further condition, a survey be obtained show?ng the private easement and water and sewer lines and the location of the pro- posed garage be in line with the other garages (setbacks be averaged). The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. ADJOURNMENT At 8:45 P.M. all members were in favor of adjournment, so meeting was adjourned. Frank Weiland, Chairman Attest: I IF:~.' i._/~,) APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ~ . ~ (Please type the following infor?tion) 2. Legal Description of Property: Lot C) I & that tract of land 1yi~gBlock ~ between Black i. Applican~ '(if other than o~ner): Name Day Phone No. Address " Type of Request: y(~) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ,( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit (,)*Other '. *If other, specify: Present Zoning District .... ~. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning pFocedure for this property? ~ ' If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, acti6n taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all o{ 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 ~specting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may b~.requJrect~)lawj__._~/~///~F)//~/~ -"' · · Planning Commission Recommendation: Date 8-9-83 :il Action: Resolution No. '-YReques't for zoni.ng Variance Procedure (2) Case ~ 83-245 ~ D. Local. ion of: Signs, easements; unde'rground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction .'~. A~ addit'ional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff ano applicable Sections of the Zoning ~rdinance. III. ~equest for a Zoning Variance A. All..i~formation below, a site plan, as described in Part !1, and.general · application must be provided before a hearing.will be scheduled. B, Does .the present use of. the pr~perty'conform to e~ use regulations for · the zone district in which it Is located?-Yes~( No ( )' If !'no", specify each n~n-conforming use: C.. Do .the existing-structures comply, with all area height)and bulk.regulations for the zone district in'which i't'is'.located?' Yes (F 'No'( ) .. if !'no", specify ~ach non-conforming use: ''" D. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent.Its reasonable use for any of the.uses ·permitted in that zoning.district? { ) .Too qarrow { . ) Topography (- } Soil ( ) Too. small' :- m( )' Drainage .... (.) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow - (,.) Sha.~pe (~) ~Other~' Specify: ' - -/ - .' - E. Was .the hardship described ab~/e 'created by the ac~tion of anyone havi.ng pr. operty interests in the land after. 'the Zohing Ordinance w.as adopted? Yes ( ) No (X) If yes, explain: , / Fe Was the hardship created, b¥"any"o~her man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (Xr) if yes, exp)ain: Are the conditions of hardship for'which:you request a variance peculiar only to the property described'in this petition?' Yes ( ) No If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? ~hat ls the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations thac will per'it you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.} Will granting of the varianCe be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? CASE NO. 83-245 LEr:,AL . D£SCRI PTI ON SiTE AREA Lot Blk. Addition Sq. Ft. AREA OF SITE OCCUPIED BY BU]LDiHRS_ IHSTRUCT:]OHS TO APPLJCA. HT V CASE NO. 83-245 This fora need not be used ~hen plot plans drawn to scale of not less than 1'-20' are filed with permit application. (Each building site must have a separate plot plan.) For new bJtldtngs provide the following tnfornntton: Elevation of existing & adjoining yard grades, location of proposed consturctton and existing improve-' cents; show building, site, and setback dimensions. Show easements, finish .... contours or drainage, first floor elevation, street elevation and sewer service elevation. Show location of water, sewer, gas and electrical service lines. Show location of survey pins with elevations. Specify the use of each butldng and major poFtion thereof. To be completed by a registered land surveyor. INDICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE . ' GRAPH SQUARES ARE 5' X 5' I/We cer~ily that the proposed construction will conform to the dimensions and uses shown above and that no changes will be flr~'l obta;nir~ approval. , · .... :l~.J OF OwN~rl~l$1 OF" $1'I'£ · STI~uCTu~r(SI IPRINTJ .( No delinquent t~xes sad transfer enl~red; Gerti~ca~ of ~ee~ ~s~ ~e~ue ( ) filed ( ) not requ~ed Ce~ifi~ of ~e~ ~s~ V~ue No, . ..,~9 ..... County Audlt. or by Deput~ STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ Date: ..... 19 FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Olson-~ee£er,,properties, a ~artnershin CASE NO, (reserved for recording data) hereby convey (~ ~nd warrant (~) ix) Robert L, Olson , Grantee ~-~ re~l ptolemy in Henneotn County, Minneaota, described ts follows: Lot gl, Phelps Island Park, First Division,'A~SO a parcel of land lying between the Easterly and Westerly lines of said Lot 91, extended Northerly to the shore of Black Lake and between ~he Northerly line of said Lot gl and the shore line of Black Lake. together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following exceptions: ,~.ffix l),.~d 'l'ux Stamp I lere STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of by ~lill~am J. Keef.e.r~ a~ partner of Ol.son:Keefer Properties, a..par'cnership, on behalf of said partnershi~ / ~ ~, SUSAN L. ~EViOLA ~ ~9~ ~ HENN~PIN COUNTY 2408 Cen~ra~ Avenue N.E, ~ SS4~8 ,19 , , Grantor (~). Robert L. Olson CASE NO, 83-2,h5 'V PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE N0.'83-245 RESOLUTION NO. 83- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR A NONCONFORMING LOT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING AT LOT 91, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION (4424 Denbigh Road) WHEREAS, the owner, Mr. Olson, of the property discribed as Lot 91, Phelps Island Park 1st Division, PID #19-117-23 24 0026, has applied for a variance on a non-conforming lot to allow for the construction of a 24 by 24 foot detached accessory building, and WHEREAS, the City Code requires Section 23.403 - Lots of record in residential districts may be used for single family detached dwelling purposes provided it has frontage on an improved public right-of-way,and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application and does recommend approval of the variance to allow the homeowner reasonable use of his property with certain conditions. 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 variance as described for 4424 Denbigh Road, Lot 91, Ph61ps Island Park 1st Division upon the condition that the detached garage have a setback to be the average of the present neighbors garages; a survey be submitted indicating the underground utilities, private road and utility easements, and present and proposed buildings be shown; the accessory buildine be limited to ~arane and storage. CITY OF HOUND Mound, Minnesota elannlng, cbmm~sslon Agenda of July 25, 1983: CASE NO. 83-243 Bbard o,f ,Appeals .. Applicant: Case No. 83-243 Kevin Hetchler LocatiOn: 4913 l'slan~ View-Drive 4913 Island View Drive Legal Desc.: Lot 14, Block 14, Devon Mound,. MN. Request: Non-conforming lot size, 2 Foot Phone: 472-4770 slde yard variance' & structure size Zoning Distrtct: R-2 The applicant., Mr. Hetchler., has been granted a var'iance last September'to place an attached one story garage 18 to 20.3 feet to the front property line,.Res. No. 82-250. He ~s now requesting to place the garage extension with the house to allow a straight projection. 'The house'Is'at an angle and does not parallel the lot line; as you follow.a ~traight line northwest"you gradually get'closer to the property line. The closest potnt would be 3.8 to'4 feet at the side yard setback. Pursuant to the R-2 Zoning. District provisions for lots Of record, the house size is 704 square'feet; required.is 840 square feet. The lot size is 4,062~-square feet; r.equlred, ls 6,000 square'feet. The .structure is 5.5 feet from the southwest property line and 11.1 feet on the.northeast; required is 6.6 and '10 feet. A detached garage on'lakeshore'.lots requires a 4 foot side yard. The owner has also requested a buildlng permit to'change the roof pitch over a flat roof area as marked,~.' on the site plan, The abutting'neighbors have been notified. The s~gge~ted date'for referral to the City. Council is ~ugust 9th. Jan Bertrand. Building Offi'c|al JB/ms Planning Commission July 25, 1983 7. Case No. 83-243 NonConfo~f~-~"i~,"si~e'-~ara"~riance and'structure ......... .{:- size variance request for 4913 Island View Drive I~.i Lot 14, Block lq, Devon tm ~ Hr. & HrS. Kevin Hetchler were present. The Building inspector explained the request 'is for an attached garage tO the existing residence. The present structure is somewhat tipped to the lot line so as'it goes northwest i't ge~ c)ose'r to the.lot )|ne; a garage e~tended would come q~ feet. to slde lot line; they did get a 2 foot front yard variance · for the garage and now need a 2 foot side yar~ variance. Reese commented on request - the area is so congested; he knows they need to do something, but this request makes him uncomfortable. Hrs. HetchIer explained the~ already have a variance for an attached 22 X 22~ ~' garage; but they want to place the garage extension straight out from the .~ house and change the roof pitch. Do not'want to offset the garage, .. Don.Prince of h~17 island View Drive stated he had to meet set backs and the house next. door was already nonconforming. They object to any construction any closer than'6 feet to lot llne and any .closer to street would.create hazard to anyone backing into the street. Mr. Burns (across street) can't see any pro~'lem with looking at 2 garages, and thinks there is no encumbrance on the hill. ' ' Reese suggested making garage 20 feet by 22 feet. ~rs. Hetch]er stated they were unaware when they bought~property It was non- conforming; they want ~ 22 X 22 foot garage and want to tie it into existing foundation; they are willing to. s~end the money, but will not compromise. Byrnes moved and Reese seconded a motion that the Commission not grant the' variance as requested today.· The vote was a)l in favor except Hichael was opposed., fie stated it does seem a little unfair if variance has been granted not to allow another 2 feet. Mrs. Hetchler advised ~hat they will take legal action'. Address of Prop. erty., d-~/]. Legal Des~r|ptl.on of Property: Lot CITY OF'MOU. ND 0 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION lease type the following information) Fee:Pald_ Date Fi led Block: / y !/? -2 // c,o _i Day Phone App1 leant '(if other' than owner): Hame " Day Ph~e blo. Address -' Type of Request: (~) Variance ( ) Conditibnal Use Permit (') Zoning Interpretation & Review '( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. )'Amendment ') Sign Permit )~Othe~ *If'other, specify: Zoning District ~,, · Existing Use(s) of Property 8. -Has an application ever been made for zoning, yariaflce, or conditional use permit or · other zoning procedu[e f~r this property? ~" if So, list date(s) of lift.date(s) of appl,cat,on, action taken'"'and Pro¥ide ResolUtion No.(s) ~ Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. ! 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. be required by law. Signature of Applicant ~~ Date Planning Commission Recommendation: Date :il Action: ,' Resolution No. Date Reques'~.for zoni.ng Variance Procedure Case D. Loca'tlon of: Signs, easements; underground utilltles, etc. £. Indicate North compass direction A~y addltional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of.the Zoning O£dinance. II!. Request for a Zoning Variance 'A. All.i~formation below, a site plan,.as descr'ibed in Part !!, and general application must be provided before a hearing.will be scheduled. B. Does.the present use of. the property'conform to~1.1 use regulations for .. the.zone district in ~l. ch it is located? Yes (7) rio ( )' If !'no", specify each non-conforming use: C. Do .the existing.structures comply, with all area height and bulk..regulatlons for the zonedistrlct-in, whlch i't'is,located?' Yes ( ), No' if ~no~, specify each non-conforming use: D..~hich unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent.its reasonable use for any.of the.uses.permitted ~n that zonlng.dlstrlct2 .Too qarrow (.) Topography (') Soil Too. small ' :. -( )' Dralnage~ ( ) Sub-surface Too shal'l~ (.) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: E..~s-the hardship described ab~'create~ by the a~tion Of anyone having pFoperty Interests in the land afte~ 'the Zohing Ordinance was adopted] Yes ( ) No ( ) If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship created by'any'o~her man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No ~;~) If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for'which:you request a variance peculiar only to the property described'in this petition? Yes (~) No ( If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? ~hat is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regutations that will per'it you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach addltional sheets, if necessary.) ~/ill granting of the variance be materially detrimental to'property in the' same,zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? CERTIFICATE.. OF SURVEY ' CASE NO. 83-2q3 T,HanSen L_~ norp., & Pellinen, Inc. Consulting Engineers - Lmnd Surveyors - Site P¼nners 740~ h"l;'~c, he~l RA.~£c~en Prairie, Mn. 55344 q34'~lG3 · 13907 Rpfing Lake Rd.. Minnetonka, Mn. 55343 g38-S&78 I hereby certify that this survey, prepared by me or under my direct super. vision, is a true and correct repre~ntation of the boundaries of the,.above · described land and of the location of all buildings, if any thereon, aji!llJl~ll visible encroachments, if any,.from or on said land and that I am registered land surveyor under State of Minnesota Statutes Section ', 2'~.02 Date: ,3o ~/' Registratian No. ~ Z 74 p/~ E Job No..,E/-/'~O Book- Page P° ~ ~' ' Scale /,e_- ZO' ! 'o ,0 .-4 ~IDDLESE× LA I-- '~ ROXBURY - LA '~ ~c Eil~-Ef~ 'ON :lSVg ~ ~AMHERST LA September Z~, ~¢$Z Cobncl lmember Ulrlck moved the following r~solution. RESOLUTION NO. 82'-250 'RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND GRANT A VAR-lANCE TO PLACE AN ATTACHED GARAGE· 18 FEET TO 20.3 FEET FROM ISLAND VIEW DRIVE - LOT .14, BLOCK 1.4,' DEVON - PID #25-117-24 11 0043 WHEREAS, the owner of Lot 14, Block'14, Devon, PID #25-117-24 11 0043, has applied for a variance to erect an attached garage 18 feet to 20.3 feet from 'the street, and WHEREAS, the alternative to granting this variance is to have a detached 'ga.rage that is onl~ required to be setback 8 feet from the: street with a side entrance, and WHEREAS, because 'of topography the detached garage would be more ~ hazard, and. · - -WHEREAS, · th~ Planning Commission has approved the variance as requested. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCI~ OF THE'CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: That.the 'Council d6es hereby, concur with the Planning Commlssio'n 'recommendation and approves the 18 fm~t to 20.3 feet variance from the street to enable the owner of Lot 14', Block 14, Devon, to build an attached garage.' A mot/on'for t~e adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Swenson.and upon'vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Charon', Swenson, Ulrick'and Lindlan; 'the following voted against'the same: none; with. Councilmember Polston being absent; whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted; signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the .Cit~ Clerk. Attest: City Clerk August 19, 1983 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER Enclosed is a proposal from Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc., regarding our long-term public works needs. With the future of the Anderson Building in qdestion and the Lost Lake site as well, we could face a major crisis as to what to do with our city equipment since we presently only have available storage for about half of what we have and need on the Island. This study to be paid for from the Building Fund is a major cohstructive step to study options, visit other cities and try and bring all the fact and costs together in one report. I recommend approving entering to a contract to conduct this study. JE:fc McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTINIZ ENGINEERS · LAND gURVE¥ORg · PLANNi:RS Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 August 23, 1983 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject: City of Mound Feasibility Study Public Works Facility Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: It is our understanding that the City of Mound is considering the expansion or rebuilding of its public works facilities. We feel that with the experience we have in this field and the familiarity with the City itself, our services would be very beneficial. The following are a number of public works facilities we have been involved directly with, not only in the design stage, but also the construction phase. Litchfield, Minnesota - Street and Park Department - Maintenance Building. Litchfield, Minnesota - Wastewater Systems Vehicle Storage and Maintenance Facility. Rockford, Minnesota - Public Works Garage Rockford, Minnesota - Fire Station. Renville County Highway Department - Maintenance Building Elk River, Minnesota - Wastewater Systems Maintenance Building. If the City is seriously considering a feasibility study, we would appreci- ate an opportunity to submit a proposal. We would be happy to answer any ques- tions which you may have at this time. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. ~meron~~ JC: sj oj City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Mn. 55364 Attn: Mr. Jori Elam, City Manager Re: Site & Facility Study Proposal Public Works Facility City of Mound, Minnesota Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E. Robert FY. Rosene. P.E. Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. Bradford A. LernberlL P.E. Richard E, Turner, P.E. James C. OIson, Glenn R. Cook, P.E. gettb A, Gordon, P,E. Thomas E. Noyes, P.E. Richard FY. Foster, P.E. Robert G. 5chunicht, P.E. Marvin L. $orvala, P.E. Donald C. Bur~ardt, P.E. Jerry A. Bourdon, P.£. Mark A. Hanson. P.£. Ted K. Field, P.E. Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. Robert R. Pfefferle, p.l~. Charles A. Erickson Leo M. Pamelsky Horlan M. Olean Dear Mayor, City Council & City Manager: Representatives of our firm have reviewed and personally visited the existing public works building and site and the four (4) other alternate sites that have been proposed as possible public works facility sites. We propose to investigate and prepare a feasibility study for the proposed public works facility for the City of Mound that would cover and include the follbwing: Investigate and study each of the five (5) sites to determine access, availability of utilities, feasibility of location with regard to service to City, impact on surrounding property a~d desirability of site. 2. Study physical needs of City in regard to public works equipment, review existing equipment lists, make recommendations as to facility needs for space for storage and equipment maintenance and prepare preliminary facil- ity layout plan. Be Prepare preliminary layout sketches for the necessary facilities on each of the feasible sites, not to exceed the four alternate sites that were suggested and the present public works building site. e Study the existing facility and site to determine if the present building could feasibly be redesigned and revised by addition and retrofit to pro- vide needed space and service. 5. Prepare preliminary cost estimates for a public works garage facility at appropriate sites including the existing public works building site. 6. Prepare recommendations to the City for the proposed facility. 637 4b Page 1. City of Mound Mound, Mn. August 12, 1983 In conjunction with this study, we will meet with your City Staff to determine needs. This would be closely coordinated through Mr. Elam. We would expect to present a rough draft to the City Staff for review and comments prior to completing the formal report. Upon completion of the report we will make a formal presentation to the City Council at your convenience to totally review the report and to answer any questions that might arise. We propos~ to prepare the study on per diem basis utilizing the hourl~ rates shown on the attached sheet. We further propose to prepare the report for an amount not to exceed $6,500.00. The above proposed fee does not include soil borings. We would anticipate the need for at least one soil boring on each feasible site. We would schedule the borings, with a soils testing company and have them invoice the City di- rectly at cost. We are prepared to start this study immediately upon council approval and would anticipate completion of the study within 4-6 weeks thereafter for pre- sentation. This will allow preparation of building plans and bidding by early 1984, to allow construction to start when weather permits. We would be pleased to meet with you, at your convenience, to discuss our pro- posal. We look forward to working with you on this Project. Respectfully submitted, BONESTRO0, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Otto G. Bonestroo OGB:li Encl. 6374b Page 2. SCHEDULE B CLASSIFICATION HOURLY RATE Principal Engineer Registered Engineer Assistant Engineer and Field Supervisor Senior Technician Junior Technician Word Processor Clerical Attendance at Regular Council Meetings $42.50 $38.50 $31.00 $25.50 $19.00 $19.50 $14.50 $40.00/mtg. Reimbursable Expenses Reproduction, Printing, Duplicating Out-of-Pocket Expenses such as meals, lodging, stakes, telephone calls, etc. Mileage At Invoice Cost At Actual Cost $ 0.20/mile 1165b August 19, 1983 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER Enclosed is a breakdown summary of our 1983-84 HUD Community Development Block Grant Funds. This should not be confused with the separate $100,000 we received through the special HUD Jobs Funds. When we put this budget back together in February, I had no idea what the status of the Tax Increment projects might be later in the year. Now that we are slowly moving forward, i.e. legal analysis of building complete, HRA reorganizing, preliminary reports submitted, we now need to zero in on the property appraisal process to help us more formally define real costs. The estimated costs of the two items we are facing include, $15,000 for appraisals and $3,000-$4,000 for the housing study relating to Lost Lake. We have the funds to do this within the HUD budget, but we need to do a line item transfer. That would transfer $15,000 from Project #757 in 1983 funds to line #755. That would provide a total of $20,000 for. Downtown Improvement Project financing. I will be happy to go over the rest of the budget and give you an update on the various components. JE:fc oo~~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~rl 0 (CC) 0 0 0 (CC) (CC) O~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ O~ 0 0 . ~- 0 ~ CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT APPLICATION (]) Name of Owner of Business L~.,-~,~./~.. _C9~.~dd'l~ F~ rst M~ ' (2) Address . ~,~ ~_~,~ ~(o~ /~--., Last Street City State Zip (4) (s) Phone No. .~z22-~S'&,Y~ Date of Birth Does anyone other than above have financial 'interest ~n the"buslness? Dates o~ Single Dances ~Y ~ Y -- /ff~) (6) If Annual Dance Permit, from when to when: (7) Fee: Single Dance - $25.00 per day Annual Dance - $200.00 (0rd'397) *If the answer to Item 3 is "Yes'"~ please list others havi'ng a financ the business below, giving name, address and teleX,hone number. a! interest in ! d AUG I8 1983 ~,OO' __~ . ' APPLICATION FOR' OF MOU CHA,RiTABLE O'RGANIZATION 3.2 BEER PERMIT i-'er ~ay for eac addi tional day. 1. Name of 0rganization[,.~,,,s-/o~- -~m~o 2..-Address of Organization 3. Name of Person ApplyTng for Permit '~g 4. Organization Title' of Person Applying for Permit 5. Dates Permit Will Be Us'ed: 6. Address at which Permit will be used ~ ~,~ .... 7. Does the Organization.carry Liquor Liability Insurance 8. If answer ;co No. 7 is YES, piease llst: (a) Name of Insurance Company ~/,/..~'s,,~ · ~-. ~,~. . (b) Amount of Coverage. 3r~ ~.,. ,-' . ' '. .... . . :':9 "-If this application to sell 3 2 Beer' is on property-owned by a public agency other than the City of Mound, written noti. ce from the public 'agency giving permission for such sales must accompany this application. (a:) ls Such written permiss on attached? /~//~ '... 10. If this application is ~.request.to sell 3.2 Beer on City prope.rty, the City' requires Liquor Liability Insurance with limits of $300,000. ;Applicant Date © STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY i i'q fi' }ii :r! Au t81 JJJ icily OF MOLD_ APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO ONLY ALLOW CONSUMPTION & DISPLAY OF INTOXi%\TING LIQUOR (This Application Shall Be Typewritten end Submitted Before June 15t of each Year In answering the following questions "APPLICANT" shah be governed as follows: For a Partnership, one of the partners shall execute this application fo~,all members of the partnership. For a Corporation, ond officer shall execute this application for all officers, directors, and stockholders. For a Club, one of the club officers shall execute this application for all the members. If additional space is ~equired, use a separate sheet of paper, indicating by number the question answered. tFEE FOR PERMIT -$1.~t=~0) (Nam~ror person making ipplication) IJndlvidual owner, partner, officer, club officer} for and in behalf of ~', ,~.-j.~..v=.,~_ - (D,~.-.o-) ,.~' ..... -J~ (,--~;~'~Z.., (7' ~. ... (Myself, name~ of ~sr'tne~% name of ¢~rporation, or name of club) hereby apply for a permit allowing consumption and display of intoxicating liquor to be located at ,L~ .~, ('~ .... ......~t, 0~......0 /q',-,,, ~-t , Municipality of /ct',~ , , .d. ~,~-' . , (Street address and/or lot a~d Bloc~ number) Post Office of /'f'c., ,~,~ Zip Codec;~'~.~t , County of /-// ..... , - , , (TOwnlhlp and Section} State of Minnesota, in accordance with the provisions of M.S. 340.119. Tel. No. (area come) 2. Will business be operated as a private club or public Place ?~c~J,/,'~. 3. State type of business p,,.~ Pf~o~'c/ ~m~ 4. FOR'A PUBLIC BUSINESS: If a partnership, state name and address of each member of partnership; if a corporation, state name and address of officers and directors. (Name) (Address) 5, FOR A PRIVATE CLUB: Date club was organized , is club incorporated ~, number of members __ , length of time in present location , is club building owned or rented , what is the membership dues ' ,' what are the requirements for membership · Does club maintain lockers to be used by members for storing intoxicating liquor __ . Names of all officers and/or directors of the club: ( N~me} {Address} (Naml) (A~ress) (Address) ~/me) (Address) Enclose with this application a copy of the Constitution and By-Laws of the club and current list of bona fide members. 6. If applicant or any partner, corporation officer or director, club officer or director, is not, a citizen of the United States, list such non-citizens 7. State name of person who will operate or manage business: 8. On what floor is the establishm'~nt:located, or to be located ~~ ~ ( 9. How are the premises classified under the zoning ordinance ~,~s ~ Approved for Violations by: ' DO NOT USE Check Cash Rec'd. InsDecllon Section Rec'd. by Cashier 10. State name and address of owner or owners of building wherein the business will be located: ~. H~s ~ppi~c~n~; if p~r~ne~hip, ~ny p~ner; if co~or~on, ~ny officer or director; i~ club, any club o~cer or director, ever h~d ~ license under ~he ~inneso~ ~quor Con~ro~ Ac~ revoked or suspended or b~en conv~c%ed ~or ~ny violation o~ S~e ~ws or local ordinances; if so, give da~e ~n~ d~ts ~ 12. Is applicant; if partnership, any partner; if corporation, any officer or director; if club, any ciub officer or director, a member of the governing body of the municipality or county in which this permit is to be issued; if so, in what capacity 13. Has applicant; if partnership, any partner; if corporation, any officer or director; if club, any club officer or director, any interest whatsoever, directly or indirectly, in any liquor estab!ishment in the State of Minnesota /,,',:, . Give name and address of such establishment 14. Furnish the name and address of at least three business references, including one bank reference: (Nsmo) 15. Will intoxicating liquor be sold on the premises 16. (a) State whether application is: 1. Original ~ 2. Renewal 3. Transfer (b) Former licensee's name trade name ..... 17. Are the premises now occupied, or to be occupied, entirely separate and exclusive from any other business establishment 18. State trade name to be used. (-~,,~/~-~..~- .~..O~,~ ~9, S~a~e whether an "On-Sale" or "Off-Sa]e" Non*ln~oxica~ing Ma~ Beverage License has or conjunction to this business and for the same premises 20. Has there been issued, or will there be issued, a $~.00 Federal Retail Liquor Dealer's Special Tax Stamp for the sale of liquor on these premises 21. Has your local government an ordinanc~ regulating the consumption and display of intoxicating liquor 22. If operating under zoning ordinance how is location of building classified I hereby certify that I have reed end understand every cluestion in this application, end that the answers are true of my own knowledge. I further understand that the giving of false information in this application, or the failure to give pertinent information constitutes cause for she immediate revocation of this permit. IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD THAT ANY PERMIT ISSUED HEREUNDER DOES NOT ALLOW THE SALE OF iNTOXICATING LIQUOR. Enclosed is payment of $151,50 payable to the Liquor Control Director as prov;decLby M.S. 1967, SectJon 340.119. NO CONSIDERATION WILL BE GIVEN TO THIS APPLICATION UNLESS APPROVED AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED: If applicant is located in the County, the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners or his Representative shall approve this application. If applicant is located in a Municipality, the President of the Council or his Representative shall approve this application. Subscrib~ and sworn to before me this J¢ day ~ ~=~N GERALD W KOHL~ My Com~ssion e~pir~~ ~ (President of the Council or his Representative) 'uo.:s~A!pqr~ ~u~uatuu.ta~o3 p!~ .T.o paap ptn; o~ poxulu Nas oR~ ~q~ pu~ '~uamn~lsu! ~ujoZo~o~ oR~ u! pam~u uols!alpqns N;uo~uao,~o~ poa~od~u Xli~uos~a~ 'X~uno~ plus ~o~ pu~ u~;D~ 'o~ oao~oq '--6I ." '~o X~p'--~R; u0 . ;o [ V~;OSXNNIDI ciO ~tlO L£ uol~^¥ 'ZL ~13OL8 'LL pue 9'1 'St '~/1. s~,o'l WILLIAM R. KOENIG JAMES G. ROBIN PETER W. JOHNSON JOHN W. WOOD, JR, LBGAL ASSISTANT: JOANN B. JACOB August 15, 1983 LAW OFFICES KOENIG, ROBIN, JOHNSON & WOOD 2305 COMMERCE BLVD. MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1060 240 CENTRAL AVENUE OSSEO, MINNESOTA 55369 (612) 424-5612 REPLY TO: MoUnd Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Downtown Parking on Property Leased from Railroad Dear Jon: I have reviewed the lease prepared by the City Attorney. The lease is acceptable as written. I will sign the lease on behalf of Conco as soon as it has been approved by the City Council. Very truly yours, KOENIG, ROBIN, JOHNSON & WOOD Peter W. PWJ/b August 10, 1983 CITY-of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 Mr. Peter Johnson Koenig, Robin, Johnson & Wood 2305 Commerce Blvd. Mound, MN. 55364 Dear Peter, The City Attorney finished his review of the CBD Lease and made only a couple of changes which I wanted to show you before I run it by the City Council for their approval. I underlined them for your clarification. Please let me know .if they are o.k.-'and I'll continue the approval process. Sincerely, Jon Elam City Manager JE:fc eric. LEASE FOR MUNICIPAL PARKING FACILITIES CITY OF MOUND THE INDENTURE, made this.· day of , 1983, by and between CONCO, INC., party of the.first part, hereinafter called the Lessor, and the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, party of.the second part, hereinafter called the Lessee. The party of the first part in consideration of the rents and covenants hereinafter set forth, do hereby Demise, Lease and Let unto the said party of the second part the following described premises situated in the City of Mound, County of Hennepin, and State of Minnesota; That portion.of the property encompassed within that certain lease running 'between Burlington Northern and Conco, Inc., dated March 1, 1973; designated as Burlington Northern, term lease number 211,229, described as follows: The paved parking area consisting of the westerly 189 feet of said leased property .and being approximately 96 feet in width from north to south and abutting on its northern most boundary, the property owned by Piggly Wiggly of Mound, Inc. (subject to a lease in favor of the City of Mound dated December 8, 1971), all within the City of Mound, County of Hennepin. The party of the second part shall have and hold the above-described premises.for and during an indefinite period and terminable on 1 year written notice from and after the first day of March, 1983. The said Lessee agrees to and with the Lessors to pay as ren( for the above-mentioned premises the sUm; of Nine Hundred Seven and 20ZlO0 Dollars ($907.20) per year payable on November 1 of each year (said sum is based on a lease price of 5¢ per square foot per year). Rent during the first partial year shall be payable pro rata in the amount of $680.40. It is agreed by and between the parties that the Lessee shall use the afore- described premises for municipal parking facilities to serve the Mound central business district. The Lessee also agrees that it will be responsible for snow removal,and general maintenance of the aforedescribed parcel. The Lessors agree to be responsible for annual special assessments for such maintenance in accordance with a formula which shall be applied to all other,properties located in the central business district. It is agreed that this lease does not prohibit the Lessors from constructing additional structures on any portion of the land encompassed within that certain parcel leased by Conco, Inc. from Burlington Northern Railroad (indefinite term lease number 243,765) not subject to this lease; subject to applicable building and zoning ordinances. ~ It is further agreed by and between the parties that the leased property being used for municipal parking facilities, shall not be released or used for constructing any building or structure without the Lessee's written approval. The Lessee may release all or any portion of the leased premises to construct or extend the current buildings located on the leased premises but only if the Lessor, its heirs or assigns complies with the following conditions: 1. Sufficient additional parking spaces shall be provided to replace the s~aces lost by said construction and in addition thereto, sufficient additional spaces shall be required to meet the Lessee's requirements for off-street parking as established by the City Code for the new structure or extension. Said additional space shall abut on an existing municipal parking facility.' 2. The Lessor, its heirs and assigns, shall provide the Lessee with a valid and binding lease for the additional parking area for at least the same period of time as is contained in this agreement or any extension thereof. The area referred to in this subsection shall be acquired by the Lessor and provided at no cost to the Lessee. 3. The Lessor, its heirs or assigns, agrees to improve the new parking area and spaces so that said area is at least as good as the municipai facilities it is replacing. And it is further agreed by and between the parties that should the said Lessee fail to make the above-mentioned payments as herein specified, or.to pay the rent aforesaid when due, or fail to fulfill any of the covenants herein contained, then, and in that case, it shall be lawful for the said Lessor to re-enter and take possession of the above-rente~ premi~e~. And the said Lessee also covenants and agrees to and with the Said Lessor not to assign this Lease, or underlet the above-rented premises or any part thereof,.without first obtaining the written consent of the said Lesspr, and that it will, at the expiration of this lease, 'quietly yield and surrender the aforesaid premises to the said Lessor, its heirs and assigns. And the said Lessor does covenant that the said Lessee, on paying the rent and performing the covenants aforesaid, shall and may peaceably and quietly have, hold and enjoy the said demised premises for the term and for the purpose aforesaid. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, both parti'es.have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. In presence of: CITY OF MOUND By Robert Polston, Mayor By Jon Elam, City Manager CONCO, INC. By Peter W. Johnson Vice President .% U m ~ w.o~u w~c ~'~0 Well wcJUJ m 0 GRADUATE MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY 1971 B. ARCH. ARCHITECT STATE OF MONTANA REG. 799 ARCHITECT STATE OF MINNESOTA LIC. 011926 NCARB CERTIFICATE NO. 16422 BUILDING OFFICIAL STATE OF MINNESOTA CERT. 0572 BUILDING INSPECTOR INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS CERT. 3534 MEMBER NORTH STAR CHAPTER ICBO MEMBER AMERICAN SOCIETY PLANNING OFFICIALS Alan P. Olson ARCHITECT 5724 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 612_472_z' ~ Mr. Jon Elam , City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Mn. 55364 August 16, 1983 Re: Fire Station Addition Dear Jon, Attached are two copies of the contractor's first request for payment. Please note that I have confirmed with John Cameron that the correct amount of retainage is 5% as per the contractor's request. Therefore the correct amount payable at this time is the requested sum of ~15,$20.00. One copy of the application should be returned to the contractor with your payment for his records. Also attached for your.information is correspondence and a drawing concerning a proposed change order requested by Chief Chenney. Since the cost was clearly excessive for the work proposed, this quote was rejected. However, since the Chief does want to provide for more plumbing than was originally included I have arranged for certain of the new underground piping to be installed withomt charge to the City. In return, the original piping above the floor will be omitted by the contractor. This piping can then later be installed quite easily by the fire department, and at a considerable savings. Sincerely, Alan P. Olson, Architect GR, ,'3UATE - MOI'~ TANA STATE UNIVERSITY 1971 B. ARCH. At~ITECT Sq~'OF MONTANA REG. 799 ARCHITECT STATE OF MINNESOTA LIC. 01.1926 NCARB CERTIFICATE NO. 16422 BUILDING OFFICIAL STATE OF MINNESOTA CERT. 0572 BUILDING INSPECTOR INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS CERT. 3534 MEMBER NORTH STAR CHAPTER ICBO MEMBER AMERICAN SOCIETY PLANNING OFFICIALS Alan P. Olson ARCHITECT 5724 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 612--472-4369 August 18, 1983 Mr. Sid Nyhusmoen Falls & Nyhusmoen Construction, Inc. 8?00 West 36th Street St. Louis Park , Mn. 5~42& Re: Mound Fire Station AdditiOn Dear Sid, 1. Proposed Change Order: I'talked with Don Falls today and this letter will confirm our agreement. The quote of $528 for changes indicated on my 7-25-83 sketch was too high and is rejected. However, it was decided that your plumber would install all proposed lines undergroundlstubbing them to just above the floor. All piping above that point would then be omitted including the vent line shown in the base bid. For this trade-off there will be no change in the base contract sum. A revised sketch is enclosed. This will allow the slab to be poured without'further delay. 2. Keying schedule: Doors #1, #3 and ~4 are all to be keYed alike with the existing fire station-locks. A second sample key is enclosed as you had requested. Since~rely,A ~. j Alan F. 01son, Architect 1 I ! ALL ~,,,, II 'FI ¢...E ~e_.PT, E',C:TmzA -. Mcr" ItU C, n4'Fr~cT oo FALLS & NYHUSMOEN CONSTRUCTION INC. General Contractors · (,612)938-1310 Aug. 9, 1983 McCombs-Knutson 12805 Olson Hwy Mpls, MN 55441 RE: Mound Fire Station Dear Mr. Cameron, The following is the quotation for the addition of a drain and vent loop to the plumbing system per drawings CO #1 dated 7-25-83. Subcontractor's quote 10% Overhead & Profit $480.00 48.00 $528.00 Please advise immediately if this is to be done. Very truly yours, Donald T.~lls President -- DTF:sr INC. 8700 W. 36th Street ® St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55426 ~::~/~"~ August 16, 1983 545 Indian Mound Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 (612) 473-4224 Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: 1983 Water system Improvements Dear Jon: Enclosed please find two (2) copies of Pay Estimate No. 2 as submitted by F. F. Jedlicki, Inc., for work performed on the above referenced project. This estimate has been checked and approved as noted and is hereby being forwarded to you for your approval and subsequent payment. Sincerely, e~wE.. A. HICKOK AJ~D ASSOCIATES Vice President bt cc: Frank Jedlicki OWNER: PROJECT: CONTRACTOR: City of Mound, Minnesota 1983 Water System Improvements F. F. Jedlicki, Inc. PAY ESTIMATE 99% Complete Original Contract Anount ...................... $I32,570.00 Contract Changes Approved to Date .................. $ (List Amendment Nos.) 5,933,.25 Revised Contract Price ....................... $I38~3.25 Completed to Date (see attached) ................ Work Retainage to Date, 5% ....................... $ Work Completed to Date Less Retainage to Date ............. $~I9~%~,n')~" Total Amount Previously Certified ........... . ....... $ 94,2~K).45 Payment Request This Estimate .... ".-. ~i~' .............. $ ~ . CERTIF IC. ATE~ OF CONTRACTOR I hereby certify that. the work performed and the materials supplied to date, as shown on the request for payment, represents the actual value of accomplishment under the terms of the City of Mound (Name of Owner) and F.F. Jedlicki (Name of Contractor) and all authorized changes thereto. contract dated July 9, Tg83 between F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. (Name of Contr~ctor~l /~/~ F. F. Jedlicki, Inc. . ~ · E. A. Hickok and Ass°ci ates ~/ City of Mound, Minnesota ¢ Date ~:)~ -JO -<~ Date Date BILLS .... AUGUST 23, 1983 Air Comm Blackowiak & Son Coast to Coast Continental Telephone Fran Clark Robert Cheney Davies Water Equip Feed-Rite Controls Henn Co. Sheriffs Dept Holiday Inn Eugene Hickok & Assoc Koehnens Standard Koenig & Robin- LOGIS Lutz Tree Service HacQueen Equip Hinnegasco Hound Fire Dept Wm Mueller $ Sons Hpls Oxygen Co. NSP Spring Park Car Wash Stacken Sod Uniforms Unlimited Unitog Rental Widmer Bros. Xerox 'Air Con~n Ro n Bo s t rom Holly Bostrom Chemlawn Capitol Electronics Chapi'6 Publishing First Bank Mpls Firehouse Magazine Hoffman Shoe Repair Robert E. Johnson Mound Locksmith Mound Medical Clinic Mound Body Shop Minn Comm NW Bell Telephone NSP Pitney Bowes Real One Acquisition Sterling Electric Suburban Community Serv. Satellite Industries Don Streicher Guns William Schilling Widmer Bros. 231.O0 39.00 97.17 1,464.69 54.44 .334.OO 237.22 711.65 140.37 111.30 4,400.00 5O.OO 258.OO 8,107.20 1,200.O0 42.83 46.28 5,706.55 1,837.77 21.00 1,895.86 143.10 258.50 670.10 204.61 514.50 1,088.00 100.00 '15.oo 153.00 1,584.00 147.23 20.40 12.00 17.97 2.00 39.60 6.O0 64.OO 18.00 28.75 72.80 4,131.50 59.25 675.OO 135.22 831.75 240.00 193.40 263.20 435.00 'R.L. Youngdahl & Assoc. 2,161.OO Amer Legion Auxiliary 765.00 Commissioner of Revenue 3,067.09 Robert Cheney . 1,100.O0 Director of Property Tax. 28.37 Gillespie-Fisher 400.00 Griggs Cooper 4,367.17 Johnson Bros. Liquor 4,691.28 Internatl Assn Fire Chiefs 70.00 F.F. Jedlickl 20,525.75 Ray Kramer 10.00 Metro Waste Control 1,683.00 MN Bookstore 32.25 MN Academy Prosec-Law Enforc 40.00 MN Federal 1,329.84 Metro Waste Control . 26,126.47 Old Peoria 2,368.65 City of Orono 150.OO Our Lady of Lake .119,000[00 Ed Phillips 2,207.94 Don Rother 39.60 Gordon Swenson 450.00 John S. ~horesen, Jr 50.00 McCombs Knutson. 2,581.00 TOTAL BILLS 232,354.62 CITY of MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 August 17, 1983 II. Iii. REPORT OF AUGUST 16, 1983 TONKA COMMU~ITY COORDINATION COMMITTEE MEETING. 503 Hourly employees presently at work. 22 students working through September 1, 1983. 14 assemblers left Tonka during early August for other positions. This is increasing as people opt for job security. DEPARTMENT Of EMPLOYMENT SERVICES REPORT. Been working with the pool of JO5 people l'aid off in late 1981. Summary: 64 cal]ed or found. 51 filed job applications with E.S. 18 Placed in positions. 2 Temporary. 4 Going back to school. 11 Not working. 5 Don't want to work. 41 Whereabouts not known. .DISCUSSED IMPLEMENTING ORIENTATION PROGRAM. - Trial run sometime week before Labor Day (Aug. 29 - Sept. 2) - Hold sessions week of Sept 5-9 1 hour long - groups of 20-30 people each CETA with facilitate and select p~esenter - Job Service will open up job placement center week of Sept. 15th - set-up to be ready to work with October lay-offs, immediately following lay-offs - Job assistance seminars will be held for 3 days (6 hours per day, est.) - Then move into one on one job placement program. Next Committee Meeting - August 30, 31 OR Sept. 1. Toys 5300 SHOREUNE BOULEVARD · P.O. BOX tOO · MOUND, MINNESOTA 5536zl · TELEPHONE 612 '472-8OOO - TELEX 2902~9 Dole: To: From: August 15, 1983 ..... . , ' Mound Employees .... -. Lloyd Laumann Subjecl: MOUND PRODUCTION P~ANS We distributed a memo on June 6, 1983 of this year providing you with information regarding our current production plans and an update on our efforts to assis~ you in locating other employment. Included in the June 6, 1983 memo, was a state- ment indicating that we would attempt to give you a reason- able answer regarding our production plans by August 15, 1983. After reviewing our current order status, as well as our man- ufacturing capabilities in E1 Paso and Juarez, we believe we are in a position to communicate our tentative production plans. 1983 PRODUCTION - We believe, based upon the information available at this time, that, the majority of the people presently on the payroll at Mound (excluding stUdents) will continue working until Friday, December 2, 1983, or, Friday, December 9, 1983. Students leaving us durin'g the' latter part of August and early September probably will not be replaced. We anticipate a small lay-off of full-time emp. lqyees during the latter part of October.~O.70 ~~) PHYSICAL .INVENTORY - We will require Tome people to work with us during the week of December 12, 1983 and possibly the week of December 19, 1983 to com- plete the physical inventory at the Mound and Spring Park facilities. 1984 PRODUCTION - We are evaluating our 1984 sales forecasts and will make every effort to finalize our 1984 production'plans within the next sixty (60) days. At that time we will advise you if any Mound production is planned for 1984. o STATUS OF BUILDINGS - Security Pacific Realty Ad- visors are working with Tonka management identifying prospective user's of the Mound and Spring Park facilities. Economy& Business After'the'Mill Shuts Down How Bethlehem Steel helps laid-off workers find new careers The rapid decline of the once mighty .American steel industry has made messes out of thousands of lives. Workers. who have lost their jobs must often cope not only with disruption and financial strain but also with intense emotional tur- moil. One steelworker spent nine days in' bed after being laid off. Some berate spouses, drink destructively, abuse chil- dren or even try to kill themselves. Wives sometimes become hysterical. One unem- ployed steelworker's family sought coun- seling because its child had stopped speaking. The latest quarterly reports of the two biggest steel companies sum up the grim slate of the industry. U.S; Steel.lost $112 million during the. April-June period; Bethlehem lost $93 million on top of its nearly $1.15 billion deficit in the fourth quarter of last year, the largest ever for' any American company. For the men and women who still make Steel, the loss re- ports are ominous at the very least. For the 104,000 steelworkers already laid off, the bad news underscores what they have long known: perhaps as many as 30,000 of them will never again work at the trade that was once the symbol of American power and pride. One major steel_maker, however, is trying to help dislocated employees un- dersland that the end ora steelmaking job is no~ the end of the road. Bethlehem,' where employment has gonefrom a peak of 115,000 in 1975 to 48,500 at present, was the first major U.S. corporation to de- velop a comprehensive program to deal 'with the emotional impact of permanent layoffs. In many companies, it is not unusual for fired top- and middle-level executives to be provided with' secretarial help, r~sum~-writing assistance and psychic support from counselors who help .them vent anger and wage effective job cam- paigns. Bethlehem was the first big firm to give white- and blue-collar employees the same kind of help. It maintains "career continuation centers" for displaced people in Johnstown and Bethlehem, Pa., and in The end of the job is not the end of the road. Lackawanna, N.Y., near Buffalo, site of an 83-year-old plant whoseshutdown was nounced three days after Christmas. The Lackawanna center functions as a touchstone for 3,000 former Bethlehem employees, and is preparing for 3,100 more who will go on layoff before the year is out. So far, most of the people using the center are foremen or white-collar profes- sionals, those least accustomed to periodic layoffs. The Steelworkers union, still an- gry at Bethlehem's action; has been slow to embrace the program, finding it unsuit- able for its members who, as one union man said, "have jobs, not careers.~, "r he center is housed in a spacious office ! once used for accoun~ payable. In the corner, a tree from 'last Ckristmas still stands, a reminder of the unfortunate tim- lng of Lackawarma's death knell. Employees are given a tour of the'cen- ter in groups of ten or 20 before they are laid off. There is a bulletin board with 500 job listings, most of them technical, as well as 25 desks with telephones. In a cor- ner are references like The National Job Finding Guide.. Once they are laid off, workers may choose to participate in a two-day semi- nar on job-seeking techniques that in- i! eludes tips on how to write a l'~Sllrni, dr~s i! for interviews, and use friends and rela- tives in the job search. They.get up to 30 hours of psychological testing to help them overcome denial of their joblessness and the frequent "Why me?" syndrome. Among other things, they are asked to write down their work experiences. That act alone can help restore confidence and a sense of worth, For those suffering from more severe anger, humiliation or depression, profes- sional one-on'One counseling is provided. There is a telephone hotline for suicidal or otherwise deeply disturbed former em- ployees. Says James Ross, a senior indus. trial-relations coordinator at.Bethlehem '!Only something akin to death counsel/rig can help these workers." Meanwhile, the search for job leads goes on constan.tly. Says Michael Hub- bard, the Lackawanna center's director: "Only' 15% of available jobs are adver- tised. We have to dig up the other 85%." They were successful.in the case of a 42- year-old industrial engineer in Bethle- hem's robotics operations. "I could not ac- · cept it at l~'st," he said. "I was always above the crowd; Then suddenly I had the props knocked out. It can destroy your comSdence in one day." With the support of his wife arid Bethlehem's family cotm- seling, he wound up in another city with a · better-paying job in his field. Now, says he, "I feel like a success,, and pity those left behind at Bethlehem." -Lf they participate in the program and gear emotionally, for a job search, some 55% to 65% of laid-off Bethlehem people find jobs within' 90.' days. Unlike the engi- 'neer who got a raise, though, nearly all must settle for less money.. For the others,. the centers provide, a place to go during the day and swap notes. As they talk, workers show a strong resolve to avoid de- pending, on any one job. Wilfred Morri- son, 31, a former'management trainee, has set up his own distributorship for hose and hose fittings. Says' he: "No .one will control my destiny again." 'Everyone seems determined to follow the hopeful dictum ora new sign in the lobby of one of the centers that says THERE IS LIFE AFTER BETHLEHEM. It replaced one that read STEEL IS BEAUTIFUL. ---ByJoh~ & Dehfott. Reported by Freded~x IJngeheuer/BetMehem ~mployees ~ ~ve used ~e centers: Engineer ~as Conlan, Distrib~or ~lfred Momson and 30-year Veteran J~m Spro s 46 TIME. AUGUST .No, It's not the latest thing in boats, What It is is a weed harvester, See story below, Green giant eats weeds There's a strange new machine · be used for fertilizer, to be using the equipment 'on Lake wandering on the bays of Lake Jon $chwingler, Mike Buysee an(i Minnetonka. ; Minnetonka from Black Lake to Cook's Jon Morgan acquired the' equipment They work closely with the DNR, Bay to Pheasant. Lawn, Casco Point, "and began harvesting weeds two weeks' acquiring a special permit for each area Bohns Point and Minnetonka Beach. ago. All three young men hav~ lived they harvest. It requires indiVidual It's big and green,, a bright forest near the lake for many years. They had inspection by the DNR officials, who green rather than a John Deere green, seen a mud cat in action 'on Lake of the are .concerned that they only harvest but it almost looks like it could better Isles and decided it might be a good weeds--not bullrushes or excessive fit behind a tractor than in the lake. solution for the weeds in Lake Minne- amount of lily pads. Ideally, says The machine is a lake harvester~a tonka. i $chwingler, they recommend a doub}e mud cat--and it harvests a lovely crop The mud cat itself is not a new harvest--in April and July or August. of weeds from the lake bottom. Weeds invention. It has been manufactured in "It works like cutting a lawn; you are cut, then transported along a its.current design for about four years; don't completely get rid of the weeds, conveyor and stored on the machine a design similar to it has been used for but the process will help stunt their until they are ·emptied into a shore the last lO year~, says $chwingIer. But growth," he added.. · conveyor and then onto a dump'truck, the trio think they're probably the first T~.,ey are eventually trucked to farms to ..... Freshwater Restoration Systems ~~4240 Jefferson Drive ~,~ Cottagewood, Minnesota 55391 ~ ...committed to preserve the quality of our waters. ::r! · © The clear solution for clean water. iVIUD CAT NATIONAL CAR RENTAL Mud Cat offers another ecolosical solution. Mud Cat has been cleaning up lakes, rivers and ponds for years with its compact, portable dredge. And now we offer a line of Aquatic Weed Harvesters that applies those years of experience removing silt and sediment to the tough problem of weed-infested waters. Mud Cat Weed Harvesters remove both floating and submerged weeds to restore the natural ecological balance, preserve marine resources and protect fish and game habitats. Even the harvested aquatic weeds are a valuable natural resource. They can be recycled for many uses such as compost, cattle feed filler, and the use of kelp for food value and medicinal purposes. State and city agencies, associations, contractors, recreational facilities and even private lakeshore property owners have found the Mud Cat Weed Harvester to be an excellemt way.to regain environmental balance, while restoring lakeshore and waterways for optimum usage and profitability. It meets the demands of recreational and tourist areas, as well as navigational, industrial and environ- mental concerns. Contact the Mud Cat division of National Car Rental for more informa- tion on this economical, ecological way to clean up weed-choked lakes, rivers and ponds. MUD CAT Mudcat Division P.O. Box 16247 St. Louis Park. Minnesota 55416 U.S,A, Phone toll-free 800-328-7333. From Minnesota or internalJonal locations call 612-893-6400. Telex 29-0767 The Mud Cat Aquatic Weed Harvester maneuvers easily to remove floating weeds such as water hyacinths or debris, from a styrofoam cup to even sizable pieces of drittwood. With the o¢onal Mud Cat trailer, the Aqua¢c Weed Harvester can be easily bunched at a standard boat ramp, Paddle wheels remove for easy trailering, and shore conveyor can be towed on its own wheels or loaded into a standard truck bed. Mound Channel Lineup Channel A B ¢ D E F H J L 2 KTCA PBS MN. 3 CNN II ~ wcco ~s MN. 5 KST~; ABC MN. 6 Regional Access/ Gov. Access/ Emerg. 7 8 Public Access 9 KMSP Ind. MN. 10 USA 11 NTCN NBA MN. 12 Satellite News Ch~uel · 13 NICKELODEON 15 C-SPAN 16 CBN 17 KTCI PBS 18 The Wemther Channel 19 L.O./Keyboard 20 Educmtionml Access 21 Leased Access/Keyboard 22 OPEN 2B KXLI CH~l Ind. Big Lake MN. 2~ WFBT CH29 Regl. 25 OPEN TIER I M 26 MTV N ~? NASHVILLE P 29 WGN Q 3O WOR R 31 NSN S B~ ~W JON~ T 3B CNN I U 3~ ~t~e V 35 ~t~e W 36 ~t~e - T'I~ II ' ~ 37 ~ BB ~ 38 cc 9,~ ~ 39 ~zs~ ~ ~ ~o ~ hl SHO~ PAY AGENDA Minnehaha Creek Watershed District July 21, 1983 St. Louis Park City Hall 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING In the Matter of a Bridge Span Obstruction to Minnehaha Creek Serving a Private Residence at 11907 Cedar Lake Road, Minnetonka, Minnesota. 7:30 p.m..REGULAR MEETING 2. Call to order; present, absent, staff. Reading and approval of minutes of the regular meeting of 6/16/83 and minutes of the special meeting of 7/7/83· 4. Approval or amendment of 7/21/83 agenda. 5. Hearing of permit applications. A. 83-41 Marvel G. Eggum - grading and drainage plan for a 16 lot residential subdivision referred to as "Myrtle Heights," east of Merriam Avenue at Myrtle Circle, Minnetonka. B. 83-49 William Sauer - 55 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Gideon Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Tonka Bay. C.' 83-50 Harry Stark - 50 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Grays Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Minnetonka. D. 83-51 Bernard G. Benz - 90 line~q~L v£ zip shoreline erosion protection, Halsteds Ba ,~ake Minnetonka, Moun~ E. 83-52 H.M. Baskerville, Jr. - 260 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Lower Lake, Lake Minnetonka, Deephaven. F. 83-54 City of Spring Park - utilities construction, road realignment, stormwater treatment and sedimentation pond, County Road 15, east of Seton Channel, Spring Park. G. 83-55 George Pillsbury - 200 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Brown Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Orono. H. 83-56 Charles R. Pihl - 172 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Crystal Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Orono. I. 83-57 Welsh Construction Co. - grading and drainage plan for a two-story office building, 1212 Wayzata Boulevard, Wayzata. J. 83-58 Sandra K. George - approximately 63 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Crystal Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach. 4/22 K. 83-59 Control Data Corporation - construction of a 12' X 12' concrete storage building, 2965 Meadowbrook Road, St. Louis Park. ' L. 83-60 Dr. Roland Weber - 193 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Upper Lake, Lake Minnetonka, Tonka Bay. M. 83-61 Department of Natural Resources - construction of & public access, boat ramp and parking areas, Lake V~rg~n~a outlet, Victoria. N. 83-62 City of Minnetonka - utilities for Manchester Place Phase I, Sussex Court Road, Minnetonka. O. 83-63 Derrick Land Company - grading and drainage for "Manchester Place Addition," a 104 unit townhouse development, Sussex Court Road, Minnetonka. P. 83-64 Roger A. Fazendin - grading and drainage for a 12 lot (six duplexes) residential development, Highwood Drive west of Williston Road, Minnetonka. Q. 83-65 Ronald J. Norstrem - 16 foot lake setback variance request f~nd building additions, Island View Drive west of ~r, Mound.~ 6. Correspondence .~ Hearing of requests for petitions by public for action by the Watershed District. 8. Reports of Treasurer, Engineer and Attorney.. A® Treasurer's Report - Mr. Carroll (1) Administrative Fund Report Be Engineer's Report - Mr. Panzer (1) CP-5 Painter Creek/Engineer's Report - Status (2) (3) (4) - Project Schedule Galpin Lake Petition - Update High Water - Minnehaha Creek/Status Report Draft Overall Plan Outline 1983 WM&RF - Status Report C. Attorey's Report - Ms. Peterson 9. Unfinished Business. ae B. C. D. Rule and Regulation Revision/Chapter 509 District Initiated Maintenance Projects Bridge Obstruction Draft Permit Application Guidelines 10. New B~siness. 11. Adjournment- 0381o MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT July 7, 1983 Chairman Cochran called to order the special meeting of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District at 4:10 p.m. on July 7, 1983 in the conference room of E. A. Hickok and Associates, 545 Indian Mound, Wayzata, Minnesota. Members present: Andre, Cochran, Thomas Members absent: Carroll and Lehman Also present were former Board member Jim Russell and Board advisors Panzer and Peterson. Approval of Minutes The managers reviewed the minutes distributed for the special meetings held June 9, 1983 and June 21, 1983. Following discussion, it was moved by Thomas, seconded by Andre that the minutes be approved as published. Upon vote, the motion carried. General Matters Ms. Peterson reported that as a follow-up to the last special meeting, she had contacted the Department of Natural Resources which reported that Lake Minnetonka has been designated as a General Development lake. There had been consideration of designating the lake by bays, but this was never done. Ms. Peterson also reported that she had sen% correspondence to all of the political subdivisions in the district requesting copies of existing ordinances on various subjects ranging from building setbacks to floodplain management. Mr. Panzer distributed graphs prepared by his office as part of another study which showed the frequency of levels achieved by Lake Minnetonka. The graphs indicated that the ordinary high water level of the lake had been reached or exceeded approximately 30% of the time between 1972 and 1982. The managers indicated that they found the information useful and placed the charts on file. Review of Overall Plan The managers continued their review of the existing Overall Plan beginning with Chapter V. The managers first discussed the issue of groundwater and what the role of the district should be in its regulation. The managers noted that the boundaries of the district have been established, based on the flow of surface water and do not coincide with the under- ground aquifers. Therefore, regulation by the district in one portion of the aquifer could be negated by action taken in the aquifer outside the district's boundaries. It seemed more appropriate, accordingly, to regulate groundwater on a broader basis. The managers noted that when the 0vcrall Fl~n w~ ad0p%¢~ there was less state regulation and more concern about the in- discriminate use of groundwater than what exists today. They noted that the district can obtain some very useful data from a continuing involvement in groundwater regulation and could detect trends from the groundwater levels. The managers con- cluded that the section on groundwater should be shortened, and more general, referencing the Department of Natural Resources' standards and practices and the district's concurrence with them. It was also concluded.that the district's involvement in ground- water regulation should remain as it presently is. The managers decided that the history referenced in ,this section of the Overall Plan and in other sections shouYd be kept only if relevant to the task of planning. The data should not be destroyed, however, but should be kept in the archives of the district. They indicated that Table 12 on page 38 could be simplified and placed in a more informative form. The managers noted that the charts on pages 40-42 needed to be updated and that Lake Minnetonka and Minnehaha Creek levels should be shown to reflect the Gray's Bay dam and as a means for further planning. It was suggested that some of the graphs which are outdated should be eliminated or use better data which the district now has. The managers suggested that there be more general reference to trends. The managers noted that on page 45 the original Overall Plan referenced the difficulty of maintaining stream flow in Minnehaha Creek. The managers stated that the new plan should have a discussion on the levels of Lake Minnetonka and Minnehaha Creek with reference to the legal requirements of the Gray's Bay dam. They stated that Table 14 should be changed to show the numbers of days that the creek flow was over certain levels measured in cfs. This would be especially helpful to show the difference before and after the Gray's Bay dam. Regarding the water quality discussion beginning on page 45, the managers noted that the hydrologic data would be changed significantly and that much greater knowledge is now known about water quality in St. Louis Park, for example, the managers agreed that the graphs on pages 46 and 47 were necessary to show the history of creek-flows but should be changed to reference the period of time covered and be updated. As a general planning direction, the managers indicated that the new plan should summarize ,the existing status of each subject matter, explaining what is good and what is bad and what are the general trends, then summarize recommendations for future implementation. Some of the history which is referenced should be retained in the report because it is relevant to planning but could be condensed. The managers concluded that Table 17 on page 48 was not helpful and could be eliminated, whereas Table 18 was very helpful but should include more information. Regarding the biological measurements on page 51, the managers asked the staff to see if there is any agency or group which is presently doing studies of lake bottoms, particularly Lake Minnetonka. The managers indicated that Chapter VI, Problems, would need a major updating. The focus on sewage disposal in Lake Minnetonka is no longer a major problem, but should be referenced in the Overall Plan to show the progress achieved during the district's existence. The new plan should then focus on surface water run-off as the major water quality issue. A policy state- ment is still necessary on the use of individual septic systems in the upper watershed areas. The managers noted that the first full sentence on page 54 is probably not accurate, although it is probably true that flow between the upper and lower lake cannot be measured. The other discussions on page 54 need to be updated to incorporate the Gray's Bay dam. The managers discussed paragraph E on page 54 regarding future land use and water demands and stated that they would need to review the cities' development plans to update this section. They also indicated they must address what is the effect of redevelopment and to address coolant water discharge. If the coolant water discharge is used as recharge to augment lake levels, then the plan must also address what effect that would have on the aquifers. The managers noted that the projected population growth in Table 20 was clearly wrong. The managers then reviewed the recommendations listed in Chapter VII, on page 56. All of those recommendations should be reviewed to determine what, if anything, had been done on each item, to eliminate those which are are no longer viable, and recommend new courses of action. The managers discussed at some length one recommendation regarding removal of undesirable bottom sludge and weeds. They indicated that this should be explored further, particularly with reference to where the former sewage treatment plants discharged into the lake. The managers agreed that the projects for lake augmenta-. tion were no longer feasible, but that paragraph 4 on page 58 should be updated to encompass the upper watershed project. The second paragraph in that section should be quoted to show the historical basis for the upper watershed plan. Section C should be expanded to discuss the methods which have been designed for flood control, particularly the Gray's Bay dam. The managers noted that the graph on page 60 shows an average but it would be preferable to show flow frequencies on a year-by-year basis. The managers also stated that graphs generally should not be included within the Plan unless they are related to the planning discussions. The managers reviewed the proposed projects outlined on the map on page 61 and requested the staff to review all of the proposed projects to determine whether they are now viable. The managers suggested eliminating Table 22 on page 64 and eliminating the discussion of water diversion from St. Louis Park to Lake Calhoun. The managers determined that the final chapter on regula- tions and policies should be left for later review after the Plan has sufficiently focused on what are the existing problems. Mr. Russell suggested that the next step should be preparing an. outline of the new plan. At that precise moment Mr. Panzer distribUted a draft general outline for the new Overall Plan. It was decided that the managers would review this draft, noting areas of addition or elimination and discuss this at the next special meeting to be held on July 28, 1983 at 4:00 p.m. at the conference room at E. A. Hickok and Associates, 545 Indian Mound, Wayzata. Adjournment There being no further matters to come before the Board of Managers, Chairman Cochran duly declared the meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, John E. Thomas, Secretary MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT June 16, 1983 The regular meeting of June 16, 1983, of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was called to order by Chairman Cochran at 7:30 p.m. at the Wayzata City Hall, Wayzata, Minnesota. Managers Present: Cochran, Lehman, Thomas, Carroll and Andre Also present were board advisors Panzer, Reep and Macomber. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the regular meeting of May 19, 1983, were reviewed. It was moved by Lehman, seconded by Carroll, that the following changes be made in the minutes as distributed: Noble Company - grading and drainage for an 8 lot residential subdivision, Shorewood, Permit No. 83-30, at page 7, lines 3 and 4, delete the phrase "in compliance with conditions verbally recommended by the engineer." and insert in lieu thereof "showing (1) easement dedication for the main pond on Outlet A for drainage purposes; (2) storm sewer alignment along the property line common to Lots 5 and 6 and terminating at the existing channel along the northerly sides of Lots 5 and 6; (3) baffled weir control structure location and construction detail; (4) no fill placed below elevation 935.0 on Lot 8; and (5) erosion control methods to prevent transport of sediment into existing drainageways during construction and that the main pond on Outlet A be protected by a drainage easement." Wayzata Evangelical Free Church - grading and drainage plan for building addition and parking area, Plymouth, Permit No. 83-32 at page 7, lines 6 and 7, delete the phrase "in compliance with conditions verbally recommended by the engineer." and insert in lieu thereof "showing (1) proposed sedimentation basin location and construction detail; (2) letters of permission from adjacent property owners to construct sedimentation basin on private properties; and (3) drainage easements to protect that portion of the sedimentation basin located off site from future alteration." Upon vote the motion carried. June 16, 1983 Page 2 A_pDroval of Permit Applications The managers reviewed a written memorandum from the engineer dated June 9, 1983, indicating those applications which comply with the applicable standards of the district and as to which the engineer recommended approval on the terms and conditions as set forth in his written memorandum. Following discussion and review of the written memorandum, it was moved by Thomas, seconded by Lehman, that the following applications be approved subject to all terms and conditions as set forth in the engineer's memorandum of June 9, 1983: Randy Boyd - improve existing rip-rap on 400 lineal feet of shoreline, Carson's Bay,.Lake Minnetonka, Deephaven. 82-45 Bruce Hardman - 62 lineal feet of rip-rap shoreline erosion protection, Ferguson Point, Lower Lake Minnetonka, Deephaven. 83-35 Russ Nelson - 55 lineal feet of rip-rap shoreline erosion protection, Giddeons Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Tonka Bay. 83-36 Hugh G. Anderson - approximately 25 lineal feet of rip-rap shoreline erosion protection, Lower Lake Minnetonka, Greenwood. 83-37 David S. Garber - 82 lineal feet of rip-rap shorline erosion protection, Upper Lake Minnetonka, Shorewood. 83-38 John Samuelson'- 65 lineal feet of rip-rap shoreline erosion protection, Crystal Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach. 83-40 Keith R. Johnson - 205 lineal feet of rip-rap shoreline erosion protection, Smithtown Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Laketown Township. 83-44 City of Mound - Wilshire Blvd. watermain improvements and booster pumping station, Wilshire Blvd. from Shoreline Drive to Emerald Drive, Mound. 83-48 Upon vote the motion carried. June 16, 1983 Page 3 Tablinq of Permit Application The managers reviewed the written recommendation of the engineer that the following application be tabled until such time as all exhibits have been received: Marvel G. Eggum - grading and drainage plan for a 16 lot residential subdivision referred to as "Myrtle Heights," east of Merriam Ave. at Myrtle Circle, Minnetonka. 83-41 Upon motion duly made and seconded, consideration of Permit No. 83-41 was tabled until all required exhibits have been received. Shortly after tabling, representatives of the applicant appeared and requested reconsideration of the action to table. The board indicated to the applicant's representatives that the district's engineer had not received all required exhibits and the board would act on the application only after the engineer's review of those exhibits. Methodist Hospital - Building addition in the F-2 floodplain of Minnehaha Creek, 6500 Excelsior Blvd., St. Louis Park. 83-46 Gerald Dokka appeared on behalf of Methodist Hospital in support of the application for a radiation therapy unit in the F-2 floodplain. Mr. Dokka explained that the managers had previously approved a building addition and construction of an incinerator unit and that a drainage plan in connection with that proposed work provided compensatory excavation. MS. Dokk~ explained that the hospital subsequently deleted the incinerator, although the compensatory excavation had already been completed, thereby providing an additional 8,200 cubic feet of additional flood storage volume. Mr. Dokka explained that the proposed radiation therapy unit will reduce flood storage capacity by approximately 10,400 cubic feet and that the hospital was requesting that the previously provided 8,200 cubic feet of flood storage capacity be applied as compensatory storage for the radiation therapy unit. The engineer advised the managers that the construction would have no effect on water quality or rate of runoff from the property and that the property is presently utilized as a parking lot. The engineer further advised the managers that there would be no impact on flood elevations up to and including a 10 year rainfall event and that the proposal, as submitted, provides approximately 80% mitigation of reduced floodplain storage capacity. The engineer also advised the managers that providing additional flood storage capacity would require additional excavation in recently vegetated areas in the floodplain and would result in steeper slopes on the graded areas and that, in his judgment, the additional benefit of requiring 100% June 16, 1983 Page 4 mitigation would be minimal. It was moved by Thomas, seConded by Lehman, that the application be approved as recommended by the engineer recognizing the medical and community need for the radiation therapy unit and the fact that compensatory storage has been substantially provided. Upon vote the motion carried. Harrison Shores, A Partnership - 50 foot lake setback variance requests for four individual structures, Three Points Blvd. at Jones Lane, Mound.~ 82-60 : The engineer reviewed the application for a modification~to a plan approved at the June 15, 1982, meeting. The engineer reviewed the proposal which consists of four structures built on pilings which will cantilever over the fl6odplain. The engineer ~reviewed the requested setback variances and indicated that these were consistent with existing building patterns. It was moved by Andre, seconded by Le.hman, that the application be approved as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. Hennepin Co. Dept. of Transportation - County project 7410, bridge removal and realignment of CSAH 110, CSAH 110 at Burlington Northern RR crossing, Minnetrista. 83-34 The engineer reviewed the application for removal of an inadequate bridge crossing the Burlington Northern railroad tracks and to improve CSAH 110 road alignment. The engineer advised the managers that the project would have no impact on the adjacent marsh area and recommended approval as submitted. It was moved by Lehman, seconded by Andre, that the application be approved as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. City of Greenwood - maintenance of drainage ditch along Fairview Street, Greenwood. 83-42 The engineer reviewed the application for after-the-fact approval for drainage improvements and erosion control work completed along Fairview Street. The engineer advised the managers that the work had been adequately performed and the site conditions restored and recommended approval of the application as submitted. It was moved by Andre, seconded by Lehman, that the application be approved as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. 4/ d. June 16, 1983 Page 5 Stephen Freeman - grading and drainage plan for a 12 lot residential development referred to as "Stephen Court," DC Highwood Drive west of Williston Road, Minnetonka. 83-45 The engineer reviewed the application for grading and drainage plan approval for a 12 lot residential development in the City of Minnetonka. The engineer advised the board that the area was covered by the Minnetonka Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan and that the proposal is in conformity with the City Storm Drainage Plan with the exception that a trunk stormwater system identified in the plan is not yet constructed. The engineer further advised the managers that the engineer's office had requested the applicant to increase on-site storage capacity and that the applicant had complied with that request. Following discussion regarding the adequacy of the capacity of the pond, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Thomas, that the application be approved as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. G and N Partnership - grading and drainage plan and floodplain development for the "Creekside Professional Building," 6600 Excelsior Blvd., St. Louis Park. 83-47 The engineer reviewed the application for grading and drainage plan approval and floodplain development at the "Creekside Professional Building." The engineer described the project and advised the managers that a ponding area was proposed to be excavated to provide additional flood storage capacity, resulting in a net increase of 4,135 cubic feet. Russell Zenk appeared as the architect for the applicant. Following d~scussion it was moved by Thomas, seconded by Andre, that the application be approved as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. Correspondence President Cochran noted receipt of the following correspondence: 1. Memorandum from Mel Sinn, Acting Executive Director, Minnesota Water Resources Board, dated June 8, 1983, summarizing 1983 legislation affecting watershed districts. 2. A letter dated May 13, 1983, from the Wild Rice Watershed District regarding a tour of projects in that district. 3. A letter dated June 8, 1983, from the City of St. Louis Park communicating the recommendation of the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park to increase the number of the Board of Managers to nine members. June 16, 1983 Page 6 4. Copies of letters from Kent Lokkesmoe, Regional Hydrologist, Metro Region Division of Waters, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, to Senator Phyllis W. McQuaid and Representative Sally Olsen dated June 8, 1983, regarding the Headwaters Control Structure. Treasurer's Report The Treasurer distributed his monthly Administrative Fund Report dated June 16, 1983. It was noted that on page 2 of 5 of the Report, under line item HD-4, Current Month should read $419.00 and Five Months Ended should read $5,172.00; under HD-6, Current Month should read $2,732.00 and Five Months Ended should read $2,732.00. It was then moved by Thomas, seconded by Lehman, that the Treasurer's Report, as modified, be approved and the bills paid as set forth in that Report. Upon vote the motion carried. CP-5 Painter Creek/Final Enqineer's Report - Status Report The engineer advised the board that the preliminary engineer's report on the CP-5 Painter Creek project dated October, 1982, revised May 3, 1983, had been submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Waters, and the Minnesota Water Resources Board pursuant to statute for the reports of those agencies. The engineer further advised the managers that he has set a meeting with the Division staff for June 22, 1983, which will include a tour of proposed sites within the subwatershed. The managers directed the staff to proceed to prepare the.documents necessary to enable the board to hold a public hearing On the project during August, 1983. Ci~ of Minnea~olis/MCWD Creek Hydraulic Stud~ - Final Report The engineer reviewed the final report prepared under the agreement with the City of Minneapolis. The engineer advised the managers that the report evaluated creek hydraulic capacity between the western boundary of the City and 35W and that the report indicated that alternations at the Logan Avenue and Penn Avenue bridges could reduce flood levels. The engineer recommended that the report be accepted and used as a guide in evaluating future City proposals in this reach of the creek. Following discussion it was moved by Andre, seconded by. Lehman, that the report be accepted by the board and placed on file for use as a guide in evaluating future projects in this vicintiy of the City of Minneapolis. Upon vote the motion carried. June 16, 1983 Page 7 1983 Water Maintenance & Repair Fund - Status Report The engineer advised the managers that a contract has been entered into with the Tree Trust, Inc. to provide creek clean up and debris removal and that Tree Trust, Inc. would also perform certain modifications of the canoe landings. This work is scheduled to occur late in July or early August. The engineer advised the managers that he would provide details regarding the proposed work at the July meeting. Private Vehicular Bridqe - 11907 Cedar Lake Road The managers reviewed a memorandum from the staff dated June 8, 1983, summarizing the status of prior efforts to eliminate potential danger to the canoeing public created by the low bridge span at 11907 Cedar Lake Road. The engineer advised the managers that the owner of the structure, Mr. Robert Taylor, prefers an improved portage on the north side of the creek as a solution and would cooperate with the district to provide adequate portage there; however, the engineer advised the managers that portage on the north side of the creek also requires the use of the property owned by Mr. William Handsaker and that on May 3, 1983, Mr. Handsaker advised the district that he will prohibit portage across his property after the 1983 summer season. The engineer also advised the managers that Mr. Handsaker prefers raising the bridge deck because he believes canoeists will still upset trying to negotiate the bridge, even if a portage exists. The engineer also advised the managers that an additional alternative previously investigated in a preliminary way, which would also require agreement of other adjoining landowners, would involve removal of the existing bridge deck and providing road access to the Taylor residence off St. Albans Mill Road to the west of the property. The managers reviewed the alternatives and order of magnitude cost estimates provided by the staff. Manager Andre stated that condemnation of private lands to provide a portage around the structure would be an additional alternative which could be considered by the board. Following extensive discussion, Manager Thomas offered the following resolution and moved its adoption, seconded by Manager Carroll: RESOLUTION ORDERING HEARING ON BRIDGE SPAN OBSTRUCTION WHEREAS, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has authority under law to regulate water and related land resources and has specific jurisdiction over Minnehaha Creek; and June 16, 1983 Page 8 WHEREAS, Minnehaha Creek constitutes public waters; and WHEREAS, a private vehicular bridge span crosses Minnehaha Creek at 11907 Cedar Lake Road, Minnetonka, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the managers have received complaints from canoeists using Minnehaha Creek regarding extremely low clearance under this vehicular bridge; and ¥~HEREAS, the managers have directed the District staff to determine whether a portage around the bridge could be developed to eliminate the potential danger to the canoeing public created by the low bridge span; and WHEREAS, the staff has reported that an improved portage will not be voluntarily provided by owners of lands needed for portage; and WHEREAS, it appears that the bridge span, as it exists, may constitute a public nuisance under law, including Minnesota Statutes ~609.74; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That a public hearing be held July.21, 1983, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, to determine whether the bridge span crossing Minnehaha Creek a~ 11907 Cedar Lake Road constitutes a public nuisance or is otherwise in violation of law and, if so, to define and order remedial action regarding the obstruction and to provide all interested persons an opportunity to be heard regarding this matter; and 2. That the attorney provide notice of the pendency of this proceeding and of the hearing as required by law; and 3. That the engineer prepare a report to the Board, to be available 10 days prior to the hearing, describing such matters as property and bridge span ownership, dimensions, clearances, records of complaints, alternative accesses available to the owner and alternative methods of providing right-of-way to the public. Upon vote the motion carried. June 16, 1983 Page 9 Interpretation of "Maximum Carrying Capacity of the Creek - Headwaters Control Structure Manaqement Policy The board reviewed a memorandum from the staff dated June 6, 1983, recommending deletion of language describing carrying capacity of the creek as "maximum flow that can occur without damage to buildings." The staff recommended replacement of the deleted phrase with the phrase "the maximum creek flow that can occur without substantial overbank flow." The managers reviewed the memorandum which contained a history of the development of the language in question and the reasons for the staff's recommendation. The board noted that the definitional change was intended to eliminate an inadvertent and inappropriate definition of maximum carrying capacity in the document and to replace it with language which is consistent with the original intent of the Board of Managers in adopting the Management Policy and which is consistent with the operational practices implemented during the spring of 1983 during high water conditions. The board noted that the modification would not mean that no overbank flooding will occur, but rather that the phrase defines a goal of operating the dam which can be achieved only partially as the la~e approaches historic high levels. Following review and discussion of the staff's memorandum, it was moved by Thomas, seconded by Carroll, that the language in Section III.A.1. of the Management Policy at page 4 defining carrying capacity of the creek as the "maximum flow that can occur without damage to buildings" be deleted, and in lieu of the quoted language the following inserted: "the maximum creek flow that can occur without substantial overbank flow." Upon vote the motion carried. Cascade Lane/Letter Request dated May 18, 1983 The staff advised the board that a letter request dated May 18, 1983, had been received by the district from residents in the vicinity of the Cascade Lane area in the City of Edina. The letter is directed to the district and to the City of Edina. The staff submitted a memorandum to the board dated June 14, 1983, analyzing the various requests contained in the letter and advising the board regarding the data presently collected on the various issues raised in that letter and also advising the board regarding additional action which could be authorized by the board should the board choose to do so. June 16, 1983 Page 10 Following extensive discussion of the nature of'the data collected to date and the alternatives available to the board, the board directed the engineer to cause the additional work outlined in his memorandum regarding the feasibility of dredging this reach of the creek to be undertaken cooperatively with the City of Edina, and that additional creek bed surveys be performed to investigate the effect of the Cascade well structure on channel hydraulics. The engineer also advised the board that the Minnesota Department of Transportation has been asked to remove sediment under the Highway 100 bridge and that the district has advised the City of Edina that the board would look favorably upon a request for funding from the Water Maintenance & Repair Fund for removal of the Cascade well structure. The board also directed the staff to respond to the letter request and provide residents of The vicinity with a copy of the staff's memorandum dated June 14, 1983. Cit~ of Edina Resolution/Ma~ 17, 1983 The managers noted receipt of a resolution from the City of Edina requesting the board to continue its investigation of alternatives available in the Cascade Lane area. Correspondence Regarding Headwaters Control S~ructure/DNR Permit ~76-6240 The managers reviewed a letter from the attorney to the Department of Natural Resources dated June 2, 1983, and requested that the staff provide the board with a review of the history of the stop logs placed at 1-494. Rule E/Dredgin~ The attorney distributed a memorandum to the board dated june 16, 1983, providing the board with an analysis of the present dredging rule of the district, summarizing the existing DNR dredging regulations and'summarizing existing common law regarding the rights of owners of land abutting public waters. Meetinq Location The managers reviewed She practice of varying meeting locations between the City of. Wayzata City Hall and the City of St. Louis Park City Hall which was instituted on a one-year basis in July of 1982. Following d~scussion it was moved by Andre, seconded by Lehman, that the practice of alternating between Wayzata and St. Louis Park City Halls be continued for one additional year and the June 16, 1983 Page 11 results be reevaluated at the conclusion of the second year. Accordingly, the July 21, 1983, meeting of the Board of Managers will be held at the City Council Chambers, City of St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, and alternating thereafter between Wayzata City Hall and the City of St. Louis Park. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the regular meeting, Chairman Cochran declared the meeting adjourned at 1.0:45 p.m. John E. Thomas, Secretary 0283o AGENDA Minnehaha Creek Watershed District August 18, 1983 Wayzata City Hall 7:30 p.m. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING In the Matter of a Bridge Span Obstruction to Minnehaha Creek Serving a Private Residence at 11907 Cedar Lake Road, Minnetonka, Minnesota. 8:00 p.m..REGULAR MEETING 2. Call to order; present, absent, staff. Reading and approval of minutes of the public hearing of 7/21/83, the regular meeting of 7/21/83 and the special meeting 7/28/83. 4. Approval or amendment of August 18, 1983, agenda. 5. Hearing of permit applications. A® 83-66 Advance Machine Co. - maintenance dredging, emergency water intake pump, 4080 Sunset Drive, Spring Park. Be 83-67 Madonna Chubb Woytcke - floodplain fill, West Arm Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Spring Park. C® 83-68 Robert L. Payne - placement of 160 lineal feet of Class A and B rip-rap shoreline erosion protection, Lower Lake, Lake Minnetonka, Shorewood. 83-69 Carey M. Manson - 63 foot setback variance for a new home, 5104 Edgewater Drive, Harrison Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Mound. Ee 83-70 William Ulrich - 279 lineal feet of aluminum retaining wall shoreline erosion protection, Crystal Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Orono. 83-71 John Massopust - grading and drainage plan for a 3-lot residential subdivision, North of Fox Street, east side of Brown Road, Orono. Ge 83-72 Bernice Brooks - grading and drainage plan for Christmas Lake Addition, north shore of Christmas Lake, Sh or ewood. He 83-73 Hennepin Co. DOT -bridge replacement, road ,realignment, sanitary force main through channel, Halsteds Bay, Priest Bay Channel, Minnetrista. 83-74 Dale W. Sherburne - placement o~eal feet of rip-rap shoreline erosion protection~ 83-75 City of Minnetonka - sewer, water, storm sewer and street construction for Stephens Court, Highwood Drive west of Williston Road, Minnetonka. 6. Correspondence. 7. Hearing of requests for petitions by public for action 'by the Watershed District. Reports of Treasurer, Engineer and Attorney. A. Treasurer's Report - Mr. Carroll (1) Administrative Fund Report (2) 1984 Budget Items B. Engineer's Report - Mr. Panzer (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1983 WM&RF- Status Report CP-5 Painter Creek - Status Report CP-7 Channel Improvements at West 44th Street - Final Payment Lake Zumbra Outlet - Review USEPA Clean Lakes Program Galpin Lake Petition C. Attorney's Report - Mr. Macomber 9. Unfinished Business. B. C. D. Rule and Regulation Revision/Chapter 509 District Initiated Maintenance Projects Bridge Obstruction Draft Permit Application Guidelines 10. New Business. 11. Ad journment 0486o -2- MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT July 28, 1983 A special meeting of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was called to order by Chairman Cochran at 4:15 p.m. at the offices of E. A. Hickok and Associates, 545 Indian Mound, Wayzata, Minnesota. Managers present: Andre, Cochran and Lehman Managers absent: Carroll and Thomas Also present were Board advisors Panzer and Peterson and near the end of the meeting former-Board member Russell. The managers reviewed the draft outline for the Overall Plan. It was suggested that another category be added under the Summary of the Plan to discuss proposed projects. It was also decided that the chapter on potential problems should be entitled Potential Water Management Problems rather than Surface Water Problems. The managers also decided that the chapters on policies and objectives, regulation, projects, and planned implementation would be considered subheadings under the overall heading of Water Management Plan. The chapter entitled Watershed Management Plan in the draft outline would be changed to discuss policy implications. It was suggested that under the subheading of Watershed District Authority there should be a discussion of the overlapping authority with other agencies. It was also suggested that the list of the Technical Advisory Committee be attached. Mr. Panzer indicated that a number of the chapters could be written now with existing information, particularly Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6. He indicated that Chapter 6 dealing with land use and development would require input from the Technical Advisory Committee, particularly with reference to local comprehensive plans. The managers discussed the directive from the Water Management Planning Act which requires a capital improvements section of the Plan including an estimated cost. The managers discussed the difficulty of estimating costs of projects without the complete engineering. It was agreed that general cost esti- mates are needed, however. It was noted that the Metropolitan Council 208 Plan had general-estimates and that the district could do likewise. The managers decided that there would be another special meeting on September 22, 1983 at 4:00 p.m. at the E. A. Hickok July 28, 1983 Page two and Associates offices for the purpose of reviewing a draft Chapter 3 to be prepared by Mr. Panzer. If time permits, Mr. Panzer will also attempt to draft Chapter 4. There being no further matters to come before the managers, Chairman Cochran declared the meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Camille D. Andre, Acting Secretary MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT .July 21, 1983 The regular meeting of July 21, 1983 of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was called to order by Chairman Cochran at 8:30 p.m. at St. Louis Park City Hall, St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Managers present: Andre, Carroll and Cochran Managers absent: Lehman and Thomas Also present were board advisors Panzer, Reep, and Peterson. Also present was the Honorable Robert Rascop, Mayor of the City of Shorewood. A_p_proval of Minutes The managers reviewed the minutes of the regular meeting of June 16, 1983. It was then moved by Andre, seconded by Carroll, that the minutes be approved as distributed. Upon vote, the motion carried. The managers reviewed the minutes of the special meeting of July 7, 1983. Mr. Panzer stated that the 30% figure given on page one should read 20%. Following discussion, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Carroll, 'that the minutes be approved as amended. Upon vote, the motion carried. Approval of Permit Applications The managers reviewed a written memorandum from the engineer dated July 13, 1983 indicating those applications which comply with the applicable standards of the district and which were recommended for approval on the terms and conditions as set forth in his written memorandum. Following discussion and review of the written memorandum, it was moved by Carroll, seconded by Andre, that the following applications be approved subject to all terms and conditions as set forth in the engineer's memorandum: 83-49 William Sauer - 55 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Gideon Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Minnetonka. July 21, 1983 Page 2 B 83-50 Harry Stark - 50 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Grays Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Minnetonka. C D 83-51 Bernard G. Benz - 90 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline protection, Halsteds Bay, Lake M~nnetonka, Mound. : 83-52 H. M. Baskerville, Jr. - 260 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Lower Lake, Lake Minnetonka, Deephaven. E 83-55 George Pillsbury - 200 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Brown Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Orono. F 83-56 Charles R. Pihl - 172 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Crystal Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Orono. G 83-58 Sandra K. George - approximately 63 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Crystal Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach. 83-60 Dr. Roland Weber - 193 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Upper Lake, Lake Minnetonka, Tonka Bay. Upon vote, the motion carried. 83-41 Marvel G. Eggum - grading and drainage plan for a 16 lot residential subdivision referred to as "Myrtle Heights," east of Merriam Avenue at Myrtle Circle, Minnetonka. Appearing to discuss the permit application with the managers were the applicants, Steven Harvey, and Louis Oberhauser. The district's engineer reviewed this application for a grading and drainage plan approval for a 16 lot residential subdivision on approximately three acres. The three existing ponding areas on the site are presently without outlets. The applicants propose to construct three retention facilities on the site in compliance with the City of Minnetonka Storm Water Management Plan and to provide positive outlets for each pond. The storm sewer system would then be plugged until the downstream trunk sewer system is completed which will not be in the near July 21, 1983 Page 3 future. The engineer expressed concern that this would not provide adequate storage capacity to meet the district's normal guidelines. The engineer noted that downstream receiving bodies are also landlocked, some of which have experienced high water problems in the past, and the project would increase the flow to those properties. However, the property owners' engineer had conducted some new calculation which indicated that if the applicants expanded storage in one pond, bermed one pond, 'and reduced the tributory area, those alterations would bring the project in line with the district's criteria. There would be sufficient storage for two consecutive six inch rainfalls. In those conditions there would be overflow, but it would be equivalent to the present situation. The district's engineer indicated that he had briefly reviewed these new calculations which appeared to be correct. Manager Carroll stated that it was appropriate to have the engineer review these calculations further. Following discussion, it was moved by Carroll, seconded by Andre, to approve the application based on the engineer's recommendations and the following conditions: Review and approval by the engineer of a final grading plan. Review and approval by the engineer of an erosion control plan. A thorough review of the calculations by the district's engineer. The managers also discussed the need for a flowage easement on the portion of the neighboring property which will be included in one of the detention ponds. It was concluded that this would not be required because that portion of the property is a designated wetland. Upon vote, the motion carried. 83-57 Welsh Construction Co. - grading and drainage plan for a two-story office buildinq, 1212 Wayzata Boulevard, Wayzata. Appearing on behalf of the applicant was Lee Barrus. The district's engineer reviewed this application for approval of a grading and drainage plan for the construction of a two-story office building in the City of Wayzata. The applicant proposes' to construct the building along the south property boundary, overlooking the Wayzata Nature Center. Stormwater runoff will be directed to one corner of the parking lot and routed through a ROO ~July 21, 1983 Page 4 skimmer prior to discharge to the wetland area. The plan assumes that there will be an increase in hard surface, but actually there will be very little increase over present conditions. The project will not change the peak rate of runoff. Following discussion, it was moved by Carroll, seconded by Andre, that the application be approved subject to the engineer's recommendations. Upon vote, the motion carried. 83-65 Ronald J. Norstrem - 16 foot lake setback variance request for a deck and building additions, Island View Drive west of Dexter, Mound. Appearing to discuss the application with the managers was the applicant, Mr. Norstrem. The district's engineer reviewed this application for a setback variance for the construction of two proposed building additions and two proposed deck additions. The applicant had received a permit two years ago fo~. a one building addition rather than two. This had never been used. The applicant originally intended to have a twoustory addition but was unable to do so because of structural problems. The proposed east addition has a 58 foot setback. The proposed west addition has a 21 foot setback and will be constructed flush with the existing front of the structure. The proposed west deck will be a lateral extension of the existing deck which has a 16 foot setback. The proposed east deck has a 34 foot setback. The~applicant had submitted a letter of consent from the closest adjacent property owner Following discussion it was moved by Carroll, seconded by · ~ Andre, that the application be approved subject to the engineer's recommendations. Upon vote, the motion carried. 83-54 City of Spring'Park - utilities construction, road realignment, stormwater treatment and sedimentation pond, County Road 15, east of Seton Channel, Spring Park. The engineer reviewed this application for approval of a construction plan to upgrade an existing sanitary lift station, realign West Arm Road, and construct storm sewers on County Road 15. The project also includes construction of a stormwater detention pond which will receive runoff from the Marina Car Wash, the A&W Drive-In, the railroad right-of-way, and the County Road 15 right-of-way. The pond is being constructed by the City to provide runoff from the car wash in exchange for receiving right-of-way from the car wash for the project. The detention pond will meet district requirements for controlling the rate of runoff from the car wash, will reduce sediment movement to Seton July 21, 1983 Page 5 Channel and includes provisions to trap floatable material. Following discussion it was moved by Carroll, seconded by Andre, to approve the application subject to the engineer's recommendations. Upon vote, the motion carried. 83-59 Control Data Corporation - construction of a 12' x 12' concrete storaqe buildinq, 2965 Meadowbrook Road, St. Louis Park. The engineer reviewed this application for approval of a grading and drainage plan for the construction of a 12' x 12' concrete storage building attached to the loading dock of the existing structure. The floor elevation of the proposed building is 895.8, slightly above the regional flood elevation of 895.0. The proposed addition will result in an insignificant change in volume and rate of stormwater runoff. After discussion it was moved by Carroll, seconded by Andre, to approve the application subject to the engineer's recommendations. Upon vote, the motion carried. 83-61 Department of Natural Resources - construction of a public access, boat ramp and parking areas, Lake Virginia outlet, Victoria. The engineer reported that the Department of Natural Resources had constructed a concrete plank boat ramp and bituminous surfaced parking lot at the Lake Virginia public access facility. The work was done without a Watershed District permit. The district staff asked the DNR Trail and Waterways Unit to submit an "after-the-fact" permit application pursuant to the district's regulations. The engineering staff was informed by the DNR regional hydrologist's office that the DNR did not believe they were required to get a Watershed District permit. The engineer stated that what had been submitted was a site plan and not a grading and drainage plan. The engineer indicated that if the permit had been reviewed prior to construction, the staff would likely have recommended some ponding with a skimmer device. Following discussion, it was moved by Carroll, seconded by Andre, that the application be tabled pending receipt of a grading and drainage plan and that the applicant be notified of the need for the grading plan and the district's position that all state agencies are required to obtain a Watershed District permit before construction. Upon vote, the motion carried. July 21, 1983 Page 6 83-63 Derrick Land Company - grading and drainage for "Manchester Place Addition," a 104 unit townhouse development, Sussex Court Road, Minnetonka. The engineer reviewed this application for approval of a grading and drainage plan for a 104 unit townhouse development. The applicant proposes to construct the project in two phases beginning.with the westerly portion. Surface drainage will be collected by storm sewer with catch basins in the westerly cul de sac and along Minnetonka Boulevard. The storm sewer will ~ discharge to a detention pond located on the site. The detention site will discharge through a control structure and skimming device and flow over land approximately'.l,000 feet easterly to a culvert under Minne~onka Boulevard. The City of Minnetonka Stormwa~er Management Plan shows no detention pond for the site with all drainage directed to the creek. The City's consulting engineer's have recommended a modification to the plan for this site to restrict the outflow from the developed site go a maximum of three cfs and to provide four acre feet of stormwater storage. The effect is a lower rate of runoff for the site. These requirements will be met by the applicant's proposal. Following discussion, it was moved by Carroll, seconded by Andre, to approve the application subject to the engineer's recommendations. Upon vote, the motion carried. It was the consensus of the managers that the staff convey to the City of Minnetonka that the change in the stormwater plan should be formalized. 83-62 City of Minnetonka - utilities for Manchester Place Phase I, Sussex Court Road, Minnetonka. The engineer reviewed this application for approval of the installation of utilities for the Manchester Place Addition. The relevant factors regarding this application were summarized by the engineer in the discussion of the previous application. Following discussion, it was moved by Carroll, seconded by Andre, that the application be approved subject to the engineer's recommendations. Upon vote, the motion carried. 83-64 Roger A Fazendin - grading and drainage for a 12 lot (six duplexes) residential development, Highwood Drive west of Williston Road, Minnetonka. The engineer reviewed this application for approval of a site grading plan for a 12 lot residential subdivision in the City of Minnetonka. The applicant proposes to construct six July 21, 1983 Page 7 duplexes on double lots. Site and street drainage will be collected in an existing low area located partially on the site. The Minnetonka Stormwater Management Plan requires an outlet with a two cfs maximum outflow. At this time, no outlet is planned as the existing downstream trunk storm sewer is not adequate to handle the additional runoff from this property. The Board of Managers reviewed and approved a permit for this same parcel of property in June 1983 but the parcel has since been sold To the applicant. The applicant proposes to provide drainage facilities consistent wi~h the plan approved previously. Following discussion, i~ was moved by Carroll, seconded by Andre, that the application be approved subject to the engineer's recommendations and the requiremen5 of a flowage easement for that portion of the detention pond which is located off the applicant's property. Treasurer's Report The treasurer distributed his monthly funds report dated July 21, 1983, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference. Following discussion, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Cochran, that the report be approved and the bills be paid as set forth in that report. Upon vote, the motion carried. 1983 Nater Maintenance and Re~air Fund Mr. Reep distributed a memorandum to the managers dated July 21, 1983, outlining the proposed work plan and associated costs of canoe landing improvements and. vegetation removal projects for the 1983 Water Maintenance and Repair Fund. These projects will be completed in a cooperative manner with the cities providing the trucks, the Tree Trust providing the labor, and the district providing a Bobcat and driver for final grading. Mr. Reep noted a problem in that the youths from the Tree Trust cannot work in or near the creek if flows are as high as 50 cfs. In order for them to undertake the work, it would be necessary for the district to stop discharge from Lake Minnetonka by August 3, 1983 at the latest. However, the lake level of Lake Minnetonka is presently still very high. If the district is not able to stop discharge from the lake by August 3, the work will have to wait until the next year. Mr. Reep indicated that it was important to completely eliminate discharge from the lake in order to maximum the efforts of the youths and to minimize any danger. The managers directed the staff to review the matter and make the decision on August 3 as to whether the discharge could be terminated. July 21, 1983 Page 8 CP-5 Painter Creek/Engineer's Report The managers reviewed a proposed Notice of Hearing for the Painter Creek project. The managers requested that the language on page one be modified to state the purpose of the project is to provide retention ponds to temporarily hold stormwater runoff. It was also noted that all of the affected cities should be listed in the notice. After discussion it was moved by Andre, seconded by Carroll, that the order for hearing be approved and published. Upon vote, the motion carried. ~ The engineer reported that the Water Resources Board had preliminarily reviewed the proposed'.project. He also had a meeting with the regional hydrologist regarding the DNR's report. The DNR stated that they would like to see a structural fish barrier on Painter Creek at West Branch Road to prevent all the fish from going upstream. Mr. Panzer stated that this would be an added cost to the project and that if the DNR wished To have that as part of the project they should testify at the hearing as to its public benefit. Galpin Lake Petition The engineer reported that the district had incurred $4,300.00 in pre-project costs which have never been recovered because the project was never ordered. The improvements themselves were done through the combined effort of the Minnesota~ ..Department of Transportation, Hennepin County, and the City of Excelsior with some funds from the Watershed District. The district had made an allocation from the Water Maintenance and Repair Fund of $2,200,00 to assist in the work although the actual amount paid to the City of Excelsior wa~ $831.00. It was suggested that the district could forgive a portion of the costs related to the petition in the amount of the difference between the approved allocation from the Water Maintenance and Repair Fund and the actual amount paid. The remainder would be the responsibility of City of Excelsior which petitioned for the project. No response has been received from the City of Excelsior. The managers directed the staff to go ahead and bill the City of Excelsior for the pre-project costs and that discussions regarding the actual amount due could then be conducted. The managers indicated that they should plan to terminate the petition at the"August meeting. July 21, 1983 Page 9 High Water Levels Mr. Panzer reported that he had received a complaint on June 29, 1983 from L. E. Lietzke, 3201Hillsboro Avenue South, St. Louis Park, regarding the high levels of the creek and the potential damage ~o their home. The engineer indicated that the house had been built much too low in the floodplain. Manager Carroll stated that he felt the district had to focus on what are the long-term solutions for the few problem areas along the creek and how does the district achieve those solutions if others than the district are responsible. The managers discussed this issue noting that it made sense to spend money now to achieve some solution rather than continuing to have complaints in the future. They expressed concern over how to determine who is responsible for undertaking any solutions and concern over the fact that private land owners along the creek might change the banks of the creek with no control from the district. It was noted that all of the problem areas along the creek involve homes that were built in low areas before any regulation had been established at the city, watershed district or state levels. The alternatives for solutions appear to be (1) private owners actions to dike around the homes or raise the homes, (2) city action to undertake this work or to acquire the properties, or (3) watershed district participation with funds. Manager Cochran indicated a reluctance to alter the Headwaters Control Structure Management Policy to protect those few problem areas if it would result in a risk of detriment to the rest of the public. The managers directed the attorney to investigate and report back to them on whose responsibility it is for undertaking solutions to the problems. Once that issue is resolved, then all three participants, the city, the citizen, and the watershed district, would meet to determine what is appropriate. Lake Zumbra Mr. Panzer reported that the home owners located on Lake Zumbra would like the elevation of the outlet of the lake modified. The Hennepin County Park Reserve District is requesting the watershed district to assist in providing technical advice. Mr. Panzer recommended that the managers authorize him to review the 1975 Hickock report regarding the lake and the DNR position regarding the ordinary high water level of the lake. Mr. Panzer indicated his preliminary opinion that the DNR position appears to be preventing a good resolution of the issue as proposed in the 1975 Plan. Mr. Panzer indicated that this work would involve less July 21, 1983 Page 10 than a $500.00 expenditure. The managers authorized the engineer to undertake that activity as assistance to the Park Reserve District. EPA Funds Mr. Panzer reported that there are funds available from the EPA for lake restoration. He indicated that it would =ake approximately $10,000.00 worth of work just to prepare a grant application for the feasibility study. The managers directed Mr. Panzer to meet with the local Pollution Control Agency people and do further inquiry regarding the matter. Mr. Panzer indicated that action would be required from the managers at the next meeting if they wish to pursue the funding. Public Official Liability insurance The managers reviewed a memorandum dated Suly 15, 1983 from the attorney regarding public official liability insurance and directed the attorney to obtain additional quotes from other insurance companies for this type of policy. Adjournment There being no further matters.to come before the Board of Managers, Chairman Cochran duly declared the meeting adjourned at 11:26 p.m. Camille D. Andre Acting Secretary 1512h MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT In the Matter of a Bridge ) Span Obstruction to Minnehaha ) Creek Serving a Private Residence ) at 11907 Cedar Lake Road, ) Minnetonka, Minnesota. ) MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING On July 21, 1983, at 7:00 p.m., at the St. Louis Park City Hall, Chairman Cochran called to order a public hearing in the matter of a bridge span obstruction to Minnehaha Creek pursuant to published notice. Managers present: Andre, Cochran and Carroll Managers absent: Thomas and Lehman Also present were Board advisors Panzer, Ree? and Peterson. Chairman Cochran explained the format of the hearing stating that the district's engineer would present a verbal report to the managers, followed by the opportunity for comments from the owner of the bridge, and then the hearing would be opened for comments from the public. Mr. Panzer reviewed the engineer's written report and exhibited a diagram of the property which showed the location of the bridge and surrounding properties. He also exhibited a cross-section diagram of the bridge which showed the existing low chord of the bridge to be at the elevation of 913.75. From that point it was approximately five feet to the creek bottom. He indicated there would be approximately two feet of clearance when there was a creek flow of 200 cfs. In October, 1978 measure- ments were taken indicating that there was approximately three feet of clearance at a flow of 50 cfs. Mr. Panzer stated that at a flow of 50 cfs or less canoe- ing under the bridge is possible. As the flow becomes greater, the difficulty of canoeing under the bridge becomes greater. At flows of 200 cfs or greater portaging around the bridge would be mandatory. The flow in the creek is largely dependent on the level of Lake Minnetonka. Recent studies have shown that the discharge from the Lake would be over 200 cfs approximately 10% of the time. The district staff first received a complaint about the bridge in July of 1978. This complaint was received four days July 21, 1983 Page two after a creek flow of 120 cfs was gauged at Highway 494. Additionally, complaints were received in 1978, 1979, 1982 and 1983. In April, 1982, the staff met with Mr. Taylor, the owner of the bridge, to investigate a potential portage route. In February, 1983, the engineer met with an adjacent property owner to discuss a possible agreement to upgrade the existing portage route. At the same time the engineer recommended to the Board of Managers that the district share in a joint funding project with the owner to raise the bridge deck. In April, 1983, during high water conditions, the district installed warning signs up- stream from the bridge to warn canoeists of the potential hazards caused by the bridge. In May, 1983, Mr. Handsaker, the adjacent property owner, advised the district that he would no longer allow canoeists to use his property for portage purposes after the 1983 season. At the conclusion of the engineer's report, Robert Taylor asked Mr. Panzer how often the creek bed was dry. He replied that based on the graph showing lake levels of Lake Minnetonka, there would be no water discharging over the control structure approximately 20% of the time. Manager Cochran indicated that the percentage could be lower than that because flow in the creek could be created from storm water runoff from the area. Robert Taylor, owner of the bridge, then addressed the managers. He stated that he bought the house in 1976 and that the land had been vacant for approximately three years. People were used to using it, and he subsequently had a lot of trouble wit~ individuals walking around the property. ~hen he bought it the creek was dry. There was no water in the creek until 1978. At the time of the purchase his property was zoned R-4 and the City of Minnetonka thought it Was park land. He had to appear before the Council and Planning Co .mmission to have it rezoned to R-1. It took him about six months to have the zoning changed. During that time he found a letter in the city files establishing that the city was denied park funds because the creek was dry and not a good recreational water. Mr. Taylor submitted a copy of that letter as part of the public record. He stated that the bridge was there from either 1906 or 1920. He stated that he has had to chase off his property motorcycles, horses and snowmobiles. Canoeists going down the creek have left litter in the yard, have defecated in the yard, and have allowed their dogs to run loose. As a result he has built a fence which has solved a lot of his problems regarding his privacy. He indicated that canoeists who portaged around the bridge would wreck his flower beds and the banks of the streams. July 21, 1983 Page three He noted that canoes would often crash upstream from the bridge and miscellaneous items would flow down. He stated that he had frequently jumped in the water to get people's keys, etc. and had even fixed paddles. He stated that even if the bridge was raised, the same problems will continue. He stated that complaints come only in April and May when the water is flowing. He stated · that from 1929 through 1943 there was no water in the creek at all. He indicated that he did not want to spend $10,000 for no reason at all. Manager Cochran responded that there certainly would be times when the bed was dry, but the managers are concerned about the period when the creek is flowing. Mr. Taylor stated that he felt that period of time was only 4% of the year, citing a graph containing information from 1914 through 1982. Manager Cochran stated that the levels of Lake Minnetonka have increased sub- stantially in the last few years. Mr. Taylor stated his belief that the construction of the dam at Gray's Bay was causing more damage now than before. He stated that Bud Skogmoe, a long time resident, stated that in 1965, which was the year of the bad flood, the water was just touching the bottom of the bridge. Mr. Skogmoe stated that the bridge had never been under water. Theona yon Lorenz, a member of the audience, asked Mr. Taylor if the fence extended into some of the wetlands also. Mr. Taylor stated that it did extend into some of the wetlands. Ms. yon Lorenz commented that she had lived on the creek for 48 yea~s and agrees that the level of the creek is rising. She stated her belief that the creek is a public right-of-way and that those who live along the creek must endure some inconven- ience as a result. Mr. Taylor responded that he did not agree with that statement. James yon Lorenz stated that he had seen canoeists come around the corner, see the bridge and then try to stop, often resulting in crashing into the bridge. He stated his belief that the creek should be clear of the obstruction. James Stoddart stated that he has lived at the St. Alban's Mill complex for the last three years. He indicated that he crosses the bridge which is located just upstream from Taylor's bridge. He stated his observation that canoeing is limited except in rare periods and that this year has been one of those times. He stated his opinion that the hazards are the rocks and high velocity of the creek flow rather than Taylor's bridge. He stated that canoeists see that and become scared. He stated his opinion that this matter is a "tempest in a teapot." John Maschoff appeared as president of the Homeowners' Association of St. Alban's Mill. He indicated that he had never before met Mr. Stoddart but was in agreement with much of what Rio July 21, 1983 Page four he said. He agreed that .the hazards are the flows through the rapids areas, the trees in the water, and the island. He stated his opinion that property owners have a right to be protected from the abuses of the canoeists such as urinating, picnicing, litter, breaking of a rail fence, and paths worn in landscaped areas. He stated that whatever solution was adopted should result in the canoeists somehow being routed to limit damage to the adjacent properties, both St. Alban's Mill and Taylor's. Manager Cochran asked Mr. Maschoff if he had ever canoed the creek and if he was aware of the various hazards all along the creek, not just those near the St. Alban's Mill property. Mr. Maschoff stated that he thought the warning sign placed by the district was a good step but it could be more specific about What the hazard is. He stated that he has seen canoeists stop but not know what to do. He thought it would be better to give instruc- tions regarding what to do. Donald Ringham, former chairman of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, stated that the Minnehaha Creek is a navigable body by definition and stated that the creek is a water of the State and is not private. He stated that the creek levels have risen because there has been an additional~17 years of development since the drought. He stated that the district is charged with managing the recreational aspects of the water resources within its jurisdiction. In 1967 or 1968 the district managers directed the staff to inventory the obstructions in the creek for future action. There were approximately 20, only four of which remain. He stated that the district should be complimented on making such progress. Of the four that remain, ~the James and Logan Avenue bridges in Minneapolis are primarily hydrologic obstructions rarely causing recreational use impediments, and portaging is safe and relatively easy. A third obstruction, the twin culverts at County Road 73, still remains but a portage has been provided. He stated his opinion that Taylor's bridge is the only one of the four obstructions which is a hazard and for which there has been no remedy. He stated his opinion that the most enjoyable time to canoe is the most hazardous time and that the bridge is the only obstruction which has not been dealt with in a signifi- cant manner. He felt that the impact of the bridge on the use of the creek is much greater now than in 1967 because there are far more canoeists. Between 1969 and 1971 the district Board of Managers talked about a means to correct the problem but it was postponed because the district was focusing on the primary problem of flooding. He stated the opinion that the creek is the most unique urban/suburban recreational water in the nation and that he has had this confirmed from professional park people. He has seen reactions from the creek users in recent years to include disgust, frustration, anger, fear, and the uncertainty of July 21, 1983 Page five trespass, which feelings should not occur at such a recreational treasure as Minnehaha Creek. He urged the managers to order removal of the bridge immediately. He stated that the district has historically taken tough, undesirable positions, and that the statutes and public sentiment were on the district's side. Mr. Taylor responded that he agreed with everything Mr. Ringham stated but that all of the other obstructions were eliminated by public funds. He stated that he had never been against the raising of the bridge but that if it is a public nuisance, then the public should pay to raise it. Mr. yon Lorenz stated that Meadowbrook Golf Course had raised its bridge~ at their own expense, but Mr. Taylor responded that he was not a golf course, that he did not have that kind of funds and that he has spent considerable ~,~ount of funds already just discussing the matter. Manager Cochran asked Mr. Ringham what he thought about a portage at that location and Mr. Ringham responded that he felt it was a dangerous portage and very inadequate. William Handsaker, who lives across the creek from Mr. Taylor, stated that he believes it a privilege to live on the creek. He stated that he enjoys most canoeists but the creek is more of a nuisance this time of year because of the high water and the fact that Mr. Taylor's fence has transferred the problems to his side of the creek. He stated his belief that the bridge is not the only problem and that there are problems both upstream and downstream from the bridge, including the boulder downstream. He stated that he has encountered problems of litter and urinating on his property from the canoeists. He believes that the raising of the bridge will go a long ways.towards alleviating those problems. He stated that there has been a significant amount of property damage to canoes from the bridge. Recently he observed one man hit his head requiring stitches. He stated that the canoeists could see the boulder downstream if they did not have to duck for the bridge. He stated that he saw three alternatives: providing a portage, raising the bridge, or providing Mr. Taylor another access. Mr. Ringham asked if the record would remain open to accept written comments. Manager Cochran responded that the record would be kept open until the next meeting because there was not a quorum remaining at the meeting in order to take action. He stated that the managers had received correspondence from the Hopkins-Minnetonka Recreation and Parks Department which also would be placed in the public record. Marc Hanson, a resident of St. Louis Park in the audience, asked about the district's position on funding. Manager Cochran July 21, 1983 Page six responded that the district's position varies depending on the circumstances. Mr. Ringham stated that historically private bridges have been raised at the owner's expense. Manager Cochran stated that there have been some cost-sharing projects. Mr. Taylor stated that he understood a bridge downstream to have been corrected by use of only district funds. Mr. Taylor expressed his concern about delaying a decision on the matter. He stated that he had his house for sale and had to take it off the market and cancel the purchase agreement on a new property in Montana because of the district's action. He stated that he wished the district had taken action long'ago. Mr. Panzer informed the managers that he had sever, al dis- cussions with Mr. Taylor regarding potential solutions to the problem. He stated that there was a good chance that an agreement could be negotiated to raise the bridge on a cost-sharing basis. He felt it would be beneficial for the managers to direct con- tinued negotiation. Manager Cochran indicated that the public hearing would be continued to allow the other managers to consider the evidence and to receive additional evidence if there was any. The managers directed the staff to continue to negotiate with Mr. Taylor. Mr. Ringham asked if the managers had considered a petition to make the bridge a project and if not would the district consider it at this time. Mr. Panzer responded that the bridge abutments restrict water flow, protecting Mr. Handsaker and downstream property owners and that it would be unwise to remove the bridge entirely. Manager Cochran also stated that such action would diminish the recreational aspects of the creek in that area. There being no further comment on the subject, Chairman Cochran declared the public hearing adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ichael' Carroll, Acting Secretary MINNEHA/~A CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT In the Matter of a Bridge ) Span Obstruction to Minnehaha ) Creek Serving a Private Residence ) at 11907 Cedar Lake Road, ) Minnetonka, Minnesota. ) FINDINGS OF FACT,.DECLARATION OF PUBIC NUISANCE, AND ORDER FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION WHEREAS, numerous complaints have been lodged with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District that a private bridge crossing Minnehaha Creek at 11907 Cedar Lake Road constituted an obstruction to passage for those utilizing the creek and constituted a dangerous condition, and WHEREAS, the owner of the bridge span has constructed a fence prohibiting portaging around the bridge span on the south side, and WHEREAS, the owner of the adjacent property on the opposite side of the creek has informed the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District that he will no longer allow portaging on his property to avoid the bridge span, and WHEREAS, the Board of Managers determined that an improved portage will not be available and that the bridge span may constitute a public nuisance, and WHEREAS, the Board of Managers therefore ordered a public hearing to be held on July 2.1, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. at the St. Louis Park City Hall, St. Louis Park, Minnesota to determine whether the bridge span crossing Minnehaha Creek at 11907 Cedar Lake Road constitutes a public nuisance or is otherwise in violation of law, and if so to define and order remedial action regarding the obstruction, and WHEREAS, the public hearing was held pursuant to published notice and personal service on the owner and evidence was submitted by interested persons regarding this matter including written public comment. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District hereby makes the following findings of fact: 1. The existing low chord of the bridge at 11907 Cedar Lake Road is at elevation 913.75, approximately five feet above the creek bottom at that location. 2. Adequate clearance for canoeing purposes is present during creek flows of 50 cfs or less. At such times there is a minimum of three feet clearance between the water surface and low chord at the bridge. 3. For flows in excess of 50 cfs, navigational passage becomes increasingly difficult. 4. At flows of 200 cfs or more, portaging around the bridge span is mandatory. 5. The probability of occurrence for a flow of 200. cfs in any give~'year is 1.0 (100%). 6. A discharge equal to or greater than 200 cfs from the Headwaters Control Structure will occur on an average of 10% to 14% in any given year. During 5hi$ per~od of time navigational clearance at the bridge span is not adequate for canoeing. 7. Robert Taylor, owner of the bridge and the adjacent property, has constructed a privacy fence which prohibits porsaging around the bridge on ~he sou~h side of the ~reek. 8. Portaging on the north side of the creek requires passage through a gate in Mr. Taylor's privacy fence as well as passage over the adjoining property owned by William Handsaker. 9. Mr. Handsaker notified the Watershed District by correspondence dated May 3, 1983, that he would not allow portaging across his property after the 1983 canoeing season. 10. There is no adequate, safe, and permanent portage route 'around the bridge span for navigational passage during periods when creek flows equal or exceed 200 cfs. 11. Numerous complaints have been received by the Watershed District regarding the hazardous nature of the existing bridge span. These complaints include reports that the inadequate clearance for passage during higher creek flows has caused property damage to canoes, paddles and other property as well as personal injuries including gashes on peoples' heads requiring stitches. 12. The bridge span is located in an area of the creek where natural conditions exist, such as a boulder, rapids, and trees, command the attention of canoeists in order to safely pass. The existence of the man-made bridge requires canoeists to take unusual actions such as lowering themselves to achieve adequate clearance. This distracts their attention and places them in jeopardy when facing the natural conditions immediately downstream from the bridge. -2- 13. Minnehaha Creek is a unique urban/suburban recreational water resource and has a high volume of canoe usage during periods of adequate flows. 14. Minnehaha Creek is a public water of the State. 15. The existence of the bridge span at 11907 Cedar Lake Road interferes with, obstructs, and renders dangerous for passage Minnehaha Creek during a significant portion of the navigational year. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District hereby declares the bridge span across Minnehaha Creek which services 11907 Cedar Lake Road in the CiTy of Minnetonka a public nuisance under the laws of the Sta~e of Minnesota and hereby orders that said bridge be either removed or raised to provide adequate navigational passage prior to March i, 1984. Adopted the 18th day of August, 1983 by the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. President 2167B -3- $30625 STATE OF MINNESOTA REPORT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE March, 1983 CONTENTS I. THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION ................. 1 -. II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ................ 1 III. EXTERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY OF METROPOLITAN AGENCIES . . . 3 IV. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERSHIP ON METROPOI~ITAN AGENCIES. 5 V. POLICY AND PROGRAM EVALUATION .............. 6 VI METROPOLITAN-LOCAL DISPUTES 8 VII. METROPOLITAN FII<IANCE .................... 13 I. THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION The Legislative Commission on Metropolitan Governance was created by Laws 1981, Chapter 250. The charge of the Commission was to review government arrangements in the metropolitan area and recommend to~ the Legislature a comprehensive policy on metropolitan governance, with special emphasis on the interrelationships of governmental units. Between the first meeting of the Commission, in September, 1981, and the last, in March, 1983, the Commission conducted nearly twenty-five hours of public discussion in eleven hearings. Two of these hearings were held away from the Capitol, one in Shakopee in the southern part of the metropolitan area, the other in Brooklyn Center, in the north. Approximately fifty-five persons testified before' the Commission, and others presented written comments and recommendations. The Chair chosen by the Commission was Representative John Brandl, and the Vice-Chair was Senator Robert Schmitz. Other members were Senators William Belanger, Don Frank, Franklin Knoll, and Myrton Wegener, and Representatives Walter Hanson, Connie Levi, Carolyn Rodriguez, and William Schreiber. Il. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS External Accountability. The Legislature should strengthen and clarify the accountability of metropolitan agencies in order to improve their responsiveness to the various groups and government agencies interested in metropolitan government. Aoooinlment of Member~. The Legislature should improve the procedures for s~ecting 'the members of the meti-opolitan agencies so that the appointment process plays a more important and visible p .a!~t.~"in educatin~ people about metropolitan affairs. PoLicy and Program Evaluation. The Legislature should strengthen its own oversight of metropolitan agencies and their policies and. programs by " requi.ring a more systematic and regular accounting of agency ac.~ivities ~to the Legislature and by establishing' either a permanent joint commission, on m. etropoLitan affairs or permanent subcommittees or divisions of the appropriate House and Senate committees. Metropolitan-Local Disputes. The .Legislature should not create elaborate ...... administrative proceedings to deal with disputes between metropolitan and local agencies, nor should the Legislature rely on the courts .to settle disputes. For dispu.tes which cannot properly be resolved at the metropolitan level, the Legislature should consider creating a process whereby a record o,f the issues in dispUte can be made and brought before a legislative forum. For disputes which do not warrant legislative intervention, the Legislature should establish a procedure for administrative review or reconsideration of agency decisions. Metropolitan Finance. Without increasing the power of the Metropolitan Council or requiring a unified metropolitan budget, the Legislature should create a procedure whereby the separate agency budgets could be assembled and summarized together for the purpose of improving public understanding and discussion." In addition, the Legislature should require long-range budget projections from metropolitan agencies. III. EXTERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY OF METROPOLITAN AGENCIES If one subject predominated, in all of the Commission's hearLngs, it was 'that of accountability. A p{'eponderance of the testimony heard by the Commission, and of the discussion among Commission members, addressed itself in one way or another to this matter of accountability and the' companion principle of responsiveness. Some attention was given to accountability between metropolitan agencies, but much greater concern. seemed to focus on external accountability: that is, on the accountability and responsiveness of the metropolitan agencies to the many parties who are outside of metropolitan government but interested in its activities. Although the Commission listened to much thoughtful advice on the subject of external accountability, it nonetheless failed to detect any unity of opinion. The proposals for reform were as multilateral as the parties in interest. The lines of external responsibility now run from the metropolitan agencies in many different directions: to th~ people of the metropolitan area,~ tD the great diversity of local governments variously situated in the metropolitan area, to many places in the state executive. branch, to the state Legislature, and to the federal government. In the course of its work, the Commission received recommendations that each of these several and diverging lines of accountability should be strengthened, and that this should be accomplished through a great variety of means: the eligibility and appointment of members, internal staff reorganizations, improved agency administrative procedures, legislative reorganization, outside evaluation and review, better budgeting, etc. In short, focus of subject was offset by disparity of recommendation. This should be a source neither of surprise nor dismay. There is in fact a lesson in this diver~ty, which appears to flow naturally and inevitably from the tension amonG the many people, groups, and ~overnmenta/ entit~es properly interested in the course of metropolitan affairs. The Commiss/on 'recommends ti{at the Les'istature take heed .not to rupture a network of accountability which appears so accurately to reflect the complexity and interdependence of interest and involvement in metropolit'.a~ government. : This is not to say that the Commission has concluded that the existing arrs_n~ements are perfect. They are not. Indeed, there seems to be a consensus that nearly all the important lines of ex-terns/ accountabiTdt? are weak and that, as a resdlt, the metropolitan agencies increasingly take on one of the d~stiu~u~ishin~ characteristics of Special districts:, insularity.. The Commission believes that account.ability can and should be improved, if due care is ~iven to preserve the necessary balance of influences. The Commission therefore recommends that the Le~slature strengthen and clarify the lines of external accountability of the met.ropoHtan a~enc~es, with a v~ew to improving their responsiveness to the various interested ' parties and a~enCies of government. A/1 of the recommendations that follow in the Report bear directly on the goal of improving the external accountability of metropolitan agencies by one or another method. Thus, the prevailing concern voiced in the testkn, ony before-the Commission becomes now the integrating theme in the Commission's Report. IV. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERSHIP ON METROPOLITAN AGENCIES Many persons who spoke before the Commission stressed the need to continue to find qualified candidates and select dedicated members of metropolitan agencies. The importance of the goal is universally attested to. The testimony before the Commission, however, yielded a consensus on only one point: the process of choice should be more visible to the public and should be designed to encourage attention to the substantive issues of metropolitan policies' and programs. The Commission concurs with this view and recommends that the Legislature improve the selection and appointment process so that it. makes a more important contribution than it now does to the public learning process--among citizens, public officials at all levels of government, the press, the candidates, and the agencies themselves. Various means have been suggested to achieve this object: elections, nominations lists, candidates forums, recruitment advisory committees, public hearings, and so on. The Commission recommends that the Legislature, in considering these and other methods of improving the appointment process, seek to preserve a balance between the need for openness in appointments and the need to attract qualified candidates who may not wish to "campaign" for appointed office. The Commission also reemphasizes here its view that the Legislature should preserve what must, in justice., be a carefully constructed and intricately balanced network of accountability to diverse interests at ail levels of government. The appointment process is an important element in © establishing responsiveness. All naturally want to preserve or enhance their influence in that process. But to stren~-then the influence of one is to weaken the influence of another. Hence the Commission believes that great care must be exercised, in altering the selection and. appointment process, to ensure a fair balance of influence among all the 'parties whose interests and responsibilities are affected by the decisions of metropolitan agencies. These. reservations, however., do not weaken the 'Commission's belief that the appointment of members of metropolitan agencies can and should be' made to enhance the public learning process, which is an important purpose of metropolitan planning agencies. V. POLICY AND PROGRAM EVALUATION All government agencies, policies, and pro,-rams should be subiect to re~ular and Syslematic external review to assess theii- need, r~asonable- ness, and effectiveness. This is p~rticularly important during periods of rapid change in go.v. erument pro,'rams and .responsibilities. Testimony before the Commission was united in suggesting that systematic metropolitan policy and pro,tram evaluation is not as strong as it should be. Although some of the' metropolitan agency pro~u'ams are now subject to intensive scrutiny, there is no systematic or reEu~lar external evaluation of many others. The Only generally applicable reportin~ requirement, the formal annual report of each agency to the Legislature, will not serve as an evaluation document. To help remedy this deficiency, and to correct what appears to be a gradual decline and fragmentation in substantive communication between the metropolitan agencies and the Legislature, the Commission recommends that '- the Legislature improve its own oversight of the metropolitan agencies ~nd their policies and programs. The Legislature should require the Council and the other metropolitan agencies to reexamine and justify .their plans, their activities, and their priorities on an on-going basis. This regular internal policy and program evaluation should be accompanied by direct. and continual legislative scrutiny. The Commission believes that this improvement in policy and program evaluation by the agencies and 'the Legislature cannot and will not occur unless a.point of focus is established in the legislative arena. Therefore the Commission recommends that the Legislature create either a permanent joint commission on metropolitan affairs or permanent subcommittees or divisions of the appropriate committees of the House and Senate. This commission, or these committees (often meeting jointly), would initiate and supervise agency ppliCy and program evaluations and would serve as the center of legislative oversight, experience, and knowledge. Ail legislation pertaining to metropolitan agencies, their structure, programs, budgets, taxes, and policies, should go before this commission or these committees. Half the population of the state is directly affected by the activities of the metropolitan agencies, and important and complex policies and laws a~.fecting the whole state regularly arise from metropolitan affairs. Under these conditions it is imperative that the Legislature work to improve its oversight and understanding of the activities of the metropolitan agencies VI. and to bring about a real and IastLng improvemen'~ in communication and shared knowledge between the Legislature and metropolitan agencies. METROPOLITAN-LOCAL DISpuTES The Commission believes that occasional d/sputes between metropolitan agencies and local authorilu'es are inevitable,, given the reality of interdependence in the metropolitan' area. Indeed, we find .that the disputes 'are frequently'not between the metropolitan and local levels so' much as they are inter-local, taking on a metropolitan cast because the metropolitan agencies have been given the unpleasant task of choice. The metropolitan agencies; and especially the Council, must therefore be understood in part to be the unwillLug and undeserving recipients of frustrat/ons created by modern /nterdependency in a metropolis. Local resentment about these con/].icts is nonetheless very real and deseiw-/ng of attention, because it is damaging to the metropolitm~ comity, the furtherance of .which is one of the Com~.cLl's reasons for being. The Commission therefore has .taken the evidence of metropolitan-local conflict very ser/ously' indeed and has sought, wi'~hin the limitations of the situa'cion, to discover better means of reducing its occurrence and resolving it when it appears. In order to reduce the occurrence of conflict, the Legislature should .take care to limit the intrusiveness of metropolitan functions to the minimum level necessitated by interdependency. That is the overwhe!min~ r~commendation made in testimony to the Commission, and the Commission concurs .~n it. It has not been .the Commission's purpose to evaluate whether the proper boundary of metropolitan interest has been transgressed in each of the multitude of metropolitan agency activities. Yet the testimony alleging transgressions is too strong and too widespread to discount. Therefore the Commission recommends that the Legislature pay particular attention to finding and eliminating such transgressions, so as to reduce the occurrence of conflict which is not endemic to the metropolitan situation. When disputes do arise, as they inevitably will, better mechanisms for resolving them are needed. Thr~e go{rernmental alternatives exist: judicial review, administrative procedure, and legislative review. The Commission has examined and heard testimony on all three. The Commission is persuaded that court proceedings are not the best means of settling most intergovernmental disputes. It therefore gave .its greatest attention to the alternatives. Proposals to deal with metropolitan-local disputes through a more elaborate administrative process have been advanced in the Legislature since the early-1970s and were once again advanced in testimony before the Commission. The idea is that due process can be obtained in metropolitan affairs simply by extending the state Administrative Procedures Act (APA) to the metropolitan agencies or by creating a separate metropolitan APA. For a decade the Legislature has consistently rejected the idea. The Commission concurs in this judgment. The Commission believes that elaborate administrative proceedings, either of the rule-making or contested case variety, are hardly better suited to the needs of governmental adversaries than courtroom proceedings. It appears to the Commission that these quasi-]udic,-'al, le~slistic processes are inconsistent with the primary function of the Council--which all a ree should be planning, the furtherance of public learnin~ and. 'political consensus, and intergovernmental coordination, not the adjudication of the rights and liabilities of others. Introducing an administra~ve cour~ into the quest for a metropolitan perspective would create a great inconsistency between process and purpose. This would be unwise, in the Commissiori"s judgment, .for in such matters it is not always substance that.wins'. Experience e.!sewhere suggests that the administrative court would' encourage what we seek to avoid: the arrogance and power of staff experts, attention to legal nicety and technical detail in decision-making, formality, strict separation of fact-finding ahd decision-making functions, an adversarial interest'in burden of proof, the transfer of a~ency discretion to administrative judges, a greater role for state staff a~enc/es such as the Offiice of Administrative Hearings and the Attorney General, and the isolat/on of .agency boards from the public. Therefore, the Commission rejects proced, ural elaboration, on the' ~rounds that it might well promote the p.roblem rather than the solution... This is not to say that administrative process is always inappropriate. Ind~ed, on a few occasions, the Legislature has applied the APA to the metropolitan ag'encies. The most important example is the application of the APA to certain disputes under the Land PlannLn~ Act (M.S., 473 473.866). The Commission concedes that from time to time, for certain ty-pes of decisions, such limited applications of the APA may be jusldfied. But it is the Commission's judgment that APA proceedings are not generally appropriate to the types of functions performed by metropolitan agencies and that therefore the Legislature should apply the APA process only on a case-by-case basis and after careful consideration of the untoward consequences. If these two governmental forums--the iudiciary and the administrative court--are generally inappropriate to metropolitan-local disputes, it is upon the third forum, the Legislature, that we must primarily rely. And so, in fact, we have: the prevallLug practica/ m~thod of settling these disputes over the years has been to bring the issue to the Legislature for resolution. On the whole, it has worked. The examples of this are legion; taken together, they strongly suggest that the mechanism is as effective as any other that might be devised, and surely in most cases a more appropriate venue than ,the administrative or judicial tribunal. The Commission therefore concludes that the Legislature should consider means of improving, legitimating, and re~tlariziug access to the legislative forum for disputes which cannot properly be resolved at the. metropolitan level. The Commission believes that the regular program evaluation is a promising method of exposing and resolving the policy issues which give rise to many of these disputes. The Commission also recommends that the Legislature consider expanding the application of o~te device now in the statutes for resolving planning disputes between the Council and metropolitan commissions, boards, and agen?ies. The relevant provision reads as follows: "If the council and the affected commission, board, or agency are unable to a~ee as to an adjustment of the plan, so that it may receive the counc/l's approval, then a record of the disagreeing positions bf the metropolitan .council and the affected commission, board, or agency shall' be made and the metropolitan council shall prepare a recommendation in connection therewith for consideration and dispom.'tion by the next regrular session of the legislature." (M.S. 4'13.165) The Legisla'cure should consider some variation of this provision for d/sputes.between metropolitan agencies and' local governments. : Of course the Legislature cannot and should not allow itself to become the routine and customary court of appeals fr6m decisions of the Council, by this or any other means. A n/ce d/scrimination must be maintained between ~sput-es which should be resolved by the aCencies involved and disputes which raise policy issues reqttirin~ legislative resolution. The Commission concedes that the Legislature has not yet distin~-uished itself by its discrimination in such matters. That, in fact, is part of the problem. Subject to appropriate limits, the Commission believes that much can be ~'ained in fairness, legititnacy, and peace--npt only in the metropolis but in the Legislature.itself--by effectin¢' reE-ular access to the 'legislative forum for issues which now reach it almost certainly but by devious and random routes. .. A/though the Legislature should continue to resolve basic issues of E'overnmental policy, governmental structure, and public finance, it cannot and should not intervene in most metropoLitan-local d~sputes. Often such disputes do not raise issues warrantiu~ legislative intervention, because the confLict is not over the metropolitan policies themselves so much as the interpretation and application of those policies in speci~c situations. 12 230 Here, in the absence of APA procedures, the metropolitan agencies are essentially unrestrained; they are by definition not dispassionate but rather parties at interest' who are nonetheless privileged to sit as le~'islature, executive, judge, and' jury. In these situations there exists at least the appearance, if not the reality, of conflicting interests and functions. Yet local jurisdictions that would question ~.he unrestrained will of the agency have no remedy short of desperate appeals to the Le~slature or the courts. In order to correct this fundamental unfairness in such "contested cases" and to eliminate the anger born of it, the Commission recommends that the Legislature establish a procedure for administrative review or reconsideration of final decisions in disputes between a metropolitan agency and a local jurisdiction. VII. METROPOLITAN FINANCE The testimony before the Commission revealed a consensus that metropolitan financial planning, revenue-raising, and expenditure decisions are unnecessarily and excessively fracwnenfed. Metropolitan plans and capital .improvement pro,rams are' not as well integrated one with another as they might be; and the plans are not adequately translated into the spending and revenue-raising decisions of the metropolitan agencies, or, for that matter, the Legislature. In short, we do not have a fiscal system in metropolitan government. As a consequence, one of the goals of metropolitan governance--coherence and comprehensiveness--is still somewhat beyond our reach, and will remain so until the Legislature discovers a method of integrating financial decisions, of attending to financial priorities, costs and benefits, and effectiveness of the policies, programs, and spending decisions of all the metropolitan agencies 13 considered together. The existiug 'arrangements--the wholly separate metropol/tan agency budget processes, the partial and negative capital spending reviews by the Council, and the fragmented consideration by the Legislature--are not suf~cient to this purpose. Some believe that the fragmentation should be remedied by in~reasing the power of the MetropoLitan Council over the capital and operating budgets .' bf the metropoLitan agencies. The Commission does not subscribe to th~s' view. The Council's attention to h. iEh issues of policy is difficult enough to maintain without ~iving it direct authority over the financial affairs of the metropolitan functional a~'encies. The' Commission concludes that some other means must be found to brin~- financ~.ug closer to planning and to encourage--indeed, to a/low--the various functional plans and capital and operaiing budgets to be considered together as well as individual/y. The Commission believes that the re~'ular pro,?am evaluation recommended ~sewhere will help to bring this' about. But the Commission does not think that this will ,be enough to ensure the careful scrutiny of functional priorities .and weighing of prosu'am 6oats and benefits that is required to budget scarce resources. Therefore, the Commission has two further recommendations on metropolitan f'zuance. · First, the Council and the metropoLitan agencies should be required by statute to prepare long'-range budget projections, in addition to the existing requirement of annual or biennial opersting' budg'ets and five-year capital improvements budgets. These new long'-ran~e pro~ections should estimate revenues and expenditures for ten years in capital programs and four ~years in operations. 14 Secondly, and more importantly, the Commission recommends that the Council be placed in charge of assembling and consolidating the separate agency budgets (both annual and long-range) into a single-budget document. This document, composed of all of the separate metropolitan agency budgets, should show revenue sources and expenditures for capital development and operations for each agency. 'The Council would assemble the separate budgets; prepare summary and overview documents s. howing. the aggregate result's; hold hearings on the document as a whole; and make a report to the Legislature on the hearings and the changes'that the Council will require in capital budgets under its existing review authority. The process recommended here would not result in a single, unified metropolitan budget, and the Council would be granted no approval authority beyond what it now possesses. Each agency, as now, would continue to have financial independence, subject only to existing Council approval authority and, of course, legislative decisions. The process ~ecommended is intended merely to assemble all budgets together and create coherence in. metropolitan fiscal summaries so-as to encourage a more integrated understanding and. consideration of all metropolitan revenue-raising and spending decisions. In short, the process is one in which the Council will assist the Legislature and others to comprehend metropolitan affairs; it is therefore wholly consistent with the Council's basic function. 15 300 Metro Square Bldg., St. Paul, MN 55101 General Office Telephone (612)791-6359 A Metropolitan Council Bulletin for Commur For more information on items in this public-~ July 29, 1983 RECENT COUNCIL ACTIONS' (July 18-29') . Solid Wa~-The Council decided to review 11 possible new solid waste landfill sites in Hennepin County--four already certified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as environmentally safe and seven additional sites previously selected by the counW for consideration. The Council also decided to review one MPCA-certifiecl site in Credit River Twp., Scott County. In Hennepin County, the certified sites to be considered are in: Corcoran, Minnetrista and two sites in Independence. The additional seven sites are in: Baker Park Reserve, Crow- Hassen Park Reserve, Plymouth and two each in Maple Grove and Eden Prairie. Here's an update on site selection in the five remaining counties. Anoka and Carver Counties have identified the required number of sites. Council review of sites in Ramsey' County will be restricted to a site already identified in Maple- wood. The Council will work with Dakota County to find an additional possible site. In Washington County, the Council review sites originally identified by the county and other areas the county has reevaluated at the Council's request. The Council is expected to complete its solid waste site selection in fNe of the Region's seven counties by April 1984. State law requires the Council to pick sites if counties do not identify enough sites to meet their required complement of four sites each. Transportation-The Council asked the steering committee for the Southwest/University Ay. corridors study to include Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) as one of five transit alterna- tives to be considered in the two transportation corridors. PRT is a small vehicle, automated transit system that takes riders directly to their destinations. The corridors are: the Soul, west corridor, bewveen downtown Minneapolis and Excelsior; and along University Ay. between the St. Paul and Minneapolis downtowns. Light rail transit is one of the other alternatives under study. The Council also approved a proposed rebuilding and widening of the Inter,ate Hwy. 35W bridge over the Minne- sota River between Burnsville and Bloomington. The project would give the bridge six lanes instead of its current four, Airports-The Council approved: -- The paving of two turf island areas at the' Minneapolis- St. Paul International Airport to relieve air and ground traffic congestion, at an estimated cost of $3.3 million; and -- Construction of a new runway and building area at the st. Paul Downtown 'Airport, at an estimated cost of $9.8. million. The Council gave conditional approval to the proposed construction of a Federal Aviation Administration office building at International, to cost an estimated $2 million. Final approval depends upon the project's consistency with Council guidelines that discourage near-airport land uses that allow a concentration of people and that require insulation in buildings to protect against noise. C]'[¥ OF r',tjlil~u $~ql ,,,~l~',OdD ~LVD Health-The Council recommended approval of an increased total cost estimate of relocating St. John's Hospital from St. Paul to Maplewood. The revised estimate, $37. million instead of $33.6 million, is due to projected higher co~s in general constTuction and moveable equipment. The Council's r'ecommendation is issu.ed to Health ' Resources Hospital Corp./St. John's Lutheran Hospital Asso- ciation/St. John's Northeast Community Hospital-the new corporate structure to accomplish the rel.ocation. The ,=commendation nc,;;' goes to the ~ate com..missioner of health. PUBLIC HEARINGS Metropolitan Health Planning Board, Aug. 10, Council Chambers: -- 5 p.m., certificate-of=need request by Methodist Hospital, 6500 Excelsior Blvd., St. Louis Park, to add a 10 million electron volt photon beam linear accelerator to its radiation therapy service, at an estimated cost of $2.1' million. -- Immediately following above agenda item (approximately 5:15 p.m.), ce'rtificate-of-need request by Careview Home, Inc., 5517 Lyndale Av. S., Minneapolis, to b~ild a five-level structure adjacent to an existing 150-bed nursing home at a capital cost of $1.7 million. COUNCIL TO ADOPT ECONOMIC POLICl ES The Metropolitan Council has set a series of meetings lead- ing to the adoption in early 1984 of regional economic goals and policies. The Council seeks to gain a better understanding of the' Twin Cities Area economy and to examine how Council decisions affect the business community. The Council's Economic Technical Advisory Committee, made up of business, labor and government representatives, has produced a paper on economic goals and policies. These go~l; and policies will, be adopted on an interim basis in early 1984 and incorporated into a revised Metropolitan Develop- ment Framework Guide chapter in late 1984. The paper recommends increased Council communication with the business community. It also contains policies on in- vestments in: regional transportation, sewers, airports and parks; regional coordination of economic development; financing of economic development; and increasing access to job opportunities. The following is a tentative schedule for reviewing and adopting the interim economic policies. See "Coming Meet- ings'' on other side for times and places. - Aug. 8 Special Committee on Economic Development Aug. 29 Aug. 30 Sept. 9 Sept. 12 Sept. 19 Sept. 26 Sept. 29 (SCED) approves public meeting draft Council holds public meeting Council holds public meeting Public meeting record closes SCED reviews public hearing draft (based on public meetings) SCED review public hearing draft SCED approves public hearing draft Council sets public hearing date -- Nov. 9 - Nov. 28 -- Dec. 12 - Jan, 9 -- Jan. 19 Council holds public hearing Pubiic hearing record closes Hearing record and final document made available. SCED recommends adoption Council adopts PUBLIC MEETING ON AVAILABILITY OF SAND, GRAVEL AND CRUSHED ROCK SET The Metropolitan Council will hold a public meeting Sept. 20, 7:30 p.m., Council chambers, to hear comments on a study that examines the future availability of aggregate resources-sand, gravel and crushed rock--in the Twin Cities Area. The study, Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Aggregate Resources, was prepared by ~he Minnesota Geological Survey under direction of the Council's environmental planning staff. The study says the Area has a 100-year potential supply of aggregate, essential in most construction projects. However, one-third of the reserves has been covered by other land uses and is not available. It says regional coordination is needed to protect long.term supplies,. For more information on the meeting, or a copy of the study (pub. no. 10-83q319; 109 pp.; S7), call the public information office at 291-6464. You can participate in a drawing to be held once every hour for a tree fertilized with treated sewage sludge. You can also get free publications, such as: - A directory of 47 regionaJ parks. - Recycle It! A guide to 250-1~lus recycling centers in the Region. - ARTABOUT TOWN. A new guide to 120 arts groups. - Special reports on senior citizen days. - A new Consumer'~ Guide to Hospital Care. - A new Citizer~'s Guide to the Metropolitan Council. Lots of other data will be available. But if you don't find what you want, someone will punch up who does have it on a computer terminal at the booth. NEW PUBLICATIONS 1982 Industrial Construction/n the Twin Citie$ Metropoli- tan Area. July 1983. No, 01~3-078; 24 pp.; $1. Metropolitan Council Regional Service. and Finance Study, Phase 1. July 1983. No. 02-83-091; 73 pp.; free. Mobile Home Trends in the Metropolitan Area. July 1983. Ho. 01-83-084; 21 pp.; S.75. ; Housing Vacancy and Turnover in the Twin Cities Metro. po/i~an Area. April-June 1983. No. 19-83-102; 9 pp.; free. COMING MEETINGS (Aug. 8-19) HEALTH BOARD MEMBERS NEEDED (Information be/ow is tentative. To verify, call 291-6464.) The Metropolitan Council is seeking nominations to fill seven positions up for appointment on its Metropolitan Health Planning Board. The board advises the Council on the need for health ser- vices and facilities in the Twin Cities Area. The board is composed of health care consumers and health care providers. The Council is seeking at least one consumer representing business or labor interests, and at least one consumer repre- senting interests of people with Iow incomes. The Council also seeks at least (~r{e provider who is a physician, at least one representing health care insurers and at least one representing nursing homes. Meetings are held on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month. Applications are due by Aug. 19. To apply call Sandi Lindstrom at the Council at 291-6390. MINNESOTA JAM ARTS MARATHON IS SEPT. 18 Jugglers, singers, dancers, weavers, actors and others will perform at the second annual Minnesota Jam to Preserve the Arts, Sept. 18, noon-8 p.m., at the Minneapolis Convention Center. About 70 organizations will take part in the Jam, designed to help nonprofit arts groups increase their visibility, audiences and supporters, and raise money. Participating artists solicit pledges and then earn the money by performing continuously at the event. People will be able to take sample classes in dance, theater, making folk instruments and painting murals. There will also be a silent auction. The Jam is produced by the St. Paul Ramsay United Arts Council and the Metropolitan Council Regional Arts Council. Admission is $4 for adut~s, $2 for senior citizens and those aged 14 and under. Tickets will be sold at the door. GOING TO THE FAIR? VISIT COUNCIL'S BOOTH Stop by the Metropolitan Council's new booth in the State Fair grandstand this year. It will be on the main floor. Special Committee on Economic Development-Monday, Aug. 8, 3 p.m., Conference Room E. Program Development and Raview Committee-Monday, Aug. 8, 5 p,m., Conference Room E. Special Committee on Resource Management-Tuesday, Aug. 9, 3 p.m., Conference Room E. University Av./Southwest Corridor Study Steering Corn mittee-Tuesday, Aug. 9, 3 p.m,, Conference Room A. Management Committee-Tuesday, Aug. 9, 5:30 p.m., Conference Room E. Compensation and Mitigation Subcommittee of the Metro- politan Waste Management Advisory Committee- Wednesday. Aug. 10, 10 a.m., Conference Room A. Committee on Metropolitan Commissions-Wednesday, "Aug. 10, 1:30 p.m., Conference Room E. Metropolitan Health Planning Board-Wednesday, Aug. 10, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan and Community Development Committee- Wednesday, Aug. 10, 6:30 p.m., Conference Room E. Metropolitan Council-Thursday, Aug. 11,4 p.m., Council Chambers. Program Development and Review Committee-Thursday, Aug. 11,5 p.m., Conference Room E. Special Committee on Economic Development-Monday, Aug. 15, 3 p.m., Conference Room E. Program Development and Review Committee- Monday, Aug. 15, 5 p.m., Conference Room E. Special Committee on Resource Management-Tuesday, Aug. 16, 3 p.m., Conference Room E. Management Committee-Tuesday, Aug. 16, 5:30 p.m., Conference Room E. Metropolitan Council Regional Arts Council-Tuesday, Aug. 16, 5:15 p.m., Council Chambers. Transportation Advisory Board-Wednesday, Aug. 17, 9 a.m., Council Chambers." Committee on Metropolitan Commissions-Wednesday Aug. 17, 1:30 p.m., Conference Room E. Metropolitan and Community Development Committee- Wednesday, Aug. 17, 6:30 p.m., Conference Room E. CITIES LABOR MARKET I N FOI MATION Vol. 7 No. 8 AUGUST 1983 LABOR MARKET CONDITIONS June labor force estimates for the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area show a Con- tinuing recovery in labor 'market conditions. Although the unemployment ~ate rose to 6.9 percent in June, an increase in the unemployment rate is expected each year between May and June as students and recent graduates enter the job market faster than jobs are created. However, the increase in the unemployment rate this year was less than the average increase of the past thirteen years. Also on a positive note, total employment grew by more than the average of the last thirteen years, 1.O percent compared to 0.7 percent, and unemployment was up by considerably less than normal between May and June, 5.8 percent compared to 17.8 percent. Given recent positive trends in employment, unemployment insurance claims, and job ~penin§s, it is likely that the local unemployment rate in July will be equal to or ess than the rate a year ago. LABOR FORCE ESTIMATES (not seasonally adjusted) AREA Minneapolis- St. Paul SKSA* County: Anoka Carver Chtsa9o Dakota Henneptn Ramsey Scott Washington Wright City of Minneapolis City of St. Paul Minnesota* United States* Preliminary Revised CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE JUNEp MAY 1983' lgB3R 1,164.g 1,150.2 111,486 20,646 14,450 108,598 529,160 259,241 24,657 63,434 33,260 209,314 206,412 152,587 2,194. 113,3( 110,196 20,409 14,475 107,059 522,759 255,092 24,460 62,558 33,167 150,t97 2,145.g 110,308 JUNED 1982" 1,188.1 113,038 21,243 14,833 111,429 539,778 263,738 25,275 64,788 33,g83 214,032 155,798 2,242.1 111,569 JUttED 1983- 1,084.4 102,654 19,403 13,469 101,666 493,066 240,813 22,g32 59,483 30,883. 194,287 141,534 2,017.4 101,813 TOTAL EMPLOYMEHT MAY JUNEa 1983R 1982" 1,074.0 1,109.1 101,673 104,992 lg,218 1g,845 13,341 13,776 100,695 103,g81 488,354 504,294 238,512 246,297 22,713 23,454 58,g15 60,838 30,585 31,585 lg2,430 lgB,Tll 140,181 144,757 1,g76.1 2,067.3 99,543 100,683 U.S., Minnesota, anJ SI~SA data in thousands. UNEP, PLOYMENT UNF_M, PLOYI'~ENT RATE $ EMPLOYMENT, HOURS AND EARNIIJ6'.'. in the Minneapolis-St. Paul ~etropolitan Area PERCENT PRODUCTION WORK[RS' HOURS & EARNINGS~/ [MPLOY~NT CHANGE INDt!STPY (OOO) FROM Averaqe Weekly Average Hourly Average Weekly Earnings [arnin~lS Hours June Month Year Month 'Year June Month June Month June Month 1983 Ago Aoo Ag° Aoo 1983 Ago 1983 Ago 1983 Ago TOTAL NONAGRICI:LTUI~AL 1072.2 1063.2 1079.3 0.8 -0.7 XX XX XX XX XX XX MANUFACTURING 230.4 229.1 236.5 0.6 -2.6 399.74 293.74 lO.12 10.07 39.5 3g.1 r~rahle ('mods 146.1 145.3 151.2 0.5 -3.4 410.23 400.58 10.03 9.94 40.9 40.3 Lun,her A k'ood P~ducts 5.0 4.6 4.6 7.0 6.7 439.88 452.99 11.08 11.13 39.7 40.7 lurniture & Fixtures 1.5 1.5 1.6 0.2 -1.3 329.99 306.61 8.73 8.47 37.8 36.2 Stone, Clay & Glass 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.9 3.2 320.48 387.83 10.O9 9.97 38.7 38.9 Prin~ary F'etals 3.) 3.8 4.2 -1.4 -12.2 355.59 340.96 8.78 8.61 40.5 39.6 )~hricated M~tals 25.7 25.5 26.7 0.5 -4~0 468.26 ~54.16 11.07 10.97 42.3" 41.4 ~ton-Electrical Machinery 59.2 59.3 61.9:. -O.1 -4.4 395.B1 385.52 9.92 9.76 39.9 39.5 £1ectrlcal )¼chinery 17.7 17.5 17.9 1.1 -1.1 394.90 380.79 9.27 9.22 42.6 41.3 Transportatfnn Fquir~ne. nt 3.2 3.1 3.4 0.8 -7.3 559.35 545.60 12.43 12.40 45.0 44.0 Oth~r DuraL, les~/ 26.8 26.7 27.5 0.4 -2.7 377.30 376.60 9.48 9.51 39.8 39.6 N~ndurable ~,oods 84,3 83. B 85.3 0.7 -1.2 384.47 384.19 10.28' 10.30 37.4 37.3 Food & l(tndrod Products 18.2 18.0 18.3 I.O -0.7 352.40 350.26 9.55 9.57 36.9 36.6 Textiles & A~p~rol 2.3 2.3 ~.7 -1.O -16.2 ~10.33 207.67 6.15 6.09 34.2 34.1 Paper & Allied Products 24.1 23.9 24.5 0.7 -1.9 428.90 429.31 10.31 10.32 41.6 41.6 Printing A Puhlishinn 24.3 ..24.2 24.4 0.6 -O.6 373.26 372.78 11.38 11.47 32.8 32.5 Chef, foal Products 6.2 6.2 6.2 1.O 1.0 410.50 i 410.03 10.69 10.65 38.4 38.5 Petroleum Products 1.8 1.B 1.6 1.2 9.6 1496.86j 485.47 11.83 11.67 42.0 41.6 eubber & Leather Products 7.5 7.5 7.5 -O.1 -0.2 ;356.32 353.58 9.16 g.16 38.9 38.6 ~!;,'.?~'!F t. C l [;~! l NG 841.7 834.1 842.g 0.9 -O.1 XX i XX XX XX XX XX C~!~TR'~CIIDI( 36.9 34.4 38,5 7.2 -4.1 588.24 591.50i 16.34 16.25 36.0 36.4 fiuilding (,mstruction 9.8 9.4 10.3 4.2 -4.3 570.74 598.O0i 15.81 15.82 36.1 37.8 ~.i.qh~y 1, Jh'avy Constr~ction 5.2 4.1 5.1 25.7 2.5 497.58 498.49 13.34 13.62 37.3 36.6 5),ecial Trades Contracting 21.9 20.8 23,1 4.9 -5.5 615.17 605.12 17.28 16.95 35.6 35.7 tlRA~$r ORTA~ )'ON 39.2 39.5 37.6 -0.7 4.2 XX XX XX' XX XX XX Railroads 6.8 6.8 7.2 O.0 -6.O 520.77 520.77] 11.01 11.O1 47.3 47.3 Trucking & Warehousing 13.1 13.1 14.O1 0.1 -6.4 434.17 432.59 12.23 12.22 35.5 35.4 PI~L1C UTILI?I£S & COP~J. 20.3 20.3 21.3 0.3 -4.4 471.81 475.021 12.16 12.18 .38.8 39.0 iR'eD[ J 265.5 261.8 266.1 1.4 -0.2 ~31.77 227.45 7.70 7.71 30.1 29.5 Retail Trade! 191.11 188.4 191.5 1.5 -O.2 180.61 176.36 6.64 6.63 27.2 26.6 ('~neral Merchandise Stor~s 30.8 30.9 32.2 -0.4 -4.4 182.97 176.51 6.14 6.15 29.8 28.7 rood Stores I 25.2 24.4 24.E 3.5 2.0 241.89 239.87 8.37 8.30 28.9 28.9 ~atin~ & Orinkin9 PlaKesI 64.4 62.9 65.C 2.5 -O.8 87.75 80.29 4.50 4.34 19.B 18.5 ~ho!esale Tr~.de ) 74.4 73.4 74.51 1.3 -0.3 390.00 387.39 lO.O0 lO.O1 39.0 38.7 FIt~At~CE, INS. & REAL ESIATE( 73.7 73.1 73.~ 0.8 -0.1 i inance 31.3 31.1 30.l 0.4 1.8 In:.urance 29.2 2g.Z 29.71 0.2 -1.7 Real [state 13.2 12.8 13.31 3.4 -o.g SEP~'I£E ~, MISC[LLAN£OUS 253.3 251.8 249.~ 0.6 1.5 Rusiness & PerSnnal $~rvtces 59.8 59.7 59.c. 0.2 -0.2 I~.edical Services 74.4 73.6 72. 1.1 2.2 Hospitals 30.7 30.7 31 .~ 0.1 -1.6 Nursing Ho~s 20.1 19.8 19.~ 1.7 1.6 GOYE~t~ENT 152.8 153.2 156. -0.2 -2.1 r~deral 17.O 16.9 17. 0.6 -4.1 State 46.1 47.6 45. -3.0 O.9 Local 89.7 88.7 22. 1.1 -3.1 Less th~n .Db Includes ;Ci~:ntifi¢ )nstrun~nts and Miscellaneous ~anufacturing Average earninqs det~ are on a "gross" basis and are derived fr~m reports of payroll for full- and part-ttn~ p~ndur!ien or nonsuper~.isory wnr~ers. The bavroll iS reported before deductions of any kind. Bonuses, retro- n:ti~¢ [ay, tips, p~yn~nt in L~nd, and "fringe benefits" are excluded. Source: {urrent [mKl~y,~nt Statistic& Pr~)Qr~n1 (Finures rounded t~ nearest hundred) EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS CONDITIONS Total nonagricultural wage and salary employment in the Twin Cities metropolitan area continued to recover in June, although the pace of recovery slowed~a bit from that of he previous month. The total number of nonagricultural wage and salary jobs increased 0.8 percent from May which matched the avera§e rate of change between May and June over the past thirteen years. Over the past three recession-plagued.years, the average rate of change in total nonagricultural jobs was 0.3 percent. The construction industry continued to show strong job growth in June, growing by 7.2 percent or 2,500 jobs compared to a thirteen year average of 3.9 percent. Despite the recent resurgence of the construction industry, the number of jobs in that industry is 1,600 less than a year ago and 14,500 less than in June 1979, prior to the recession. Other industries which registered gains above their average of the past thirteen years were transportation, communication, public utilities, trade, and services. There was mixed news in the manufacturing sector. The length of the average workweek for manufacturing production workers increased from 39.1 in May to 39.5 in June, ex- ceeding the year ago figure of 39.2 hours. On the other hand, manufacturing jobs in- creased at a sluggish pace between May and June, increasing by 0.6 percent compared to a thirteen year average of 1.1 percent. The durable goods sector showed some recovery although somewhat tempered due to a labor-management dispute in the nonelectrical ma- chinery industry. The nondurable goods sector grew at only half its usual pace over the month. CHARACTERISTICS OF PERSONS CLAIMING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE number of unemployment insurance claimants in June decreased by 2,516 from May. The monthly decrease of ll.9 percent compares to a five year average increase of 1.3 percent. With the ex- ception of very small increases in the Transportation, Communication, Public Utilities industries and an expected in- crease in the Service industry due to seasonal school closings, all remaining industries showed declines from a month ago. The largest decreases occurred in construction and manufacturing (espe- cially the machinery and fabricated met- als sectors), with 1,237 and 1,273 less claims, respectively. Compared to a year ago, claims have been decreasing at a accelerated pace for the past few months. June's data follows this trend, with 9,188 fewer claims than June, 1982. Almost 70 percent of the yearly decrease occurred in two indus- atr~S - construction and manufacturing, marily in the.metals sector). There still, however, a large number of claimants in extended benefit programs this year - 9,712 this June compared to 4,095 in June, 1982. C)(ARACTEI(ISTICS OF TI4E IXSUREO UI(EMPLOYEO (Regular Benefits P~gr~} ~NE~OL~S-ST. PAUL S~A W~k E~ng 6/18/83 Percent C~nge Industry and From: Percent Occupational Long-TermlY Attach~nt Une~plored Total, All Industries 30.8 Constmctton 30.6 ~nufacturtng 33.3 Durable Goods 35.9 Nondurable Goods 26.7 Trans., Co~., and Public Utilities 24.1 Wholesale Trade 36.5 Retail Trade 36.8 Fin., ]ns., and Real Estate 35.3 Services 25.0 Public Admtn. 27,3 All Other 32.2 Inf. Not Available 3.5 Total, All Occupations 30.8 Prof., Tach., Mgr. 28.3 Clerical 33.2 Sales 3~.4 Service 31.5 Farm., For., Fish. 34.0 Processing 26.0 ~chtne Trades 31.5 Benchw~rk 33.1 Structural Work 29.9 Miscellaneous 28.6 Inf. Not Available 38.2 NOTE: Percentages may not total to lO0.O due to independent rounding. 1../ Long-Term unemployed refers to une~plo)snent insurance clat~nt$ whose current spell of un~ploy~ent has lasted 1S weeks or longer. THE JOB F~RKET Job market conditions continued to improve in June, according to two available indica- tors of local job demand. During June there were 3,516 openings for jobs expected to last three days or longer received by the Job Service Offices in the Twin Cities area. This is the third consecutive month during which openings exceeded year ago levels for the comparable month. It also exceeded the number of openings received in June 1981. The Conference Board's Index of Help~Wanted Advertising for the Minneapolis area also rose. It is now at the highest level since February of 1982. The tables which follow give a vice offices as well as some ditions from a year ago. Some profile of the supply of labor using the State Job Ser- indications of the change in labor supply and demand con- highlights of these tables are as Younger workers are making up a smaller proportion of the total number of Job Service applicants while the number of workers over 40 years old has grown more rapidly in the past year. This reflects changes in demography as well as layoffs of older workers and poor job market conditions which may have discouraged young job seekers. r4ale applicants make up a smaller proportion of the total than a year ago but considerably more than prior to the recession in June 1979 when women made up 54.8 percent of the total. Over three-fourths of the applicants have completed high school. Characteristics of Active Job Service Applicants Minneapolis-St. Paul SHSA, June lg83 fol 1 ows: Percent Percent Change Number Distribution from 6/82 Total Active Applicants ~ lOO.O 3.6 Male 2g,3gl 58.9 3.0 Female 20,468 41.1 4.5 15 years or younger 1,842 3.7 -35.5 16-19 years 5,015 lO.1 4.7 20-21 years 4,192 B.4 2.3 22-39 years 28,852 57.9 5.6 40-54 years 7,228 14.5 10.6 55 years or older 2,730 5.5 7.4 0-7 years of education 2,141 4.3 6.9 8-11 years g,B17 19.7 -7.B 12 years 21,B3B 43. B more than 12 years 16,063 32.2 6.? White 42,398 85.0 4.1 Black 3,689 7.4 lB.7 Hispanic 832 1.7 15.7 American Indian 714 1.4 6.3 Asian 1,807 3.6 9.0 Information Not Available 421 0.8 -67.2 Source: ESARS Table 6, Research Office, Minnesota Department of Economic Security Job Service Applicants and Openings by Occupational Category, Minneapolis-St. Paul St~SA, June lgB3 Active Applicants~/ Openings Receive~t~2/ Percent Change Percent Change Number from 6/82 Number ~rom 6/82 Total, All Occupations 43,170 6.3 3,516 32.9 Professional, Technical, Managerial 7,120 10.5 375 13.0 Clerical 8,466 13.2 1,300 B1.B Sales 1,888 3.9 257 91.B Service 7,100 12.9 600 19.8 Farm, Forestry, Fishing 536 3.1 199 -31.4 Processing 814 3.7 52 -22.4 Machine Trades 3,303 3.9 186 86.0 Benchwork 2,690 -12.7 71 -21.1 Structural 4,048 -6.6 185 24.2 Motor Freight, Transportation 1,629 -1.7 a7 4.~ Packaging, Material Handling 5,252 ll.2 227 5.1 Other 324 2.5 16 128.6 l/ Excludes partial applicants, those whose tional code. application does not include an occuDa- 2/ Openings for jobs of 3 or ~re days duration. - Source: ES~RS Table 96, Research Office, )qinnesota Department of Economic Security American Legion Post 398 DATE JULY 31, 1983 GA~LI NG P~PORT CURRENT MONTH YEAR TO DATE GROSS: EXPENSES: SUPPLIES ~ 261.59 PAYOUT AS PRIZES: ,~8600.00 PROFIT: ~ 1218. al ~. a! DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS: LE~PI RE FEES L~-~. SOF~n. LL ~OUR. LE~.Q.,...~MORI AL FU?fD MI ?',~;~ POLI CE ~:175.00 90.00 3o.oo CH~ EFS ASS' N. 1Z.' ~' .00 25.00 CHECKi NG ~'~CCOUNT GEi~SUS BIWLL]E TI1V A Publication of the Office of Planning & Development A-2308 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 612~348-4475 HOUSING C Few things are as basic to the quality ellife as housing. V~nere one lives uences employment possibilities, quality of educaticm available to toe' s children, and access to shopping and recreatiooal areas. In additico, the amount spent co housing, together with one' s inccr~, determines how much can be spent co other essentials such as focal, clothing, and medical care. ~his bulletin reviews housing informa- tics recorded by the 1980 census and ~examines some of the changes which occurred in the housing market as a result of a c~binaticn of dem0graph- ic, eccmcntic, and social forces. The Seventies: A Decade of Growth Hennepin County's housing stock expe- rienced remarkable growth between 1970 add 1980. The more than 365,000 occu- pied units counted in 1980 represented an increase of over 55,000 frcm 1970. Percent Change In Occupied Housing Units 1970--1980 By Municipality Percent Change in Kuntcipalft¥ Occupied Housing Units 1970- 1980 Bloomington 31.3 Brooklyn Center 17.5 Brooklyn Park 107.9 Champlin 111.7 Corcoran Z05.4 Crystal' 8.2 D~yton (part) 68.0 Deephaven .. 15.2 Eden Prairie 225.7 Edina 38.1 Excelsior 27.7 Fort Shelling Golden Valley 16.3 Greenfield 59.5 Greenwood 20.$ -Hanover (part) 128.G Hassen 110.2 Hopkins 51.3 Independence 43.3 Long Lake ~.9 Loretto 23.9 Maple Grove 315.1 V~ple Plain 43.5 Medicine Lake -43.8 Medina 31.4 Minneapolis '' 0.4 Kinnetonka 39.i Minnetonka Beach 3.3 Minnetrista 33.2 ~ound 43.7 New Hope 26.? Orono 15.9 Osseo 25.8 P13n~3uth 132.5 Richfield 3.1 Robbinsdale '7.8 Rockford (part) 166.0 Rogers 56.7 St. Anthony (part) 3.0 St. Bonifacius 49.5 St. Louis Park 12.0 Shorewood 33.5 Spring Pa~k 49.3 Tonka Bay · 15.7 Wayzata 23.8 Woodland Hennepin County Total 18.0 NOTE: All maps in this bulletin w~re produced by the Hemnepin County Bureau ' of Public Service's Mapping and Plan- Ding Syst~n in Hopkins. This 18 percent increase which OC- curred in spite of a declining popula- tion resulted from a sharp drop in average household size--from 3.02 persons in 1970 to 2.51 in 1980. If household size had remained constant the loss of population %~uld have resulted in a decline of over 6,000 units. Demographic and social forces were responsible for the increase in the number of housing units. ~fhile the number of units occupied by families remained stable during the seventies an additicnal 40,000 ode ~ersc~ house- holds were formed as members of the larqe baby bocm aeneraticm left their parental homes and established their own household~ the number of divorced people doubled, and people left the parental home sooner and married later. Although the number of housing units increased in all cities except Medicine Lake, and the special case of Fort S~elling, growth was not distrib- uted evenly throughout the County. Minneapolis and most inner-ring sub- urbs, being fully developed, experi- enced littl~ growth. Bloomingtcm, Brooklyn Park, Edina, Maple Grove, and Plymouth accounted for over half of the increase. The Locaticn of Ha~es The geographic distribution of housing is reflected primarily by the distri- bution of the County's population. Slightly over half of the County's occupied housing units and nearly half of its ~r~pulation are located in tw~ cities--Minneapolis and Bloomington-- which account for only 16 percent of the County's land area. Minneapolis alone ccntains 44 percent of all occu- pied units in less than ten percent of the County's land area. The housing density in b'~inneapolis (2,938 occupied units per square mile) is .over seven times as great as that of the remain- der of the County. Housing units occupied by renters are even .more concentrated. Nearly two- thirds of the County's rented units are in Minneapolis and Blocmingtcn. In contrast it would take 31 percent of the County's land .area (or Bloom- ington, Brooklyn Park, Edina, b~inne- apolis, Minnetcmka, Richfield, and St. Louis Park) to encompass two-thirds .of all owned units. The pattern of differing growth rates reflects a ccmplex interaction an~g a variety of factors including: the tendency for people to choose more housing services the greater their inccmes; the spatial distribution of ~mplo~t; the availability of ameni- ties such as parks and shopping; the quality of educaticm; alternative uses of land; amd governmental restricticms placed ups~ growth. 2 Percent Of Housing Units Owned By Municipality · in ~tegor3, tn ~itegory Nc)using t~ttS Champ3~ 2,1~2 80.20 2,~33 ~o~an 1,]59 ~3.24 Dayton 1,~ 93.71 l,l~l ~ep~aven 1,131 ~2.~ 1,215 [~en Prairie 4,379 81.35 5,3~ ~cels~o~ ~S3 3~.g3 1,149 Fo~ Sne111~ 0 0.~ lO ~lden Valley . 6,414 ~.43 Gr~ - 192 ~2.OS Na~ver (~rt) E2 92.~ ~ss~n 421 91.7Z 459 lnde~ndence ~95 ~.~ Long Lake 430 73.38 586 Lo~tto 81 71.~ 113 ~p]e G~ove 5,9~4 94.79 6,2~9 ~ple Plain 362 77.85 465 Hedtcine Lake 107 62.94 170 ~dia 645 84.76 761 Hin~epolts 79,650 49.22 161,858 ~inne~nkm 10,~3 8E.55 ~.667 ~lnnetonk~ ~each 169 S2.8G 182 ~lnnetris~ 893 91.~ ~74 ~u~ ~.~5 73.43 3,384 N~ ~ope 4,647 60.~3 7,~Z7 0~ 2,055 8~.70 Z,291 0ss~ 5~9 59.01 1,015 P3~ 7,7~ 74.31 Ri~fteld 10,2~ 66.19 IS.2~ .Robbtns~le 4,251 74.52 5.70S Roc~o~ (~) 203 7~.23 130 jt 224 59.~ 207 ~y (~) 2.~ g3., 1.93S ~i~icius 2~ 85.41 ~t~ts Pm~ ll,~Z 66.~ 17,669 S~r~ '. 1,3~ ~.01 1,~ Spring Pm~ 185 26.35 Tonke ~y 421 85.05 '495 gayzi~ 7~ 49.23 1,560 ~land l~ 8S.66 191 14~n~pin C~nty To~al 227,282 62.18 3E5,536 Hcrneo~ership Over three-fifths of the County's occupied housing units are occupied by hcn~owners. The 1980 homeownership rate of 62.2 percent w~s slightly higher than 1970' s 61.8 percent. That this rate increased is surprising in view of the large increase in housing prices, and the increased number of one-persc~ households and younger households which have. lower than aver- age rates of hcn~owmership. incidence of homeo~nership shows relatively little inter-city varia- tion. Owned units are in the majority 3 in all cities except Excelsior, Hop- kins, Minneapolis, Spring Park, and Wayzata, with homeownership particu- larly prevalent in the County's seccmd-ring suburbs and rural commu- nities. Although homeownership rates exhibit small geographical differemces there is substantial variation between races. White householders are home- owners tw~ times out of three while half of the Asian householders own their homes, one-third of the black householders are homeowners with the percentage dropping to ~e-fifth for American Indian householders. ' Percent Of Population In Same Residence In 1975 And 1980 By Municipality Bi~Jngton ~.Z7 77,260 aroott)m Center $3.Z1 2g,~ ~rooklTn Park 35.33 38,~84 Corcor&n &&.77 3,7~0 Cr~stel $S.8! ~ep~vefl 6~.~ 3,A82 E~en Prairie 34.]4 ~cels~or 33.01 2,37B Fo~ Shelling' 1g.73 223 ~lden valle~ 62.99 Z1,7~3 G~e~od ~.OS '613 HinoYe~ (pi~) S2.13 ~2~ Nissan 69.~ 2,60~ Hopkins 42.41 Inde~ndence 57.14 2,438 L~g L~ke 52.65 1,639 ~ple ~ve 34,~ ~8,079 ~ple Pl~tn 60.96 2,286 ~atcJne Like ~3.4~ 387 ~e~Jn~ 4~.33 Minneapolis ~.ZO 3~,~22 ~nne~nki S4.74 35,243 ~nne:~ts~a 54.5B 3,0~3 O~no S~.Tg 6,434 Oss~ 5E.7~ Pl~h 42.07 2g,290 Richfield 63.85 35,~37 Robbtns~le ~S.~ 13,611 ~kfo~ (~) ~6.82 345 Roge~ ~.59 St. ~ny (~) 74.63 S~435 St. ~tfactus 6~.~4 782 st. L~s Pa~ S7.~ ~,7S7 S~ ' . 57.~ 4,327 Spr~g .Pa~ 41.25 Tonka h7 S6.~ 1,2SZ ~la~~ ~.~8 County Total S].40 M2,733 ~.~ - ~.# [] County residents moved frequently *be*b.'=~---~ 1975 and April 1, 1980. Nearly half (48.6 percent) of the County's residents who w~re at least five years old at the time of the 1980 census lived in a different house in 1975. Cities with stable populations con- sisted primarily of the more estab- lished suburbs of Crystal, Richfield, Robbinsdale and St. Anthony (where 74.6 percent of the five and over populatic~ lived in the sa.me house they occupied in 1975) as well as small rural c~t~nities such as Hasse~ and Loretto. On the other hand just over one-third of the five and over populaticns of the fast-grcwing pities of BrcoklyD Park, Edan Prairie, Maple Grove, and Rockford had the same. residepce in 1975. 4 Single Family Homes As A Percentage Of All Housing Units By Municipality Bloc~nin$%on 21,0~0 ~ooklyn P&rk 9,2C$ Ch&mDlin Z,2B6 ¢orcor~n 1,050 Crystal 7,Z12 Bey%on 924 Oee~havefl 1,229 [xce)stor · 490 Fort Shelling · 23 Goloen Valley 6,455 Greenfield 3~9 Greer~ood 222 71.29 70.5S lC,~TE SI.SO 2,$05 84.31 1,281 79.30 9,093 78.04 1,184 97.2~ 2,253 8~.12 5.730 41.32 2,]86 84.00 E3.~4 $7.08 41! 90.~1 245 ~00.00 70 36.~7 7,248 95.08 8!3 73.37 75.2! ~7 93.0~ ~,764 8!.70 87.57 377 8~.24 77~ Kanover (part) 70 Wesson 455 Hopkins 2 I nde~endence 773 Long Like 449 Lor~tto ~;le Gmve 6,2S3 ~ple Plain 393 ~dic~ne ~teneapolts 79,173 &&.89 168,836 ~innetonka 10,936 82.74 13,217 Ktnnetofika ~each 290 97.q 195 ~innecrista :,022 98.36 1,039 atone 2,303 96.36 2,390 esse~ 642 6~.63 Pl~th 8,022 ?2.66 11,027 Richfield 10,g25 67.55 ~5,434 4,385 75.~3 6,798 (~) SZ 37.78 141 65.89 214 Sho~d 1,439 92.~ Sp~ng Pa~ 251 34.75 7SZ Ton~ hy ~ 93.U 518 ~a~ &78 52.45 1,674 Hennep(n Copnty Total ?_29,~6 60.53 37~,344 _Physical Characteristics 'l~e census ipdicates that approximate- ly three-fifths of all year-round housing units in the County were single-family homes. These include 218,000 detached units and 11,400 attached hc~es, or tc~houses. Inter- estingly, the proportion of homes composed of single-family units did not change frcm 1970 to 1980 despite ifact that families cc~stituted a ller proportion of households in 1980 than in 1970. Single-family homes constitute at least 90 rc t of the housing units in 13 fbunt ~ici-lite_ five c~ ~ns, Minneapolis, Rockford, and Spring Park--have less than half of their housing units composed of single- f~mily h~nes. 5 Percent Of Housing Units 'Built Before 1940 By Municipality Huntcil~tltty Housing Units Hc~$ing Units Housing Units Bl~ington 634 ¢~n~ltn 153 Corcor~n Z07 C~s~l 437 ~p~ven 366 ~ls~ 330 Fo~ Shelling ~lden Valley Greenfield 22S ~ssin 123 Hopkins Loret~ ~ple Plain 82 K~ictne Lake ~t~ 162 ~innea~lts g6,1~ Hinne~nk~ 999 N~nnet?ist~ Om~o 673 OssLm I89 Plymouth 373 Ri~fteld 7S2 R~:~insc~l e 1,440 Rc~or~ (~rt) . St. ~n~ (~) . 242 St. ~ifmcius S~ 322 TOnka ~ 293 ~zm~ ~dlt~ 94 2.14 29,569 2.99 E.~5 2,805 26.16 2,281 4.8). 9,~g3 11.4~ ' 1,18~ 29.21 2,253 2.4S ~,720 7.~ ~8,62g 27.82 lO0.~ 4.80 7, 27.98 39.18 245 30.~ 70 23.84 474 29,89 813 ~S.03 61~ 39.32 127 2.34 17.05 481 S6.9S 1~8.~36 7.S~ 13,217 S2.31 31.95 1,039 3~!43 .70 7.837 28.16 2,390 lB. 17 3.~ 4.87 1S,~34 24.~ ~,798 6.67 135 2S.70 7.22 33.7g 290 ~Q.66 37.2S 17,~ 1,674 The census also shows that, Cowry- wide, 29 percent of all housing units were built before 1940. C~,u~a3ities with concentrations of older homes imclude established areas such as Minneapolis (57 percent built before 1940), the Lake Minnetc~ka cities of Greenwood, Minnetonka Beach, Minne- trista, Tonka Bay, add Woodland, and the rural municipalities of Hanover, Independence, and St. Bc~ifacius. Average Value Of Owner-Occupied Non-Condominium Housing' Units By Municipality Average Value Municipality Of Owner Units Bloomington Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Champl in Corcoran Crystal Dayton Deephaven Eden Prairie Edina Excelsior Fort Shelling Golden Valley Greenfield Greenwood ~anover (part) I~.ssan Hopki ns Independence Long Lake Loretto ~ple Grove Maple Plain Hedici ne Lake Hedina Mi nneapol i s Hinnetonka Hinnetonka Beach Hinnetri sta Orono Osseo .~.lymouth ichfield · Robbt nsdal e .. Rockford (part) R~ers St. Anthony (paR) St. Bonifacius St. Louis Park Shorewood Spring Park Tonk) Bay Wayzata Woodland 77,915 59,453 68,522 6~,04g 78,562 58,866 71,105 120,063 95,149 114,025 75,352 0 86,929 71,049 125,014 61,198 65,358 70,O61 80,114 78,653 52,100 75,076 62 ,f77 101,690 87,109 56,532 92,331 161,225 112,528 118,075 59,268 95,312 62,372 58,017 60,000 60,198 75,059 57,9]3 66,71g 105,406 83,545 108,278 110,820 )67,532 Hennepin County Total 71,750 HousiD~ Prices add the Cost of Shelter O~e of the m~st outstanding features of t~e County's housing stock during the seventies was the rapid rise in the price of housing and the oost of both owner- and renter-occupied shelter. These increases w~re ~ge~- dered by a rapid rise in the demand for housing as the baby boc~ ge3era- ti~n began to form households and by increase in the supply of housing w-as unable c to keep pace with the gr~wi~ g d~nand. The median value (as reported by the occupants) of owner-occupied no, condo- minium housing units nearly tripled, rising frcm $22,000 iD 1970 to $65,700 in 1980. Despite an inflaticn rate of 113 percent betwa~n 1970 and 1980 the median value for 1980 expressed in 1970 dollars was $30,800--still 40 percent higher than the 1970 The geographic distribution of the average value of owner-occupied homes. exhibits a definite pattern. ~%th the- Median Owner Costs For Mortgaged Housing Units By Municipality Hunicipality Fedian Owner Costs Bloomington 420 Brooklyn Center 338 Brooklyn Park 436 Cham~lin 399 Corcoran 505 Crystal 332 Dayton 42! Daephaven 565 Eden Prairie 579 Edina 527 Excelsior 427 Fort Shelling 0 Golden Valley 464 Greenfield 477 Greenwood 586 Hanover (p~rt) 404 Hassan 418 Hopkins 398 Independence 467 Long Lake 482 Loretto 433 ~ple Grove 499 ~ple Plain 417 ~edi¢ine Lake 409 Hedina 46! Hinneapolts 355 Mtnnetonka 500 Ninnetonka Beach 678 Minnetrista 557 ..~n4 448 New Hope ~ Orono 609 Osseo 346 Ply~uth 546 Richfield .. 34! Robbinsdale 347 Rockford (part). 463 Roger~ 428 St. Anthony (part) 418 St. Bontfactus 419 St. L~ts Pmrk 376 Shorewood 522 Spring Park 489 Tonka Bay 502 Wayzata 51¢ Woodland 7S! )~ennepin County Total 411 excepticn of Ed~ Pr~rie, Edina, and Plym~Wch, all O~ty ~icipalities i~ the top quartile border Lake Minne- tc~ka, attesting to the attractiveness of the area's physical amenities and its desirability as a housing site. The census indicates that the 1980 m~dian n~Dthly housing costs for all owners in the County with a m~rtgage was $411 while for owners with no mortgage the median was $147. The impact of rising house prices and mortgage interest rates during the late seventies is reflected in the difference in average mc~thly shelter costs for the owners with mortgages (49 percent of all o~ners with mDrt- gages) who purct~ed their hcmes after 1974 ($547) and those owners with mortgages (19 percent of all owners with mortgages) who purchased their homes during the first half of the decade ($415). As with average house prices, median mc~thly shelter costs for owners with a n~rtgage were high in many of the cities cn or near Take Minnetonka and in the growing communities of Eden Prairie, Plymouth and Edina. 8 Median Gross Rent. By Municipality Kunictpality Median Gmss Rent )ton Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Champlin . Corcormn Crystal Dayton Deephaven Eden Prairie Edina Excelsior Fort Shelling Golden Va¥1ey Greenfi el d Greenwood Hanover (part) Hassan Hopkins Inde~ndence Long Lake Loretto Maple Gmve bple Plain Medicine Lake ~dtna Minneapolis Minnetonka Minnetonkm 8each Minnetrista New Hope O~no Oss~ Pl~uth Richfield Robbinsdale .~tc. kford (part) e~nthony (part) St. Bonifaciu$ St. Louis Park Shore~ood Spring Park Tonka Bay ~yzata ~oodland' 319 277 272 287 2.39 Z78 ZT1 354 353 3.05 45O 287 245 350 0 258 26g 498 238 334 227 346 281 382 281 354 260 323 255 270 213 226 381 266 287 449 298 443 312 269 flennepin County Total 254 The seventies brought price increases to the County's renters as well. The 1980 median gross rent (rent plus utilities) of $254 w~s 88 percent higher than the 1970 m~dian of $135. However, a renter paying the 1980 median gross rent was actually spe~d- ing less, in real terms, than his counterpart in 1970. The 1980 median expressed in 1970 dollars was $119-- 11.8 percent below the 1970 w~lue. the geographic pattern of median gross rent should be similar to the pattern evidenced by the m~an value of g o%~er-occupied hcmes is not surprising since owner-occupied homes and rental units are o3!3etitors for residential LaDd. Thus, communities with rela- tively high rents are cc~centrated 03 or near Lake Minnetcnk~. There is 03e appreciable difference between the patterns, however. The first-ring suburbs of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Hop~/ns, R~bbinsdale, St. A~thcny, and- St. Louis Park all rank higher an~Dg cities on the basis of median gross r~nt than on the basis of average home val~e. Households By Household Income, Percent Of Income Used For Housing Costs, And Renter/Owner Status NUMbER/PERCENT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY HOUSEHOLDS BY TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME, PERCENTAGE OF INCOME USED FOR GROSS RENT/MONTHLY OWNER COST,1 AND RENTER/OWNER STATUS GROSS RENT 1980 ~ MONTHLY OWNER COSTS 1980 ~ Ltss Than - less than 24 percent 4,465 18.2 453 6.1 - 25 to 34 percent 2,498 10.2 1,393 18.8 - 35 percent ormore 17,533 71.6 5581 75.1 2~,4~6 lO'O.d ~ ~00.0 $5,000 to $9,999 - less than 24 percent 4,874 16.1 7,292 50.3 - 2S to 34 percent 8,390 27.7 2,718 18.7 - 35 percent or more 16 g78 56.2 4.488 31.0 $10,000 to $14,999 - less than 24 percent 13,476. 46.3 10,422 60.9 - 25 to 34 percent 11,102 38.2 3,279 19.2 - 35 percent or more 4j508 15.5 3,412 19.9 ~ ~ ol~6V.o $15.000 to $19,999 - less than 24 percent 16,202 78.0 14,400 65.1 - 2S to 34 percent 3,789 18.3 5,096 22.9 - 35 percent or more 769 3.7 2,670 12.0 $20,000 or More - less than 24 percent 27,419 94.5 119,417 88.2 o 25 to 34 percent 1,525 5.3 13,220 9.8 - 35 percent or more "~ ~.02 ~ 00~.~ All Households 133,609 "' 22.5 "' 196,706 13.1 lGross rent is the s~n of contract rent and utility costs. Monthly owner cost is the su~ of payments for real estate taxes, property insurance, utilities, and regular mortgage payments. Condominium units are excluded from this table. Source: Bureau of the Census. The 1979 average income of was $29,900--more than double the renters' average of $14,000. While homeowners spent approximately 13 percent of their inccmes ~ selected owner costs consisting of mortgage payments, utilities, property taxes, and home insurance, renters paid a significantly higher proportion of their incones--about 22 percent--for re~t and utilities. 10 Mortgage And Other Regular Owner Costs As A Percentage Of Income By Municipality O*mers~ COS:$ as Municipality a Percent of Household Income Bloomington 13.39 Brooklyn Center 12.38 Brooklyn Park 36.25 Ch~mplin 15.42 Corcoran 14.37 Crystal 12.94 Dayton 12.64 Deephaven 12.20 Eden Prairie 16.08 Edina 10.72 Excelsior 12.78 Fort Shelling 0.00 Golden Valley 12.42 Greenfield 13.23 Greenwood ]4.32 Hanover (part) 17.4~ ~ssan 11.40 Hopkins 12.24 Independence 10.31 Long Lake 15.5! Loretto 15.90 ~ple Grove 17.84 Faple Plain 15.66 Hedicine Lake 10.19 Medina 7.90 Minneapolis 12.$0 Minnetonka 14.04 Minnetonka Beach 13.23 Hinnetrista 14.78 Hound )7.42 ~-e~'-Hope-- 13.65 Oron0 12.46 Osseo 9.19 Plymouth '. 15.46 Richfield . 12.20 Robbinsdale 12.46 Rockford (part) 9.49 Rogers 15.01 St. Anthony (part) 10.49 St. Bonifactus 14.30 St. Louis Park 11.81 · Sho.rewood 12.35 Spring Park 19.23 Tonka Bay 16.76 Wayzata . 10.30 Woodland 12.17 liennepin County Total 13.06 The overall proportion of household inccme spent c~ shelter by all owners conceals substantial differences in the percentages spent at different levels of income. Ama~g hcmeo~ners, 9.6 percent used over 35 percent of their income for shelter costs. For homeowners with 1979 incomes under 00 (almost 20 percent of all w~ers) over one-third spent in excess of 35 percent of t]aeir inocme cn shelter. These households, con- ~ining many young families add senior citizens, are vulnerable because they have little flexibility in their bud- gets. For families beginning to establish themselves the probl~n is usually a t~porary one relieved by' rising iDccmes. Senior ci%izen .hcme- · owDers however have little hope of relief as they often have fixed· incomes. 11 Rent And Utilities As A Percentage Of Household Income By Municipality Gross Rent as Kuntcipality a Percent of Household Income Bloomington 21.78 Brooklyn Center 22.27 Brooklyn Park 21.75 Chan~olin 22.45 Corcoran 11.05 Crystal 20.25 I~yton 13.50 Deephaven 24.89 Eden Prairie 20.74 Edina 22.38 Excelsior 22.67 Fort 5nelltng 6.11 Golden Valley 18.92 Greenfield 14.30 Greenwood 17.78 Hanover (part) 0.00 Hassan 10.07 Hopkins 21.B8 )ndependence 6.43 Long Lake 23.69 Loretto 17.73 ~aple Grove 18.50 Hapte Plain 16.59 ~edicine Lake )5.23 ½edtna 16.89 Hinneapolis 23.16 Ninnetonka 20.20 Minnetonka Beach 20.03 Minnetrtsta 8.35 N~P~pe ..___ 22.31 24.00 Orono 15.56 Osseo 21.09 Plymouth ' ' 21.42 Richfield .. 22.24 Robbinsdale ' 23.61 Rockford (part) 31.37 Rogers 16.65 St. Anthony (part) 15.41 St. Bonifacius 22.36 St. Louis Park 23.55 Shorewood 18.95 Spring Park 22.29 Tonka Bay 21.87 Wayzata .. 19.71 Woodland 4.93 Hannepin County Total 22.47 The situation for renters Ks ~3rse. Almost 30 percent of renters s~ent more than 35 percent of their 1979 inccme c~ shelter. Nearly half of the householders with incomes under $15,000 who rented (62.7 percent of all households re, ting) spent over 35 percent of their income for rent and utilities. In the face of rapidly rising rents and house prices many renters could not afford traditional housing financed by cc~ventic~al methods dur- ing the seventies. Their chances of owning a home in the future will depend ulxan a number of factors including economic conditions, the development of alternative financing, and the respc~siveness of the housing market to the need for new typ..es of housing. 12 Owner costs accounted for relatively high percentages of owners' incomes in the fast-growing cities of Brooklyn Eden Prairie, Maple Grove and uth which saw a large in'- migratic~ of young families during the seventies. Other municipalities in the top quartile cc~sisted of the Lake Minnetonka cities of Mound, Spring Park ( 19.2 perce~t) add Tonka Bay add several small rural communities. Minneapolis, the nearby suburbs of Edina, New Hope, Robbinsdale, and St. Louis Park, the Lake Minnetcnka munic- ipalities of Deephave~ (24.9 percent) add Excelsior and the rural communi- ties of Champlin, Hanover, and St. Bonifacius cc~tained households where gross rent accounted for a high pro- porticn of renters' incomes. The Future The eighties promise to be a chal- lenging decade for the housing market. · In The Baby Boom Generation and the LoBrOokiDgs In stitutio~ senior uise B. Russell calcu, lates '~t baby-boc~ inspired housing demand will mean t~at, at the naticnal level, even m~re additions to the housing stock will be necessary in the eigh- ties than in the seventies. At ~he County level it is expected that major residential growth will occur, in c~tt,unities with large tracts of vacant land with access to sewer service. The major new residential growth centers will be the communities of Brooklyn Park, Maple Grove, Ply- mouth, and Eden Prairie where a total addition of 18,000 housing units is anticipated. CONTENTS 1. Population Trends - 1960-1980. 2.. -Population By Age -- 1980 Census Labor Pdol & Income-Data Distribution of Population by Household ':'~'~ ~:. Distribution of. Households By Type Type .Distribution of.Households bY.Type.- % Size of Housing'Units'- Averages '6. Density '(PoPulation ; Square Miles) 7. Population By Sex Housing Units '- Occupancy POPULATION TRENDS 1960-1980 Mtka Beach M|nnetrlsta Mound Orono. Tonka Bay Sprlng Park 'POPULATION 1960 1970 544 586 2,211 2,878 5,.440 7,572 5,643' 6,787 ],204 1,397 668~.' 1,087 15,710 · 20,307. CHANGES. 1980 70-80 60-80 575 3,236 9,280 6,845 1,354 1,465 22,755 60-70 42' .g67'... 2,132... 1,144~ ~193. 419- 4,597 117 · 358 1,7o8 58' 43 378 2,448 31 1,025 3,84O 1,2o~ 15o 797 6,745 % OF CHANGE '60-70:70-80 8. 2 '30 12 '39' 23 20 :1 16 3 · 63,, 35 29 -11 60-8~ 5 71 21 12 119 43 Independence Long Lake Maple Plain ;t~ Boni 1,446 i,993 996 1,506 754 '1,165. 576 685: 19,482.. 25,660. 2,640 '. 1,7471 1,421 857' 29,420 547'. 510 41'5 109. -' 6,178:. · 647 421- 252 "172 3,760 1,194 .751 667 281 9,638 38 · 51'. :55 ' 1.._~.9 32 '32 16 22 25 13' 83' 7'5 88 49 45. POPULATION. -REGROUPED Orono & Minnetrista 7,854 9,665. 10,08'I Others 7,856 10,642 12,674. 15,170 20,307 22,755 1,811 2,786 4,597 416' 1,732 2,148 2,227 4,518 6,745 23 35. 29 4 28 58' 43 Independence 1,446 1,593 Others 2,326 3,360 Hennepin County 19,482 25,660 ~42,854 96o,08o. 2,640 4,025 29,420. 541,411 547 1 ;O34" 6,178 647 '665 .3,460' 1,194 1,659 '9,638 38' 14 32 · 527, 83 12 1,0 ",,,I O0 0000 C) O00 0 00000 0 CDO000 o I--,~ -- '-,4 o ~ [~uo~u o-,o . LABOR POOL &'INCOME Mtka Beach Minnetrista Mound Orono Tonka Bay Spring Park Noninstitution~l Persons 16-64 Total Di sabl ed 375 3.5 2,167 5.9' 6'216 6.6 4,601 3.7 942 6.6 977 7.7 15,278 Persons over.16 In Labor Force Per Capita Income Mediam Income in 1979 dollars % Unem- Total p1 osed 1979 House Family 310 2.3 19,115 42,128 45,736 1,731 2.5 10,303 28,144 29,356 .5.,653 3.l 8,469 21,548 23,.500 3,926 3.4 15,378 30,736 35,223 818 4'.9 ll ,553 26,6'38 30,136 924 4.7 9,369 16,723 20,273 13,362 11,320 ~ Independence NA Long .Lake 1,141 6.1 Maple P1 ai n 842 5.1 St. Boni 517 6.0 1,055 2.4 790 3,9 457 2.6 9,761 22,15l 26,500 7,857 23,191 24,561 7,242 21,394 24 Hennepin County 3 Total 1980 .Population .;.~-~.'.~ Mtka Beach : 575 Minnetrista 3,236 Mound 9,280 Orono 6,845 Tonka Bay 1,354 Spring Park '1,465 22,755 I~de~endence 2,640 Long Lake 1,747 Maple Plain 1,421 St. Boni 857 29,420 Mtka Beach Minnetrista Mound Orono Tonka Bay Spring Park DISTRIBUTION OF'POPULATION'BY'HOUSEHOLD TYPE Living alone 25 4 75 2 669 7 307 4 81 6 278 19. 1,435 6 Family Uni ts ~ % 537 93 3,046 94 8,020 86 6,188 90 1,192 88 904 62 19,887. 88 Other 84 3 108 6 71 5 43 5 i ,741. 6 2,472 1,223 774 25',857 94 86 86 90 88 DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE # % 13 3 115 .4 591, '7 350 6 81 6 283 .19 ,.433 6 Total Households 1970 1980 181 187 731 974 2.,355 3,384 1,976 2,291 428 495 458 684 6,129 8.015 6 243 1,029 ' 315 67 226 l, 886 84 3 138 8 127 9 40 5 1,822 ~ One person .... ~iFamily Two or more HOusehold., ~, Household ·non-family 25 158 4 7~ 865 ~.'~ 34 669 2,498 '307 1,867 '~Tl17 81' 383 :' 31 278 339 "' 67 1,435 6,110 470 Independence 532 789 Long Lake 422 586 Maple Plain 324 465 St. Boni 188 281 7,595 10~136 257 84 683 22 164 108 449 29 141 71 374 20 93 43 224 14 2,541 1,741 7,840 555 4 DISTRIBUTION.OF:HOUSEHOLD' MTKA BEACH MINNETRISTA MOUND ORONO TONKA BAY" SPRING PARK Total 'Households % 1970-1980 8..3% 33.2 % 43.7 % 15.g % 15.7 %. 49.3 % 3O.8 % 1 person Family Household Households 8 % 2O % 30 % .16 % '"41' % 18 % 84 89 % 74 % 81% 77 % '5O .% - 76 % ~o or more persons - Non-Family. 3% 6% 6% 7% 9% 6% INDEPENDENCE LONG LAKE MAPLE PLAIN ST. BONI Hennepin Cobnty MTKA BEACH MINNETRISTA MOUND ORONO TONKA BAY SPRING PARK 43.8 % 38.9 % 43.5 % 49.5 % 33.5 % 18.0 11% 18' % 15 % 15'% · ~7. % ·..28: 87 % 77 % 80 % 80 % 77 % ;'.64: SIZE OF HOUSING'UNITS'- AVERAGES (Population -~--Units) Total .. Average One Person Population House Units 575 3.07 1.O0 3,236 3.32 1.00 9,280 2,74 1.O0 6,845 2.99 1, O0 1,354 2.74 1.00 1 ~465, . .~.~ 14 1.00 22,755 2,84 1.00 Family Households 3.40 3.52 3.2l 3.3i '3.11 2.67 3.25 2% 8 Ot)~er 'Units 3.25 3.38 2.72 2.99 2.61 4.22 3.05 DENSITY (Population ~ Square Miles) AREA: DENSITY (Sq. Mi) 1960 1970 1980 MTKA BEACH .5 1,088 1,172 1,150 MINNETRISTA 25.5 86 112 126 MOUND 3.0 1,813 2,524 3,093 ORONO 17.6 312 386 389 TONKA BAY 1.0 1,204 1,397 1,354 SPRING PARK .4 1,670 2,716 .3,66~ Average 48.0 327 423 468 '60-70 8 3O 39 20 16 63 29 % of CHANGE '70-80 '(2). 12 23 (3) 35 ' 60-80 5 46 21 12 119 43 INDEPENDENCE LONG LAKE MAPLE PLAIN ST. BONI Ave. rage MINNETRISTA OTHERS INDEPENDENCE OTHERS - Average HENNEPIN COUNTY TOTALS: 33.2 .7 l.l 1.0 84.0 43.1 ~.9 33.2 2.8 84.0 559 44 1,423 686 576 232 182 1,603 44 831 232 1,507 '60 2,151 1,063 685 305 224 2,172 60 l, 200 3O5 1,717 80 2,496 1,292 857 347 234 2,525 80 1,438. 347 1,683 38 51 55, 19 32 23 35 38. 44 32 14 32 16 22- 25 13 4 16 32 2O 13 27 83 75 88 49 49 29 58 83 73 49 12 POPULATION'BY:SEX MALE FEMALE TOTAL MINNETRISTA 1,678 1,558 (Rural 1,254) MOUND 4,700 4,580 ORONO 3,492 3,353 SPRING PARK 708 757 TOTAL 10,578 ..10,248 3,236 9,280 6,845 "1;465 ..20,826 "HOUSING'UNITS MINNETRISTA- .(Rural 400) MOUND ORONO SPRING PARK TOTAL 'Year Around Occupie~ 974 3,384 2,291 684 7,333 Vacant ..52 147 102 48 349 "sea~oh~l'". Units 56 38 80 · 24 198 ·.'.Total 1,082 3,569 2,473 756 7,880 7 league of minnesota oities August 3, 1983 TO: FROM: RE: Clerks, Metropolitan Area Cities Ann Higgins, Staff Associate Metro Area Regional meeting Arrangements have now been completed for the location of a meeting for metropolitan area cities on Thursday, September 29, in Bloomington, at the Radisson South Hotel. Please be advised that cities in Anoka, Dakota, Carver, and Scott counties also have the option of attending a regional meeting at an alternate nearby site that may be more convenient, and have received earlier invitations to such meetings. Enclosed please find a postcard on which your city may indicate the number of officials who wish to make dinner reservations. Your city will be responsible for the cost of each of the reservations unless notice of cancellation is received at LMC by September 26. Cost of dinner is $12.00. A social hour will precede dinner. Dinner is at 6:30 p.m., and will be held in Atrium III. The social hour will be held in the Garden Court (adjacent to swimming pool on the street level), from 5:30 - 6:30 p.m. (cash bar). AH:rmm (OVER) 18:3universiCyavenueeasC, sC. paul, minnesoCa55101 (61 2) 227-5600 1983 LMC/AMM REGIONAL MEETING Radisson South Hotel, Bloomington .September 29, 1983 AGENDA 2:30-5:00 p.m. Atrium IV (second level) 5:30-6:30 p.m. 6:30-7:30 p.m. Atr.ium III (second level) 7:30-9:30 p.m. 7:30-7:40 7:40-7:55 8:00-8:10 8:15-8:30 8:40-8:50 8:55.9:15 9:15-9:30 II. Ill. Round-table discussion on Local Econotnic Development Activities A. Programs to Aid Small Business - Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development Practical Applications to Local Approaches Be Metropolitan Economic Development Programs '. Presentations by: Carl Ohrn, Director, Comprehensive Planning, Metrop.olitan Council; William Byere, Fiscal Planner, Metropolitan Council Discussion: Practical Assistance for Cities Ce Metropolitan Family Housing Program Presentations by: Nancy Reeves, Housing Director, Metropolitan Council; Sherri Buss, Housing Planner, Metropolitan Council Discussion: Can this metro-wide program be tailored to local needs? Social Hour -Cash Bar Garden Court (adjacent to swimming pool) - street level Dinner (reservations required - see invitation from League. City responsible for payment of dinner reservations for city officials). IV. Evening Program - Atrium I!1 A. Welcome from Host'City M~yor - Presentation by Host City concerning local economic development activities. B. Greetings from LMC Board of Directors At least one member of the LMC Board of Directors will be present. C. LMC Presentation/Slide Show D. Presentation on Minnesota Tax Commission E. Presentation/Slide Show by Minnesota Women in City Government F. LMC/AMM Staff Question and Answer Period City officials get an opportunity to quiz LMC/AMM staff on local con- cerns, legislative outcomes, etc. G. Closing Remarks/Door Prize Presentations AH:tram ~NV'I±~Od OOZ9 qqYH A±ID ~q3I~HDI~ '~A]~ ~NOI3NNIN O09b[ ]]¥H AiID '~NO1]NN~W NOS~5~IVHD 'W'~ OO:Z £86i 'b~ IS~9~V 'AV~S~N~3M 'W'~ ~861 '£Z iS~9~V %¥CS3~1 '::gq~IGHH:D$ dN3il¥ Ol 3N0213~ 3~V 'NVg~ S'3DIA~3S HZg¥3H ~IINnWNOD ~=~ 3HI NO ANOWII$3i 3AI9 ~' 'AIIN~NWOD 3HI'NI'S3DI'A~3S HigV3H-A-i]N~NNO9 1~0~¥ $N01153~ NSV ~ '$3DIA~35 HIq¥3H AIIN~wwoD NO NoIi¥1N3S3~ 3~I~S V 335 ~ :Ol AilN~i~OddO NV 3AYH ]]tM SgNII33N 9l]~d 3HI 9NION3££V SNOS~Bd 'C]3I~HDI~ ONV 'SI]OdV3NNIN 'VNIC3 =gNiWO0]~ ~0 SBI±IO 3H± CNV qZ~iINWO] A~OSiACV SBDIA~3S H±]VBH A±IN~N k8 d3~OSNOdS 3~V SgNtI33W 3H± 'NV'ld 3H± SSQOSIC GNV iN3S3~d Ol N33~ 3AVH SgNI±33W ~NV ±N3NWO3 DI%Q~ ~0~ C3~V~3~ N33Z SVH NV-I~ .'ZiN~OD NIdBNN3H NI 'SWV390~d HIqV3H'90 AI3I~VA V ~0~ 9NIdN~ dN¥ S33IA~% S%I~2S3C NV-Id 3H± 'S3DIA~3S H±qV3N A±.iN~WWOD ~B-bB6T ~0~ NV'I~ V ~0 ±N3N~O]3A3C 3H± 9NI±VNI~OOD SI A±N~OD NI~3NN3H .NEPIN L COMMUNITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 4th Floor, McGill Building 501 Park Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 5.541.5 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 5, 1983 Citizens, Representatives of Organizations and Community Agencies and Other Interested Parties Sue Zuidema, Acting Director, H~nnepin County Community Health DepartmentX~ ..~ 1984-85 Hennepin County Community Health Services Plan - Public Meetings The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners invites citizens and representatives of organizations and community agencies to participate in public meetings on the 1984-85 Hennepin County Community Health Services Plan.' The plan includes the community health services to be offered by Hennepin County, Bloomington, Edina, Minneapolis, and Richfield in 1-984 and 1985. A summary of it is enclosed. The public meetings will be held on August 23 and 24. The meeting schedule is: Time Location August 23 7:00 P.M. Minnetonka City Hall Council Chambers 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard August 24 7:00 P.M. Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue South Following a slide show about community health services in Hennepin County and a question-answer period, testimony will be taken from' individuals and representatives of organizafions or community agencies on the Plan. Guide- lines for testimony and a list of locations at which the complete 1984-85 Hennepin County Community Health Services Plan is available for review are enclosed. If you wish to present testimony or have any questions about the Plan or the public meetings, please contact Lisa M. Roche, Health Planner, at 348-5239. HENNEPIN COUNTY an ~qual opportunity employer GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE 1984-85 HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES PLAN The Public Meetings are set for: August 23, 1983 7:00 P.M. Minnetonka City Hall 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard August 24, 1983 7:00 P.M. Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue South All persons who wish to testify are requested to notify the Hennepin County Community Health Department Office by telephone or mail in advance of the meeting. Call or write to Lisa M. Roch~ at the Community Health Department, 501 Park Avenue, 4th Floor - McGill Building, Minneapolis, MN. 55415, 348-5239. Please indicate at which public meeting testimony will be given. Testimony will be scheduled according to the chronological order of notification/registration received. Those interested in giving ~estimony may also register at the public meetings. All persons will be requested to state, at the beginning of their testimony, their name and address and, if applicable, the name and address of the agency or group repre'sented. Persons presenting individual viewpoints are encouraged to limit their comments to five minutes. Persons representing an organization or agency are encouraged to limit their comments to 10 minutes. Where possible, efforts should be made to coordinate testimony in order to avoid repetition and duplicative remarks. A written copy of testimony is requested from individuals representing an organization or community agency. Hennepin County Community Health Depa~ment August, 1983 LOCATIONS WHEPJE THE COMPLETE 1984-85 HENNEPIN COUNTY'COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES PLAN IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW: Minneapolis Public Library 300 Ni¢ollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 Hennepig County Government Board of Commissioners A-2400 Government Center 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 Community Health Department 4th Floor, McGill Building 501 Park Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Minnetonka Public Library 17507 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, MN Hennepin County Community Health Department August, 1983 70 REQUEST FORM HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT NAME TITLE AGENCY OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS Street City State Z'ip GUIDELINES FOR DISTRIBUTION All documents are available without charge in limited quantities. Please check the item(s) you wish to receive and mai the request form to: Hennepin County Community Health Department/ 4th Floor McGill Building, 501 Park Avenue South/Minneapolis, MN 55415. PLANNING/REFERENCE MATERIALS Hennepin County 1983 Public Opinion Poll Results Hennepin County Community Health Services Resource Inventory Demographic and Community Health Status Data for Hennepin County 1982 Hennepin County Community Health Services Summary Annual Report INFORMATION ON COMMUNITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS AND SERVICES Community Health Department Services Guide Environmental Health Services within Hennepin County Child Health, Prenatal and Family Planning Clinics Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS The Community Health Department maintains a file of printed materials on various health topics for use in educational and counseling programs. Please contact the Community Health Department if you would like a detailed list of available information. Hennepin County Park Reserve District 3800 County Road 24 · Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359 · Telephone 612-473-4693 PARK RESERVES BAKER CARVER CROW'HAS,SAN ELM CREEK HY1..A,ND LAKE LAKE REBECCA MURPHY-HAM~EHAN REGIONAL PARKS BRYANT LAKE CLEARY LAKE COON RAP1DS DAM FISH LAKE JAMES W. WlLKIE LAKE SARAH MEDICINE LAKE SPRING LAKE SPECIAL USE AREAS ARTHUR E ALLEN WILDLIFE SANCTUARY BAKER PARK GOLF COURSE CLEARY LAKE GOLF COURSE HYLAND HILLS SKI AREA NOERENBERG MEMORIAL PARK WAWATASSO ISLAND G~ CHASE ISLAND IL CORRIDORS NORTH HENNEPtN TRAIL BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CHAIR BLOOMINGTON WILUAM L HOLBROOK VICE CHAIR MINNEAPOLIS PATRIC~A D. BAKER MINNEAPOLIS SHIRLEY ~.. BONINE MAPLE Pt. AIN WtLUAM H. BOYNTON MINNETONKA DAVID LAT~/AAHO GOLDEN VALLEY SCOT'r L. NEIMAN MINNEAPOLIS CUFTON E, FRENCH SUPERINTENDENT & SECRETARY TO THE BOARD August 8, 1983 Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Elam: The Board of the Hennepin County Park Reserve District is considering several possible actions relating to funding of regional park operations in Hennepin County. The action the Board ultimately takes may well have a dramatic effect on delivery of regional park services in the county, and perhaps the entire metropolitan area. The action may also affect county-wide tax levies. Because of the importance of this issue and potential impact of any action the Board may take, the Board is seeking public input into its decision-making process through a series of seven public fore, is. The dates and locations of these forums are listed on page one of the attached "issue Statement." Your oral or written participation in these public forums is critical. The Board wants to hear, from as many different constituencies as possible, perspectives on the funding and delivery of regional park services. Thanks to the foresight of early metropolitan de~ision-makers, parks and recreation opportunities have played an important role in the vitality of the Twin Cities, and specifically Hennepin County. The decisions now being weighed by the]Board of the Hennepin County Park Reserve District could well have impact of that same magnitude of importance. For this reason, we value your participation in the public forums. Sincerely, ~._~)Judith Anderson, Chair Board of Corm].ss'toners JA:rr ISSUE STATEMENT FOR PUBLIC FORUMS ON FUNDING OF REGIONAL PARKS IN HENNEPIN COUNTY September, 1983 Hennepin County Park Reserve District Hennepin County Park Reserve District Board.of Commissioners Judith $. Anderson Chair Bloomington William I. Holbrook Vice Chair Minneapol is Patricia D. Baker Minneapol is Shirley A. Bonine Maple Plain William H. Boynton Mi nnetonka David Latvaaho Golden Valley Scott L. Neiman Minneapol is Clifton E. French Superintendent & Secretary to the Board Public forum purpose, dates. & locations The Board of the Hennepin C'ounty Park Reserve District is considering several alternative actions in response to requests from the Minneapolis Park and Recrea- tion Board that the District provide operating funds for regional park facilities operated by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. The Board is seeking comment on the public policy issues relating to this proposal, and invites oral and written participation in a series of seven public forums on this topic: Tuesday, September 6 Lynnhurst Community Recreation Center 1345 West Minnehaha Parkway, Minneapolis Wednesday, September 7 Hyland Hills Ski Chalet 8800 Chalet Road, Bloomington Thursday, September 8 Minnetonka City Hall Community Room 146OO Minnetonka Blvd., Minnetonka Monday, September 12 Nokomis Community Recreation Center 2401 East Minnehaha Parkway, Minneapolis Tuesday, September 13 Plymouth City Council Chambers 3400 Plymouth Blvd., Plymouth Wednesday, September 14 New Hope City Council Chambers 4401 Xylon Ave. North, New Hope Monday, September ALL PUBLIC FORUMS BEGIN AT 7:30 P.M. Lc. gan Community Recreation Center Broadway and Monroe Sts., N. E. Minneapolis Summary of the issues The Board of Commissioners of the Hennepin County Park Reserve District has scheduled this series of public foCum$ to seek public comment on a number of issues relating to the funding and operation of regional parks in Hennepin County. In 1~74, the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission designated various parks in the Twin Cities metropolitan area as "regional" parks intended to serve the recreation needs of people throughout the metropolitan area. t~any of these regional facilities are located in Hennepin County. In addition, the Metropolitan Council designated each county in the metro- politan area and several municipalities as implementing agencies to carry.out the management responsibilities of the designated regional parks. Within Hendepin County, the Park Reserve District, the City of Bloomington and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board are designated implementing agencies for the reg.ional park system. Each implementing agency has accepted capital 'funding for the acquisition and development of regional parks under its jurisdiction. Each implementing agency is responsible for providing operating funds for its regional parks. The primary source of operating funds 'for the Hennepin County Park Reserve District is a county-wide tax levy. The City of Bloomington and thb Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board rely on city-wide tax levies within their respective cities as the primary source of their operating funds. Use patterns of these regional parks reflects their regional designation, and significant percentages of users of the regional facilities in Hennepin County come from outside the political jurisdiction in which those facilities are located. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board specifically has raised two issues with the Hennepin County Park Reserve District Board of Commissioners. First, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board reports that heavy peak-time use of some of the regional facilities within its system by non-residents of Minneapolis contributes significantly to over-use of those facilities, bringing with it deterioration of the park resources and high operational expenses. Second, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board has expressed concern over what it describes as a tax inequity resulting from Minneapolis residents' tax support of regional parks in the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board system and the Hennepin County Park Reserve District system. Specifically, the Board is seeking public comment on four questions: Are there sufficient and appropriate regional park facilities, operating or planned, to serve the recreation needs of the citizens of Hennepin County? 2. Is there fairness in the current taxing structure that provides opera- ting, funds for regional parks in Hennepin County? 3. If not, how should the current taxing structure be changed? 2 ~.lhat other methods should the Board consider to finance regional parks in Hennepin County more appropriately? Public forum procedures Registration: Persons wishing to speak at one of these forums are asked to register by phone prior to the hearing, by calling 473-4693, and asking for the Superinten- dent's Office. Registration will be open at the beginning of each forum, at the entrance to the meeting room, and may be closed by the presiding officer when all attendees have had an opportunity to register. Written Statements: Written statements will be accepted into the record in addition to or instead of oral statements. Written statements may be presented at one of the public forums or be mailed to: Superintendent's Office, Hennepin County Park Reserve District, 3800 County Road 24, Maple Plain MN 55359. To be included in the hearing record, statements must be received no later than noon September.23, 1983. Forum Procedures:. 1. Each forum will be chaired by a member of the Board of Commissioners Of the Hennepin County Park Reserve District. 2. Individuals will be called to speak at the forum in the order in which they hav~ registered. 3. Individuals are asked to limit their remarks to five minutes. Representatives of groups are asked to limit their remarks to ten minutes. 4. Speakers should state their name, address and the organization they represent, ' if any, at the beginning of each presentation. 5. Proceedings of the public forums will be recorded on audio tape and made avail- able .for public review following the conclusion of the forums. The questioning of speakers by Commissioners and by members of the audience will be permitted on approval of the presiding Officer. Questions and answers should be kept brief. The presiding officer wi.ll not permit questioning to infringe on the opportunity of individuals to make a statement at the forum. 7. The forum may be recessed to another time and date if necessary to allow for a full and fair airing of all points of view. 3 Background What is the regional park system in Hennepin County? Within the scope of the 1974 Metropolitan Parks Act, the Metropolitan Council designated park facilities operated by the City of Bloomington, the Hennepin County Park Reserve District and the Minneapolis Park and'Recreation Board as components of the Regional Recreation Open Space System. In making this designation, the Metropolitan Council selected public areas which, because of the character and development of their natural environment, offer recreational opportunities that attract large numbers of people from the metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Council has the responsibility of developing an overall plan for.the Regional Park System. And, it obtains funds through bond sales or from~ the State Legislature to buy and develop parklands. The Council then grants acquisition and development funds to the counties, cities and special park districts which are designated as "implemetning agencies," th buy parkland and develop park. facilities according to their Council-approved master plan. To date, the Metropolitan Council has approved the sale of approximately $120 million of bonds for acquisition and development grants for the regional park sytem in the metropolitan area. It is the responsibility of each implementing agency to carry out the plans developed and approved by the Council. Each implementing agency is also responsi- ble for funding the operation and maintenance of the regional facilities within its jurisdiction. The Hennepin County Park Reserve District's primary source of operating funds is from a park tax levy on property within Hennepin County, under a mill rate ceiling set by the legislature. Annually, the District submits an operating budget to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners for approval and levy of necessary taxes. Currently, the District's mill rate ceiling is 1 mill. In 1983, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners approved a .666 mill tax rate, producing a tax levy of $4,942,637 for the Hennepin County Park Reserve District. The primary source of operating funds for the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board is from several tax levies on property within the City of Minneapolis, each with separate ceilings. Annually, the proposed tax levy is submitted to the City of Minneapolis Board of Estimate and Taxation for final approval and setting of the mill rate and tax levy. In 1983, the Board of Estimate and Taxation approved a total mill rate of 4.359 mills, yielding a tax levy of $11,O40,O28. Of this total, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board estimates that $4,676,891 is budgeted for the maintenance and operation of regional parks within its system. 4 User origin Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board Minneapolis 56% First tier suburbs 16% 15% N3n- Other metro Hennepin County Park Reserve District First tier suburbs 12% 10% Bloomington Mpls. Non- 9% metro 38% Other Henn. Co. 24% Other metro Source: 1982 Metro Council Summer Use Study Data Use patterns very from season to season, therefore yearly average user origin figures would differ from the summer season figures shown. For example, the lakes in Minneapolis attract high summer use, where cross-country ski trails attract high numbers of users to the park reserves during the winter. 5 Crow-Has,, Park Reserve HENNEPIN COUNTY pE~ Creek a· -,, rk R Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park Lake Sarah ~ional Park Fish Regional Park ark Reserve Baker Park Reserve ~ Noerer)berg A Me Carver Park Reserve E'agte Lake Regional Park · ~edicine Lake ional Park Theodore Wirth Regional Park %, Mpls; Chain of Lake.' Regional Park ,ant Lake ional Park 1-494 694 -I Central I Riverfr( I ~gional I Regional Park ppi e Minneheha ional N · · · Regional trail corridors to be acquired or developed, 1980-1985 .... Regional trail corridors developed or funded for development 6 {yland-Bush-Andersoc Lakes Park Res~ James Wilkie Park Reserve · Murphy-Hanrehan '- * Park Reserve · Spring Lake [~ "· Regional Pa~ *... LaKe Regional ~:~;}' Park~ Components of regional park system City, of Bloomington Hennepin County Mpls. Park & Park Reserve Dist. Recreation Board Park Reserves Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes* 'Baker Carver Crow-Hassan Elm Creek Hyland Lake Lake Rebecca Murphy-Hanrehan** Regional Parks Bryant Lake Cleary Lake** Coon Rapids Dam Eagle Lake*** Fish Lake*** Lake Sarah*** Medicine Lake Spring Lake Park** Central Mississippi River Front Chain-of-Lakes -- Brownie. Cedar Lake of the Isles Calhoun Harriet Minnehaha Falls Mississippi Gorge Nokomis-Hiawatha Theodore Wirth Regional Trail Corridors North Hennepin -- Elm Creek to Coon Rapids Dam Mi nnehaha Parkway f~ississippi River Trails -- East River Road West River Road * Under development, operated jointly by Bloomington and the Hennepin County Park Reserve District. ** Indicates facilities operated under a joint powers agreement with Scott County. *** Indicates facilities acquired but not yet developed. 7 How did the question of financing of regional park operations arise? The relationship between the Hennepin County Park Reserve District and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board relative to the operation and funding of regional parks in Hennepin County dates back to the passage of the 1974 Metro- politan Parks Act which created the regional park system. An initial effort was begun in 1976 to involve the Hennepin County Park Reserve District in joint operations of the Central Mississippi Riverfront Project. That involvement never materialized. In 1979, at a joint meeting of the Hennepin County Park Reserve District Board and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, the two boards agreed to continue their discussions. Two further meetings were held to discuss the District's participation in cost sharing of the Central Mississippi Riverfront Project and. the Regional Chain of Lakes parks in Minneapolis. In May, 1981, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board passed a resolution requesting the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to appropriate funds to Minneapolis in its 1982 budget in an amount "not less than the tax levied by the Board of Commissioners of Hennepin County in the City of Minneapolis for regional parks outside Minneapolis." (Approximately $1.5 million.) As an alternate, the resolution proposed that the County Board join with the Minneapolis Park and Recrea- tion Board in seeking legislative changes that would resolve the inequity. In June, 1982, the Hennepin County Park Reserve District received a request from the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board requesting that the District consider a funding allocation to Minneapolis in an amount up to the equivalent of the tax levy in Minneapolis for District parks. In February, 1983, the Board of the Hennepln county P~rk Reserve District acted to begin negotiation of a joint powers agreement between the District and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board in reference to operational funding of regional parks in Minneapolis. An agreement was drafted that established payment from the District's county- ,wide park tax levy to the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board for benefits derived from regional parks administered by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. The agreement was adopted in principle by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. The Board of the Hennepin County Park Reserve District rejected a motion to adopt the agreement in principle.* Subsequently, the District's Board continued discussion of the issue of funding of regional park operations and agreed to seek public input through a series of public forums. 8 * The complete record of these and all actions taken by the two boards are public documents. Minutes of the Hennepin County Park Reserve District Board are avail~ able at District headquarters, 3800 County Road 24, Maple Plain, MN 55359. Minutes of'the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board are available at Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board headquarters, 310 South 4th Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55415 What approaches are being considered? In addition to the approach of direct funding to the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board from the Hennepin'County Park Reserve District tax levy, several other approaches have been raised for consideration. These include: *A single county-wide tax levy to support operating costs for all regional parks in Hennepin County. *Operation of one or more of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board's regional facilities by the Hennepin County Park Reserve District. *Joint operation of one or more of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board's regional f~cilities by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board and the Hennepin County Park Reserve District. *Partial funding of regional park operations through a regional source such as the Metropolitan Council. *Creation of a Regional Park Authority to operate and maintain parks within the regional system, *Removing the City of Minneapolis from the Hennepin County Park Reserve District for taxing purposes. *Having the Park Reserve District provide services or facilities to the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board to assist in operations and maintenance. *Merging the county/regional park components of both systems into a one- or two- county park operating authority. This list does not limit the approaches that could be considered in addressing thls issue. .. 9 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: LMCD BOARD ~MBERS F. Mixa August 11, 1983 Task Force Report Attached is a copy of the official Lake Minnetonka Task Force Report received today from the MDNR. om El%c. cc: Charles LeFevere GERALD M. FINE ATTORNEY AT LAW 240 SOUTH MINNETONKA AVENUE WAYZATA, M I N N ESOTA 5539 I (612) 476- 14SO August 12, 1983 OF COUN$£L LEROY E. HAGLUND City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: ClaimantS: Claim : Date : David and Marie Ziskin, 4801 Island View Drive, Mound, Minnesota, 55364 Sewage damage to home,'above adress, from sewage lift station July 19 and 20, 1983, and July 24, 1983 Dear City Council: This will advise that I represent the above-styled David Ziskin and Marie Ziskin, husband and wife, for claims arising out of negligence of officers, agents, servants and employees of the City of Mound for negligence in the operation of the lift sewage station which lies immediately adjacent to their home. Because of the negligence of the City, the sewage from the lift sewage station referred to, backed into the home of the claimants on the dates as mentioned in the caption above. The damage from both incidents cannot be'finally and fully determined at this time, but appear to be about $10,000. The figure given is for personal property. There are some latent damages which could occur to the walls in the basement (which are panelled) and also to the sheetrock. It will take time before it can be determined if they will occur. V/~ truly your~ GMF/je Z I m~ I NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING EXCERPTED FROM THE COMMISSION'S WEEKLY CALEItD R '.ui. E~-'qi: ~etition o-' ,Cr. nti~ent'~l TeieDhcna oF ',inne_~ct~, !nc., v:qqeasolis, ~. ¢?r aJ?erity to increase its fer telephone serve, ce in qlnresDta. (Fe.=.ring Ex,miner ~.:yron Notice is hereby given that the Public Utilities Commission of Minnesota will hold a public hearing~on the following matter at the tim(s) and place(s) . ~L.,~, .~ ........... .q, ~,U:L IC HEARiqr, s: ',/~n"rc'~Av-..,,... , SEPTE?Et 2!. 1'c'~q.,,., I:SO P.M., PRYAHT CE',,zx, ...... ¢~r-v ~:o-r'.,.--.~ 21 ia°'. 7:AG N.H., ELY ~cunnt, En~ E Tl:rc''.qv tF. DT'~'":'r?, !7, 1~'~, 7:gO P.'" rLrr"T"S PRAIRIE ?~.ui..,'.~.,u PRaiRIE, ~q~i. 55917, ISLE HIGH SCHOOL, THI.,o.~DAy' ..... CFD.-~-~:rD~_, .~a, .... 1_n83, 7:0~ D M , AT!.~ATER P":'Y~..,... SCHOOL, ,'~'2'D-'~~iCE ROGH,' IAY~IATER, FIN. 553al. ~OHDAV, CCTORER 3, t~'),, 7:0.0 N.H., YARE~ALL COUNTY COURTHOUSE, :-~C'~DAv, CCTO~F'~ 2.t T~RU KIIDAY, OCTOPE'~ ?q, 1¢~3. m:?n E. VELLCGG ~LVD., ST. PAUL, MN. 55101. Minn. Stat. Sec. 15.052 (1976) requires that all contested cases be heard by an examiner assigned by and governed by the rules of procedu~ of the Office of Administrative Hearings (Minn. Rules HE 201-299). ~erefore, when a hearing date has been set on a contested case, original pleadings and ~tions (such as petitions to intervene, prefiled testi~ny, briefs, requests for postpone~nts) must be serve, on the hearing examiner at the Office of A~inistrative Hearings, 400 Su~it Bank Bldg., 310 So. 4th Ave., Minneapolis, ~ 55415, with an original and 13 copies simultaneously filed with the Secretary of the Public Utilities Co~ission, 780 ~rican Center Bldg., 160 East Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55101; and a copy. of said filings mus~ be served on each party of record. Please contact-the hea~i~ examiner, Whose na~ appears in parentheses foll"o'w~ng the date and location of hearing, for parties of record. Executive Secretary American CEnl,cR building' kellogg and robert sis' saint Paul, mn 5 5101 STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION 500 RICE STREET, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55103 (61 2) 296-2545 August 16, 1983 J. Larry Aldridge Vice President, Corporate Development Dowden Communications, Inc. One Piedmont Center, Suite 220 3565 Piedmont Road Northeast Atlanta, Georgia 30305 Dear Mr. Aldridge: Enclosed is a Minnesota Cable Communications Board order issuing a Regular Certificate of Confirmation to Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc., a subsidiary of Dowden Communications, Inc., confirming an initial franchise, (Ord. # 446) for the cable communications system to be operated in City'of Mound. This certificate is valid until expiration date of franchise o~ ~May 9, 1998 (unless otherwise prescribed by law). Please notify me when the system becomes operational. /n the meantime, do not' hesitate to call if you should have questions. You/s sincerely, WDD/blf Enclosure -' W..D. Do[~aldson Ex~cu~ Director Jonathan R. Elam, City Manager, Mound/''''i~/ Richard Joyce, Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc. AN EQUAL OPPORIUNITY E,Mt'L()YER ':~;;,'L" ..... STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION 500 RICE STREET, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55103 (612)296-2545 IN THE MATTER OF Application of Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc., a subsidiary of Dowden Communications, Inc., for a l~egular Certificate of Confirmation confirming an initial franchise for a cable communications system to be operated in the City of Mound ORDER ISSUING A R~ U LAR CERTIFICATE OF CONFIRMATION EFFECTIVE May 9, 1983 Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 238.09 Subdivision 6 (1982) it is recognized by this Board that Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc., a subsidiary of Dowden Communications, Inc., has submitted in proper form an application containing the information and documentation required by the Board, including a franchise ordinance meeting the Board's standards and otherwise meeting all requirements of law, for receiving a regular certificate of confirmation. THE BOARD ORDERS: In accordance with Minnesota Statutes ~ 238.09 Subdivision 6 (1982), and after full proceedings of the Board, a regular certificate of confirmation valid until expiration date of franchise (Ord. # 446) on May 9, 1998 (unless otherwise prescribed by law) is hereby issued to Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc., a subsidiary of Dowden Communications, Inc., for a franchise for a cable communications system to be operated in the City of Mound. This order constitutes and shall be evidence of the aforementioned regular certificate of confirmation. Members of the Board, voting in the affirmative: ..-') / / Rochelle Barnhart Eugene F. Trumble / / Judith C. Corrao Faith Zwemke // / W. D. Donald.~dn, Executive~ DireCtor AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Aug. 10, 1983 Melropolilan Council 300 Metro Square Building Sevenlh and Robed Streels S1. Paul, Minneso'ta 55101 Telephone (6~2) 294.6452 Office of 1he Chairm¢-- TO: County, Municipal, and Township Officials, and Business Leaders The Metropolitan Council has initiated discussion of a set of interim e~onomic development policies that are intended to ensure that the Council gives appropriate consideration to economic needs and concerns in the many regional planning decisions it is required to make. These policies build on the Council's experience in coordinating a wide~ range of public and private activities and apply that experience to new areas -- economic development and its financing. ~ Enclosed is a diScussion'paper on the interim policies, which the Council's Special Committee on Economic Development has approved for public distribution. The proposed policies are based on recommendations from the Council's staff and from the Economic Technical Advisory Committee that assisted the Council from 1979 to 1981. Two public meetings on these policies are planned later this month. A formal public hearing is tentatively scheduled for Nov. 9. The policies would provide a policy base for economic development financing programs, such as selling industrial revenue bonds on behalf of smaller Area communities and setting up ~ "503" program.through the Small Business Admlnist~ation for long-term real estate loans to small businesses. The policf.es also will be used to add an economic impact component to the Co'~.cil's reviews of proposals for funding under various state and federal legislation. The Council would like your comments and suggestions on the proposed policies. We will hold two public meetings to hear comments: - Aug. 29, 7 p.m., Fairv~ew Community Center, 1910 W. County Rd. B, Roseville. - Aug. 30, 7 p.m., Normandale Community College Auditorium (Fine Arts entrance), 9700 France Ay. S., Bloomington. if you'd like to speak at a public meeting, please call Shirlee Smith of the Council's communications staff, at 291-6421. You may submit written comments on the draft until Sept. 9. Questions about the proposed policies should be directed to William Byers of the Council's comprehensive planning staff, at 291-6322. The interim economic policies are scheduled to be adopted by the Council in early 1984. They would be fully integrated into the Development Framework chapter of the Council's Metropolitan Development Guide in late 1984. Sin~ely, . Oera_d J. !saa~s Chair DRAFT DISCUSSION STATEMENT ON METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK: PROPOSED INTERIM ECONOMIC POLICIES AUGUST 9, 1983 This document contains proposed eoonomic policies intended for public discussion and for deliberation and action by the Metropolitan Council's Special Committee on Economic Development. It was prepared by the Council's Comprehensive Planning Department staff. Preparation of this document is part of the process leading to adoption by the Council of interim economic policies in early 1984.. The policies will be fully integrated into the Council's revised Metropolitan Development Framework plan in late 1984. Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area 300 Metro Square Building, 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone: 612-291-6359 2 ?0 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION · eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee®eeeeeeeleeeeeeeeeeleee~,eeeeeeeeee PURPOSE eeleeeeeee®eee.eeeeeee~eee®eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee THE PROCESS ....................................................... BACKGROUND ............................................................ STANDARD OF LIVING ................................................ ECONOMIC GROWTH .................................................... ECONOMIC CHANGE ................................................... OPPORTUNITIES ..................................................... ECONOMIC GOALS AND POLICIES ........................................... PROPOSED GOALS .................................................... PROPOSED POLICIES ................................................. Areawide Economic Policies ................................... Economic Development Coordination Policies ................... Business Financing Policy .... APPENDIX .............................................................. Page 1 7 7 8 11 14 16 18 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE The Metropolitan Council is charged by state law with providing for the orderly and economic development of the Seven-County Region. The goal is to preserve and improve the Region's quality of life. However, the Council's role with respect to the private sector and economic development is not well defined, either in legislation or in adopted Council policy. This document contains pro- posed goals and policies intended to help the Council in making decisions about projects that affect the economic development of the Region. Once adopted, the goals and policies will be added to the Metropolitan Development Framework (MDF), the Council's guided growth plan. The result will be to bring .private sector needs and concerns into the regional planning process. THE PROCESS BACKGROUND In 1979, the Council began examining its role with regard to the private sector by discussing a series of background papers prepared by staff on the regional economy. That fall the Council established an Economic Technical Advisory Committee (ETAC) consisting of 10 members from the business community, two from labor and four from the government sector. ETAC spent two years examining current Council policies and potential roles for the Council with respect to the economy. It recommended revisions to the wording of some existing goals and policies, as well as some additional studies. Council staff worked on those studies in 1982 and 1983. The ETAC reports and recommendations, as well as the completed studies, are listed with other background documents in the appendix. The Council now begins the public discussion phase of the policy development process (see schedule next page). The Council's Special Committee on Economic Development--the Economic Development Committee' (EDC)--has put together what it has learned from the staff reports and the ETAC recommendations to develop these proposed policies. To provide opportunity for community involvement in preparing interim economic policies, the Council is circulating this document and holding public meetings in the Region to discuss the issues and to receive the comments and ideas of public officials, the business community and citizens. Following the first round of public meeting, the EDC expects to revise the draft policies, hold a formal public hearing on them and adopt interim economic policies by mid-January 1984. These will be the basis for the Council to initiate some regional economic development efforts in 1984. More detailed work and further staff and public discussion will take place during 1984 and the policies will eventually be'adopted as a part of the revised Development Framework--expected in late 1984. TENTATIVE SCHEDULE FOR ADOPTING INTERIM ECONOMIC POLICIES Aug. 1 (Mon.) Aug. 8 (Mon.) Aug. 10 (Wed.) Aug. 29 (Mon.) Aug. 30 (Tue.) Sept. 9 (Fri.) Sept. 12 (Mon.) Sept. 19 (Mon.) Sept. 26 (Mon.) Sept. 29 (Thurs.) Nov. 9 (Wed.) Nov. 28 (Mort.) Dec. .12 (Mon.) Jan. 9 (Mon.) Jan. 19 (Thurs.) Economic Development Committee (EDC) reviews public meeting draft. EDC approves public meeting draft. Mail public meeting draft. ~ublic meeting. Public meeting. Public meeting record closed. EDC reviews public hearing draft (based on public meeting revisions). EDC reviews public hearing draft. EDC approves public hearing draft. Council sets public hearing date. Public hearing held. Public hearing record closed. Hearing record and final document available. EDC reviews and recommends adoption. Council adopts. BACKGROUND ON THE REGIONAL ECONOMY Numerous measures can be used to portray the quality of life or standard of living in this Region. Among the most important are those- related to the economy. The last several years have been difficult times economically for the nation, for Minnesota and for the Region. The Council recognizes a strong economy is needed to maintain and improve the Region's standard of living. The data in this section gives a general snapshot of the Region from an economic viewpoint--its standard of living, its economic growth trends, the changes that are taking place and some measures of the Region's potential for responding to change. STANDARD OF LIVING Table 1 contains the Twin Cities' 1980 rank among the 25 largest metropolitan areas for a number of economic indicators. The major urban areas are called Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, or SMSAs. The Region ranked high in median family income and education, and low in percent of families below the poverty level and in unemployment rates. The Council wants to maintain these rankings or improve upon them. An economic climate that encourages growth and responds to change is vital to this effort. Characteristics Median Family Income Table 1 COMPARISON OF TWIN CITIES ECONOMIC INDICATORS WITH THE 25 LARGEST METROPOLITAN AREAS, 1980 Twin Cities Twin Cities Minnesota Rank Averase Average 6th $24,800 $21,217 Percent of Families Below Poverty Level U.S. Average Percent of Adults (over 25) with High School Diploma $19,908 24th 4.4% 7.0% 9.6% Unemployment Rate 4th 80.1% 22nd 4.5% 72.4% 66.3% 5.7% 6-.8% Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Employment and Earnin~s. ECONOMIC GROWTH Quality of life improvements come in the form of better paying jobs, higher productivity, better public services, better use of existing resources, etc. However, measuring these factors is not always possible. The most straight- forward way to measure improvements is to examine economic growth. Growth in Jobs, income, and tax base are all important to the overall economic health of an area. EMPLOYMENT GROWTH Between 1960 and 1980, employment growth in the Region was 3.4 percent, faster than the national average (2.8 percent). In a ranking of the 25 largest metropolitan areas, this Region had the 12th highest annual employment growth rate. UNEMPLOYMENT RATE Employment growth cannot be measured alone but must be compared .with.growth in the labor force. The unemployment rate measures the difference between employ- ment and the labor force. From 1970 to 1981 generally, the unemployment rates in the Region have been one and one-and-a-half to three percentage points below the national average. In order to maintain this better-than-average rate, it will be important to encourage economic development that provides job~ that at least keep pace with the labor force growth. NEW JOBS AND SMALL BUSINESS Not all sectors of the economy are equal generators of jobs. Several national studies have identified the small business sector as the most dyn~m~c sector and the largest creator of new jobs. Estimates on job creation by small business range from 51 to 66 percent of all new jobs. However, only a fraction of small firms--probably a range of 12 to 15 percent--create these new jobs. New businesses have low survival rates. Thus, public policy encouraging small businesses must recognize the risks involved. FAMILY INCOME Median f~m~ly income rose faster in the Region than in the nation between 1960 and 1980. Median family income (adjusted for inflation using 1972 constant dollars) increased 45 percent, from $9,513 in 1960 to $13,835 in 1980. This is compared with a national average annual increase of approximately 35 percent for the same time period. However, the Region's cost of living is slightly higher than the average for major metropolitan areas. The Region's average annual inflation rate between 1960 and 1980 was 5.28 percent compared with a 5.19 percent average for the largest metropolitan areas. The average annual inflation rates are based on consumer price index data. TAX BASE The Region has experienced remarkable growth in its tax base, although compar- isons with national data or other SMSAs is not possible. The Region's market value of the taxable property has grown from $25,349 per household in 1972 to $58,122 in 1980.' That is an average annual increase of 10.93 percent. ECONOMIC CHANGE One of the major strengths of the Region's economy is its diversity. Manufac- turing, wholesale and retail trade, and service industries each account for approximately one-fourth of the Region's industrial mix. This diversity continues 4o be maintained even though the regional economy is undergoing some fundamental changes in its industrial mix, types of growing industries and occupations. SECTORS GROWING AT DIFFERENT RATES Between 1960 and 1980, manufacturing's share of total regional employment declined, while the service and finance industries, share of employment in- creased. In the decade of the i970s, manufacturing employment grew by 14 percent, compared with growth rates of 73 and 50 percent, respectively, for the service and finance sectors. As growth in the regional economy moves away from manufacturing, the Region's emerging growth industries will probably be in the service and finance sectors. The industries with the most potential for growth in the Region are nonelectrical machinery, including computers and office machines; business services, such as advertising and computer and data processing; health services; and banking. CPL~NGE IN TYPES OF JOBS Not only is there change in the industries that are growing, there is also change in the kinds of Jobs ~emanded. The service and finance industries tend to demand a variety of professional and low-paying Jobs--the largest percentage of the new Jobs being created in clerical and low-paying service occupations. Between 1980 and 1990, the largest number of job openings will be in cate- gories such as secretaries, nurses aids, janitors, cashiers, sales clerks and waiters. Thus, the growth industries, while providing the needed Jobs, also may create downward pressure on overall income. OPPORTUNITIES Although the regional economy is changing, this can have positive aspects because change creates opportunities. Two characteristics of the Region will help adjust to this change--attitudes toward education and the Region's entrepreneurial spirit. Nationally, there is concern about how this country's educational system will cope with the educational needs of an increasingly service- and high-technology- oriented society. The problem has two parts: First, in basic education, particularly science and mathematics in primary and secondary schools, there is concern that too many young people are not being prepared for the Jobs of the 1990s. Second, there is concern about the lack of a plan to retrain and re- educate a whole generation of workers, already in the manufacturing work force, who will be displaced. Education must become a lifetime process, as workers 'are forced to upgrade their skills and knowledge to cope with rapidly changing technology. A number of indicators show the Region has a good start to serve the needs of its future labor force. As mentioned earlier, the Region ranked fourth among the top 25 SMSAs in percent of persons 25 years or older with four or more years of high school education (80.1 percent). In addition, Minnesotans have been willing to spend money On education to achieve this. The Region ranked fifth in per capita government expenditures for local schools in 1980 with $40.04. Phoenix ranked first with $64.02 per capita. Finally, Minnesota ranked fourth in the percent of population enrolled in vocational-technical education programs in 1980, according to an Alexander Grant survey. As for the entrepreneurial spirit, the business climate in Minnesota and the Region has been much debated lately. The state has a number of problems-- relatively high taxes and worker compensation rates, and strong cost competi- tion from neighboring states for business in border communities.- However, the entrepreneurial climate has some positive features. According to Inc. magazine, in 1983, the Region had one of the strongest showings of any metropol- itan area. In a ranking of the 100 fastest growing small businesses in the nation, seven are located in this Region. Only the Denver-Boulder metropolitan area, with five companies, had a comparable showing. Between 1970 and 1980, the total number of business establishments in the Region increased by 49 percent, compared with a 29 percent national increase. Employment in these firms increased 38 percent in the Region, compared with a national increase of~31 percent. .~ The number of small businesses in the Region, those with 20 or fewer employees, increased 51 percent from 1970 to 1980, compared with a 28 percent increase nationally. In the Region, small businesses made up 82 percent of all business establishments in 1980, compared with 86 percent at the natioual leve~. Things have been good if one looks at the past 10 to 20 years. Howevew~ the~ last two years have not been good ones for the Region economically. Questions have been raised about the stability of the state economy and future growth prospects. The policies that follow are part o~ an effort to help deal with that issue. PROPOSED ECONOMIC GOALS AND POLICIES In the past, the Metropolitan Council has reviewed plans and projects according to'policies based on three major considerations: efficient use of the four metropolitan systems (air transportation, surface transportation, parks and open space, and sewers), locational factors associated ~ith urban and rural service areas, and the preservation of the natural environment. For the most part, economic development impacts have not been explicitly considered in the Council's deliberations. (See "Discussion of Existing Development Framework Goals and Policies" in appendix.) The interim economic policies developed here are intended to broaden the Council's consideration of plans and projects to include economic factors. The proposed goals include changes the existing Development Framework goals and add business development and entrepreneurial activities to the list of characteristics important for a healthy region. The proposed policies replace a number of existing Development Framework policies and add new concepts to the Development Framework. PROPOSED ECONOMIC GOALS To have a region by the year 2000 that has: o Economic development that keeps pace with growth in the labor force and enhances the Region's standard of living--measured by growth in jobs, income per household and tax base. o High rankings nationally in education and income, and low rankings in unemployment rates and in number of persons below poverty level. o 6pportunities for economic advancement for persons of all ages, races, income, sex, training and educational background in the Region. o A diverse regional economy strong enough to support high quality public services and other Development Framework goals for the Region. o A regional economic climate that encourages business development and entrepreneurial activities. o A strong agricultural economy in the Region's rural area. PROPOSED POLICIES ~ The proposed policies that follow are grouped into four major areas. In the first are the Council's existing area-wide policies (as stated in its Development Framework) but changed to more fully reflect economic development and business concerns. Second, several policies define a Council role in encouraging coordination of regional economic development and enhancement of the Region's economic climate. Third, the Council proposes a policy to help make more capital available to regional businesses. The final proposed policy specifies more active involvement for the Council in meeting the needs of the poor and unemployed in the Region. AREA-WIDE ECONOMIC POLICIES The following policies show the Council's general approach to the development of the Region. Ae THE METROPOLITAN AREA SHOULD CONSIST OF AN URBAN SERVICE AREA AND A RURAL SERVICE AREA. METROPOLITAN SYSTEMS AND URBAN SERVICES WILL BE PROVIDED ONLY WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. RURAL SERVICE STANDARDS WILL BE MAIN- TAINED IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA, AND PERSONS CHOOSING A RURAL LOCATION SHOULD NOT EXPECT TO RECEIVE URBAN SERVICES. The first policy is taken from the Council's existing Development Framework. Although not a new policy, it is included here for completeness. The concept of the urban/rural split sets the stage for how the Council goes about making decisions on investments in the regional systems and reviewing plans ~nd projects for consistency with all of the Metropolitan Development Guide chapters. Be THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER PROTECTION OF THE NATURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LAND, THE EFFICIENT USE OF URBAN SERVICES AND REGIONAL ECONOMIC NEEDS WHEN DEVELOPING REGIONAL PLANS AND GUIDELINES AFFECTING LAND USE IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA. URBAN DEVELOPMENT SHOULD NOT IMPAIR THE FUNCTIONING OF VITAL NATURAL SYSTEMS. The Council guides land use planning in the Region by designing'plans for the four regional systems (transportation, sewers, airports, and parks and open space) and reviewing local comprehensive plans of cities and townships. They need to consider economic development needs along with the demand for regional systems and environmental concerns. Policy B brings economic growth into the forefront--side-by-side with regional systems and the environment. The policy does not resolve conflicts that may arise between, for example, economic and environmental consideration. These will require more specific guidelines to be prepared later. ,The Council implements plans through regipnal system investments. The strategy is to have priorities for those investments. C® THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WILL SET PRIORITIES FOR INVESTMENTS IN EACH REGIONAL SYSTEM IN THE FOLLOWING WAY. PROJECTS I~EDIATELY REQUIRED BY STATE OR FEDERAL LAW WILL BE IMPLEMENTED FIRST. ALL REMAINING PROJECTS WILL THEN BE DIVIDED INTO TWO CATEGORIES: 1. INVESTMENTS OR REINVESTMENTS TO MAINTAIN OR EXPAND THE EXISTING SYSTEMS SERVING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA). INVESTMENTS FOR EXPANDING THE MUSA WHERE ANALYSIS INDICATES A SHORTAGE IN THE FIVE-YEAR URBAN LAND SUPPLY FOR A SECTOR AS SHOWN IN THE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK. PROJECTS IN EACH CATEGORY WILL BE RANKED AND THE COUNCIL WILL THEN ALLOCATE FUNDS TO THE TWO CATEGORIES. THE COUNCIL MAY SHIFT ALLOCATED FUNDS FROM ONE CATEGORY TO ANOTHER DEPENDING ON THE RELATIVE NEED FOR THE PROJECTS IN- EACH ~ATEGORY. This policy, stated simply, says the Council will respond to demand for regional services within the MUSA and will create a supply of new services on the edge of the MUSA only when the supply of developable land becomes too tight. In considering each regional function the Council will allocate funding to the two categories of projects. The projects not funded in each group will be evaluated to decide if a shift of funding between categories is necessary. Policy D below is to be used when ranking projects within the MUSA; Policy E is for projects to expand the MUSA. IN RANKING PROJECTS LOCATED WITHIN THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (M13SA), THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WILL REGULARLY ANALYZE THE REGION'S MAJOR ACTIVITY CONCENTRATIONS AND THEIR LEVELS OF REGIONAL SERVICES. THE COUNCIL WILL GIVE PRIORITY TO PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF REGIONAL SERVICES TO THESE CONCENTRATIONS OVER EXPANDING OR UPGRADING THE SYSTEMS WITHIN THE MUSA FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT. The intent of this policy is to serve existing development before serving planned development. The concentrations of major activity will change as development occurs and demand for regional services grows. Major activity concentrations could include, but are not limited to, major employment concentrations, major retail centers with high patronage (but perhaps low employment), major educational facilities, high-density housing concentrations, and major sports facilities. IN RANKING PROJECTS THAT MAY REQUIRE EXPANSION OF THE MUSA, THE COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER: THE ADDITIONAL POPULATION THAT CAN BE ACCOMMODATED BY EXISTING METROPOLITAN SYSTEMS IN THE APPROPRIATE SECTOR; RECENT POPULATION TRENDS IN ALL SECTORS; THE LEAST COST AMONG SECTORS FOR PROVIDING A COMPLETE SYSTEM OF BASIC PUBLIC SERVICES; THE MOST RECENT ESTIMATES OF DEVELOPABLE LAND FOR URBANIZATION IN EACH SECTOR; AND FUTURE ENERGY USE AND COSTS. Policy E is Policy No. 10 in the Council's Metropolitan Investment Framework (MIF), which contains guidelines for monitoring fiscal activity of the regional commissions. It can be used for decision-making for expansion projects on the edge of the MUSA (see discussion in appendix beginning on page 21). Fo IN REVIEWING ALL PROJECTS REQUIRING CHANGES IN THE INVESTMENT PLANS FOR REGIONAL SYSTEMS, THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MAY, IN ADDITION TO ITS OTHER REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. CONDUCT AN ECONOMIC IMPACT REVIEW; 2. CONDUCT A FISCAL ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT; AND/OR 3- DEVELOP PUBLIC/PRIVATE COST-SHARING AGREEMENTS WHEN NECESSARY. This policy is not intended to add significantly to the review process. Too often, however, economic-impact reviews discuss public fiscal impacts and do not examine what happens to the economy. In reviewing projects affecting the development programsof regional agencies, the Council will look at the following when implementing this policy: Economic Impact Review. How many long-term jobs will be created by thi~ proposal? Will they be high-income, high-skill jobs, low-income, low-skill jobs, or some of both? Will the project add to regional income? Will the project add to the regional property tax base? Other tax bases? Will it generate a net increase in tax revenues? Is the project creating new Jobs besides construction jobs? Fiscal Alternatives Assessment. For projects within the MUSA, the Council will evaluate the costs of building now, anticipating the demand based on the proposed project, or building later when the demand actually.occurs. If the costs are not significantly different, and they might not be because the construction may be occurring on developed land in either case, then the Council will have more flexibility in its planning process. The Council would be able to wmit and see on some developments where the proposed growth seems too optimistic. ~ Public/Private Cost Sharing Agreements. There may be occasions where the private sector wants additional capacity in the regional systems within the MUSA to make a proposal feasible. There may also may be occasions when private interests argue that there will be no impacts on the regional systems and the Council feels differently. Rather than being in a position where the Council could essentially stop the project, the Council and the private party would agree to share the costs now, in the former case, to get the project going; or to share the costs when it becomes a problem, in the latter case. This does not mean that the Council is taking a position of always sharing the cost for pri~ate decisions or giving up the right to say no on a regional system proposal. lO POLICIES FOR COORDINATING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT What is currently being done to coordinate the Region's economic development and' enhance its entrepreneurialclimate? Government has always played some role in economic development--primarily by providing the public infrastructure (roads and sewers, for example) and services. Land use regulations have also been a tool. Federal economic development programs have been organized under the Economic Development Administration (EDA), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Small Business Administration (SBA), and the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). The current administration is in the process of effective- ly eliminating the EDA, reducing the funding for SBA and HUD, and replacing CETA with a job-training partnership program. With its remaining programs, the federal government is concentrating its economic development activity in the areas of public land acquisition and improvement, and business financing. In the past, state programs have not done much to assist local government and businesses with economic development. The state has preferred to let local government do most of the work. This may change with some recently passed leg- islation. In 1983, the Minnesota Legislature reorganized the Minnesota ~m~ll Business Finance Agency into a business enterprise fund with expanded authority and increased funding. In addition, two pieces of state legislation--tax increment financing and industrial revenue bonds--have been helpful to local governments in promoting economic development. Economic development programs are generally implemented through local govern- ment regardless of whether the funds are provided by federal, state or local governments. The most significant factor in economic development, however, is the shift away from federal and state involvement and toward local involvement solely~ With this shift comes a certain narrowing of the focus--local govern- ment will be primarily concerned with development in its community. The role of regional agencies in economic development is relatively new and not well defined. In 1978, the EDA instituted a program to demonstrate the role for regional planning agencies in metropolitan economic development planning. Results of the program identified a number of roles for regional agencies. They included providing information, forums for decision-making and technical assistance. The Council performs some of these functions currently, but the efforts are not always focused on economic development. In addition to governmental efforts directed specifically at economic develop- ment, a large number of groups--from universities to public/private think tanks- -are looking into the business climate issue. Two organizations, the Minnesota Business Partnership and Minnesota Wellspring, have undertaken major long-range studies of the state's economy. Although these groups will continue to examine issues affecting the economic health of the state, their research does not concentrate on a regional perspective. The narrowness of the local government focus, in addition to the emphasis on the state economy by other groups, creates some gaps that can be filled by a regional agency. The Council can provide a unique economic development perspective because the urban economy functions on a regional basis rather than along city and county boundaries. G. THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WILL ENCOURAGE THE COORDINATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE REGION. The Council acquired a great deal of coordination experience through the former A-95 review program and the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. That experience can help coordinate the activities of businesses and developers with reviews by the local, state and federal governments. Perhaps of most use for private planning and the economic development process is the information the Council can provide. The Council distributes a variety of regional economic data, census data, land use information, and employment, business and labor force information. In addition, the Council has available the information contained in. all the local land use plans for the Region. Much of the above information can be packaged and provided upon request. In addition, it will be used in reviews of proposed projects to let both ~evel- opers and the public know what else is planned in the ~mmediate vicinity of the project or forecast for the Region. THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WILL HELP IMPROVE THE REGION'S ENTREPRENEURIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CLIMATE BY SPONSORING RESEARCH, TASK FORCES AND FORUMS FOCUSING ON REGIONAL ECONOMIC ISSUES. The Council will encourage the enhancement of regional economic climate by identifying and researching issues of importance to regional development and by examining potential roles for the. Council in these areas. T~e issues would be studied by staff through the use of task forces and public forums. Some examples of pertinent research issues include a regionally based world trade center, a regional cable television station, a Twin Cities Area Teleport (an advanced telecommunications network using fiber optics and satellite technol- ogies for interreglonal telecommunications), evaluation of state and local economic development financing options in the event of substantial federal program cutbacks, and convention business and tourism. Recommendations to the Legislature would be made based on the results of such economic research. THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WILL.EXAMINE. THE ISSUE OF EDUCATION AND RETRAINING OF THE REGION'S LABOR FORCE. The economy is undergoing significant changes in the structure of its labor' force. These structural changes create a need for two types of Job-training programs. One should be designed to prepare the poor, economically disadvant- aged and hard-core unemployed for participation in the labor force. One should be designed to retrain displaced ,~uufacturing workers and other structurally unemployed persons. Both government policym~kers and private sector leaders recognize the need to address these educational and retraining issues. Yet, no one agency or organi- zation is coordinating the m~ny educational and retraining efforts. Instead, many sectors are addressing the issue at a number of different levels. The federal government, through the Job'Training Partnership Act, has delegated responsiblity for job retraining 'to state governments. The act is targeted toward occupational training for the hard-to,employ. It emphasizes private sector job training in conjunction with local public service delivery systems.. In additioD, m~ny private sector industries are instituting in-house retraining programs for their employees. The primary and secondary school systems and the vocational-technical programs are responsible for providing young people with the skills necessary to function in an increasingly service and high-technology- oriented society. J3o3 The Council will examine the education and retraining issue as a major study area. Potential topics include: How do the education and retraining programs offered by various sectors overlap? What gaps exist between programs? What are the revelant skills needed for future long-term employment and are they being taught? How do the skills taught at vocational-technical institutes mesh with the skills demanded in the private sector? Are plans to retrain displaced m nufaeturing workers adequate? Is there a role for the MetroDolitan Council in helping to coordinate the various progra~z~ in the Region? J. THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WILL MONITOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE REGION AND MEASURE THE IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS ON SUCH DEVELOPMENT. Evaluation is an important part of the planning process. Since the Council is undertaking new roles with respect to economic development, it is important to develop a base of data for evaluating the impact of the Council's programs as well as other programs. It is also important that the programs be monitored and evaluated.~ Examples of factors that could be monitored include the following: the number of jobs created, the dollar value added to the property tax base, the amount of income generated and the net benefit of a project (comparing the tax revenue produced versus the amount of public money invested). BUSINESS FINANCING POLICY What types of capital are most difficult for businesses, particularly small businesses, to obtain in the Region? Small businesses start up almost entirely outside organized capital markets. The most important sources of start-up capital for small businesses are invest- ment of the entrepreneur's personal savings and equity investments from family, friends or personal contacts. These sources provide only modest amounts of capital compared with the needs of the business. ~Usually, businesses need equity and debt capital from financial institutions to continue operations and to expand. However, unsecured and long-term loans and equity capital are the most diffi- cult forms of capital for small business to obtain in Minnesota. Commercial banks provide more short-term capital than long-term capital. This can result in a long-term financing "gap" for small business. In this situation,, a business would finance acquisition of equipment or real estate with loans having maturities considerably shorter than the life of the purchased assets. This results in a mismatch between debt service and cash flow generated by the financed assets. Business financing is a serious enough need to require involvement of a regional government agency. There are two main reasons for such involvement: Managing an economic development program for small business financing requires a large time commitment of specially trained staff. Decreased federal and state aids to local units of government have resulted in increased financial pressures, limited financial resources, and overworked staff for ~ny municipalities. As a result, m~y loqal units of government do not have the staff or financial capabilities to implement individual economic development programs. In addition, most smaller communities do not have enough economic develop- ment projects to Justify becoming certified %o participate in federal economic development programs. State e~onomic development programs are not typically oriented toward or well informed about the financing needs of small business in the Region. The Legislature recently authorized the reorganization of the Small Business Finance Agency into a business enterprise fund with expanded authority and increased funding. Although the new financing program is in the process of establishing a 503 Certified Development Company (CDC), little is known about the its potential operating level or geographic orientation. THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, IN CONJUNCTION WITH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR, WILL ENCOURAGE THE EXPANDED USE OF FINANCING PROGRAMS TO MAKE MORE CAPITAL AVAILABLE TO BUSINESSES LOCATED IN THE REGION'S URBAN SERVICE AREA OR IN FREESTANDING GROWTH CENTERS. BUSINESS FINANCING ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WOULD BE AVAILABLE ONLY IN COMMUNITIES THAT INVITE THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE SUCH ASSISTANCE. The Council will continue to 100k at a full range of business needs and what role government should undertake with the private sector. In the past several years, a variety of business problems have been identified by share studies. One'.key business problem is difficulty in obtaining financing. The Council will begin to explore ways of addressing this particular problem. Initially, the Council will implement this policy through two vehicles available to help alleviate the long-term financing problems of small business. They are the Small Business Administration (EBA) 503 Program and industrial revenue bonds. The 503 Program is a proven tool that helps small firms get long-term, reason- ably priced fixed-asset financing with low down payments. Although companies with less than 100 people account for a large share of new Jobs created in a region, these companies are least able to obtain financing for Job-creating plant expansions. The 503 Program is designed to stimulate private sector investment into plant and equipment by offering incentives to lenders and to borrowers. Incentives to lenders, in the form of federal agency guarantees and risk-reducing subordinated mortgages, encourage long-term financing. Incen- tives to borrowers, in the form of reasonably priced financing with low down payments, make the investment more attractive by increasing the return on equity. Loans for the 503 Program may be used to finance up to 50 percent of plant construction (including the acquisition of machinery and equipment), plant conversion, and existing building and leasehold improvements by a small business. The Council will establish a regional SBA-certified development company to begin packaging 503 loans for businesses. This regional development company will be formed as a nonprofit corporation independent of the Council. The application for certification to use the 503 Program will be submitted to SBA by October 1983. The development company application will then have to be approved by the SBA before it can make loans to businesses. The second vehicle available is the use of industrial revenue bonds. The Council has the authority to issue industrial revenue bonds but has not used that authority to date. The Council is pursuing the establishment of a regional umbrella industrial revenue bond program that cities in the Region could use on a voluntary basis. This program will operate much like the Metropolitan Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Economies of scale can be achieved by pooling reserves and combining several projects into larger bond issues. The primary advantages of the program are~that smaller cities will be able to use industrial revenue bonds and that, because of pooling, small and medium-sized businesses will have'access to this source of financing. The industrial revenue bond program will be developed and staffed by the end of 1983. It is anticipated that bond packages could start to be assembled in the first part of 1984. ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY POLICY What are the characteristics of the poor and the unemployed in'the Region, and where do they live? The ultimate purpose of all Metropolitan Council policies, including those devised to address problems of the poor, is to maintain or improve the quality of life in the Region. However, the poor cannot afford to partake of many aspects of our "high quality of life." The Council's direct role in dealing with problems of the poor has been through its housing assistance and aging programs. Less directly, it has addressed these concerns in its housing allocation plan, housing affordability studies, and transit studies relating to the needs of the poor, minorities, and the handicapped. If the problems are going to be addressed from the econ6mic side, then the Council needs to look more closely at the characteristics of the poor and unemployed and'where they are located. According to the 1980 census there are nearly 131,O00 persons in the Region living below the poverty level, 6.8 percent of the population. Other census data shows two things: First, female-headed families make up a disproportion- ate share of poor f~m~lies. Second, minorities are also below the poverty level at a far higher rate than whites. Fifty-five percent of families with incomes below the poverty level are female headed with no husband present, yet they account for only 12.5 percent of f~m~lies. Almost half of such families with children under six live below poverty. The figures for racial or ethnic minorities are even worse. Only 5.7 percent of whites lived in households that had incomes below the poverty level (1979 census figures). In sharp contrast, 26.4 percent of blacks, nearly 30 percent of Indians, 23.9 percent of Asians and 17.4 percent of Hispanics were living below the poverty level. These groups also have higher proportions of female- .headed households. Age might also be a factor;, minorities are, on the aver- age, much younger and, consequently, at an earlier, lower-paid level in their careers. However, they also have fewer elderly, who are also relatively poorer. A higher proportion of elderly have incomes below the poverty level-- 10.1 percent compared to 6.6 percent under age 55. The percentages are lower for the 55-to'59 year olds (four percent) and 60-to-64 year olds (5.7 percent). Based on the persons living below the poverty level, poverty is clearly concentrated in the central cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul). They have 58 percent of the Region's 131,000 people living, below the poverty level. Ail but four of 87 census tracts with more than 15 percent of persons living below the poverty level were in Minneapolis and St. Paul, with most of the very lowest ones in Minneapolis. The exceptions were: Fort Snelling (only 127 people), Falcon Heights (student housing) and two rural communities--New Trier (Dakota County) and Hancock Twp. (Carver County). In Minneapolis all tracts with over 25 percent below poverty are located in a ring surrounding the downtown. St. Paul has far fewer census tracts where over 25 percent of the population is below the poverty level. Despite the concentrations in Minneapolis and St. Paul, the~e are still large numbers of rural and suburban persons living in poverty, about 55,000 (42 percent). High unemployment, as might be expected, shows up in many of the same tracts that were high in poverty. However, the concentration is not nearly so sharp. Of the 87 tracts or small cities with the highest unemployment, only 55 were in the. central cities. One reason the correlation between poverty and income is not closer is that in some of the highest poverty areas, unemployment is low because people are simply not in the labor force. Besides those who have given up looking for work, there are large numbers of nonworking female family heads. L® THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WILL ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE POOR AND THE UNEMPLOYED BY IMPROVING THEIR ACCESS TO JOBS. Access in the above policy has two meanings--physical in terms of the work trip and opportunities in terms of being able to obtain and keep the Job. With respect to transportation, there are a number of ways to approach the problem: 1) If low-skill Jobs are available in the suburbs, then affordable housing for the poor should be there. The Council's housing program is already pursuing this solution. 2) Since the poor are concentrated in the central cities, then economic development that provides jobs that match skills or provides training in the central cities is a second approach. 3) Affordable transportation, between work and home is a third approach if Jobs and housing cannot be brought closer together. On the opportunities side, the characteristics of the poor would suggest a need for training and affordable day care. There are many programs already dealing with training. However, given the number of female-headed households with young children, no amount of training will help if affordable day care is not available. Beyond the realm of economic policy there are some serious social issues raised by the poverty statistics for both female-headed households and minorities, as well as questions about the system designed to help. The Metropolitan Council will consider the issues described above in future reviews and studies related to economic development, transportation and housing. 08.09.83 BM782Y, ?HDEVI@I DISCUSSION O~ EXISTING METROPOLITAN 'DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK GOALS AND POLICIES Minnesota Statutes direct the Metropolitan Council to prepare a comprehensive development guide that recognizes and encompasses physical, social and eco- nomic needs of the Metropolitan Area. The Metropolitan Development Guide is the long-range regional plan that provides a framework for physical growth. The Metropolitan Development Framework (MDF) is the Guide's chapter for manag- ing growth of the Region in an orderly and economic fashion. It sets forth the basic data and assumptions upon which plans for regional systems (highways, transit, sewers, parks and airports) are based. The MDF thus provides the organizing principles for the single-function guide chapters in the Development Guide. The fundamental premise of the MDF is that full use of existing public facil- ities, such as sewers and roads, should take place before further outward expansion of the urban area occurs. The MDF is not designed to reduce or slow regional growth, but rather to manage or guide the growth that is occurring into areas with existing public services. If growth occurs in areas already served by regional roads and sewers instead of continued urban sprawl, then public investments could be reduced substantially. The key principle is to maximize the use of existing public investments and still provide a variety of living environments for residents in the Metropolitan Area. The MDF contains the following concepts: The MDF first divides the Seven-County Region into an urban service area and a rural service area. Growth is to be guided in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). No major investments or development should occur in the Rural Service Area. The MUSA consists of four types of communities and lifestyles and the Council has policies for each: Metropolitan Centers, Fully Developed Area (mature suburbs), Area of Planned Urbanization (developing suburbs) and Freestanding Growth Centers. The MUSA is also divided into eight sectors. Each sector must contain enough developable land to accommodate 1990 forecasted growth for that sector plus a five year overage. Areas with severe environmental constraints to urban development are not counted as developable land. The MDF contains a"general priority system for public investments: first to the Metropolitan Centers and Fully Developed Area, then to the Area of Planned Urbanization and Freestanding Growth Centers, and finally to Rural Centers. ECONOMIC GOALS AND POLICIES GOALS DISCUSSION The current Metropolitan Council goals in the Metropolitan Development Framework (MDF) related to the economy seek to have a Region with the following characteristics in 1990: o A stable, diversified metropolitan economy strong enough to support the other goals in the Area. Economic development that provides the necessary jobs for the expected population. Estimates indicate a need to add 272,000 Jobs between 1974 and 1990 if current employment patterns continue. o Opportunities for economic mobility for all metropolitan residents. o A strong agricultural economy in the rural area. The Economic Technical Advisory Council (ETAC) reviewed these goals and generally agreed with them, with some minor wording changes. Theyalso felt strongly that entrepreneurship is an important element in maintaining a healthy economy and that the Council should have some kind of entrepreneurial goal. The proposed revised goals are presented in the main text and are listed here as well. " Proposed Economic Goals To have a Region with the following characteristics in 2000: Economic development that keeps pace with growth in the labor force and enhances the Region's standard of living--measured by growth in jobs, income per household and tax base. o High rankings nationally in education and income, and low rankings in unemployment rates and number of persons below poverty level. o A rauge of economic opportunities for persons of all ages, income, training and educational background in the Region. o A diverse metropolitan economy strong enough to support high quality in public services and the accomplishment of MDF_goals for the Region. o A regional economic development climate that encourages business development andentrepreneurial activities. o A strong agricultural economy in the rural area. POLICIES DISCUSSION In the past, the Metropolitan Council has reviewed plans and projects according to policies related to the protection and efficient utilization of the four metropolitan systems (air transportation, surface transportation, parks and open space and sewers), locational factors associated with urban versus rural service areas, and the preservation of the natural environment. For the most part, economic development impacts have not been considered in this equation. How are economic growth and development, issues explicity taken into consider- ation in the Council's current MDF policies? One goal and a number of policies express concerns for maintaining a healthy regional economy, but explicit steps are not taken to make that happen, nor are regional priorities given to economic growth. Housing, the environment and land use issues appear to have more importance in most instances. For the Fully Developed Area, one policy emphasizes the importance of redevelopment over environmental concerns. The MDF does have some implicit economic develop- ment policies. Maintenance of the regional systems to serve existing devel- opment is important. Reinvestment in the Fully Developed Area and the Metro Centers is also emphasized. In these policy areas, Jobs and economic develop- ment are perhaps bigger issues than servicing residential development. A brief discussion of relevant existing MDF policies follows: MDF Policy No. 12: The Council will work with appropriate agencies to establish an environ- mentally sensitive planning process that achieves environmental protection through comprehensive plans instead of individual project reviews. The objective is to waive environmental reviews of individual development pro- Jects if the proposal is consistent with an adopted municipal comprehensive plan and if that plan is consistent with environmental development plans of regional, state and federal agencies. Except for public health reasons or areas designated for environmental protection.in comprehensive plans, economic and development objectives should be dominant over environmental objectives in the Fully Developed Area. This policy recognizes that there are equally compelling reasons to achieve economic development objectives as there are to protect the environment within the fully developed area. However, implementation through use of comprehensive plans was difficult to achieve. A basic premise of the policies proposed in this discussion paper is that economic development concerns should be brought on par with environmental concerns. MDF Policy No. 6: The Region should maintain its diversified economy by 'retaining its growing industries and attracting new industries that are suited to the Region's work force and environment. The agricultural economy should be encouraged in the Region and opportunities expanded for young farmers. This is more of a goal than a policy. It contains no explicit actions for the Council to undertake. As a policy, it is weak; but Policy Nos. 2 and 5 (related to housing and the environment) weaken it even further. MDF Physical Environment Goal: To have a Region with... A balance between environmental preservation and the need for residential, industrial, agriculture and commercial land. Within this balance, the Region should preserve the natural environment and the functioning of natural systems, manage the use of natural resoures, and preserve and protect structures of historical and cultural significance. This is an important goal, but when viewed through Policy No. 5, which follows, one wonders how the balance is to be struck. Again, current policies are not geared to actions or decisions by the Council. MDF Policy. No. 5: Land uses should be primarily determined by natural characteristics of the land and the availability of urban services. Urban development should not impair the functioning of vital natural systems. Even though the need for residential, industrial, agricultural ~nd e0mmerei~l land is reco~nized~ this policy indicates (implicitly) that the environment and the availability of serwices are more important th~n "market" de--nd in dc ~¢rmlning land MDF Policy No. 2: Reinvestment reguired for replacement and maintenance of metropolitan systems serving existing development should have priority over investment for expansion except where analysis shows a shortage of land with urban services could seriously affect housing costs. The Council's primary tools for regional planning are investments in the regional systems. Here, the priorities for reinvestment and maintenance of the systems should serve economic growth and development well (within the MUSA), because that is where the bulk of business growth takes place. However, the exception (at the end of the policy) moves concerns away from such development in favor of residential development on the edge of the MUSA. Two Metropolitan Investment Framework (MIF) policies also deal with Lnvestments in the regional systems. They belong more appropriately in the MDF than the MIF. MIF Policy No. 9: Within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and the Freestanding Growth Centers, priorities for capital projects for metropolitan systems will be based on the following hierarchy: a. Maintenance, replacement and achievement of minimum service standards i~ntified in policy plans (by Metropolitan Development Framework policy areas, whenever possible); b. Extension of a metropolitan system where growth projected in the Metropolitan Development Framework iS limited by a shortage in the service; c. Extension of a metropolitan system to a Metropolitan Development Framework sector/policy subarea where other public services are already planned or in place; d. Extension of the first metropolitan system to a Metropolitan Development Framework sector/policy subarea. MIF Policy No. 10: In reviewing proposals to expand the MUSA, the Council will consider: 1) the additional population that can be accommodated by existng metropolitan systems in the appropriate sector; 2) recent population trends in all sectors; 3) the least cost among sectors for providing a complete system of basic public services; and 4) the most recent estimates of developable land for urbanization in each sector. Even with the MIF policies, the emphasis is on maintaining the systems and responding to residential demand, without specific consideration given to business demands. MDF Policy No. 3: Regional shopping, employment, cultural, entertainment, governmental high-density residential facilities should be clustered in centers convenient to the metropolitan transportation system. This is the Council's concept of major diversified centers. The MDF takes no further steps to make them happen and, in fact (with perhaps the notable exception of Southdale), they did not develop. There are major concentrations of commercial development, but they did not occur in the same areas as the major retail centers (the centers of the Council's diversified centers). MDF Policy No.. A choice of living and working opportunities in the Region should be available to everyone. Opportunities should be increased for low- and moderate-income persons to live in the suburbs, and middle- and upper-income housing should be developed in the central cities. Council housing 9olicies have attempted to make housing available in the sub- urbs where Jobs are likely to be, but the Council has no policies that discuss how to develop working opportunities for the poor or the possibility of getting jobs near where they live. What conclusion is to be drawn from the Council's "economic development" experience under its current policies? The COuncil ~ecognizes the importance of the regional economy to the well-being of the 'Region's residents, but has not been willing to follow through and explicity encourage economic development in the face of other demands and pressures. With this discussion-paper, the Council is making economic development impacts a relevant factor in its decision-making process. The Council is proposing economic policies to help the Region achieve some of the goals discussed in the attached policy paper. First, it is necessary to give economic development more visibility in the MDF areawide policies. The policies discussed above are reordered and rewritten in the "Proposed Policies" section. New, more explicit policies are proposed as well. The proposed policies reflect the increased visibility of economic development impacts. PUBLIC S RVIC REDESIGN PROJ T ~~~Th~Wservice of of parc~ls . . . is Humphrey Institute University of Minnesota 909 Social Sciences 267 19th Avenue South Mi~neapol[s, Minnesota 55455 (612) 376-9855 Ted Kolderle Senior Fellow DELIVERY SYSTEM: THE POSTAL SERVICE IN COMPETITION 'delivery' . . . the sending of messages and being dramatically re-designed. The 'delivery system' is now far more than the 'postal' system. This redesign is not the work of any central planning authority or of any legislative body. Rather, it is the work of the powerful forces generated as business innovations and technological developments have made it possible 'in recent years to offer delivery services in competition to those offered by the Post office (now the United States Postal Service/USPS). At first, these new services simply grew up in the market, alongside a USPS which drifted along, essentially unchanged, seemingly oblivious to what was happening. In the last few years, however, the stimulus from this competition has finally begun to provoke a response within the USPS. The Post Office is becoming customer-oriented and very aggressive.~ It is doing more research, using more modern technology, getting stronger management and -- perhaps most important -- earning its own revenues. It has a new, business- like attitude, and to some extent is in a new line of business: There is now some real validity to a view of the USPS as one of this country's major advertising media ~ There is also now a qUestiOn: -In this transformation, what will happen to the postal service's historic public-service function? From the beginning,' the delivery of messages was a service sold for a fee (proved paid by the stamp on the letter). But it was never a 'market' system. Rather, letters could be sent and received anywhere in the country at a uniform ('postage- stamp') rate. This was possible because of the early-19th- century laws prohibiting the private carriage of the mail. Within this monopoly and with a tax-supported appropriation available, it was possible for the Postal Service to ignore the difference in costs and to require some classes of mail and some mailing locations in effect t6 subsidize others... Put in the terms we use in these memos the question is: Will this public service element continue to be provided in the system as the USPS becomes simply a producer of delivery service, ever more conscious of its bottom line? If so,.j~ow~ll that be arranged? ~ The Hubert H. Humphrey Irtstltute of Public Affair. The Humphre~ Institute fuses policy analysis, midcareer education for leadership, and training of younger students for roles in the policy process. The Public Services Redesign Project is dedicated to creating diversity and choice, access and equity in the provision and production of public services. An Overview of the Postal Service Let's see first if we can identify a few of the major features that define and describe the character of the postal service in the United States, partly in contrast to the service in other countries. * It has a 'utility responsibility'. It cannot select its customers. In return, it has what amounts to an exclusive. franchise on the delivery of letter mail (as defined).' It is in the cross-subsidy, or price-averaging business; overcharging some users and undercharging others in order to be able to give everyone at every location the same service: that is, to get a one-ounce letter from any place in the country to any other place' in the country in three days (a goal it says it meets 95 per cent of the time) for 20 cents. * To 'those who simply receive mail the service appears to be free: There is no standby charge simply to get mail. Costs are charged to senders: To them, the USPS is a producer selling' 'delivery' for a fee. Today the system covers its costs from fees and charges: It is "in the black" despite the withdrawal in recent years of the public-service appropriation it used to receive from the government. In the black, at least, in the aggregate; though probably not on every type of mail, and not in every year. * The USPS offers more or less door-to-door service. If a carrier is delivering mail to your house s/he must also pick up- any mail you have going out. Most of the time, though, you will probably deposit outgoing mail in a USPS box on some nearby street-corner. Delivery is to your'door, six days a week. Twice-a-day delivery stopped in residential areas in 1950, and is just now disappearing from business areas~i ~' * 'It is useful t~think -- aside do in transportation .... about three elements of the service: collection, transmission and distribution~ Within a city mail flows from the branches and' the collection boxes into the main post office to be sorted; then is sent (once by horse and rail; today by truck and airplane) to another main post office; then is distributed to the branches in that city where it is sorted to the route and finally distributed by the carrier to the particular house or business. * In this country the USPS handles written messages and parcels only. In other countries the telegraph and (later) telephone system also usually grew up inside the Post Office.. Here the telephone system evolved as a private business. (This has major implications for the USPS, .to which we will return..). * The USPS is a $23-billi°n-a-year business. It has about 670,000 employees. It operates about 30,000 post offices, plus about 9,200 minor branch offices; a substantial reduction from earlier years, largely due to the spread of rural free delivery. It handled just over 114 billion pieces of mail in 1982. 2 * About 55 per cent of the mail in 1982 was first-class mail. About 8.5 per cent was second-class mail, which is mainly publications. About 32 per cent was third class, which is mainly advertising matter; part letter-mail, part 'bulk'. The remaining 5 per cent includes parcels and books (and 'franked' mail sent by the government itself, which is the category of mail rising at the most rapid rate). Of the first-class mail only a small fraction (perhaps 6 Der cent) is personal mail. Most of it is business mail, especially from banks, utilities and insurance companies. * Second-class, third-class-bulk and fourth-class mail are not protected. Here the USPS faces competition from other carriers. Again: Major implications to which we shall return. ~ Historically, the Post Office was a line department of ~the' national government. It was frankly a political operation. Congress set the postal rates, and appropriated revenue to cover the deficit. Congressmen fought to protect rural post offices, and to get new post offices built. The president frequently named the chairman of his political party as postmaster general. Local postmasters were political appointees. By the late 1960s the system was in visible trouble . dramatized by the well-publicized breakdown in Chicago. Th~n2 postmaster-general Lawrence O'Brien called for a major change. The Kappel Commission proposed an independent Postal Service. Congress acted quickly; setting up the USPS. Hopes were high for an effective, efficient, non-political postal system. Seven years later, however, the Freeman Commission found virtually no progress toward modernization or self-sufficiency. In a scathing report it condemned the USPS' 'business-as-usual' attitude. It found costs out of control, found the USPS with no real understanding of the mail-stream and found no understanding in the USPS of the impending threat of electronic mail. It predicted a decline in mail volume, and a return to direct tax subsidy. Perhaps as a way of dramatizing the problem it predicted a 23-cent letter by the early 1980s. That report galvanized the USPS into action. A career employee, William F. Bolger, was brought in as Postmaster General. Quickly, he set out to make the Postal Service an aggressive and customer-oriented competitor. Rates were raised by a third -- from 15 to 20 cents -- in the protected market of first-class mail. Rates were held down in the competitive market of third-class mail; setting the USPS on course towar4 becoming a major advertising medium and setting off a major competitive struggle in the delivery industry. Mechanization was accelerated. Optical character readers (OCRs) and bar-code sorters were developed and introduced, to process the out-going mail mechanically. After some years of trying, the USPS was finally able to enter the competition for the delivery of next-day mail in 1977, with its own Express Mail, And in 1982 the USPS finally got a start in electronic mail, with E-COM. Ail of these improvements are visible in the Twin Cities area. The USPS says that mail picked up by 5 p.m. is delivered the next day within the local area at least 95 per cent of the time. The OCRs and bar-code sorters went into operation in the Minneapolis Post office this spring. There are some major mailers here (the region generates considerably more mail than it receives) and the-USPS is trying hard to give good service. Still, the future is uncertain. The competition Ks now very well established, and growing. And, over everything still, h.angs the question of the impact of new electronic technology, blurring the definition of 'a letter' and presenting a major threat to a postal system whose essential business is still the physical. delivery of print on paper. Competition in the Delivery Business Huge as the USPS is, it represents only a small part of the system for the delivery of messages and parcels in this country. As the Freeman commission made clear, it is the telephone service, not the postal service, that now dominates the message business, with (as of. 1977) an estimated 80 Per cent of the market. With the prospective continuing decline in long-distance telephone rates, with the younger generation's more casual attitude toward telephone bills and with the aggressive promotion by the telephone companies ("Reach out and touch someone"), this trend is likely to continue,.~ The USPS is doing ~its own.warm.and human television ads about people keeping in touch with each other by letter. But it is just not the same .... In the parcel business the decline in USPS' share~of the market has been dramatic: It handled about 850 million fourth- class parcels in 1959; about 742 million in 1965, about 338 million in 1976, about 168 million in 1982 and expects about 143 million in 1984. United Parcel Service is now this country's major deliverer of parcels. The major battle at the moment is now going on in the advertising business. The USPS has been able to keep third-class rates low enough to make direct mail a major competitor to newspapers and to independent contract delivery companies for the distribution of printed advertising'matter. BUt success in this advertising-distribution market appears to depend to some significant degree on that stream of revenue from first-class mail, given the way in which the costs of the USPS are apportioned. So the really critical competition -- even if still just on the horizon -- is the competition for its letter mail, coming now from the courier services and, beyond that, from companies in the business of electronic communications. Let's look at the USPS and the alternative delivery systems in each of these major areas, in a little more detail. The Rise of UPS and the Decline of Parcel Post Never speak disrespectfully of small beginnings. United Parcel Service began a~ a messenger ~ervice (delivering flower~ and candy; taking a blind man to a funeral; walking or bicycling around with a message or package) in Seattle in 1907. By 1913 it had settled into a good business as the consolidated 'delivery department' for the city's retail department and specialty stores. It extended this business up and down the West Coast in the 1920s, and into the East (beginning in New York) in the ~"~1930s. By 1940 it had a thriving business in a growing number - ~'of major cities.~ ~ · ~ Suddenly, it had a dying business; doomed first by the war and gas rationing and, after the war, by the conversion of the retailing system to the new automobile-oriented shopping centers. From the 1940s on, people would carry their purchases home themselves. UPS saw that it had to change. In the early 1950s it moved decisively into the common-carrier parcel business, essentially in competition with parcel post. Little by little it won approval for intra-city and for inter-city delivery. By 1976 it had reached its goal: linking-up all 48 contiguous states. Today it employs about 114,000 people, operates about 80,000 vehicles, delivers something over 6 million parcels a day and earns revenues of about $5.2 billion a year. It is a private company, owned by its managers, headquartered in Greenwich, CT. Its business has been what the industry calls 'deferred delivery' (up to five days) for parcels of up 50 pounds and 108 inches combined length and girth.- It picks up at the door (on call or on a regular schedule); carries the .parcels entirely in its own fleet of vehicles, and delivers to the door. It has expanded into Canada and West Germany. But early in 1982 it bought'21 Boeing 727 jets and went into the next-day delivery business. It has always done what it could to see that the Postal Service kept its parcel service priced at full cost, and is concerned at the moment that 4th-class rates have not risen recently. It is also very aware of the USPS' growing customer orientation, and competitiveness. Newspapers, Contract Delivery and~the Battle for Advertising Third-class mail is officially low-priority mail. When the Post Office is not busy sorting and moving first-class mail it fills in its time with third-class mail. So third-class is charged a lower rate. There are additional discounts to mailers who pre-sort their bulk mail down to the city, branch office or carrier route. The effort since about 1979 to hold down the 5 rates on third-class has made direct mail a major mediu~ in the advertising business . . '. as any householder's look at the mailbox on any given morning is likely to show This has brought the USPS heavily into competition with the · private systems for the delivery of print advertising. A major part of this local delivery system has traditionally been the local newspaper. The newspaper business is essentially an advertising business: Subscriptions and newsstand sales' account for only a small part of newspaper revenue. In the larger cities newspapers usually set up their own force of.~ 'carriers' (usually on contract; not employees). For customers in the rural areas the newspapers frequently used the USPS, mailing under what were historically low second-class rates. As mail rates began to rise many newspapers began to ma~ke use of a new factor in the 'delivery' business: the independent contract distributor. Companies appeared offering simply the service of carrying printed messages: the newspaper -- and, significantly, the new competition to it, As the rates for newspaper advertising rose, some firms appeared that began to print 'shoppers'--advertising material without news content. And many of these were distributed by.contract delivery. So the contract houses developed a partly-cooperative, partly- competitive relationship with newspapers. And in both cases, of course, they developed an increasingly competitive relationship with the USPS as it became a growing factor in the field of direct-mail advertising. The invention known as direct~ mail is essentially'~a coming- i together of several elements: .computerized printing and the computerization of mailing lists (and the growing business ~in the re-sale of such lists); the emergence of specialized houses' (United Mailing, in Bloomington, is the largest in the~ Twin cities'area) which stuff and address the envelopes; and the .service provided by the USPS carriers~ After several years°f wrangling in the rate-making process a compromise was finally accepted this spring for third-class bulk mail: 11 cents an ounce, with a discount which will bring mail pre-sorted to a carrier route down to 7.4 cents an ounce. About half the third- class mail is now'pre-sorted. Although third-class has'a lower priority a major mailer can get what he really wants: a date-certain delivery, for which he is glad to bring the sacks in early. Using direct mail an advertiser can either saturate an area or mail selectively to just those households known to be interested in what he has to sell. More recently there has been a further development in the business known as 'marriage mailers' -- houses which will combine pre-printed advertising material from several firms into a single envelope for carrier delivery. Perhaps because these alternatives are available, more and more of the newspaper advertising is now also pre-printed; less and less 'run of press'. Increasingly, what the advertiser is buying is not the newspaper itself (and not the news) but simply the services of the newspaper carrier. Two contract delivery companies in the Twin cities area are worth watching. One is ADS.(Advertisers Distribution Services), an aggressive operation in the outer suburbs and nearby rural areas, where it delivers weekly newspapers and shoppers. The other is Adams, which says it is the largest contract deliverer of monthly magazines in America; the Twin cities area apparently consuming more magazines per capita than any other metropolitan area in America. Adams has recently begun advertising a capacity to 'saturate' (i.e., to hit every address) in the Minneapolis part of the Twin Cities area. This summer it will deliver the Parade of Homes -- traditionally a major advertising section in the Minneapolis Tribune, and in recent years a pre-printed insert distributed with the Tribune. Adams is a subsidiary of Knight- · Ridder, publisher of the Saint Paul newspapers. In this market everything seems to turn on price. Terrible arguments rage through the trade press, through the rate-making agencies and through the courts. Major mailers want USPS rates kept low; newspapers and contract delivery organizations want them raised. The law requires that rates must reflect 'costs' within each class of mail. So the argument rages on about what are in facts USPS' costs, and about the way in which these are apportioned to the various classes of mail. The USPS and its major users resist any suggestion that the revenue from first-class mail is being used to reduce the rates ' for third-class mail. Probably the answer lies in that question about cost-apportionment; especially, if the major 'fixed' cost of the' postal delivery system -- the carriers' salaries -- is ,~. being charged to the 20-cent first-class letter. What would seem '~" ~ beyond debate is that, at a minimum, the effort by the USPS to '~, grow in the business of third-class mail will depend on the ability of first-class mail to continue to pay its own costs. So it becomes fundamentally a question of whether that protected class of letter-mail can survive the competition from the new forms of message-delivery now appearing on the scene. ' - . · The Coming Challenge to First-class Mail For the moment, as we have noted, first-class and other 'letter mail is protected by the laws making it illegal for any party other than the USPS to deliver letters or to use your mailbox. This is subject to some qualification. A company could deliver 'letter mail' (the power company could deliver its own bills, for example), postal officials say, providin~ it used its regular full-time employees receivin full salar and benefits and, of course, providing it does not use 'the mall box'. But few if any do. Occasionally, some entrepreneur tries to get into the business. Invariably the USPS gets it stopped. Here and there an entrepreneur does find a chink in the business. Since anyone can receive mail, a number of individuals have ventured into the private mail box business, for example: Someone will buy a wall of boxes, say, from an old post office, and urge you to use his (perhaps prestigious) address as your addr.ess. You can then have.your mail received and held, or forwarded; at a convenient location open, not incidentally, in the evening and at other times when the post office is closed. In California there are private firms also selling stamps and offering other 'postal' services -- though not, USPS officials are quick to note -- certified mail, international mail, etc. But the USPS itself is making'some changes in its service (as well as adjusting its prices: The next rate increase is expected to take the first-class letter to 23 cents). To reduce costs it will probably contract more often with private individuals for the delivery of mail on rural routes as its regular carriers retire. These are the so-called "star .~ routes", which enable an individual working part-time to deliver mail and to bring out, say, an item from the hardware store at the same time. Similarly, there are likely to be more of the 'contract stations': small offices in a corner drug store or shopping center that will handle mail, sell stamps, etc. In a further response to the Competition it recently announced it will be expanding its central-mail-box business: more locations, and more convenient hours. In California it has introduced some drive-in service (also being introduced by UPS). I.t- will contihue to deliVer mail to the door in areas' where it is now delivering to the door. But it will not start~ any new 'doorstep' delivery. The people in new areas will havea choice~ They will be able to put up mail boxes at the curb, at their own expense.. Or, if they prefer, the US. PS will put up a 'cluster' mail box for the neighborhood as a whole, at its expense..- The most noticeable change for most people will be the nine- digit zip code (ZIP + 4, the USPS prefers). With this, the new automatic machinery in the central post offices will be able to sort the mail down to a particular block on a carrier route, and to a particular building or business firm. This will cut the time a carrier spends sorting letters (traditionally, about three hours of the eight-hour day); and will reduce the skill requirements (and therefore the salary requirements) in the post offices, over time. ZIP + 4 is now set to go into operation next October, and Congress this time probably will permit it to do so. With these changes and improvements, it might seem, first- class mail would continue as we have known it, secure in the monopoly afforded by the laws against 'private express'. These days, however, not even the best-established monopolies can feel secure from business innovations and from technological change. In any situation where some customers are being charged more than the cost of service, there is a powerful incentive for someone to find a way (or to invent some device) that will offer the service to that segment of the market at a lower price. So: Private insurance carriers marketing to 'preferred risks' in the 1950s broke up the old 'community rating system' originally used by Blue Cross. So: Cable television used satellite transmission to break up the local monopoly of the broadcaster over national programming. So: MCI and Sprint and other similar companies began to cut into the Bell System's long- distance business. A Northwestern Bell executive said it best: "They are driving us out of the price-averaging business". The very real prospect is now that this will happen to the usPs as a result of two emerging developments. One is the business innovation known as same-day and next-day delivery.' The other is the technological development known as electronic mail. The Courier Services There have always been local services that would deliver things around town -- including the armored cars that deliver money. In the early 1970s some of these services began to deliver computer prints. An interesting question arose: Were these 'messages', subject to the rules governing the delivery of 'mail'? Were computer tapes; or disks? About 1973 the USPS tested the question, with regulations that would have had the effect of suppressing these courier services, much as the USPS has historically driven out other would-be deliverers of first-class mail. But it got little support. The feeling was strong that the USPS should not ~ - suppress a service (same-day delivery) which it was not itself prepared to offer. So the courier services continued to carry the computerized messages around town. Quickly after that the courier services moved into another service the USPS was 'not prepared to offer': guaranteed next- day delivery of printed messages beyond the local (50-mile) area. Today no one watching television can be unaware of the array of companies each offering to take your parcel or message anywhere in the country, overnight, faster or more reliably or less expensively than its competitors. That array, of Course, now includes the Express Mail service of the USPS itself. You can take your envelope to one of the blue-and-orange boxes on selected street corners; or, for a $5.50 charge the USPS will pick up on call. Express Mail has the advantage of a huge distribution system: Your envelope will be sent through the scheduled air-carrier system (since the USP$ has no jet aircraft of its own), and will then be distributed by USPS carriers. Like its competitors, the USPS claims to have the best 9 service and the lowest costs. One courier-service exec6tive says, "We make calls on prospective customers. We never see a Postal Service person there". But there is no doubt that the USPS is an aggressive, formidable competitor. There does not seem to be much effort on either side to represent that the messages moving through the courier services in next-day delivery are anything but the sort of thing that normally moves through the first-class mail. There simply seems to be nothing that the USPS can do (or, at the moment, is prepared to try to do) about it. So the private-delivery · competition continues to grow.. UPS, as noted, has recently entered this business, in a major way. Freight companies are coming'in. It is extremely competitive. At some point when the. market growth slows there is likely to be a major shakeout. But even this new business is feeling the pressure to : change, with the appearance of electronic technology. The Electronic Delivery of Messages Modern electronic communications -- including the transmission of data in digital form, by satellite -- have vastly improved what began as 'the telegraph'. Today large volumes of information can be moved with great speed from a keyboard or document-reader at one location to a receiver or printer at another. This has major implications for change not ohly for the USPS but also for the courier services which are also, at the moment, still in the business of the physical delivery of hard- copy documents. The couriers' immediate response, is apParently going to be' to convert the central link in their service from jet airplane to electronic transmission; while retaining their delivery vans for local pickup and delivery in the citY of origin and in the city of destination. Federal Express is reported spending heavily prepare for this. The somewhat mys~eriogs company known as DHL ' has recently hired a senior executive from a major electronics firm; signalling as much as anything the coming-together of the communications and delivery industries. A next step is for the electronic transmission to become fully point-to-point; bypassing local pickup and delivery. One technology for this electronic 'document transmission -- facsimile -- has been available for some time. With a voice-grade phone line you can now send an 8 x 11 page in about 20 seconds. The machine to do this can be leased for about $200 a month. Facsimile can be integrated with copying machines, and probably soon with word-processors as well. Much of this will probably develop wholly within a single business organization; between a corporate headquarters and the branch offices. But it is conceivable that, as technology improves and as the costs come down, these facsimile machines will also move out of the internal corporate setting and into the 10 community on an open-to-anybody basis, much as the 'duplicating room' moved into the community in the form of the quick-print shops. This will probably not destroy the courier business; it will simply change it. ("Another market segment, available at a price", one executive says). But this is still the hard-copy business, just with an electronic link between the two offices. The ultimate stage is the fully electronic connection from point to point . . . from computer display to computer display, with no paper involved at either end. Once again, a caution: Few people think there will be a totally paperless office. But there will be some of this direct electronic communication; and, if the ads and-~icles in the computer trade magazines are a reliable indication, considerably more of it, fairly soon, as inventors and businessmen find ways to solve the present problem of incompatibility among computers, It will be another 'market segment', affecting though not destroying the existing methods of message delivery. At this point the telephone company enters the picture. As noted, it dominates the delivery system as a sender of other people's messages. It deals in digital signals, switched by its computers. Its lines already run into almost every home. Its technology will improve, with the transition to glass-fibres (now beginning to be installed in the Twin cities area, in the Opus 2 development). The 'phone number' is simply an address. With 14 numbers you can reach any phone-address in the world. A touch-tone phone is a keyboard connected to a computer. The company is designing new services that will increase its attractiveness in message-delivery. One of these is 'voice store-and-forward', now also coming into early use in this region. Essentially this competes with the answering service and with the conventional answering machines.; holding a caller's message in computer storage if a line is busy, and ringing through when the line is clear. Telemarketing is growing, as a competitor not only to airlines but also to direct mail (and to the prospective service of direct-to-home marketing envisioned for years for two-way cable). Advertisers buy time on broadcast television, make their pitch, and urge viewers to call an 800 number, which rings in a - 'boiler room' where someone will take their orders. These · 'boiler rooms' work on a time-sharing basis, for several companies. Omaha seems to be a major center for such operations, apparently because people.feel particularly comfortable talking to a Nebraska accent. Beyond this are other services, some of them moving heavily toward the stream of first-class mail now moving through business firms. It may before long be possible to query your own bank account, by telephone. The telephone company is giving some 11 consideration to selling a merged accounting/billing service to other companies; sending out their bills along with its own monthly statement, in what would represent essentially another consolidation of messages within the mail stream. And beyond this, of course, is the prospect of direct and electronic debiting of bank accounts, so that the amount of your purchase rung up at the checkout counter in the supermarket is immediately subtracted from your account and credited to the store. The Postal Service is into a form of electronic mail, with the service it calls E-COM. But this is what is known in the trade as Generation~II mail: that is, the service in which only the middle part of the message's total trip is by electronic transmission. E-COM will send computer-generated messages to (at present, 25) major post offices around.the country. You can bring your message to the post office (if you have a computer, it can link into the Post Office). From there the USPS will then send the electronic message to the receiving Post Office in, say, Seattle. There it will be converted to letter form and prin~ed, stuffed in envelopes and delivered by USPS carrier. This, again, will get some share of the market; partly at the expense of the USPS' own conventional letter mail. One consultant projects perhaps 16 billion pieces of Generation II mail at the peak; then declining by the mid-1990s as Generation III (point-to-point) electronic mail begins a rapid rise. Significantly, the USPS will not be in the Generation 'III' business. In its Memo to Mailers March/April 1983 the USPS reported that'its Board of Governors had reaffirmed its earlier commitment (1) not to try to extend the letter-mail monopoly to electronic' communications; (2) not to offer Generation III services; and (3) not~ to construct or own its own electronic transmission facilities, Some Possible Conclusions'and'Some Policy Issues These tentative conclusions emerge, from even the brief look we have had at the changes under way. 1. There is a high correlation between innovation in the service system, in the USPS, and the existence of serious competition to it. There.is now real change, modernization and improvement in the effectiveness and efficiency of the postal service. As the Freeman Commission showed, this was accomplished simply by the 1970 reorganization. It came only after the Freeman Commission showed~the USPS the competition that was developing and what its consequences were likely to be. 2. The case of the USPS tends to reinforce the hypothesis that change is accomplished (a) by those within an organization (b) under pressure from the outside; not by either factor, alone. 3. An organization with a commanding position in a service area (especially, protected by a monopoly) puts itself very 12 substantially at risk by not moving aggressively and early to respond positively to the rising expectations and desires of its customers for improved service, once that improued service is known to be possible. The USPS may have waited too long . . . giving its competitors too much of an opportunity to establish their alternative services and to develop their electronic technology independently. In retrospect, the key period would seem to have been the years 1970-77, in which the courier services became established and in which the USPS may have lost its opportunity to get fully into electronic mail. The danger is that the postal system will follow the pattern of the transit systems after about 1920: Their dominance of the market for urban person-trips and their insensitivity (given the existence of their monopoly franchises) kept them from responding positively to the need for change and improvement. Ultimately the transit systems were driven by its competition into a minor role of service largely to those who cannot afford the superior services available to private buyers. 4. The major question about 'delivery', now, occurs on the policy side; with respect to the function we have been describing in these memos as 'providing'. That is: the question whether some certain level of communications service should be guaranteed in certain situations, regardless of need or ability to pay. The new services introduced by the intensified competition among producers can bring important benefits, as the automobile did in transportation. But major questions of equity are bound to be raised, if and as the competition among message carriers erodes the revenue base of first-class mail. These will affect especially (a)remote geographic locations, where the cost of delivery is high; (b) individuals and organizations (non- profits, for example) unable to afford what will almost certainly be the rapidly-rising costs of USPS delivery, or disadvantaged by the inferior level of the service they will be able to afford; and (c) books, journals of opinion and other publications whose distribution has been considered to have some larger social value and has traditionally been given a subsidized rate. If it is even possible that the postal service is on its way to becoming essentially what transit service is today, some policy discussion should begin early (as it did not, with respect to transit). This should not be about the way to suppress the competition among producers. It should be about the ways in which the public service aspects of message and parcel delivery can and should be organized and finanaced, whatever the 'delivery system' by which they are carried. 5. Beyond the system of 'delivery' itself, some larger questions are raised by the changes under way. for example, about the system of news and information and ab~u[ the discussion of public affairs, as direct mail and electronic communication pulls away the advertising which has traditionally provided the 13 base of economic support for independent journalism. 6. Finally, there is a question whether we have even begun to think through the implications of the re-pricing of message delivery (increasing the price of local communication and reducing the price of long-distance communication) . . . on the location of economic activity, for example, or on the fundamental historic issue of centralization and decentralization in. our politics and in our federal governmental system. Ail these are simply questions. The changes under way may be positive as well as negative; and are not necessarily bad for the society even if they are threatening to some existing organizations. But the questions do seem to deserve a discussion which they have not yet begun to receive. A number of persons helped PSRP greatly in the preparat'ion of this memo. Among them: Anthony J. Schiavone, district manager of the USPS; Michael Fisher, vice president and general counsel, Fingerhut Corporation; James Cregan, majority counsel to the House Post office and Civil Service Committee; John Shufman, formerly the manager for the USPS North Central district; Wallace Anderson, customer service district manager for United Parcel Service; Laurel Blanch and Gene Marah, of Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.; Andrew Grossman, of Gelco Courier; Shirley Dwyer and Brad Hurt, of Adams delivery Service; George Johnson and Jim Adams, of ADS; Don Smith of the Monticello Times; Jon Schroeder - of the Grant County Herald; Mike O'Connor of the Hastings Star- Gazette; Mary Ziegenhagen of the Burnsville Current; Leo Reichert, of United Mailing; Fred~Streeter of Mail Box Plus. we'appreciate their, willingness to talk with us and available the documents that further explain their organizations .~-~ ~ and their'operations. We ask their indulgence for the simplified> 'description, here, of what they know is an immensely complex business. Our hope has.to be that we have caught the essentials accurately and explained them clearly. This is one is a series of occasional memos examining major public (governmental and non,governmental) service systems. It is part of a policy project in the Humphrey Institute aimed at identifying ways in which the Twin cities area and the state of Minnesota can make improvements in the efficiency and in the effectiveness with which these systems operate. ' ' ~.~' If you would like to see copies of earlier memos, or get more information about the project itself . or if you would like simply to pass on whateVer thoughts o~cur~ed as you read this memo . . . call 376-9795. 14