Loading...
85-05-21 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAX, MAX 21, 1985 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Approve Minutes of May 14, 1985, Regular Meeting Pg. 1237-1248 INFORMAT~ONAL.~EARING; To discuss Ordinance Section 55.38B Regarding "Temporary Election Signs" Pg. 1249-1251 The following two items are continued from May 14, 1985· PUBLIC HEARING; Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Map for Lots 1 & 9, Block 13, The Highlands, CASE #85-414 ~%,a~ CASE ~85-~2~: John Schluter, 4339 Wilshire Blvd. Zoning District R-2 Request: Lot Split, Subdivision Pg. 1252-1261 Pg. 1262-1271 5. PUBLIC HEARING; Delinquent Utility Bills for May Pg. 1272 PUBLIC HEARING; To Consider Conditional Use Permit for Class 2 Restaurant (change from Class 1) at 5600 Three Points Blvd. Pg. 1273-1279 7. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present Public Dance (Dance Hall) Permit Application for Captain Billy's, 5241 Shoreline Blvd. Pg. 1280 9. Miscellaneous License & Premit Renewals Pg. 1281 10. 11. Ordinance Amending Section ~.16, Subsections (g) and (j) of the City Code Relating to Water Connections; and Adding Subsection (f) to Section 20.03 Relating to Sanitary Sewer Connetions Reqhest to Cancel Assessment on Tax Forfeit Lot (Lot 3, Block 2, Westwood) - Mr. Frank Drey Pg. 1282-1283 Pg. 1284-1290 12. Payment of Bills Pg. 1291-1297 13. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Letter of Resignation from Sharon Legg Pg. 1298 B. Issues & Observations (Consequences) Pg. 1299-1306 Page 1236 C. Springsted Newsletter D. Chrysalis - Open House E. News Story - "Comparable Worth" F. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Agenda and Minutes G. Labor Market Information P6. 1307-1308 Pg. 1309 Pg. 1310-1311 Pg. 1312-1324 Pg. 1325-1328 Page 1236A May 14, 1985 MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MAY 14, 1985 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on May 14, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Acting Mayor Russ Peterson, Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen and Steve Smith. Mayor Bob Polston was absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Jon Elam, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Planner Mark Koegler, City Engineer John Cameron, City Clerk Fran Cl~rk, Building Inspector Jan Bertrand and the following interested citizens: Gene A. Hostetler, Curtis Berg, Kenneth Osborne, Richard DeVinney, Reg Chambers, Jay Gorton, Richard Clifford, Mike Colbert, John Schluter, Joe Gibson, Joanne Gibson, Donna Smith, Alice & Glenn Rogers, Ken Perbix, Ron Pike, Russell F. Kolden, Don Ulrick, ¥ince Forystek, Nell Weber. Acting Mayor Peterson opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. MINUTES MOTION was made 'by Councilmember Paulsen, seconded by Councilmember'Jessen to approve the Minutes of the April 23, 1985, Regular Coundil Meeting as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP FOR LOTS 1 & 9, ..BL.OCK 13, THE HIGHLANDS, CASE ~8)-414, DONNA SMITH The City Manager explained that this amendment would allow for 3 buildable lots which are currently in the R-1 district to be rezoned to R-2 or R-3 single family. He explained that the Planning Commission recommended approval of this amendment for the property· to be R-3 .single family which would be more consistent with the surrounding property. He further explained that if the people owning the property wanted to have townhouses or double bungelows on this property, they would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Mrs. Donna Smith, the applicant, explained that when she took her petition around for the rezoning to R-2 single family that was all she wanted, but that the Planning Commission felt that since the adjoining property was currently zoned R-3 single family that .this should be also to be consistent. She further explained that 82 May 14, 1985 she needs this rezoning in order to make the ~back lot buildable. She stated that the people who have been interested in purchasing the property all want single family. The Acting Mayor opened the Public Hearing and asked for any comments for or against the amendment to the zoning map. RICK DE VINNE¥, 2928 Westedge Blvd., stated that he lives adjacent to the property and was not opposed to R-2 single family zoning but is opposed to R-3. KEN PERBIX, 2900 Dickens ~ane, stated that he agrees with Mr. DeVinney and only wants R-2 zoning. The Acting Mayor asked how many people in attendance agreed with Mr. DeVinney and Mr. Perbix. At least 15 people raised their hands. The'Acting Mayor closed the Public Hearing. He then stated that he disagrees with the Planning Commission recommendation for R-3 in this area because R-2 would be a better transition. ' The City Manager explained that the reason the Planning Commission did not recommend R-2 was that it would be spot zoning, being that there are only 2 lots involved in an area of R-1 and R-3 zoning. The City Planner explained that R-2 and R-3 single family requires the same square footage to build, 6,000 square feet and if the owners wanted to construct duplexes or townhouses, they would have to come before the Planning Commission and the Council for a Conditional Use Permit to construct these. Councilmember Paulsen asked for a definition of spot zoning from the City Attorney. The City Attorney stated that he would define spot zoning as taking 3 lots out of 40 and zoning them differently than the surrounding lots. He further restated that the R-2 and R-3 single family district has the same square footage for building, 6,000 square feet. Peterson moved and Smith second the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-53 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CIT~ CODE MAKING LOTS 1, 2 AND 9, BLOCK 13, THE RIGHLANDS AN R-2 ZONING DISTRICT The vote was 2 in favor with Councilmembers Jessen and Paulsen voting nay. Motion fails. Councilmember Jessen stated that she does not want to set a precedent of isolated spot zoning in a small area. 83 May 1~, 1985 ?aulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-53 RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY CODE MAKING LOTS I AND 9, BLOCK 13, THE HIGHLANDS A R-3 ZONING DISTRICT The vote was 3 in favor with Councilmember Smith abstaining. Motion fails. Councilmember Smith stated he would rather see this item tabled until the next meeting so there would be a full Council to vote on this issue. MOTION was made by Councllmember Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Paulsen to table this item until the May 21, 1985, Regular Meeting. The Yore was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ?UB,LIC.,,,HEA~ING; PROPOSED VACATION OF,A PORTION OF GOBDEN, DRUMMOND, AND, WINDSOR ROADS, NElL WEBER The City Manager explained that by vacating these unimproved streets and if the County allows the City to purchase some tax forfeit property to resell to Mr. Weber, 'he will be able to develop Blocks '15 and 16, Whipple, which are at this time land locked. The Planning Commission has recommended approval on 'the contingent that we are. able to get the tax forfeit land to sell to Mr. Weber. Acting Mayor Peterson opened the Public Hearing and asked for any comments for or against the proposed vacation. MR. GLENN ROGERS, asked what Mr. Weber plans to do with the property. Mr. Weber stated he wants to replat the property and build several single family homes on the property, one of which will be his. He stated he does not want to strip the property of the trees, but needs to clear out dead elms. He stated he has no intention of building duplexes or apartments on the property, only single family dwellings. The Public Hearing was closed. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-53 RESOLUTION VACATING CERTAIN STREET EASEMENT AND RETAINING FOR THE ClT~ A UTILITY EASEMENT OVER THE WEST 80.0 FEET OF THE NORTH 15 FEET OF WINDSOR ROAD The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 84 May 14, 1985 CASE JOHN SCHLUTER, q$$9 WILSHIRE BLVD,, LOT SPLIT~ SUBDIVISION The City Manager explained that the Planning Commission has recommended approval. The lot split meets all requirements of the City. The three things that are waived are the public hearing, the park dedication and the replatting of the parcel. Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION#85-Sq RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE LOT SPLIT/SUBDIVISION FOR PID ~19-117-23 13 0006 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Attorney stated that Mr. Schluter's attorney called him today and stated that the Planning Commission did not waive the park dedication fee and he asked on what basis the S.taff was recommending waiving the fee which is in conflict with the ordinance. Councilmember Paulsen stated that he understood that the Planning Commission did not waive the .park dedication fee. The City Manager sta. ted that he was at the meeting and the Planning Commiss. ion did waive the park dedication fee. In the four years he has been here the City has never charged a park dedication fee on a small residential lot split/subdivision. This has only been charged on commercial or multi-family lots. The City Planner stated that it was his recollection, and he has not seen the Planning Commission Minutes, that the park dedication fee was waived after significant discussion. He also had concerns about not following the letter of the law, but he has been told that past practices on lot splits/subdivisions in residential areas has been not to charge the park dedication fee. He further stated that the Planning Commission over the past few months has been working on a.new subdivision ordinance, which the Council has not yet seen, and this ordinance defines a major and a minor lot split/subdivision. A minor would be 3 lots or less and there has been discussion, although no definitive action has been taken, about waiving park dedication requirements in those minor subidivisions. The problem seems to be. that the ordinance requires 10% across the board which is fine if you are dealing with a large subdivision of residential property or a commercial property, but when you get down to the scale of an individual lot it becomes a burden to the homeowner, because if broken down on a percentage basis you are looking at a $2,500.00 park assessment charge. In his experience with other communities that charge would be close to 10 times over what the norm would be. The norm being in the $250 to $400 range for a single lot split in a 85 May 14, 1985 residential type of situation. I% becomes unit actually put $2500 worth of pressure on the park system and is that justified. The recommendation and discussion by the Planning Commission focused around past practices that ocurred with previous situations as well as throwing in what the Commission is looking at for the revised subdivision ordinance. Couneilmember Smith stated that there is some confusion here tonight because what is in the Council Packet is the same material that was submitted to the Planning Commission for review, not as he remembers ,what was the result of the Planning Commission Meeting. Therefore he feels the vote was a result of confusion~ He requested a copy of the Planning Commission Minutes to confirm what they actually did recommend. The City Manager asked the Building Inspector if the Minutes from the May 6th Planning Commission Meeting were done. She answered that she has not seen them yet. Acting Mayor Peterson stated that if the Planning Commission did not recommend waiving the Park Dedication Fee he would want to do so. Therefore he would support a motion to reconsider the Resolution #85-54. MOTION made'by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Peterson to reconsider Resolution ~85-5~ for clarificatioh on the Park Dedication Fee. The City attorney read Chapter 22.38, subdivision 2 relating to Park Dedication Fees. He then stated that neither the Planning Commission or the Council could waive this fee as the ordinance reads now. The applicant would either have to contribute 10% of the land being subdivided or in lieu of property would have to pay 10% of the fair market value of the property being subdivided. Councilmember Jessen asked the City Attorney how long the Park Dedication Fee section has been in effect. He stated since 1978. The City Planner stated that in the early sessions on the subdivision ordinance the Planning Commission discussed park dedication fees and at that time he related to the Commission what the City Attorney stated when he quoted the ordinance that the park dedication is required regardless of waiver. The Commission was surprised to hear that and were unaware that that provision applied in all cases and perhaps that is somewhat of an indicator of past practice. That coupled with the fact that the Commission is looking for a change in the subdivision ordinance in the near future, they felt it would be unreasonable to charge this individual 10% for park dedication. Councilmember Jessen stated that she feels 10% is an undue hardship and that a smaller amount of say $300.00 would be a good maximum for lot splits/subdivisions of this kind. 86 May 14, 1985 Councilmember Smith asked that the question be called on his motion to reconsider Resolution #85-54. The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. carried. Motion MOTION made by Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Paulsen to renew Resolution t85-§~ with the following conditions: waiving the platting and public hearing; having no Park Dedication Fee required; approving the driveway relocation{ and the boat house encroachment. Councilmember Smith stated that he cannot vote for this motion because we should not be waiving Park Dedication Fees for one person and not another, but if the Council wanted to amend the ordinance he probably would be in favor of that. Councilmember Jessen agreed. The vote on the motion was 2 in favor with Councilmembers Jessen and Smith voting nay. Motion fails. The City Attorney stat'ed that if the Council feels the Park Dedication Ordinance, as it stands, is not fair for a person subdividing a small parcel, then they should amend it to lower the fee. MOTION made by Co~ncilmember Jessen to amend Section 22.37, Subdivision 2 of the City Code relating 4o Park Dedication Fees lowering the fee to $600.00 for small subdivisions of one lot to two. MOTION made by Councilmember Smith; seconded by Councilmember Peterson to table this item until the May 21st Meeting so that the full Council is present to vote on this. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS ~ SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT The Acting Mayor asked if there were any comments or suggestions from the citizens present. A person asked if the street sweeper is broken down. The City Manager stated no,that Public Works is sweeping and will get to his area soon. APPLICATION FOR "TEMPORARY~, SIGN PERMIT ,AT 5600 LYNWOOD BkYD, The City Manager explained that Community Services has submitted three applications for temporary sign permits for three groups, Community Services, the Senior Citizens, and the Indianhead Players. Each of these permits would allow the organizations to use the temporary sign for a maximum of 40 days or a total of 120 days per year. 87 Mr. Ulriek, of Community Services, was present and explained that the School District has now purchased this sign and that they want to be in conformance with the ordinances. This is why they have applied for the permits. The Council discussed the use of this temporary sign versus a permanent sign where the messages could be changed. Smith moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-54 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE USE OF THE TEMPORARY SIGN FOR THE THREE GROUPS APPLYING FOR ONE ~EAR WITH COMMUNIT~ SER¥ICES TO KEEP A LOG OF THE TIMES USED The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. REALIGNMENT OF,, LYNWOOD BLVD, PROJECT; NO PARKING RESOLUTION FOR LYNWOOD BLVD. BETWEEN COMMERCE, BLVD...~ND. BELMONT LANE The City Manager ~xplained that a "No Parking" Agreement for Lynwood Blvd. must be passed by the City Council before the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation will give final approval on the Lynwood Blvd. Project. It is necessary because of the width of the proposed street does not meet the minimum requirements necessary to allow parking. Jessen moved and Peter~on seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-55 RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AGREEMENT RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON LYNWOOD BLVD. BETWEEN COUNT~ ROAD 110 AND BELMONT LANE Councilmember Smith asked how many parking spaces this would delete. The City Manager stated that about 20 to 25 would be eliminated. The City Engineer stated that in order to have parking on both sides a 44' streetwould be required. For parking on one side of the street a 36' street would be required. The City Manager explained that in order to get the MSA money to do this project we have to pass this resolution. A vote on Resolution $85-55 was unanimously in favor. carried. Motion STATUS RE~ORT;. ,PAISLEY ROAD IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS The City Manager went over the options outlined in the City Engineer's letter dated May 6, 1985, with the Council. Mr. Forystek stated that he would go along with paying for everything listed except the drainage revamping cost of $3,700 which he feels is not his problem. That problem exists and has 88 May 14, 1985 existed thus he should not be responsible for ~these costs. The City attorney reminded Mr. Forystek that he would need to be the fee owner of the property before he can submit a petition for the road improvements. The City Manager explained that what Mr. Forystek is asking for with this project is that the City of Mound pay all the upfront costs for upgrading the street and utilities and then assessing it back to him. The City Engineer stated 'that in his figures he has not calculated· any costs for engineering, legal or administration. That would be extra. No action was taken on this item because Mr. Forystek is not yet the fee owner of the property. TUXEDO BL,VD,, SAFETY IMPROV$,MENT, AT MANCHESTER ROAD The City Engineer explained that he is submitting the plans and a preliminary cost estimate for this project. Cost $11,805.00. He is asking that the Council pass a resolution requesting variance approval from the Minnesota~eptJ of Transportation. This variance is necessary because t~e"geometric design of the existing street does not meet the minimum standards as set by the state aid regulatlons~ At the time Tuxedo Blvd. was originally constructed, these variances were granted-by the state aid office, but recently a policy change now requires that an advisory committee approve such requests. The state aid office has given preliminary approval so he feels the advisory committee will grant the variance~ Paulsen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-56 RESOLUTION RELATING TO A DESIGN VARIANCE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. BARTLETT BLYD, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT The City Manager explained that during the Spring this part of Bar.tlett Blvd. by the Shirley Hills ballfield had many frost boils. This part of the road has too much blue clay and if that would have been' removed the road would have sunk away if when we put gravel in it in the middle of Spring. Last week Public Works took a day off sweeping streets and dug out the boils getting the road in a safer condition. He further explained that before we spend alot of money patching the road and getting the gravel base back in he thought it appropriate that John Cameron reactivate a letter he sent to the Council in 1983 talking about the situation in this spot of Bartlett Blvd. and what needs to be done to avoid this problem ocurring again in the future. This letter stated 89 that underground drainage needs to be put 'in and tied to the storm sewer pipe that cuts in right across from Glendale. This the Staff feels makes more sense to do now that the road is all dug up rather than patching and having the same thing happen next year. The estimated cost of doing the project is $24,600, but only $3,200 of that is for the tile. In order to get state aid funds for this project we would have to bring the road up to 9 ton status. The City Engineer stated that he has looked at the tile again and thinks, with the proper design, the cost of that could be cut to about $1,600. The City Manager stated that the City crew could do all the work except the drain tile which would cut the 'cost of the project. The state aid office would allow the City to do the work. Councilmember Paulsen asked if the Dept. of Transportation was going to make us pass a resolution precluding parking on this street. He asked the City Engineer if the road was the proper width to allow for parking so it would not have to be given up. The City Engineer stated he would have to go out and see where the indentation was for the parking by the ballfield to be sure it extends far enough northeast or the Dept. of Transpbrtation would not approve this request because the street is not wide enough. MOTION was' made by Counellmember Paulsen, seconded by Councilmember Jessen authorizing the City Engineer to explore using State Aid funds for the repair project on Bartlett Blvd. The vote was unanimously in favor..Motion, carried. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A MINOR AUTO/BOAT REPAIR BUSINESS AT 5542.LYNWOOD BLVD. MOTION as made by Councilmember Jessen, seconded by Councilmember Paulsen to set June 11, 1985, for a Public Hearing to consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit to operate of minor auto/boat repair business at 5542 Lynwood Blvd. (Blue Lagoon Marina). The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ~O,NTRkCTS FOR EMPLOXMENT - BOB JOHNSON ~ JOHN TAF~E The City Manager explained that both of these expenses were in the Park Budget as well as doing restoration of damage caused by snow plowing in the winter, watermain break damage, and working of some walls.- MOTION was made by Couneilmember Paulsen, seconded by Councilmember Jessen to approve the contracts of employment for Bob Johnson and John Taffe. Councilmember Smith stated that since we are striving to make these individuals independent contractors that the following phrase be deleted from the contracts, "and also serve as an 9O May 14, 1985 agent -of the City of Mound". The maker of the motion agreed and so did the seconder. vote was unanimously in favor. Notion carried. The PAYMENT oF BILLS The bills were presented for consideration. MOTION was made by Councilmember Jessen, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to authorize the payment of bills, as presented on the pre-list, in the amount of $150,061.89, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. SET DATES FOR. MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC HEARINGS MOTION was made by Councilmember Paulsen, seconded by 'Councilmember Peterson to set Nay 21, 1985, for a public hearing to consider a Conditional Use Permit for a Class 2 restaurant (change from Class 1) at 5560 Three Points Blvd. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION was made by Councilmember Paulsen, seconded by Councilmember Jessen to set June 11, 1985, for a public hearing to consider the issuance of an "Off Sale Beer License= to Christine Malik Brickley and William Scott Brickley, DBA Mound Superette, 2222 Commerce Blvd. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. REPAIR OF VARIOUS WALLS The City Manager explained that he now has the quotes from the two companies who responded on repairing a number of walls that have either fallen down or are about to fall down due to the rain. The following were the quotes: Bjork Country Stone, Inc. Lyckholm Construction $18,106.25 $25,189.00 Paulsen moved'and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #85-58 RESOLUTION DECLARING AN EMERGENCY SITUATION, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS .THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY AND TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC TO REPAIR THE WALLS THAT ARE FALLING DOWN OR HAVE FALLEN DOWN The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. SET DA~E FOR PUBLIC HEARING 90 The City Manager explained that he is proposing to reallocate )4ay some HUD money so that it is not lost at the end of June. He is proposing to reallocate $10,000.00 from the Tonka Plant Reuse (project #754) to a new proposed project Downtown Beautification. This would be used to plant trees, etc. in the Downtown area. MOTION made by Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Jessen to set June 11, 1985, for a public hearing on the reallocation of $10,000.00 in HUD funds. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION made by Councilmember Paulsen, Councilmember Jessen to adjourn at 10:00 P.M. unanimously in favor. Motion carried. seconded by The vote was Jon Elam, City Manager Fran Clark, city Clerk BILLS- MAY 14, 1985' Computer run dated 5/3/85 Computer run dated 5/9/85 Computer run dated 5/10/85 Batch 854044 Batch 854045 Batch 854051 24,519.58 89,248.30 36,294.01 Total Bills 150,061.89 LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF MOUND On May 21, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, the City Council of the City of Mound will hold an informational meeting on Ordinance #471 entitled, "An Ordinance Adding Section 55.38B to the City Code Relating to Temporary Election Signs", which was adopted on December 11, 1984. Copies of this Ordinance are available at City Hall. Anyone wishing to comment on this Ordinance will be heard at that time. Francene C. Clark, MCMC City Clerk Publish in The Laker May 13, 1985 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION55.38B TO THE CIT~ CODE REGULATING TEMPORARY ELECTION SIGNS THE CITY OF MOUND DOES ORDAIN: Section 55.38B is hereby added to the City Code and shall read as follows: Section 55.38B Temporary Election Signs purpose. Candidates for various political offices have a need to communicate with prospective voters, the right to use temporary signs for that purpose is guaranteed by the constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that indiscriminate placing of said signs on public property, and public rights of way causes a "visual blight" which citie~ have a right to control. City employees and administrators are placed in a very difficult position because, they are required to remove signs placed on publi~ properties by their elected superiors or by persons who may become their superiors. The intent of this ordinance is'to establish standards which shall appy equally to all incumbents and other candidates and to authorize and direct city employees to administer the ordinance to provide equal protection foe all, to allow free speech, to aid in traffic safety, to prevent visual pollution and to provide for removal of all temporary election signs which do not comply with the standards of this ordinance. Regulations~ Temporary election signs may be placed and maintained in the residential, multiple residential, commercial and industrial areas of the city subject to the following regulations: 1) No political campaign sign may be located on public property, public rights of way or on utility posts or poles located on public rights of way's. This includes lands owned or subject to easment by the City, County, School District, Federal Government or any.other political subdivision. 2) All temporary election signs shall be p]aced only on p~.i~a~e .Pi. PRettY at least 10 feet from the curb line or if there isn't a curb .at least 10 feet from the surfac~'~'-d~igen"r°adway~ 3) No sign may exceed 3 feet by 5 feet or a total of 15 square feet in area on one side. Sign copy however, may be placed on both sides of a sign. Signs shall not be designed to have more than two sides. 4) No sign may be placed more than four weeks (28 days) before the date of the election to which the sign Attest: relates. If the sign relates to an office which is the subject of a primary elec%ion, i% shall not be' placea ~e~ore four weeks prior to such primary election. A sign, which, when placed, relates to an office which is the subject of a primary election, may be retained in place after the primary election if it relates to the next ensuing ~eneral election. All signs must be removed from display no later than four days following the election to which they relate. 5) In addition to the other remedies available to the City under this code, any sign remaining on display beyond the times specified in paragraph (4) of this subdivision is deemed abandoned to the city and may in the city's -discretion be removed, destroyed or otherwise disposed of. 6) It shall be the responsibility of the sign owner, the property owner, and, in the case of a single family residence, the occupants, to comply with the provisions of this subdivision. 7) No such sign shall be placed or maintained without the prior approval of the property owner, and in the case of a single family residence, the occupant. 8) All signs placed in violation of this.ordinance shall be removed by the City employees under t~e direction of the City Mana'ge~. No city employees carrying out his or her duties under this ordinance shall in anyway be discriminated against or disciplined by elected political officials or by. candidates fo'r political offices. Mayo r City Clerk Adopted by the Council December 11, 1~84 Published in Official Newspaper The Laker December ~7', 1984 REVISED NOTICE CASE NO. 85-414 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP FOR LOTS 1 AND 9, BLOCK 13, THE HIGHLANDS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, May ]4, 1985, at 7:30 P.M., the City Council will hold a public hearing at the Mound City Hall, 534l Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, to consider a proposal to amend the Zoning Map, Mound Code of Ordinances, by removing Lots i and 9 from the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District and adding Lots ] and 9, Block 13, The Highlands, to the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District. The Planning Commission has concurred with the staff recommendation'to rezone the subject property to R-3 Two Family Residential Zoning District. Such action may be considered by the City Council in lieu of the applicant's request to rezone property to R-2. These lots are south- east of the corner of Bartlett Boulevard and Westedge Boulevard. PID Numbers 23-117-24 31 0050/0056. All persons appearing at said hearing will be given an oppor- tunity to be heard. Francene C. Clark, C~ty Clerk 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: March 28, 1985 SUBJECT: Rezoning (Map Amendment) CASE NO: 85-414 VHS FILE NO: 85-310-A15-Z0 APPLICANT: Donna Smith a.nd Joanne Gibson LOCATION: 6171 Bar'tlett Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: R-3 and R-1 CO~IVE PLAN: Multi-family and Single-family (R-I) PROPOSAL: The applicants own three lots at the corner of Dickens Lane and Bartlett Boulevard (County Road 110). The approximate size and zoning classifications of these lots are as follows: Lot 1 - 9,850 sq. ft., R-1 Lot 2 - 9,395 sq. ft., R-3 Lot 9 - 7,250 sq. ft. (1,020 sq. ft., R-3) (6,230 sq. ft., R-I) Lot 9 is presently unbuildable because it is undersizeddue to the R-1 zoning which requires a minimum area of 10,000 sq. ft. In order to establish three buildable parcels, the applicant has applied to rezone the three lots to R-2 which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 sq. ft. Rezoning to R-2 would actually create four buildable lots if the property were divided differently. Planning Commission and Staff Page Two March 28, 1985 BACKGROUND: Prior to submitting the application, Mrs. Smith discussed her situation with Staff. At that time, she was advised that two alternatives existed: first, to reg. uest a lot area variance for Lot 9 or, second, to apply for the rezoning of Lots 1 and 9 from R-1 to R-3. Staff indicated that the probability of receiving approval of the first option is low since the lot contains only 60 percent of the required area. The second option seemed more acceptable since it would rezone Lots 1 and 9 to R-3 which would make them conform with the five lots lying immediately to the west. Mrs. Smith selected a third option which requests rezoning to R-2 rather than R-3. COMMENTS:- This case presents two issues. First, is a higher zoning classification on Lots 1 and 9 appropriate and, if so, what classification should be used? Staff feels that it is appropriate to place the property in a higher zoning classification since it fronts on County Road 110 and it is adjacent to parcels presently zoned R-3. The second issue which involves whether the property is more appropriate as R-2 or R-3 deserves additional review. The major difference between R-2 and R-3 zoning is that R-3 permits townhouses as conditional uses. Both zones require 6,000 sq. ft. of land for single-familydetacheddwellings. Townhouses in the R-3 require from 4,000 to 5,000 sq. ft. per unit depending on the number of attached units in the structure. The major argument for R-2 zoning may be that it specifically prohibits townhouses which have a slightly higher density than two-family dwellings. This argument, however, seems insignificant since the rezoning of Lots 1 and 9 would only add 16,080 sq. ft. of new R-3 to a contiguous existing R-3 area of 49,015 sq. ft. In addition to this area, the southwest and northwest corners of the intersection of Westedge and Bartlett are also zoned R-3 firmly establishing the general location as a single-family, two-family and/or townhouse area. Rezoning the three lots to R-2 would establish an isolated, small, separate zoning classification since none of the surrounding property is zoned R-2. In reality, there is no R-2 zoned land within the immediate vicinity of Lots 1, 2 and 9. RECOMMENDATION: The rezoning of Lots 1, 2 and 9 to R-2 would be inconsistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance since it would establish an isolated, small zoning area. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission table the subject request with the specific direction that the applicant apply for rezoning to R-3 which would be consistent with the adjacent property. HINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1985 v~-re: Chair Elizabeth Jansen; Commissioners Robert Byrnes, William Meyer, Geoff Michael, Thomas Reese, Ken Smith, Michael Vargo and Frank Weiland; Council Representative Steve Smith; City Manager Jon Elam; City Planner Mark Koegler; Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Also present were the following interested persons: Donna Smith, Joanne Gibson, Jim Norby, Jim Robin, Bill Habicht, Joseph and Laura Bednor, Phi] and Eva Hasch, Oswin Pflug, Nell Weber, Kerry Peterson, Eugene Schle¢, Glenn Rogers, Harold Meeker, Nell Froeming, Audrey Froeming, Rick Lebra, Cherryl D. Lebra, Lauree Fegers, Gerald C. Jenson, W.-E. Tomlinson, Mr. & Mrs. Richard Maloney and Paul Robertson. MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commission.meeting of March 25, 1985 were presented for consideration. Reese moved and Weiland seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the March 25, )985 P)anning Commission meeting as presented. The vote was unani- mously in favor. Motion carried. )'OARD O~ APPEAL5" 1. Case No. 85J414 Public Hearing Re: Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Map to remove Lots 1, 2 and 9, B)ock 13, The Highlands from the present ~oning districts and add to the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District. Applicants, Donna Smith and Joanna Gibson, were present. The City Planner Mark Koegler reviewed his report; the applicants own 3 lots at the corner of Bartlett BOulevard and Dickens Lane which they are requesting - rezoned to R-2 (minimum size of 6,OOO square feet per lot for single family home). The R-2 zoning would actually create four buildable lots if the property were divided differently. Essentially, the first decision is whether the higher density classification on Lots 1 and ~ is appropriate'and then that leads into the second issue, should it be R-2, R-3, what should it be? R-2 and R-3 are essentially the same, except that R-3 does permit townhouses. Both permit single family houses with 6,O00 square feet of land. If this property were zoned R-3, there would be about 16,OO0 square feet added to the R-3 District. The handout that went out shows that there are two other quadrants at the intersection there of Westedge and Bartlett Boulevards that are R-3 so it very clearly identified that as an area of higher density. The Staff feels that rezoning the lots to R-2 would be incon- sistent with the zoning; would give 3 isolated lots of R-2 zoning and that a better approach would be to look at rezoning the property to R-3. The applicant referred to the 'le'tter and petition she had submitted earlier. Her concern now is to make the three lots buildable. Part of the land, Lot 2 with the house on it, was rezoned in 1950 to R-3 and they didn't even know about it. Lot 1' zoned R-1 is within 10% of the minimum requirement of 10,O00 square feet of area (wi'th a variance coul'd be a buildable lot). Lot 9 (back one) they were told is R-l; it has approximately 7400 square feet. That is undersized enough that she felt no way would they be able to get a variance. They found out that part of that lot is R-3. The people they are selling to and themselves want 3 single family homes on these 3 lots. The concern now,,in selling the lots, is to make the three all buildable lots. The Chair asked applicant if she thought rezoning to R-3 would require townhouses; Chair stated that R-3 allows the single family dwelling on R-3 the same as R-2 with G,OOO square feet minimum lot size. Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1985 - Page 2 Ken Smith questioned if Lot I is close to legal for R-1 Zoning, it would still .. have nonconforming width, The applicant stated that the~ have two kinds of buyers; one who has little money and just wants to fix up the old house and one who wants to make three nice homes and they'd like to sell to the latter. ' The Chair opened the public hearing; there was no one present who wished to speak on the proposal; the Chair closed the public hearing, Reese asked the history on the land. The applicant thought origina))y property on corner was commercial and it had been rezoned for townhouses which never were put in. Discussed the pros and cons of the various zonings. Reese stated this area looks like an R-] District. Meyer thought it was all R-] except for that little corner and asked if they'd considered combining and dividing into 2 nice ]3,000+ sites. Applicant Stated they are trying to settle an estate and can not afford to do that. Chair stated if they rezoned R-2, it would make a very small pocket of R-2 in this particular area. This would be rather inconsistent with how we deal with zoning; so our choices would be to look at this in terms of R-3 or R-l. Applicant thought there was R-2 zoning in the 14ighlands and was looking at single family dwellings ~or these lots. Reese mentioned he'd rather have a single family dwelling on a nonconforming lot than rezone.to R-3 and risk town- houses. It was thought to leave Lot 9 R-1 would require too great a variance. After further discussion, Byrnes ~ved and Michael seconded a motion to recommend making all three lots The app]icant stated she fears the neighbors wi)l say "no way" to the R-3 zoning and she')) be stuck with what she has now and not be able to sell the land. The City Manager stated that before townhouse/duplex went in there, there would have to be another public hearing· Only single family dwellings could go in there with- out further pub)ic hearings. The vote was Reese, Weiland, K. Smith and Meyer against; Byrnes, Michae), Steve Smith, Vargo and Jensen in favor. Motion carried with a 5 to 4 vote. The Council will be asked to set the pub)lc hearing for May 14, 1985. I Case No. 85-4)5 Public 14earinlg on Preliminary Plat for Townhouses in the 1700 B)ock of Commerce Bou)evard- Part of Lot 27, Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka PID // 13-117-24 22 0252 James 14. Norby, Real Estate Agent, and James Robin, Attorney for the project were present. The Building Officia) Jan Bertrand stated that previously the Commission had approved a Conditiona) Use Permit for a 4 unit townhouse on the site and there has been a bit of confusion on the setback and on moving the building to the north a little bit. Now there is somewhat of a discrepancy of what we've approved previously. Now there is )6.4 feet to the north lot liQe. Varl,ances have changed; it looks like a 13.6 foot variance is needed; it appears to be ~ving north. She noted that the gradin.g and drainage plan final approval from ~L.~ ?,,3,0 ~; ; CITY OF MOUND ~ L.,~.~ ..... -,,.~-~-: ~PPLICATION TO PLANNING ~ ZONING COmmiSSION ~'i":/. ~'~"_: . ~OU}~.I:. ..., ._ . (Please type the following information) 1. Case No. ~:Y_.~'- "//~ Fee Paid ~o,9 ~ ~D. Date Filed street Address of Property. ~'~'~ ~'7/ f~"~'/~~ ~J Legal Description of Property: Lot f~ ~ ~-..~' Block /~ Addition The Highlands f~ PID No. 23-117-24 31 0050/0051/0056 Owner's Name ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ay_ Phone No. ~7~-/~.~ ~~/ Address ~ / ~~~ /~-~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 4. Applicant (if other than owner) Name Day Phone No. Address · 5. Type of Request: ( ) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. (X) Amendment ( i Sign Permit ( )*Other *If other, specify: Present Zoning District 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? -~ If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. 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 notice's as may be required by law. /~//ug/t/~~/~ ~/ /~ .Signature of Applicant ~ Date. _h- ~'~ Planning Commission Recommendation: Lots all be rezoned to'R-3 Date 4-8-85 Public Hearing has been set for 5-14-85 il Action: Resolution No. Date Procedure for Zoning Amendments (2') Case D. Location 02: 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 fol'lows: Reason for Amendment: Amendment to.Map: It is requested that the property described below and shown on ~he attached site plan be rezoned from Address of Property: ~,[r~tt' Legal description of property (lot, block, subdivision or metes and bounds) Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Present Use of Property: / Reason for Amendment: ~ ~. ~/~ 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 per-lod following a denial of such request. CITY OF MOUND Attn: Planning February 28, 1985 Commission and City Council FROM: Donna Smith and Joanne Gibson Rezoning of Lots 1,2, and 9; Block 13, The Highlands We are applying to have all of'the above named lots rezoned to R-2 which would require 6000' square feet to be buildable. Pres- ently, Lot 2 (facing Bartlett BoUlevard) is zoned R-3 which could allow a double family dwelling. Lots 1 and 9 (on Dickens Lane) are currently R-1 which require 10,000 square feet fo=..~ single family dwelling. Although Lot 1 is approximately 10,000 square feet, Lot 9 is 7400 square feet. We ask that. you consider, our request to give up.our double bunga- low option On LOt 2 fo~ t he,ability to make the 7400 square feet of land on Lot 9 buildable. We. are doing this in an effort to make all lots uniform and all land usable. The proper..ty.ha~ been in our family for 43 years. It has been for sale-since July 1, 1984. We must sell. it now to settle..~he estate, but with the one lot under the 10,000 square feet required for R-1 zoning that land is currently unbuildable and therefore- has no use. We have also paid more than $3000 in taxes in the past six years on that one lot. '~ We have discussed this rezoning proposal with the residents on Dickens Lane. There are no residents on this block on Bartlett BOulevard. I, %he undersigned, do not object to the rezoning of the above named property. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO. S Lot I 9850 sq ft R-1 Lot 2 9395 sq ft R-3 I/,E Lots 3-6 32,655 sq ft R-3 Lot 9 7250 sq ft (1020 sq ft R-3) ~ (6230 sq ft R-l) 8~700 sq ft (5945 sq ft R£3) (2755 sq ft R-l) __. I?1O Lot 7 RI) ~ ..,.. ~, i, 0~,) (~'~ 200 ''O - *: scale ~RUSTICWOOD RD ~ z~-- (¢) · · ,o OUTLOT K.., IZ77 ."n.; .c:,;,,, .,?,$ rptc.* ,'~Io. o u T L o{~.~,) 149. ? ;, Z9 Z7 (I "' 9 ~RIDGE t00. RD + ?.5 CASE NO. 85-424 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of May 6, 1985: Board of Appeals Case NO. ~5-424 Location: 4339 Wilshire Boulevard Legal Desc.: As per attached PID 19-117-23 13 0006 Request: Lot Split Subdivision Zoning District: R-2 Applicant John Schluter 4339 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN. 55364 Phone: 933-4046 The applicant is requesting a waiver of the Provisions of Chapter 22 including public hearing, park dedication fee, replat of present legal description, etc. The R-2 Zoning District requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet and a lot width of 40 feet. The setbacks, except for lots of record before the Zoning Ordinance was adopted~ require lO foot sideyards, 20 foot front yards, 15 foot rear yards, with a 50 foot iakeshore setback to O.H.W. (Ordinary high water). Comments: The proposed subdivision has a lot area for Parcel B of !1,200~ square feet 'and Parcel A of 7,450+ square feet. The lot widths are 67 feet for Parcel B and 55 feet f"or Parcel A. The setbacks of Parcel B, with the existing structure, shows 9.4 feet to the N.E. division line at the closest point to the barbecue pit. Approximately 1 foot from the existing boathouse to property line. The lot sub- division meets all lot area, width and setback requirements except for the boathouse which should be 4 feet to the property line. There has recently been some discussion regarding the park dedication fees. The land value of the existing property is $65,000. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver and subdivision of land upon the condition that: l) the driveway be relocated onto Parcel B; and 2) the patio be removed to the new property division line. The abutting neighbors have been notified. Ja~ertrand JB/ms CASE NO. 85-424 Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1985 Case No. 85-424 Lot Split Subdivision of property at 4339 Wilshire Boulevard Metes & Bounds Description, Part of First.Re-arrangement of Phelps' Island Park 1st Division and part of Phelps' Island Park, 1st Division dohn Schluter was present. The Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the report stating layout he proposed with removal of patio would meet setback provisions of ordinance with exception of boathouse which is 1 foot off property line. Staff would recommend approval of the waiver and subdivision based on the condition outlined in report. The boathouse is actually 3 wall.structure built into side of hill with a patio deck oR top of it. It can be moved or dismantled. Weiland moved a motion to approve the subdivision with the staff recom- mendations and with the condition that the boat house structure be relocated to meet all setbacks. Michael seconded the motion. The Commission discussed including the park dedication fee in the amount of $6500. in the motion. The consensus of the Commission was that the park dedication.fee should not be included. The vote on the motion was Meyer, Reese and Steve Smith against; all others voted in favor. Motion carried. This will be considered by. the City Council'on May 21, 1985. The valuation of the land for the whole parcel is $65,000. The portion being divided off is 40% of the total which would bri.ng the value of the new parcel at $26,OO0. If a 104 Park Dedication Fee is determined to be required, it would be $2,600. PLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND LAND FEE $ PLAT Location and complete legal description .of property to be divided: ZONING PARCEL -//7- To be divided as follows: · (attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number} A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR: New Lot No. From Square feet TO Square feet Reason: ADDRE~ // ~/- . Thi~application must be ~igned b~ all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan- ation given why this is not ~e case. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: DATE 0 cOO EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of Lots ?, 2, ~, B, 75 and 76, The First Re-arrangemen£ of Phelps' Island Park-;st Division and Lo¢ 3, Phelps' Island Park, First Division, also the private street adjoining said Lots described aa follows: Commencing at a point in the Southeasterlg line of County Road NO.;25 distant 60 fee~ Southwesterly from the 'Sou~hwesterlw corner of Lot A in said First Re-arrangement of Phelps' Island Park-;st Div., thence South 38 degrees 40 minutes West along the Southeasterlg line of said Count~ Road a distance of 53.4 fee~, thence South 57 degrees'20'minutes West along the Southeasterly line of said County Road a distance of ;8;.6 feet to the point of beginning of ¢he land to be described, ~hence continuing South 57 degrees 20 minutes West along the Southeast- erly line of said County Road a distance of ;4.; feet, thence South 76 degrees ;5 minutes Wes~ alon9 the Southeasterly line of said County Road a distance of ;;0.9 feet, thence South 26 degrees 26 minutes East a distance of 75.7 fee~; thence South 37 degrees 2; minutes £ast a distance of ~26 feet, more or less, to the shore of Lake Minnetonke, thence £asterly along the shore of Lake Minne£onka to i~s intersection with a line which bears South 25 degrees 27 minutes East from the point of beginning, thence Northwesterly along said last named line ~o the point of beginning. Scale: ! inch - 30 feet Dace : April 23, ;985 0 : ~ron marker ~ : ~udicial Landmark I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor and Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c~GO~.ERG,~~INC. ~ark S. Gron;e-~'°. ,2 Engineer and Land Surveyor Long Lake, Minnesota Phone 473-4;4; Certificate of Surve~ for John Schluter in First Re-arrangement of Phelps' Island Park-;st Division and Phelps' Island Park, First Division Nennepin Count~, Minnesota PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS A. That part of the following described property: That part of Lots ;, 2, /, B, 75 and 76, The First Re-arrangement of Phelps' Island Park-;st Division and Lot 3, Phelps' Island Park, First Division, also the private street adjoining said Lots described as follows: Commencing at a point in the Southeasterl~ line of Count~ Road No. ;25 distant 60 feet Southwesterl~ from the Southwesterly corner of Lot A in said First Re-arrangement of Phelps' Island Park-;st Div., thence South 38 degrees 40 minutes West along the Southeasterly line of said County Road a distance of 53.4 feet, thence South 57 degrees 20 minutes West along the Southeasterly line of said County Road a distance of ;8;.6 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described, thence continuing South 57 degrees 20 minutes west alon9 the Southeasterly line of said County Road a distance of ;4.; feet, thence South 76 degrees ;5 minutes West along the Southeasterly line of said County Road a distance of ;;0.9 feet, thence South 26 degrees 26 minutes East a distance of 75.7 feet, thence South 37 degrees 2; minutes East a distance of ;26 feet. more or less, to the shore of Lake Min~etonka, thence Easterly along the shore of Lake Minnetonka to its intersection with a line which bears South 25 degrees 27 minutes East from the point o~ beginning, thence Northwesterlyalong said last named line to the point of beginning, which lies Northeasterly of the following described line and its extensions: Commencing at the point of beginning of the above- described property; thence South 57 degrees 20 mknutes West along the Southeasterly line of said County Road a distance of ;4.; feet; thence South 76 degrees ;5 minutes West along the Southeasterly line of said County Road a distance of 45.9 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 3~ degrees 54 minutes East to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, and said line there ending. B. That pert of the following described property: That part of Lots ;, 2, /,8,75 and 76, The First Re-arrangement of Phelps' Island Park-;st Division and Lot 3, Phelps' Island Park, First Division, also the private street adjoining said Lots described as follows: Commencing at a point in the Southeasterly line of County Road No. ;25 :: distant 60 feetSou~hweSterly from the SouthweSterly corner of Lot A in said First Re-arrangement of Phelps~ Island Pask-tst Div., thence South 38 degrees 40 minutes West along the Southeasterly line of said County Road a distance of 53.4 feet, thence South 57 degrees 20 minutes West aIong the Southeasterly line of said Count~ Road a distance of ;8;.6 feet to the point of beginnin9 of the land to be described, thence continuing South 57 degrees 20 minutes West alon9 the Southeasterly line of sa~d County Road a distance of ;4.; feet; thence South 76 degrees ~5 minutes West along the Southeasterly line of said Countg Road a distance of ;~0.9 feet, thence South 26 degrees 26 minutes East'a distance of 75.7 feet, thence South 37 degrees 2; minutes East a distance of ;26 feet, more or less, to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, thence Easterly along the shore of Lake Minnetonka to its intersection with a line which bears South 25 degrees 27 minutes East from the point of beginning, thence Northwesterly along said last named line to the point of beginning, which lies Southwesterly of the following described line and its extensions: Commencing at the point of beginning of the above-described pro~erty; thence South 57 degrees 20 minutes West along the Southeasterly line of said County Road a distance of ;4.; feet; thence South 76 degrees ~ minutes West alon9 the Southeasterly line of said County Road a distance of 45.9 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 3! degrees 54 minutes East to the shore of LaRe Mi nnetonka, and said line there ending. PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 85-424 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE FINAL SUBDIVISION OF LAND FOR METES & BOUNDS DESCRIPTION, PART OF FIRST RE-ARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS' ISLAND PARK:IST DIVISION, PID #19-117-23 13 0006 (4339 WILSHIRE BLVD.) Planning Commission Case #19859424 WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision requirements cOntained in Section 22.00 of the City Code has been filedwith the City of Mound, by the applicant, j~hn Schluter, and the fee owner Ruth Noon; and WHEREAS, said request for a waiver has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council; and WHEREAS, 7iti'iis-herebyld~e~rmined that there are special circumstances affecting said property sudh that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; and that the wai~er is necessary for the preservation and enj6ymentcdf a substantial property right;~and that granting the waiver will not be detrimen- tal to the public welfare or injurious to the other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the ~City of Mound, Minnesota: 1. The reques~ of the City of Mound for a ~aiver from the provisions of Section 22.00 of the City Code and the request to subdivide Pr0Pert~of less than five acres, described as followm: D~visJon and ~oc 3, Phelps' Xsland Perk, First Division, e/~o the pr~vete street adjoining se~d Coca described aa follovs: Commencing.aC · point in ~he ~outheasterl~ line of CounC~ Road Ho. IlS distant 60 feet $outhwesterlv from the ..Cou~hvesterlv ¢orne~ of LoC A i~ said First Re-errangemen~ of Phelps' fsland Park-laC D~v., thence South 38 degrees 40 minutes Hast along the $ouCheesterl9 ~ne o! said Coun~ Road 4 distance of 55.4 feet, Chence'&ouCh 57 degrees'20'~nu~e~ ~eec along the $ouCheasCer~9 ~ne o~ laid Count~ Road a d~s~encs of IBI.6 [eec Co the poin£ o£ beginning o! the land Co be described, Chance continuing South 57 degreea 20 .inute3 West along ~he Southeast- er29 //ne of sa~d Count9 Road · distance of 14.! feet, chance South 76 degree~ I$ minutes West along the $ouChe~$Cerl~ 2ina o! sa~d Count~'Road 4 distance o! 1~0.9 !eeC, ~hence $ou~h 26 degrees 26 minutes EesC a distance of 75.7 feet) thence South 37 degrees 21 minutes £a~t · distance of 126 /eeC, lore or 2ess, to the shore of Lake Hi~netonka, C~ence Ee$~erl~ alon9 the s~ore of ~ake Minneconka Co its Intersection vi ch · line which bears South 25 degrees 27 l~nutes East from the point o! beginning, thence ,~:)[ChveJte/l~ alon~ amid lemt named line Co the point oK beginning. is hereby granted to permit the subdivision in the following manner: ~(2) PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE N0.85-424 That par~ of the foJJov~n~ described property: ~hec per~ of Z, ot~ I, ~, ~ ~, 7~ and 76, ~he ~t~sc Re-arrangement of PheJps' ~$~and P~rk-~st Division and rot 3, PheJps' fsland Park, ~lrst Division, also the private street edjoinin~ sd~d Acts described as fo~Jows: Com~encin~ at a point in the $outheasterJ~ Jine of County Road ~o. 125 distant 60 feet $outh~esterJ~ f~om the Southwesterl~ corner of rot A in said first of Phelps' 2s~end Park-lst Div., thence South 38 de~ees d0 m~nutea ~est e~ong the $outheaster~ line of said County Road 4 distance of $3.~ feet, thence ~eouth S7 de~rees 20 ~nute~ ~t i~on~ the Southeaste~1~ llne o~ said Count~ aced a distance e~ ~.6 ~eeC Co the point o~ beg~nn~n~ o~ the land to be descg~bed, thence conClnu~ng South 57 de~rees 20 e~nuCes Hest alon9 the $outheaste~ J~ne of said Count~ ~oad a distance o~ 14,~ ~eet~ thence ~uch 76 de~rees ~5 ;inuCes ~st alonE the ~utheasterJ~ Jibe o~ sa~d Count~ Road a distance o~ ~I0.9 ~eet, thence ~outh 26 de~rees 26 =~nutes East a d~stan~ of 75.7 ~eeC, thence ~ouch 37 de~ree= 21 =inuCes ~ast a d~stance o~ 126 ~eet, more o~ Jess, to the shore o~ ~ke ~lhneConka, thence EasterJ~ aJon~ the shore o~ ~ke ~tnheConka to 1ts ~htersecClon wtfh a line vhlch bears South 2~ de~;ees 27 e~nutes ;ast (roe the point of beginning, thence No~Ch~sCe~ .a~on~ said Jest naeed ~ine to the point o~ be;innin~, ~h~ch 2~es No~Cheast~r~ o~ the ~o12ovin~ de~cr~bed ]~ne and its extensions: C~encin~ at the point o~ be~tnnin~ o~ the above- described property; thence South 57 South 76 degrees 15 =~nutes ~esC a~ong the ~outheasCerJ~ 2She o~ sa~d Count~ ~ad a d/stance o~ [eec to the potnC o~ beginning o~ the 11ne to be descrJbed; thence ~uCh 31 de~ees S4 elnutes Co the shore o~ ~ke ~nnetonka, and sa~d llne there That parc o~ the ~o~lo~n~ described g~operC~: ~4t part o~ LoC~ ~, 2, .~e,?S and 76, 7he ~sC ae-d~an~eeent o~ Phelps* ~aJand D~v~on and ~t 3, ~he~p~' 2~and ~a~k, F~st D~v~on, a~so the private street ad~o~nin~ ~a~d ~t~ described as ~olAovs: Co~en~in~ at a point in the ~outhea~te~ ~Ine o~ Count~ Road ~o. d~CanC 60 ~eeC:'~ou~h~Ste~J~ ~tom the '~uCh~e~:e~ co~ne~ o~ ~C A In said Yi~xC o~ Phelp~ ~a~and~a;k-I~t D~v., thence South ~8 de~ee~ 40 egnutes Hest along the ~uthea~te;~ ~ine o~ sa~d Count~ ~odd 4 distance o~ 5~.4 ~eet, C~ence ~ouCh S7 de~rees 20 a~nutes ~e~C d~on~ the ~ouChea~te~ llne o~ Ja~d Count~ aced a d~sCance o~ 181.6 ~eet Co the point o~ be~i~ning o~ the land Co be de~cr~bed~ thence continuing.South S7 de~ree~ 20 ~nute~ ~esC along the 2~ne of sa~d Count~ Road a distance or la.l ~eeC; thence ~outh 7& de~ree~ IS minutes ~t alon~ the ~ouchea~CerJ~ J~nm of aa~d CDun~ aced a distance o~ 110.9 feet, Chen~ ~outh 26 degree~ 26 m~nute~ ' ~asC a d~stance o~ 7~.7 feet, thence ~ouCh ~7 de~rees 2~ minuCe~ ga~c · d~tance o~ 126 feet, more o~ ~esa, to the 3hote o~ ~ke ~nnetonka, thence ~a~te~l~ alon~ the ~hore o~":ake H~nnetonka co ~C~ ~ntersecC~on ~iCh a 2~ne vh~ch bear3 ~uth 2~ de~ee3 27 elnuCe~ ~*~t ~ro~ the point o~ be~innJn~, thence ~orChwe~te/1~ aJon~ 3a~d Ja~: named ~ne to the polnC of which l~e~ ~uChve3ce~J~ o~ the fo~2ov~n~ described ~ne and its Commenc~n~ at the point of be~nn~n~ o~ the above-described pro~e~C~ thence ~ouch 57 de~ees 20 einute~ ~aC aJon~ the ~ucheasCe~1~ 11ne o~ 3aid Count~ aced a d~sCan~e o~ I~.I ~eeC; C~ence ~ouCh 76 de~reea I~ einute~ MeJt along the Southea~te~ 11ne o~ ~aid Count~ aced a d~stance ~eet to the point or be~Inntn~ o~ the 2Jne Co be described; thence ~uth ~ de~ree~ S~ =inures Co the sho~e of ~ake ~nneConka, and arid 2~ne there ending. Be Be No unit charges will be assessed or paid against the newly created building site as it fronts on a Hennepin County Road #125. Park dedication fee in the amount of $~~ will be paid when the newly created building site is developed. It is determined that the fpregoing division will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. Upon the further condition that the present driveway §erv{cing 4339 Wilshire Boulevard be relocated onto the currently develotm~J dwelling site, the patio be removed from the undeveloped site at the ,east of the currently developed dwelling site, and the boathouse be located four feet from the new property line at the east of Parcel B as shown on Exhibit "A" (~) PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 85-424 The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant for filing in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of this City. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution 5-1S-85 11 022 1562 92 11 028 1584 02 11 028 1616 02 11 031 1617 22 11 043 5022 61 11 052 5001 11 11 058 5043 O1 11 067 1952 71 11 070 1921 61 11 085 4987 21 11 085 5470 81 11 100 2085 41 11 112 5971 71 11'118 2259 71 11 175 5448 31 11 175 5511 81 11 175 5556 32 11 199 2149 O1 11 211 2136 O1 11 214 2201 63 11 229 5598 01 22 397 2539 Ol Delinquent sewer and water $.84.59 83.46 100.34 127.33 99.55 112.64 130.18 84.66 154.82 68.32 73.24 130.71 163.11 77.73 112.00 139.99 138.88 96.68 95.79 165.01 128.17 218.04 $2585.24 Delinquent water and sewer 11 022 1562 92 Wm. Howell $ 84.59 151 11 09_8 1584 02 Tom Green 83.46 100'~4+ 11 028 1616 02 Wm. Bull 100.34 16' 1:50.18+ 154'82+ ~1 Rober ta Heuer -~.°°. ~c~ p~.~. _ 50: 11 052 2001 11 Jerry Pehrson 112.64 ~(~ 50( 11 058 5043 O1 M.E.Miller 130.18 50J 1 ~. 1 1 + 11 067 1952 71 James WAlton 84.66.~1~S~9~-0--" 19~ 159.9~+ 11 070 1921 61 Paul Scherber ~ ~;~ 19: 6 + 11 085 4987 21 Thomas Hawley ~ 49~ 1 ~5.0~ + 11085 5470 81 B. Landsman 73.24 541 ~1 8. 04+ 11 100 2085 41 Gerald Baker 130.71 20~ 11 112 5971 71 Arnold Meridith 163.11 591 ~ Geo Mil]ford ' ,,.~,~ P~!c[ 2259 Langdon Ln. ,. ~ 3~, ~ Ron Rheinart ~:.uu ?~,id 5448 Spruce Ln. 11 175 5522 81 David Leaply 1~9.99 5511 Spruce Ln. 11 175 5556 32 Don Rogers 138.88 5556 Spruce Ln. 11':199 2149 01 M. Mittelsteadt 96.68 2149 Belmont Ln. 11 211 2136.01 Glenn Reger --.q5--7-9--- 2136 )verland Ln. 11 214 2201 63 James Mc Namee 165.01 ~~] 2201 Centervlew Ln. ~ ~ r~a~ n~l Paul Ford ~ 12~°.17 ?o;~l 5598 Sherwood Dr 22 397 2539 01 Ernie Howard 218.04 2539 Emerald Dr. $2040,46 CITY OF HOUND Mound, Minnesota CASE NO. 85-422 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON CONDITIONAL'USE PERMIT FOR CLASS 2 RESTAURANT (CHANGE FROM CLASS 1) AT 5560 THREE POINTS BOULEVARD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on May 2],71985 at 7:30 P.M. at the City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, a public hearing will be held on a Conditional Use Permit to change from a Class 1 (Traditional) Restaurant to a Class II - Fast Food, Convenience and Drive-In - Restaurant at 5560 Three Points Boulevard and legally 'described as: Commencing at the point of intersection of the west line of Section 13 and the center line of Town Road than easterly along said center line 283 feet than north parallel with said west line distance 158 feet than west parallel with center line of said Road to west line of Section 13 than south to beginning except roads including part of street vacated, Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka PID # 13-117-24 22 O017 Ail persons appearing at said hearing will be given an opportunity to be heard. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk CASE NO. 85-422 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of May 6~ 1985: Board of Ap eals Case No. 85~422 Location: 5560 Three Points Boulevard Legal Desc. as per attached PID # 13-117-24 22 0017 Request: Class II Restaurant Zoning District: B-2 ~plicant: Patrick J. McGinnis 4673 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN. 55384 Phone: 471-8551 The applicant, Mr. McGinnis, opened.the Pizza Factory in Mound in 1~83 as a Class I Traditional Restaurant. As they have operated the business during the last year and a half, they have found the majority of their business is "take out" or convenience food service. Recently, they have removed one seating booth and installed a deli case for sandwiches. The B-2 Zoning District allows Class II - Restaurants -"Fast Food~ Convenience and Drive-In - restaurants where a majority of customers order and are served their food at a counter in packages prepared to leave the premises; or able to be taken to a table, counter, or automobile, or off the premises to be consumed; or a drive-in where most customers consume their food in an automobile regardless of how it is served'! by Conditional Use Permit. Comments: The restaurant, as 'it has been operating over the past year and a half, has created no major impact in .the area of PDQ. Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit. Jan Bertrand JB/ms CASE NO. 85-422 Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1985 BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Case No. 85~422 Public Hearing on Conditional Use to change use from a Class 1 Restaurant to a Class II Restaurant - Property at 5560 Three Points Boulevard. Metes and Bounds Description, Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka; PID 13-117-24 22 0017; Gary Midge was present .and Patrick McGinnis arrived a little later'. The Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the report. Sometime in 1~83, the Pizza Factory opened and, since that'time,'the business has continued evolving and recently they contacted the Building Official about taking some Seating out and putting in a deli case to expand the menu. At that time, they admitted the busi- ness has ~hanged to the point where it is really more take out than 'it is eat in. They applied for a change in their status and are now seeking a conditional use permit to be a Class II Restaurant which is a change in definition. The staff recommends approval and can foresee no problems with it. The ~hair opened the public hearing. Gary Midge stated he repcesented the opera- tor of the restaurant-and, he'd be glad to answer any questions. No one had anY questions or comments. The Chair closed the public hearing. Kenneth Smith moved and Michael seconded a motion to accept the staff's recom- mendation. .' -' : , 'Steve Smith asked what"difference there would be in the operation. The Planner stated the major'distinction in the definition is the take out.aspect of the food. It.was questioned if the drive-in business standards would, apply? would business be allowed to iAstall loud. speakers, drive-in windows, etc? Steve Smith would like recommendation amended by whatever language that would limit business as. it is now from being added to unless they'd have to come back tO Plannin~ Commission; ~.e.: no structural changes to building, no drive-in win- dows~ no loud speakers, no landscaping or changes in access driveway, etc. Discussed briefly and clarified. Steve Smith then moved to amend the motion to limit to making no structural changes to building, no d~ive-up windows, no loud speakers, no external aesthetics or landscaping or. changes in access driveway; also no sign changes unless addressed by the pres'~nt sign ordinance as the sign ordinance takes /.precedence. Michael withdrew his second because he.did not agree with all the verbage. Weiland seconded the motion. The vote on the amendment was: -Michael, Meyer and Ree~"again~t"~h'~amendmen~; all others in favor. Amendment carried by a vote of 5 tQ 3. The vote on the motion was un- animously in favor. Motion carrTed. The notice of the public hearing on this conditional use permit request has been prepublished. The City Council will hold the public hearing on May 21, i~85. Case '' CITY OF HOUND Fee Paid ~'~C~O,~ APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING CO~HISSION ~ / ' ~ (Please ~ype ~he followln9 infor~ion) 1. Street Address of Property 5560 Three Points Blvd. C01t AT THE PT OF INTERSEC OF THE N LINE OF SEC 2 Legal Description of Property: TON ~OAD TH ELY ALONG SAID' CTR LINE 28-% FT TH N PAR WITH SAID · 158 FT TH M PAR MITH CTR LINE OF SA:II) ROAD TO M LINE OF SEC 1.% TH S TO BE~j EX ROADS INCL PART OF ST VAC Addi[ion Lafayette Park, Lake Hinnetonka PID No. 1311724220017 :3. Owner s Name ~. 07. PI~_'?_Pr ~::,L~T. Plat 61'690' Parcel ' Day Phone No Address Applicant (if other than owner): Name Patrick J. McGinnis Address 4673 Shoreline Dr. Mound 55384 Day Phone No. 471'8551 5. Type of Request: ( ) Variance (y) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( ) Amendment ( ) Si~n Permit ( )*Other *If other, specify: ~" 6...Present Zonin9 District 7. Existing Use(s) of Property. Class 1 restaurant Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide ResolutiOn No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. 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 '11/ /~"/'~f/J Date 3'/27/85 Planning Commission RecOmmendation: To accept the staff's recommendations and to limit to making no structural changes to building, no drive-up windows, nD.loud speakers, no external aesthetics or landscaping or changes in access' driveway; also no si~n chan~es unless addressed by Lhe presen[ sign orOlnance as sign ordinance takes precedence. Date 5-6-85 Council Action: Resolut ion No. 5-21 -85 Date ,.,o, I0-)/ Procedure for Conditional Use Permit (2)' Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North comp~s~ 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. B. Type of development for which a Conditional Use Permit is requested: 1.. Conditional Use (Specify): Change to Class 2 Restaurant Include a service deli in existing_._operation 2. Current Zoning and Designation in the future Land Use Plan for Mound 2. Density 1. 2. Development Schedule: 1. A development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed dev.¢lopment. Estimate of cost of the project: $, ~-(Y .~,.~_.~ /~j (for residential developments only): Number of structures: Dwelling Units Per Structure: a. Number of type: Efficiency 2 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 3. Lot area per dwelling unit: 4. Total lot area: IV. Effects of the Proposed Use Au List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, in- cluding, but not limited to'traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and, describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. Since the nature of our business will remain largely "take-out" (ie: class 2 restaurant), the impact on the vicinity will be generally un-changed. 2G I I ! I I I l l l l I Part of L: I ' '-' t** --I 0 Part RESOLUTION NO. 85- PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 85-422 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PATRICK J. MCGINNIS dba PIZZA FACTORY, PID# 13-117-24 22 0017 WHEREAS, the City Council on May 21, 1985, held a Public Hearing pursuant to Section 23.505 of the Mound Code of Ordinances, to consider the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for P.I.D. #13-117-24 22 0017, 5560 Three Points Boulevard, Commencing at the point of intersection of the west line of Section 13 and the center line of Town Road than easterly along said center line 283 feet than north par allel with said west line distance 158 feet than west parallel with center line of said Road to west line of Section 13 than south to beginning except roads including part of street vacated, Lafayette Park, Lake minnetonka for a Class II - East Food, Convenience and "Drive-In Restaurant; and WHEREAS, all persons wishing to be heard were heard; and WHEREAS, the Pizza Factory site is presently in the B-2 General Business district which allows a Class II - Restaurant by a Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval upon certain conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota that theConditional Use Permit for the Pizza Factory at 5560 Three Points Boulevard is hereby granted with the following conditions: The present restaurant ma~ not be altered to change the present operation in any way without review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. The present Hennepin County Health Department ~es~ant license may not be altered or changed, except for renewal, without review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT APPLICATION Last (4) Name of Owner of Business l~L,~l t llO~,w_, '"T'~o,~ Fi rst Middle Street City State Zip Phone No, 4~r~-~q~ ~ Date of Birth ~- ~ ~-~ Does anygne other-than above have financial interest in the'business? ~ Location of Dances .~q~ ~('~re (;~. ~U~ ' (5) Dates o'f Single Dances ~L.).~.e "e,~,, S (6) If Annual Dance Permit, from when to when: (7) Fee: Single Daoce - $25,00 per day Annual Dance (Ord' 397) - $200.0O *If the answer to Item 3 .is "Yes"s please list others having a financial interes~ in the business below, giving name, address and telephone number. May 16, 1985 LICENSE RENEWALS -- Ail Expire June 30, 1985. Off-Sale Beer .Al & Alma's Grimm's Store PDQ Food Store Stevens Market New License Period 7-1-85 to 6-30-86. On-Sale Beer A1 & Alma's House of Moy Club License ~. American Legion #398 VFW #5113 On-Sale Liquor Donnies on the Lake Captain Billy's Sunday Liquor Donnies on the Lake Captain Billy's Set-Up A1 & Alma's Wine A1 & Alma's House of Moy Annual Dance Permit-Public Captain Billy's Annual Dinner Dance Permit Captain Billy's FISH FRY-June 21 to 23, 1985 Mound Volunteer Fire Dept. Charitable Beer Permit Set-Up ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE A}~NDING SECTION 6.16, SUBSECTIONS (g) AND (j) OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO WATER CONNECTIONS; AND ADDING SUBSECTION (F) TO SECTION 20.03 RELATING TO SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION The City of Mound does ordain: Section 6.16(g) of the CityJCode is hereby amended to read as follows: (g) Every separate building and each unit in a duplex, double bungalow, or townhouse supplied with water must have its own service connection directly with the mains and each unit must be provided with a shut-off and drip valve in the cellar from an independent riser pipe. Each water service'shall begat least 1 inch in ~diamet'er or lar~er for single' family' homes and for each Unit 'in ~a-duplex, double bungalow~' or townhouse.'' Each ~ater'service serving co~m~ercial buildings shall be ~at'lemst 1 inch in diameter for.buildings containing .up 'to 1500 square feet of floor area;-any 'building which has more than 1500 square feet of floor area shall'have a minimum service of at least 1~ inches in diameter. These provisions shall apply to all new Construction and for any units which connect to the City's water mains hereafter; existing units which do not have separate services as of the effective date of this ordinance and which are now connected to the City's mains are excepted from these provisions except as set forth below. Two or more adjacent buildings owned by the same person shall be supplied thru the same connection only 'so long as the single ownership continues and provided that the owner agrees to pay all charges for water consumed on the entire premises. Upon the termination of such single-ownership, a separate connection'shall be made immediately to the building or premises theretofore having the indirect connection, provided that in case there is no water main on any street on which said premises abut, the Superintendent may permit such connection to remain until the water main is laid in such abutting street. Section 6.16(j) of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (j) No service'or'water 'shut-off shall be installed under concrete walks, steps, driveways, or other permanent structure, either existing or contemplated, between the property line and the building to. be supplied. Section 20.03 of the City Code is amended by adding Subsection (F) which'shall read as follows: (F) Each single family home and each unit in a duplex, twin home, double bungalow,' and/or~in a toWnhoUse shall have a separate sewer'line~ from.thepremises line to the trunk which shall'be~ 4 inches~ in 'diameter or larger Connected to a stub which'is 4' inches or larger which is then connected to the City's trunk line. Ail construction shall meet the standards set forth in this Code. (Sec. 20.12) No sewer cleanout shall be constructed under concretewalks~ stepS, driveways, or other permanent obstruction between the trunk sewer line and the building being served which would prevent easy'access to the cleanout. Attest: Mayor City Clerk Adopted by CitY Council Published in Official Newspaper May 13, 1985 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY CLERK Attached is a letter from Mr. Frank Drey who abuts a tax forfeit lot (Lot 3, Block 2, Westwood) on Westedge Blvd. Mr. Drey would like .to purchase this lot. The lot, square footage wise, is buildable, but if you look at the lot it is a ravine that collects people's'junkandthus is unbuildable as is. The City released this lot for public sale in Resolution #84-75 (attached). It has $5,412.12 in assessments before forfeiture and $4,973.47 in assessments since forfeiture. This totals $10,385.59. The County has appraised the lot at $2,000.00. To this $2,000.00 is added the assessments since forfeiture of $4,973.47, making the cost of the lot $6;973.47. Mr. Drey feels this is overpriced when the $4,973.47 is added. In 1984, Resolution #84-94 was passed ("Setting a Policy on Assessments Placed on Tax Forfeit Property Before Forfeiture"), enclosed. This dealt with undersized, unbuildable lots not correctly sized, unbuildable lots. As Resolution #84-94 states, "Our goal is to get property back on the tax roles". If the Council wishes to cancel the $4,973.47 worth of assessments since forfeiture now, in one resolution, and cancels the remaining assessments ($5,412.12) from before forfeiture after the property is purchased by Mr. Drey, I am sure he will buy the lot for $2,000.00 and we will get 80~ ($1,600.00) toward the $5,412.12 (assessments from before forfeitureS. fc enc. 20 WASHINGTON AVENUE SOUTH- MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55440 NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY FRANK W. DREY, FLMI -SECOND VICE PRESIDENT, SYSTEMS (612) 372-1135 May 6, 1985 Mr. John E1 am City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear John: I am interested in acquiring the tax forfeited lot next to my property in Mound. The PID of this lot is 23-117-24 23 0014. I live at'6228 Westwood Circle. I am requesting that the assessments on this property be dropped. The lot is a swamp and is unbuildable. I will buy the lot if the assessments are dropped, but it is not worth the price that includes the assessmen%s. I appreciate your looking into this matter for me. Si ncerely, Frank W. Drey 6228 Westwood Circle Mound, MN 55364 · ' l'~lf - . st't*, " ,'.: I /¢t,I .: :'~'-"3 91:! 3-.L.S 3~ May 8, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 84-75 RESOLUTION RELEASING CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PUBLIC AUCTION AND CERTIFYING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Mound has been informed by the Department of Property Taxation of Hennepin County that.certain lands within the City have been forfeited for non-payment 'of real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, the parcels do comply with the City's zoning ordinance or building codes and are not adverse to the health, safety and general welfare of residents of this City; and WHEREAS, all special assessments were cancelled at the time of forfeiture and may be reassessed after the property is returned to private ownership pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 282.02 (also note: M.S. 429.07, Subd. 4; M.S. 435.23 and M.S. 444.076); and WHEREAS, ail special assessment that have been levied since forfeiture shall be included as a separate item and added td the appraised 'value of any such parcel of land at the time it is sold (M.S. 282.01, Subd. 3); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: That the following parcels of tax forfeited land are released to the County of Hennepin for public auction and the City hereby certifies the following special assessments: PARCEL AMOUNT BEFORE FORFEITURE LEVY # AMOUNT AMOUNT AFTER FORFEITURE LEVY ~ AMOUNT 23-117-24 23 0014 2771 1 , 577 . 82 3180' " 936.50 3388 2,897 . 80 8297 ' 4,973.47 24-117-24 41 0012 31 80 1,87 2.97 3388 2,928.87 3397 1,732.91 8297 4,309.94 25-117-24 11 0023 31 80 936· 48 3388 2,381.84 3397 1 , 429.35 8297 4,325.90 The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to release the aforementioned lands for May 8, 1984 , .. ~ imposing the lien of special assessments on said lands. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Charon and seconded by Councilmember Jessen The following Couneilmembers voted in the affirmative: Charon, Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson and Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk June 12, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 84-94 RESOLUTION SETTING A POLICY ON ASSESSMENTS PLACED ON TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY BEFORE FORFEITURE WHEREAS, Hennepin County has begun to notify adjacent property owners that they will be conducting "private sales" on undersized or unbuildable lots; and WHEREAS, some of these properties had assessments against them before forfeiture which were cancelled at the time of forefeiture; and WHEREAS, when the City releases these parcels for private sale, it certifies these assessments 'from before forfeiture to Hennepin County because the City receives 80% of the value of the property.(selling price) to apply to the old assessments; and WHEREAS, the assessments since forfeiture are added to the appraised value-so the City receives all the funds for those assessments; and WHEREAS, some of the assessments from before forfeiture are higher than the property is valued at and thus does not make the property very attractive to adjoining property owners unless twe make a committment to. them that we will not reassess the remaining balance of the assessments after they purchase the property; and · WHEREAS, the goal is to get the property back on the tax role and help a number of people make their property conforming. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the following policy which will apply only to undersized tax forfeit lots which are sold thru Hennepin County and combined with adjoining property: On undersized tax forfeit lots which had assessments before forfeiture, the City will certify these assessments to Hennepin County when the lots are released for private sale to adjoining property owners. This will be done only so that the City will receive 80% of the value of the lot to be applied against these before forfeiture assessments. After certain undersized tax forfeit lots are sold and combined with adjoining property, the owner may petition the City Council to pass a resolution stating that the balance of the assessments from before forfeiture will not be recertified to June 12, 1984 Hennepin County for collection. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Charon and seconded by Councilmember Paulsen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Charon, Jessen, Paulsen and Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Councilmember Peterson was absent and excused. Attest: City Clerk PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: (RETURN TO THE CITY CLERK) Se 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 1'7. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 22t. 24.~ 25.. 26. 27. NAME ADDRESS 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 214. BILLS- MAY 21, '1.985 Batch 854046---Computer run dated Batch 854052---Computer run dated Batch 854053---Listed below 5/15/85 48,102.72 12,054.42 TOTAL BI LLS 73,500.91 Autocon Industries Acro-MN Janet Bertrand Bury & Carlson Continental Tele Jon Elam Fi delity Products Garys Diesel Serv Glen Litfin Transfer Internal Revenue Kromer Co. Li tho/Color MacQueen Equip N.S.P. NW Bell Tele Joyce Olson Sterne Electric Signdesign Teledyne Total Power Waconia Ridgeview Hosp Repair well 7 supplies No Star Mtg exp asphalt May tele Exp-computer class drawer files repair tru~k tow truck--black dirt Liquor tax shaft handicap signs Boss for bolt May elec Siren--dedicated llne Video council mtg check compressor recycling signs air cleaner EMT class-Williams 175.90 146.96 20.94 1,166.80 1,296.91 11 .]5 268.28 2,860.18 370.00 54.OO 20.00 22.46 44.02 4,348.97 270.O5 35.75 4O.OO 662.15.. 14.90 225.00 m t C~ I I U U Z I C) I U o~ i.i 0 .d 0 Z U~ 41 W C) · g'~§ ggo ogg W :,- d v ~j Z ~C ,,, ,, , , , , , ~ ''*' ,~,, ,,,~ , iii II I I I I I IIII IIII IIII !111 ! III II I I I I I IIII IIII IIII IIII I ~ ,.J _J ¢.) , ~ Z ~ rn U t Z 0 JJJJ4 Jd CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 May 14, 1985 Dear Jon, I have accepted a position as Finance Ilirector for the City of White Bear Lake. I would like my last day with Mound to be June 14, 1985. As you know, this was not an easy decision for me to make. I'enjoy working with the people in Mound, particularly you. I will do as much as possible between now and tl~e time I leave to get the budget underway. And, if there is anything else I can do to help, let me know.. Thank you for the opportunity to work for Mound. I have learned a great deal and'hope ! have brought something to t~e City. Sincerely, Sharon S. Legg Volume 5. Number 1. CENTER FOR CREATIVE LEADERSHIP February. 1985 Consequences* Morgan W. McCall Robert E. Kaplan After a d~cision come the consequences. As the authors show, these are sometimes unexpected, not everyone will interpret them in the same light, and not everyone will value them in the same wa~. Yet, like it or not, mana- gers must live with and stand by their decisions. What's a manager to do? Read on... Managerial decision making is a com- plex process: streams of information and events get recognized as problems, a com- plex set of factors affect what problems will get attention, and still another set of factors influence whether action will be a~nktand direct or long and drown out. action is taken, everyone watches ively for the consequences. The players and interested spectators look on like hunters watching to see whether the rifle shot has felled a deer. This kind of drama surrounded the press conference held by the CEO of Johnson and Johnson after poisoned Tylenol killed several peo- ple in zhe Chicago area. How would he handle this extremely delicate moment with a shocked nation looking on? Managers take action not for its own sake but to achieve results. The conse- quences flowing from decisions are diverse, whether the decision is a discrete, quick action or a convoluted accumulation of actions that adds up to a completed pro- ject or an enacted policy. The decision may be no decision at all but a failed attempt to decide. One mana- ger we interviewed evoked an almost existential despair and complained poig- nantly about management's inability to act: Management team meetings are frustrating to me because we discuss Lings but we come out with no solutions, recommendations, no- thing -- just smoke. (Kaplan, Lombardo, & Mazique, 1983, p. 34) Or ifa decision is actually reached, it is not necessarily implemented. Another manager from the same organization lamented the fact that problems which management had supposedly solved re- *This article is an excerpt from WHATEVER IT TAKES: Decision Makers at Work, pub- lished last fall bT Prentice-Hall, Inc. -- Ed. mained unresolved because responsibility ~-asn't clearly determined. There are cases where a problem comes up and it's dealt with, but too many come up and either we don't arrive at a solution or it isn't clear who's responsible and it comes up again and again .... We're horren- dous on follow-up. (Kaplan et al., 1983, p. 31) Or if the solution is implemented, it may not work, and the manager is back to the drawing board -- assuming the mana- ger doesn't become discouraged by the set- back, and avoids the temptation to ration- alize the failure. Or a decision can be made and action' can actually follow, but the result may not be what was intended. As one executive told us: COULD P&5 , P.,U I, op. PUNT. 2 Issues & Observations Sometimes you make a decision, and g'hat you get is exactly opposite from g, hat you anticipated. A beau- tiful illustration is the Germans bombing London lduring World War II]. They thought they would destroy the morale and they got ex- actly the opposite. Even if the action has the intended effect, it may also have unintended conse- quences. A corporation we are acquainted with has launched Quality-of-Worklife projects in its plants; projects with suffi- cient bite that workers have responded by becoming much more involved in the cor- poration's renewed effort to produce qual- ity products. But as production workers have taken more responsibility and be- come less alienated, their foremen and supervisors have unexpectedly lost moti- vation. In beginning to solve the problem of worker alienation by expanding their re- sponsibilities, management has inadver- tently alienated first- and second-level supervision by, in effect, shrinking their jobs. Finally, solutions that work and pro- duce mo special negative side, effects don't endure forever. Managers solve a problem and, if the solution sticks, they turn their - attention to the host of other problems clamoring for their attention. But the solution doesn't necessarily last, not be- cause it wasn't a good solution but because times change. Having emerged victorious as decision makers, managers can't afford to become complacent; solutions wear out and even- tually need to be repaired or replaced. Actions and consequences are often thought of in terms of decision and imple- mentation, as seen in the following com- ment by a general manager: Making decisions is easy, but getting them implemented sometimes is nearly impossible (quoted in Kotter, 1982, p. 17). Although it is common parlance to talk of decision and implementation, we prefer to see implementation as, in many cases, it- self consisting of a "plurality of subdeci- sions" (Mintzberg et al., 1976, p. 252), each of which has to be implemented. It is easy to overblow the importance of the deci- sion that authori:es a capital expenditure, an acquisition, or a divestiture, and to underrate the work that follows as mere implementation. A corporate executive concurred on this point: Winning the battle of approval for the main action should not be con- fused with developing the strategy for how the battle lines will be drag,n and hog, the battle will be fought. The action plan to follow is likely multi-phasic and requires no less careful thought than the main action itself. If somebody, having re- ceived approval of an action, just goes ahead and acts without think- ing through the various steps, they're likely to stub their toes. In managerial life, then, there is no rest for the wear3,. Problems flowing to the managers may get disposed of permanent- ly but they are just as likely to take up resi- dence. If managers get approval for a solu- tion, then they may next have to imple- ment the solution, or oversee the people assigned to implement it. When they try to implement a decision, the solution may fail and put them back on square one. Or the solution may work but in the process create a new set of problems that gets dropped in the manager's lap. Nor can managers expect a problem to stay solved, because solutions unravel as the problems they were designed to solve evolve over time. There is no end to problems, even for effective managers. (3iven this complexity, it is no surprise that the consequences of managerial action are not always clear victories or de- feats. The world of the manager is nlrely amenable to simple, unambiguous learn- ing. Kanter (1977) has even suggested.that managers operate under an "inverse law o certainty:" "The more important the man- agement decision, the less precise the tools to deal with it... and the longer it will take before anyone knows it was right" (p. 53). As one manager we interviewed put it: In management there are few clear victories. There are so many gray areas. That interminable gray is what causes stress. The things that stay constantly unresolved are the ones that sap your strength. While bankruptcy or a million dollar cost overrun appear to be concrete indicat- ors of the quality of managerial decisions, the causes of such outcomes are usually quite complicated. Seldom are such things caused by a single managerial decision, nor is it obvious that a different decision would have changed the outcome. The first thing to recognize, then, is that the consequences of managerial deci- sions are ambiguous and can be inter- preted in different ways. In some cases it is not clear what action was taken. Other. times the action is clear but the conse- quences are obscured. In still other cases, action and consequences may be clear, but the relationship between the two may be murky. . THAT / '2,0,"3 Issues & Ob~en,ations 3 The Ambiguity of Action and sequences ;t as the original recognition and def- inition of a problem involves the interpre- tation of ambiguous information and events, discovering the consequences of one's action is often a matter of interpreta- tion. The first hitch is that the action itself may be seen differently by different people. Managerial decisions, particularly impor- tant ones, usually comprise a set of smaller decisions made over time. Not all partici- pants in a decision cycle may agree that a decision has been made or what it was. A tabled project, for example, may be viewed as postponed by one manager and termi- nated by another. (Helping to shroud action is the tendency of some managers to sidestep clear, responsibility for deci- sions.) As a university administrator ex- plained it: People here don't like to make clear decisions because they're held accountable. They prefer to talk around things, and then act on them. If it works, fine. If not, then heads don't have to roll. The second hitch is that the cons. e- of action, like the action itself, are subject to different interpretations by vari- ous participants. This is particularly true for tough problems where effects may take a long time (months or even years) to pear. Was it the new' president's aggressive marketing stance or the improved econ- ' omy that increased sales last year? gecision making cannot be divorced from a manager's values (Taylor, 1965). Managers place different emphasis on out- comes such as return to shareholders, qual- ity of work, and social responsibility. Shareholder returns may be measured as market share by one manager, profitability by another, and may be viewed in either the short run or the long run. Because de- cisions have multiple consequences, the criteria used to evaluate a decision will de- pend on which consequences are empha- sized by whom. The development of a technological marvel that is ahead of its time may be a success to the R&D mana- ger but a failure to the sales manager hunt- ing for a market. A case in point is IBM's STRETCH )uter, a machine of advanced design ,ped originally for atomic research in the late 1950s. For technical and market- ing reasons, the program ended up losing $20 million. Thomas Watson, Jr. pro- nounced the computer a disaster, an assessment that certain technical people and certain high-level executives did not agree with. In fact, when it later became apparent that the innovative STRETCH technolog3, influenced the design of subse- quent, successful computers, even Watson changed his mind about the computer (Fishman, 1981). Histor~ gets rewritten with the passage of time. Years later, Watson said about the costs of developing the computer: "A better fifty million we never spent, but it took seven or eight years to find out" (Fishman, 1981, p. 120). In another sense, too, consequences are hard to pin down. When managers choose a course of action, they pass up other alternatives and can never know what would have happened if they had taken an- other course. One executive made the point this way: I walked down this road and I don't know where the [other] road would have gone because this is the road I chose. So you never really know whether that was the right decision to make. For example, I was responsi- ble for equalizing the vacation be- tween exempt ~/mployees and hourly and non-exempt employees. I argued that if vacation is a time of rest and recharge, then the non-exempt and hourly need that time as much as the exempt. It did wonders for the morale of the non-exempt, and the exempt felt that we had taken some- thing away from them. So we changed the vacation policy, and the change worked. But the paths we looked at and didn't choose may have worked better or worse. There's no way of knowing. Managers never know what would have happened if they had chosen what Robert Frost'called "the road not taken." A third hitch is that even when actions and consequences are known, the connec- tion between them can still be ambiguous. This is because there is usually a time lag, often a long one, between an action and its results. It has been estimated, for exam- ple, that "... it takes three to five years of blood, sweat, and tears to get a company 'turned around again' after a crisis" (Smith, 1963, p. 206). One executive stated: I guess there are relatively few actions taken where the structure is so simple that the action is taken immediately. That isn't in the realm of management. If.I punch the key on the typewriter, the consequence follow's immediately after the action. But in the typical manage- ment process, an action or series of actions are taken and then in the period following are the conse- quences. And there are other vari- ables so it's not just my action which affects the consequences. During a lag, then, many things can hap- pen other than implementation of deci- sion, and knowing what actually "caused" the result can become problematic. Ilgen, Fisher, and Taylor (1979) provide an inter- esting example, noting that there are prim- itive tribes which are unaware of the con~ nection between intercourse and child- bearing. The reason for this is the nine- month delay between conception and birth, during which time other events occur, most of them extraneous to preg- nancy. Similarly, organizational decisions have conse4uences which may be uninter- pretable even well into the future. An additional consequence of the lag between decisions and results is that the people who have to live with the results may not be the same people who made the decisions. To the extent that turnover in management is rapid (2040 percent per year, according to some estimates) and lags are long, decision makers leave results be- hind them for the next incumbent. This has been a particular bane for U.S. presi- dents who face the results of their predecessors' programs. The general public tends to blame the incumbent for failure to solve problems that resulted from the decisions of others. Conversely, managers sometimes get credit for good performance that they were not solely responsible for. They may have succeeded, for example, wi. th the help of excellent staff support. This tendency to credit a person and overlook the person's circumstances has been called the "funda- mental attribution error:" We tend "to underestimate the impact of situational determinants and to overestimate the im- portance of personal factors" (Ross, 1977, p. 193). But behavior is shaped by situation as well as personality. This tendency causes problems when a manager's effec- tive performance is assumed to reside in his or her person and to be transferable 4 Issues & O~se~'ations anywhere. F~nctional managers are pro- moted to general management positions, and general managers are transferred from one business to an entirely different busi- ness, and they sometimes fail because of this (Korter, 1982). Thus, because the con- nection between action and consequences is misread, managers are moved beyond their sphere Of competence and the Peter Principle strikes again. The connection between actions-and consequences can also be muddied by the weak correspondence between the magni- tude of decisions and the magnitude of their consequences. March and Olsen (1976) noted that "tiny (and essentially m~predictable) variations in events can make large differences in final outcomes" (p. 20). The "minor" decision by party functionaries to raid the opposition party's headquarters may escalate to full-scale im- peachment proceedings and resignation of the President of the United States, as hap- pened with Watergate. The converse can also happen. Major organizational inter- ventions sometimes have little real impact on the organization or its performance (Mirvis & Berg, 1977). In summary, a variety of forces act to blur the interpretation of action, conse- quences, and the relationship between the two, particularly for convoluted decisions. Determining what happened is more a matter of negotiation and impression management than an objective assess- ment of facts. Meetings held to examine a decision may produce a variety of interpretations of the consequences. Those who have sup- ported a decision tend to judge it a success, as did the executive quoted above about the decision he had made to equalize the vacation benefits of exempt and non- exempt: You have to live with yourself-- you're pretty good at rationalizing that what you did was the right action. In fact, today I still think it was the right action. 1 don't feel it, I know it. I don't have any data to say it was the right action; all that comes internally. Decision makers stick by their guns, even in the face of overwhelming evidence opposing iheir position. Napoleon pro- vided a pure case of this in his disastrous Russian campaign in 1812, when he proclaimed: In affairs of state one must never re- treat, never retrace one's steps, never admit an error -- that brings dis- repute. When one makes a mistake, .one must stick to it. That makes it right! (de Segur, 1958, p. 127) Decision makers may even manipulate and distort data on the decision's effects in order to support their case (Carter, 1971,). The control over interpretation systems (Weick, 1979) is a powerful means to shape the evaluation of outcomes. The annual stockholders report and the company newsletter contain excellent examples of how even the most noxious events can be presented in a positive light through selective emphasis on certain aspects rather than others. Consequences, While Ambiguous, Matter Consequences, like problems, arc 'wl!a people make of them. One person's ple of poor management is another's ample of overwhelming environmental forces that no one could predict. This fi,n- damental ambiguity hardly means th~ de- cisions do not have consequences. Iti,, ~he importance of the interpretations of come. quences that in fact causes such invest. ment in figuring out what happened. (This is particularly true when there is a hint of failure; managers are much m, sanguine about success.) There are at least three types of c{mse- quences of decisions. First are the effects of decisions on the formation of precedent, both for the organization and the indi- vidual manager; second are the impacts on relationships resulting from participation in or exclusion from the decision cyc}e; and third, de.cision-making success or fail- ure becomes a manager's track record. Let's look at each type of consequence. Decisions accumulate; problems tend recur. These two elements mean that, in time, satisfactory decisions set precedents for the policy, rules, and procedures guid lng future action. In short, the organ;z:. tion moves toward making the handl:r,g of problems routine. Strategic direction is often the result of a series of decision~. made over time, each of which influences the succeeding decision. An analogous process goes on in manager's head, as accumulated act:'.ns become cause-effect models of the v.'zld and how it works.* This is probably '~.hat is meant by experience or organizat ior. savvy. It would be inefficient for either '.rgani- zations or managers not to routinize ':ecl- sion making. No one would ever ha'.',., time to solve problems if every problern re':.,~ired a novel response. Newspapers, for e/2mple, have evolved structures and procedL:,:s to routinize the handling of unexpecteS, fast- breaking news events (Tuchman, 19~ ~,). The attempts to establish efficient ~.:.'.ion sequences for problems is, however. mixed blessing. The development formal procedures, rules, and pol icl.~. affects all aspects of the decision c5 '.i,.-, from problem recognition to the t'..:.,: solution chosen. The very elf icier.:, such guidelines creates a subzle pr,..:. *This is discussed in detail in Ch>.;.-.e: 2 of the book -- Ed. Issues & O~servations 5 ne new problems as old problems, to ose priorities without thought, and to historical solutions rather than gener- ate novel ones. This is particularly true when managers respond to crises; they tend to rely on proven programs, concen- trate on improving efficiency, and avoid innovative solutions (Whereon, 1980). Thus, the making of decisions creates consequences through the evolution of precedent (often formalized into proce- dures) and through the accumulation of decisions into strategic directions. But the decision-making process also affects rela- tionships among the people involved. Peo- ple whose advice is taken seriously are likely to have positive feelings. Those who were not involved and feel they should have been, or whose advice was solicited but ignored, are not likely to feel so good about it. The nature of the interactions between the central decision maker and his or her ' peers (or others over whom the manager has no formal authority) lay the ground- work for future cooperation. In convoluted decision making, many such people may involved and responsiveness to their ~cerns will affect their willingness to in- or be involved with, the manager in future problem solving. Specifically, con- voluted decision processes require a mana- ger to consider carefully whom to involve, the degree of involvement, the timing of involvement, and whom to inform of the .outcome. If there is conflict among the people involved, the manager has the additional diplomatic task of dealing with the people who "lose out." Quick decisions also affect relation- ships, largely with those people who feel they should have been consulted. In this case, the manager must devote energy to unruffling feathers, or run the risk of alienating people who may be important in a future situation. Relationships with superiors are also affected, especially when a decision must be "sold up" to higher management. Expo- sure to managers at levels highe~ than one's boss is usually infrequent, so the im- pressions made can have lasting effects. All of this is related to the track record of the manager. Put simply, a manager viewed as competent is more likely to get >roved than one seen as less ~etent (Carter, 1971; Cyert et al., 1979). A reputation for competence is formed, at least partially, on the basis of how often a manager is "right." So deci- sions, and particularly the perceived con- sequences of decisions, accumulate to sep- arate the less successful from the more suc- cessful managers. It has even been sug- gested, for example, that managers seen as successful by the organization are those who dissociate from failure and associate themselves with success (Pfeifer, 1978). Unfortunately, it is not always possible to dissociate oneself from failure. Failure is always an unwelcome guest in organiza- tions and, if one manager adeptly avoids a given instance, it has a way of showing up on another manager's doorstep. When the Nixon administration's policy of support- ing West Pakistan duringthe Indian- Pakistan war of 1971 became unpopular, President Nixon saw fit to disown the pod icy. In the public eye, it then became Secretary of State Kissinger's policy. "Nixon could not resist the temptation of letting me twist slowly, slowly in the wind" (Kissinger, 1979, p. 918). It x~s weeks, too, before Nixon stopped avoiding Kissinger personally. Failure is a hot potato. Still, it is too ex- treme to say that ifa manager makes a seri- ous mistake, he or she is through. ("Good people are a scarce commodity, you don't throw a~y good people -- unless it's a be- trayal of trust or breaking the law.") But failure'sets even good people back. Look what happened to the two individuals chiefly responsible for the development of IBM's STRETCH computer, judged at the time to be a disaster: At the time the program u~s killed, both the chief designer, Stephen Dunwell, and the executive in charge of it, Charlie de Carlo, had gone into the penalty box. Watson, recalling this, said "poor Dunwell had to crawl into a cocoon for three or four years, but I apoligized pub- licly to him later" (Fishman, 1981, p. 120). E0 it is understandable why managers.put distance between themselves and failure; it hurts their reputations. Living With the Results We have seen that the consequences of important, complex decisions are essen- tially ambiguous. Like defining what a problem is, defining the results of action is an interpretive process. This means that it is subject to certain human tendencies: People seek to reduce uncertainty, use sim- ple models to interpret what's happening around them, and sometimes don't hear information if it is contrary to what they are expecting. One way managers cope with ambiguity is to look for numbers, such as return on investment or percent of quota, as a means of being more objective. Forecasts, for example, tend to become the criteria against which to judge the efficacy of action. Similarly, many organizations have also invested heavily in management information systems that routinely deliver large amounts of quantitative performance data. While all of these approaches can help in assessing decisions, they can also be de- ceptive. There is no magic in quantifica- tion, and as was the case in recognizing problems; an over-reliance on numbers Issues & Observations Published by Center for Creative Leadership 5000 Laurinda Drive Post Office Box P-1 Greensboro, North Carolina 274~2-1660 Kenneth E. Clark, President W.H. Drath, 1II. Editor J.C. Ferguson, Managing Editor, Layout and Design The Center for Creative Leadership does not discriminate with respect to the admission of students on the basis of race, sex, color. national or ethnic origin, not.does it discrim- inate on any such basis with 'respect to its ac- tivities, programs, or policies. © 1985, Center for Creative Leadership / 30._3 6 Issues & Observations Operational Decisional Statement of Aftermath Interpretation Outcomes Perceptions of action taken Percepiions of results of action Channeling, sorting, filtering, and organizing forces Creation of meaning Differential interpretation of the action taken, meaning of consequences, links between action and consequences Retrospective definitions of what happened The Ambiguity of Knowing What Happened Impact Formation of precedent; emergence of strate~ Changes in relationships with other people Creation of manager's track record can divert attention from the rich com- plexity of the issues. Numbers and trends are particularly risky in fast-changing en- vironmenis where what has been true his- torically may not be true now. For in- stance, what was true for the oil com- panies when prices were controlled is'not necessarily true under decontrol. What was historically unprofitable may not re- main so, given world oil prices, depletion of supply, and inflation. Given that consequences require inter- pretation even when numbers are avail- able, what does this mean for managerial decision makers? First, they should be aware that all models of how the world works are simplifications of reality, and that different people may use different models to explain the same events. In a sense, the rules that guide managers in assessing decision quality are figments of their experience. Second, perceptions of consequences are taken seriously. They can become pol- icy; they do become part of the track record of the manager involved. On im- portant problems, then, managers are well advised to negotiate perceptions of conse- quences -- to try to reach some agreement with important people on how it went. This process may work differently for the quick decision cycles than it does for the convoluted. Effective quick-cycle, action- first decision making depends on feed- back. Knowing how a hip shot turned out allows a manager to take corrective action, but the yen/efficiency of the quick cycle disinclines managers to spend time on · follow-up.. In long and convoluted decision mak- ing, involving many people over time, analysis of consequences begins during the decision process. The negotiation over what is important begins early in the problem-solving process; involving the right people at the right times can create shared responsibility and common percep- tions. On the other hand, involving num- erous people in diffuse processes may result in many of them never knowing how things came out or what difference their contribution made. Put succinctly, a manager needs to con- sider carefully what role to take in negoti- ating the outcomes of action. A few "rules of thumb" can be summarized as follows: 1. Recognize that evah~ating decisions in- volves managing perceptions. For most day- to-day problems, what others think may be irrelevant. But for certain important prob- lems, what others think happened may be more important than what actually happened. This means that managers need to con- sider both tactics and strategy when prob- lem solving. Knowing whom to involve, when to involve them, and how to im'oh'e them is an intuitive but critical choice. In some cases it is important to keep the decision-making process visible, especialh.' when the manager wants others to know that all reasonable efforts were made. In other cases, the manager may want to keep a low profile, staying some distance aw~ay from the problem and getting his or her act together before letting the problem become visible. What's important is the manager's awareness that decision making is as much the management ora process as it is the making of a choice. Assuming responsibil- ity for a problem also implies responsibility for how the problem is solved. 2. Pick causes carefully. This applies not just because it serves a manager's self- interest, but also because solving problems is a question of priorities and available time. Association with certain decisions determines one's track record. The other side of the coin is that convoluted deci- sions (which often result from even trivial problems) consume time and energy While managers should not shy ax~y from sticky problems, they should be realistic about investing effort in either the trivial or the intractable. 3. Inoculate against risk. Making deci- sions is a risky business, but so is avoiding decisions: Unhappily, corporate difficulties are ' more often the result of inaction in the face ora dangerous change than of being the hopele'ss victim of ci~ cumstances. It's the exceptional executive who can bring himself to admit that a crisis is in the making; the unexpected report of trouble, Issues & O~servations 7 like Banquo's ghost, just doesn't fit into the scheme of things. Even few- the executives with the cour- age to take drastic action in time. On the contrary, case histories re- veal too many instances where top management procrastinated about an emergent crisis. (Smith, 1963, p. 19) When assessing a problem, a manager · should consider the consequences of fail- ure to act as well as those of a potential action. At the same time, when contem- plating a ri~kfilled decision, a manager should take certain precautions: antici- pate as well as possible the likely conse- quences, especially the negative ones; and touch base with at least some of the power- ful people in the organization. An execu- tive echoed this advice when he told us how he went about deciding whether to take on a big project: l'd put the thing together the best I could and spell out in considerable detail what all the costs would be and what the potential payout would be -- spell it out as well as'I could. Then l'd take it to a coup~ of the directors [members of the board] that were particularly interested. Sit down and go over it. I knew that if these two guys went along with me, they had a lot of influence with the rest of the directors and chances are, if we all decided it was the right .thing to do, there wouldn't be any drastic repercussions [if it didn't work out]. To protect themselves against downside risk, astute managers imagine the worst and line up allies who agree that the risk is worth taking. 4. Develop and use strong feedback sys- tems. Be aggressive in finding out about consequences. Experience is only a good teacher when the data one generates through action are collected and inter- preted. It is hard enough to know accur- ately the consequences of our actions, even if we have a good network; it is vir- tually impossible if we have no reliable information. Since managers are reluctant to show hemselves (or their superiors) in a bad news about failed solutions can be extremely hard to come by. A corollary to the inversetaw of uncertainty mentioned earlier in this chapter is the inverse law of feedback: The higher a manager's position in the organization, the more constricted are the feedback channels upa-ar& This law operates with a vengeance when, as one executive put it, "executives are sus- ceptible to a belief in their own infallibility." 5. Accept failure (your own), if it happens. Even the best managers make mistakes: To be human is to be fallible. Because execu- tives so jealously guard their reputations as capable people, they may go to the ex- treme of never admitting mistakes. One executive said: There are some executive suites and corporate environments in which the executive, if he makes mistakei (which, of course, every executive does) never lets those mistakes be seen by others. That's a self- destructive course. An executive who does that becomes uptight and withdrawn from his environment and out of touch with reality (Kaplan, 1982, p. 3). In contrast, the effective managers we interviewed took a different tack. One executive said: If things work out well, then I thank everybody .... If things didn't work out, and I was the driving force, then it's my fault. Similarly, another executive told us: Everybody knows you make mis- takes, so why not admit it. I make it a point to admit the blunders. Once I admit it, I feel better about it. It doesn't bother me. It's really a pain- ful thing to keep trying to not admit some things. You have to carry that around as a burden until you get if off your chest. In addition to admitting mistakes, it is important not to be defeated by them. An executive stated: You just have to have the ego strength to lose and not let it dis- courage you. Everytime you lose, you learn something. Everytime you lose, it's another bet or piece of in- formation that's going to help you win next time. Defeat teaches, if the manager is willing to learn. But the temptation is strong to shun responsibility and to withdraw from the problem. A successful manager, a gutsy manager, is one who faces up to decisions that have failed and regroups and makes them less of a failure or sometimes even a success. In defeat, the effective managers neither fold their tefits nor do they neces- sarily persist in the same course; they stick with the problem and consider different solutions. 6. Accept other people's failure. It's no wonder, given the climate that prevails in many organizations, that people avoid fail- ure like the plague. In my experience, if the corporation does something and it tums out well, then everybody had a part in the decisions. If it tums out poorly, then there's usually some guy that caused it. Small wonder that so many managers are gun-shy about making decisions. An executive confided that he felt this squeeze in the last company he worked for: I ask myself, "why do I find decision making so easy now, whereas it was sometimes so difficult then?" The answer I came up with was, "Well, there was tremendous pressure from above to be right or else." There are some organizations that have little or no tolerance for people who make mistakes. Therefore people don't make mistakes. They don't make mistakes because they play it safe. They avoid risks. Said another executive: The biggest problem with decision makers are the kind of guys who have to be right all the time. Those are the ones who are in deep trouble. They just have to be right every sin- gle time so therefore they're never going to take a risk. To create a climate in which people don't have to be right ever5' time and. where they can feel free to.take risks, man- agers can do a couple of things. First, they can encourage their people to try things on a small scale - modest experiments, which, if they fail, do no great damage (Peters & Waterman, 1982). Second, they can set a good example: You know, if you walk in and say, "God, did I blow that. Jesus Christ, did I screw up today"'~nd tell a story about how badly you screwed up, they're going to be a lot more open to telling you things that they've screwed up .... It works so well with 8 Issues & Observations COAAE It,,I, S/W. ITH , AND IVE U5 YOUR ANA, LySIS,. OOO 1,4F..V,/~, , HOPE. the people at work, and they feel very comfortable in saying to you when they've made a mistake. So you get more data, more factual data, and they don't have to figure out all the rationalizations of why what they did was right. · 7. Don't rest on your laurels. When man- agers enjoy the sweet taste of victory, they must be alert to the present dangers. For one thing, they must remember to share the wealth. We have seen that it is easy to .be generous with blame; it is also tempting -- but counterproductive -- to be stingy with praise. A university administrator advised: Much of what you do isn't personal; you don't do it by yourself. There are many actors. And the applause is great enough to share with everyone. Echoed by several other managers, this ad- vice is especially important to managers who, like the one just quoted, expect to keep collaborators and sponsors com- mitted to a long-term project (Kanter, 1977). The other present danger of winning is complacency. A certain mental inertia sets in and lulls the manager into extra- polating a comfortable present into the in- definite future. As president of Pan Am, Juan Trippe had become accustomed to an annual 15 percent market growth and counted on that growth continuing when he made his company the "launch custom- er'' for the new wide-bodied planes (Newhouse, 1982): Talking about Trippe, the executive who was at the time Pan Am's chief of engineering said: "Trippe would not have looked at marketing analy- sis. There was no planning depart- ment in Pan Am. Trippe sat in his corner office, ma'de plans, ai~d then . made them come true." (Newhouse, 1982) Unfortunately, as soon as the airline and aircraft industries became committed to wide-bodied planes, the early-1970s reces- sion hit and the market for the planes evaporated. Even with success, sustained success, managers must remain vigilant. Said one executive: When one's decisions turn out alright, one should resist the temp- tation to spend very much time basking in the glory of those right decisions. They need to be re- examined on a continuous basis to be sure that the decision that was right yesterday continues to be right today. The manager must continually "sift through the good news looking for evi- dence of future problems" (Fox, 19'/6). Unfortunately, handling victory is not the manager's greatest challenge, because most of what the manager does is contend with problems: Ninety percent of their time is spent on problems; ten percent on victory dinners, celebrations, etc. And very often the celebration for a wonder- ful victory coincides with the dis- covery of a terrible n.ew problem. Rarely is victory unstained by a con- current encroaching defeat. (Fox, 1976) Dr. McCall is Senior Behavioral Scientist and Director of Research at the Center; Dr. Kaplan is BeMvioral Scientist and Director of the Looking Glass Program. References Carter, E. The behavioral theor~ of the firm and rap-level corporate decisions..&:tminis. native Science Quarterly, 1971, 16 (4), 413-428. Cyert, R., DeGroot, M., & Iqolt, C. Capital allocation within a firm. Behavioral Science, 1979, 24 (5), 287-295. de Segur, Count PJnilipe-Paul. Napoleon's gus. sian campaign. Translated from the French by J. David Townsend. Chicago: Time-Life Books, 1958. Fishman, K.D. The computer establishment. New York: Harper & Row, 1981. Fox, J.M. Executive qualities. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1976. llgen, D., Fisher, C., & Taylor, M. Conse- quences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applled Psychol. ogy, 1979, 64(4), 349-371. Kanter, R. Men and women o/the corporation. New York: Basic Books, 1977. Kaplan, R.E. An executive's reflections on executives: An interview with Roger T. Kell%: Issues g Observations. Greensboro, N.C.: Center for Creative Leadership, 1982 2 (2), 1-4. Kaplan, R.E. Lombardo, M.M., & Mazique, M.S. A mirror for managers: Using simuhr/on to develop management teams (Tech. Rep. No. 23). Greensboro, N.C.: Center for Crea- tive Leadership, 1983. Kissinger, lq.A. White house years. Boston: Little, Brown, 1979. Kotter, J.E The general managers. New York: The Free Press, 1982. March, J.G., & Olsen, J.E Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway: Uni- versitetsforlaget, 1976. Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Theoret, A. The structure of "unstructured" decision processes. ,'~dministrative Science Quarter/)., 1976,21,246-275. Mirvis, P., & Berg, D. (Eds.). Failures in org,~niza. tion development and change. New York: Wiley, 1977. Newhouse, J. A sporting game (Part IV). Th, New Yorker, July 5, 1982. Peters, T.J,, & \Vaterman, R.H., Jr. In seatch o~ excellence. New York: Harper & Rob; 1982. THE $-I LETTER Spring, 1985 (Please distribute to City Council members and administrative officials of your choice.) Bond Market Conditions The market has improved noticeably for mid and long-term bonds since the end of 1984, with most of the improvement in interest rates coming during the post 45 days. We hove shown below the levels of key market rotes for early January, 1985 and for May 3, 1985. 20-Year - Bond Buyer Index 30-Year - Bond Buyer Index Prime Rote Discount Rote 90-Day Treasury Bills One-Year CD's January 4~ 1985 May 3~ 1985 9.87 9.37 10.31 9.73 10.75 10.50 8.00 8.00 7.99 7.91 9.09 8.88 We look for some stability in rates, though the continuing unresolved federal deficit with resulting large federal bor~owing remains a dark cloud on the horizon. Our general advice on market timing for your bond issue remains the same: "If you need the money, sell the bonds and don't play the market." Springsted Incorporated was hired recently os. financial advisor to the Indiana, to market the state's first tax increment revenue bond issue. the number of states, plus the District of Columbia, in which government or higher education issuers, Those states include: Indiana Colorado Iowa Minnesota Kansas Montana Louisiana South Dakota City of South Bend, Indiana brings to 13 we. represent local Virginia West Virginia Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Our primary base remains Minnesota and we have gone to extraordinary means to insure our continued ability to provide a high level of service to our current clients. During the past three months we have increased the sophistication of our computer systems, added a microfiche capability for bond file records, and have expanded our offices to the 9th floor of the asham Building. However, the most significant move to improve our performance has been the expansion of our staff." We have added four key persons to that staff during the past three months. Those staff additions include Rancid Sundberg, Consultant, formerly Manager of Energy Analysis and District Heating Projects, Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development; Sherrill Cloud, Vice President, formerly Vice President of the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems in Boulder, Colorado; David MacGillivray, Senior Finance Analyst, formerly Finance Director at inver Grove Heights and White Bear Lake; and Katherine Kardell, Research Analyst, formerly with the City of Edina, Minnesota. SPRINGS'lED INCORPORATED PUBLIC FINANCE ADVISORS 800 Osborn Building · Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 · (612) 2224241 /go 2 During the past 12 months we have been involved with Minnesota issues ranging in size from $30,000 to $68,800,000. We pledge to continue to provide a high level of professional service to all prospective issuers in the State, and we continue to value our relationship with you. Reinvestment of Municipal Funds The recent financial collapse of EMS Government Securities, Incorporated and Bevili~ Bresler and Shulman Asset Management Corporation has been well publicized, as has been the terrible adverse impact on several dozen unlucky local governmental units and their finance professionals. While it may take years to sort out the final results, it is clear that significant pain will be inflicted on the taxpayers of those affected governmental units which lost millions of d°llars in investments which were secured by repurchase agreements, col lateralized by an inadequate value of federal government securities. Minnesota. Statutes Section 6,75.66, sul~'clivision !, permit the investment of debt service funds in a number of securities including repurchase agreements. The statute provides that "repurchase agreements may be entered into with a bank qualified as depository of money held in the debt service fund, or with any national or state bank in the United States which is a member of the federal reserve system and its combined capital and surplus equals or exceeds $10 million, or a reporting dealer to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York." Since there are no Minnesota based reporting dealers to the Federal F~eserve Bank of New York, any repurchase agreements to be made locally must be entered into with a bank qualified under the statute. The.underlying securities for the repurchase agreement with banks are U.S. Treasury or Agency securities. Our investigation indicates the treatment of the collateral varies from case to case. In most instances the investing municipality. gets only a confirmation slip recording the transaction and describing the collateralized security. In those cases the bank does not set up a safekeeping account.or actually deliver the security to the investor, and the investor in effect has made an unsecured loan. The bank segregates the securities 'on its books only. We advise you to seek advice from your legal counsel as to whether this process meets the requirement of Section ~,75.66, and further, whether it provides adequate safeguards for protecting the city's investments. Subdivision 2 of Minnesota Statutes ~,75.66 does contemplate investments being held in safekeeping with certain banks, provided the municipality's ownership of any securities in which the fund is invested is evidenced by written acknowledgements identifying the securities by the names of the issuers, maturity dates, interest rates, and serial numbers or other distinguishing features. Tax Increment Projects - Equity Participation Agreements A number of Minnesota cities have begun negotiating equity participation agreements with developers which require the city.to be repaid all or a portion of its tax increment assistance upon certain conditions, such as sale of the property or when a cash flow turns positive. Now, a rule change proposed by the Internal Revenue Service would appear to place in jeopardy any bond issue used to fund the up front costs for the developer assistance, if the developer or owner of the property is required to repay ali or a portion of the tax increment assistance, it is considered a loan, subjects the bonds to the consumer loan test and would make the bonds taxable. This would represent a serious problem with the original purchasers of tax-exempt bonds, which would translate to a serious problem for the issuer. Multi-family rental housing projects appear to be exempt from the restriction. If you are considering a tax increment project with an equity agreement, we recommend you discuss it in advance with us and bond counsel. /Sag In Minnesota, 'Pay Equity' Passes Test, but Foes See Trouble Ahead ~aff Reporler of T~ W~ $'rta~-r P~CETON, ~.-T~ p~e W~ on ~e b~ o~ ~e R~ ~ver ~ ~o~ for ~o ~n~: ~e ~ ~mu~ler who ~ sever~ ye~ a~ to rea~ge ~e l~ca~ ~ ~ p~ ~ees, ~d · e ci~ co.cfi ~at ~ l~t ye~ ~ ~ v~p h~to~ by ~g i~ ~ee~r ~ mu~ ~ i~ s~t ~ee~. ~e smuggler ~ ~ p~on now, h~ p~ ~ ~d ~ o~er ~ ~ ~e' cl~ b~e ~de~ of a b~ ~e. But ~e o~er ~ent ~ app~nfly s~ wor~g ~6 mon~ ~er ~e ci~ ~ve "pay~" ~ ~ ~ f~e m~ici~ em- ployes who we~ ~g p~d le~ ~ men whose ciW ]o~ a study fo~d h~ compa- ~ble res~nsibffifi~. One of ~e women, ~-ye~ld ~e NelsomGe~, ~e ~W's ~~r, ~ught a ~t~e of ~e ~ celeb~te ~er her ~r-ho~ w~ge ~e to $9.78 ~m $7.05. "It's a~ut ~e we mov~ out of ~e 19~ ~d ~t p~ ~e idea ~at women ~ j~t wor~g for money to buy nylons," ~e ~yS. ~e notion of comp~able wo~-or pay ~-h~ sti~ ~ ~tense na~on~de debate. Sup~e~, m~fly ~ons ~d women's ~ups, s~ ~e concept ~ a way to close ~e wage ~p ~n his~c~y' "women's" ~d "men's" lobs. ~ey con- ~der it ~ i~ue of f~e~ ~ wed ~ of g~ b~e~ ~llcy. ~c~ D~ter But employe~' ~ups ~lieve ~at ~v- e~ent effo~ to put a v~ue on jo~ ~ reset ~ a le~ ~d ~ci~ di~r ~d ~1 ~p away ~eir mem~' reli~ce on market facto~ to set pay. ~ey co~t ~ ~ies ~e Rea~ a~istrafion, whi~ h~ vow~ to fight comparable wo~ ~ ~e co~, ~d ~e ch~ of ~e U.S. ~ ~gh~ ~ion, who c~ ~e concept "l~ney t~." Despite ~is op~si~on, a ~a~e~g of s~te ~d 1~ gove~en~ have adopt~ comp~bl~wo~ ~lici~ for ~eir pub~c- s~tor work force. ~ve ~tes o~er ~ ~nne~-Iowa, Id~o, New Me.co, W~h~on ~d ~u~ D~o~-are ~- ready adj~ng pay ~es. ~ a ~t of . le~la~on or lair negotia~ons; a~ut ~ o~e~ ~ stud~g whe~er ~etr sc~es ~sc~tnate ag~ women. ~d e~lier ~ts week, ~e city of ~s ~geles s~d It pl~ to r~se ~e ~es of 3,~ Worke~, mostly ferule, by 10% ~ 15% over ~e next ~ree yea~. For ~e moment,' ~ough, ~ne~ ~ ~e state ~ ~e m~t comprebe~lve pay-eq~ty pl~. ~d while l~ pa~ to com- p~ab]e wo~ ~n't en~re]y sm~, o~er states aae ~ing l~ pl~ ~d ex~ence to help ~de ~em. ,-7--Minnesota hopes to complete the phase- lin of its two-year-old plan for state workers by 1987. The state estimates that about 8,- 000 of the 9,000 ,eligible employees have so faa received some of their raises. Total pay-equity raises will eventually come to about 4% of the state's annual payroll costs. Minnesota has also ordered its clues, counties and school districts to adopt sim- .ilar. pro~ covering 163,000 workers. Here in. Princeton, though, comparable- worth policies were adopted even before the state required them; the program has cost Sl0,000, or-a half of a percent of the city's annual budget. "Them was no law- suit. no new law," says Faith Zwernke, the former mayor. "This was just pure jus- t. ice.'' But others disagree. "It's too early to draw any conclusions about Minnesota, but the proponents may be overstaUng it as a success story" says 3ohn Tysse, director of ~he Equal Employment Advisory Council, a national employer's group, lie argues that Minnesota's isn't a "pure comparable- worth plan" because it allows the state to consider other factors, such as labor short: · ages, in paying some employees. And he anticipates increased costs as the state tries to administer nearly '1,400 local-gov- ernment pay-equity plans. Minnesota revamped its pay structure after a study of 1,800 job classes showed women were paid an average of 25% less 'It was .euer pre- sumed that this was taking away from any- one else, and so it didn't become Controversial,' says Minnesota's com- pensation director. than men. "It was clear we had a dual wage structure based on sex," says Nina Rothchild, commissioner o! employee rela- tions for Minnesota. "Them wasn't a singlb case of a female-dominated job that paid as much or more than the equivalent male- dominated job class." To compare jobs, the state used a sys- tem called the Hay Guide Chart Profile Method, which awards points based on an employee's knowledge, problem-solving ability, accountability' and working condi- tions. For instance, the system found that registered nurses and vocational-education field instructors each earned 275 points. Yet the nurses, 94% of whom were f~male, made a maximum o! $1,723 a month, while the all-male instructors made a maximum of $226O a month. Overall, the average fe- male state worker with 2O years of experi- ence earned less than'the average newly hired male state worker. To bring things into line, affected workers got raises averaging $1,600 over two years. No salaries were cut. "it was never presumed that this was taking away money from anyone else, and so it didn't become contm, verslal," says Carol Flynn, a former union official and now the state's compensation director.. Still, in the past few months contro- versy has emerged. Police and firefighter unions, for instance, recently broke ranks with the rest of labor and are lobbying hard in the Legislature against being in. cluded in the comparable-worth plan. Francis Fitzgerald, an official o! the Min- nesota Association of Commerce and In- dustry, observes: "The firemen went crazy because the point system classifies a Ii. brarian's Job the same level as a fireman's job. One fireman testified that he knows a librarian's job is very dangerous-'a book could fall on her head.' ". Tim Fuller, a flrefighter in St. Paul, says: "We're not saying we're above this, we're just asking how you fairly make these coinparisons." Many male em- ployees worry that higher pay for women will mean less increases for men. Meanwhile, Republicans in the Legisla- ture say they are concerned about bringing focal-government workers under compara- ble worth, arguing that the number o! workers involved and the heavy cost will harm the financial health of local towns. "It's just a mess and it's going to become more and more of a me.ss," says Virginia Lamp, an official o! the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which opposes comparable worth. Supporters of comparable worth counter that the plan has worked far better than critics had predicted it would. Some opponents feared that the plan would in- duce women to stay in "female" jobs, and that it would attract so many new women applying tot those jobs that many would be squeezed out. But supporters point to a 19% increase in women working in male- dominated job classes. And, they say, women who made an average 74 cents for every $1 earned by a man before pay eq- uity now make 78 cents. Some men also say they have benefited. Keith Allen's job switch fa'om Janitor to ac- count clerk at a state nursing home b~ came a promotion rather than a demotion when the female-dominated account- clerk's job was upgraded. 'The Nex~ Step' But employer gmUl~' bi~Zesl'[e~ · ~ comparable wo~ ~ eventu~y level, ~en ~e 1~ ]ewe1, ~e ne~ step ~e p~vate sector," sa~ ~. ~e~d of · e cohere ~d ~d~t~ ~l~on. He ~d~: "~ ~e le~lgto~ ~d ~a c~d ~ow ~t even ~ study of comp~- ble wo~ ~ ~e p~vate s~r ~ b~g on eve~ re~ce we have a~t lt." ~eso~'s ~vemor, Rudy Pe~i~, rays pay ~W shoed ~. le~la~ ~r pgvate ~d~ "o~y ~ ~ey don't do It on · eir o~m" ~d o~y at ~e f~e~ level, ~ not to d~ve b~e~ ~m one s~ ~o~er. Even ~ ~ ~ ~gh-level'~g~g, few ~e~ ~ow ~e ~ w~ of pay ~ ~lter ~ ~. Nei- sner, · e P~ceton ~ee~r. ~r she ~ m~g ~ mu~ money ~ ~e cl~'s mae street ~m, "it ~t ~d of ~ly," she ~ys. ~ ~e 1~ c~e one mom~g a wat~ who ~ ma~ ~ a st~et ~r yell~: "Ne~ ~e ~ey'~ ~g to b~g ~e sno~lo~ do~ to Hal ~d ~e ~r c~ ~p street." ~en ~e walr~ wo~'t t~e her order. But ~e ~ee~r sa~ ~n~ c~er now. "~ose macho ~ys dl~'t ~de~l~d ~al ~e gear I ~d ~e ge~ ~ey tum~ ~ have ~e ~pact on ~e clX." AGENDA MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT May 16, 1985 St. Louis Park City Hall 7:30 p.m. Call to order; present, absent staff. Reading and approval of minutes of regular meeting of April 18, 1985. Approval or amendment of May 16, 1985 agenda. Hearing of permit applications: A. 85-104 Super America Stations, Inc. - grading and drainage plan for the reconstruction of a gas station, Sec. 13CC, 5377 Shoreline Boulevard, Lost Lake - Lake Minnetonka, City of Mound. B. 84-120 Bob Pierce - grading and drainage plan for an 18-unit apartment building, Sec. 23ACA, southwest corner of Co. Road 19 and Glen Road, City of Shorewood. C. 85-14 Frank Spartz - "after-the-fact" retaining wall shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 8AC, Bantas Point, Grays Bay, Lake Minnetonka, City of Minnetonka. D. 85-26 City of Mound - dredge channel and cove area, Sec. 13BAA, Dove Cove - Jennings Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Mound. E. 85-27 City of Mound - maintenance dredging, Sec. 13CAD, Harrisons Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Mound. F. 85-44 R.F. Oorlog and J. Flatz - 100 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection along two neighboring lots, Sec. 8BCC, North Arm - Lake Minnetonka, City of Orono. G. 85-45 Sam Marfield - 50 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 9DBB, Crystal Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Orono. H. 85-46 Paul Anderson - 80' lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 22DDA, Halsteds Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Mound. I. 85-47 Robert Lund - 30 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection and $ lineal ~e% 0f l~Ig~ b0~ldt[ steps, Sec. 24BDD, Cooks Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Mound. J. 85-48 Thomas Sween - 135 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 16BBB, Crystal Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Orono. K. 85-49 Randy Asplund - 50 foot lake setback variance, Sec. 30, Upper Lake - Lake Minnetonka, City of Shorewood. L. 85-50 W.J. Gotschall - 130 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protetion, Sec. 6BD, southeast shore Of Smithtown Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Victoria. M. 85-52 City of Greenwood - unspecified lineal footage of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 26DB, Greenwood Circle, St. Albans Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Greenwood. N. 85-53 Marc Hanson - 180 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion.protection, Sec. 21DDC, Minnehaha Creek east of Yosemite Ave. and south of Vermont Street, City of St. Louis Park. O. 85-54 Denny Johnson - 65 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 18B, West Arm Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Mound. P. 85-55 Barry E. Olson, Jr. - raise foundation of an existing cottage and fill entire lot to a higher elevation, Sec. 18CD, West Arm Rd. East, West Arm Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Spring Park. Q. 85-56 Church of the Hqly Comforter - grading and drainage plan for a church including a.driveway and parking lot, Sec. 10CCB, directly west of 1-494, north of County Rd. 16 and south of the BN railroad tracks, City of Minnetonka. R. 85-57 Our Lady of Grace Church - grading and drainage plan for an addition to an existing church, Sec. 28DA, Eden Road west of Hwy. 100, City of Edina. S. 85-58 Knollwood West Partners - grading and drainage plan for the redevelopment of a carwash site into re,ail and office space, Sec. 18DDC, southern edge of Knollwood Plaza north of Hwy..7 and east of Minnehaha Creek, City of St. Louis Park. T. 85-59 Minnetonka Moorings - ma'intenance dredging of 1700 cubic yards of sediment, Sec. 34BC, Snug Harbor Yacht Club, south shore of Gideons Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Shorewood. -2- U. 85-60 Robert and Adele Biernat - grading and drainage plan for Adele's Frozen Custard, Sec. 35BDB, 800 Excelsior Blvd., City of Excelsior. V. 85-61 Richard Ogle - 83 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 21CAA, Carmens Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Orono. W. 85-62 The Landings - 930 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 12BB, Painters Creek - Lake Minnetonka, City of Minnetrista. X. 85-63. E. Allan Reay - 130 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 12BB, Painters Creet - Lake Minnetonka, City of Minnetrista. Y. 85-64 Russell Fischer - 123 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 12BBB, Painters Creek - Jennings Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Minnetrista. Z. 85-65 Jack E. West - 100 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 12BBB, Painters Creek - Jennings Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Minnetrista. a. 85-66 A.H. (Skip) jewett - 100 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 20DBC, Carmens Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Orono. b. 85-67 J.M. Weisman - 80° lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 24BDA, Cooks Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Mound. Report of Treasurer, Engineer and Attorney. A. Treasurer's Report - Mr. Andre. B. Engineer's Report - Mr. Panzer. C. Attorney's Report - Mr. Macomber. Unfinished Business. New Business. 8. Adjournment. 0783n -3- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT April 18, 1985 The regular meeting of the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was called to order by Chairman Cochran at 7:30 p.m., on Thursday, April 18, 1985, at the Wayzata City Hall, Wayzata, Minnesota. Managers .present: Andre, Cochran, Miller, McWethy, and Spensley Manager absent: Lehman Manager Thomas arrived at 7:45 p.m. Also present were Board advisors Panzer, Mahady and Macomber. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the special meeting of April 2, 1985 were reviewed. Following discussion, it was moved by Spensley, seconded by McWethy that on page 11 the heading 'County Road 73 Crossing" and the text following that heading be deleted and the following inserted in lieu thereof: 'County Road 18 Crossing. Manager McWethy inquired regarding the status of a drainage way abutting the eastern lanes of northbound County Road 18 south of Minnehaha Creek. The area had experienced erosion last fall and some sediment had been deposited in the Creek. The engineer reported to the Board on the status of that investigation by the County." and that with the foregoing change, the minutes be approved as distributed. Upon vote the motion carried. Approval of Permit Applications The Managers reviewed a memorandum from the engineer indicating that the following applications comply with the applicable standards of the District and recommending approval on the terms and conditions as set forth within that memorandum: 80-103 Randy Zejdlik, Baton Corporation - renewal of a building setback to allow a setback of 40 feet, Sec. 19AB, 4349c4355 Shoreline Drive, north shore of Black Lake, City of Spring Park. 82-112 Hedberg and Sons - grading and drainage plan for two office-warehouse buildings in the Hedberg InduStrial Park, Lot 2, Block 4, Sec. 12CC, east of County Road 73 north of Minnehaha Creek, City of Hopkins. 83-05 Walter F. Helland - renewal of building setback variance allowing a buildinq setback of 48 feet to the shoreline, Sec. 13BAC, Three Points Boulevard, Harrison Shores, Harrison Bay,.City of Mound. 83-110 85-18 Hennepin Co. DOT - grading and drainage, roadway construction and surfacing, Sec. 17, 18, CSAH 5 and T.H. 101' Intersection, City of Minnetonka. J. H. Strothman - unspecified lineal footage of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 26AAB, Lake Minnetonka, City of Greenwood. 85-32 Richard Ri Tradewell - 150 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection. Sec. 34BBC, Gideon's Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Shorewood. 85-33 Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board - 120 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 17DCC, Minnehaha Creek, City of Minneapolis. 85-35 85-37 Roy Ahern- 50 foot lake setback variance, Sec. 36BBD, Christmas Lake, City of Shorewood. Lucy E. Hahn - grading and drainage plan for a 4-unit townhouse development "Port Harrison Townhomes", Sec. 13BCB, Harrisons Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Mound. 85-40 Ralph O. Robinson - 50 foot lake setback variance, Smithtown Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Shorewaod. -2- 85-41 Peter S. Wattson - 88 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 34BBC, Gideon's Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Shorewood. It was moved by Andre, seconded by McWethy, that the foregoing applications be approved as recommended by the Engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. Cheyenne Land Co., Twelve Oaks Center - grading and drainage plan for a 5-lot residential subdivision. Floodplain development along Minnehaha Creek. Wetland alteration (DNR Wetland 715W), Sec. 18BBD, east of Frederick Ave. at Minnehaha Creek, City of St. Louis Park. 83-114 The Engineer advised that this project had been reviewed by the Board in November 1983 and September 1984. The Engineer advised that a letter had been sent to the City of St. Louis Park outlining the comments of the District with respect to the project, and that in September 1984 the Managers tabled the application and directed the applicant to address the concerns noted in the letter of November 22, 1983. The Engineer advised the Managers that the applicant has revised the plan somewhat to reduce the proposed floodplain filling to 1.91 acre-feet. The Engineer further stated that the applicant requests credit for storage provided by County excavation on an upstream property during the construction of Highway 18 (Permit 84-151). The Engineer advised the Board that the modifications made by the applicant did not meet the applicable standards of the District and recommended denial of the application. Manager Thomas arrived at this time. Mr. Len Thiel appeared on behalf of Cheyenne Land Co. Mr. Thiel stated that the prior plan had been given preliminary approval by the St. Louis Park Planning Commission and the St. Louis Park City Council. Mr. Thiel stated that, at the request of the watershed district, the applicant had revised the plan to eliminate one lot from the project. Mr. Thiel stated that ponding provided by the County Road 18 pond is substantial and provides beneficial storage capacity and that the applicant should received credit for that storage. Mr. Thiel requested approval.by the Board. The Managers reviewed the proposal and noted that several existing homes in and downstream of this area are prone to flooding and that the project could only aggravate existing flooding problems. It was moved by Thomas, seconded by McWethy that the application be denied because the revisions made to the plan do not satisfy applicable District standards and criteria. -3- ?3/? Manager Andre suggested that in his view a more appropriate action would be to refer the development proposal back to the city for an analysis of the anticipated flooding impact of the project and the street access issue. Following discussion of Manager Andre's suggestion, the question was called on Manager Thomas' pending motion and upon vote the motion carried, Manager Andre voting no. Lake Auburn Home - grading and drainage plan and setback variance for an expansion of Lake Auburn Home for the Elderly, Sec. llCDB, Lake Auburn East, City of Victoria. 85-30 The'Engineer reviewed the application for expansion of the existing facility on this property. Ms. Marble Heath appeared on behalf of the applicant. The Engineer advised that the property is surrounded on three sides by the Carver Park Reserve. The Engineer advised that~ rate. control was-not' needed 'from this site because of the publicly-owned drainage system through which runoff from~this site is carried. The Engineer advised that water quality facilities will be provided which meet with District standards. It was moved by Andre, seconded by Miller, that the application be approved subject to the written recommendations of the Engineer. Upon vote 'the motion carried. Manager Cochran noted that the applicant would be responsible for maintenance of the drainage facilities on its property. City of Long Lake - stor'm sewer replacement and construction of a sedimentation basin, Sec. 34ACD, Long Lake, City of Long Lake. 85-34 The Engineer reviewed the application for storm sewer replacement and addition of a settling basin. The Engineer recommended certain changes in the design of the sedimentation basin and outlet structure. Paul Pearson of McCombs-Knutson appeared on behalf of the applicant and indicated that the requested modifications would be acceptable to the city. The Engineer recommended approval of the project with the condition that the applicant submit revised plans showing: (1) all the capacity reduced to '5 foot weir or equivalent, (2) realigned outlet flow direction to prevent scouring, (3) increase of available storage capacity to a minimum of 0.6 acre-feet, (4) standard rip rap protection at the outlet of the 30" culvert into the ponding area. It was moved by McWethy, seconded by Andre, that the application be'approved subject to the foregoi'ng conditions. vote the motion carried. Upon R.M. Baker Co. - grading and drainage plan for a commercial development at the east end of Wayzata, Sec. 6DAC, Gleason Creek - Lake Minnetonka, City of Wayzata. 85-36 The Engineer reviewed the application for grading and ~ drainage plan approval of a 1.5 acre site located at the eastern --4-- 13i end of Wayzata. The Engineer advised that approximately 2/3 of the site is wetlands and that the concept development involves clustering small offices and shops on pilings and the placement of parking on the higher ground. Manager Miller moved, seconded by Manager Andre, that the Board advise the applicant that the District would deny a permit for the application because of the prior actions of the Board to preserve the marsh east of Block 61 for stormwater storage. Mr. Gronberg, engineer for the applicant, advised the Board that the structures were proposed to be placed on pilings and that there would be no encroachment into the wetland. Mr. Miller withdrew, his motion. The Engineer informed the Managers that the City of Wayzata had requested the District to defer action until the City has reviewed the project. Mr. Wayne Eastman and Robert Baker appeared before the Managers with respect to this project. Mr. Baker stated that the City had advised him that the project should first be reviewed by the watershed district and requested clarification of the process of referral of applications between the City and the District. The staff reviewed the process of referral normally used between municipalities and the District. The staff also advised the Board that this wetland appeared to lack an outlet and that if that were the case, a different kind of runoff analysis would be necessary to evaluate the impact of the project. The Managers noted that there were issues with respect to the maintenance of the drainage facilities associated with the Village Shopping Center development (Permit #83-13). Following discussion of the referral procedures and drainage issues, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Miller, that the application be tabled pending engineering review; further, that the Engineer also report back to the Board with respect to existing possible violations of Permit #83-13. Upon vote the motion carried. Hilloway Corporation - grading and drainage plan for a 12 lot subdivision "Westmarch", Sec. 5DCD, DNR Wetland No. 743W, City of Minnetonka. 85-38 The Engineer reviewed the application for grading and drainage plan approval of a 12 lot subdivision on 18.4 acres. The Engineer advised that this project drains through a series of wetlands into Gray's Bay. 'The Engineer reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to receipt of a revised plan showing drainage easement dedication for lands below the flood elevatioh as determined by the City of Minnetonka and subject to approval of the City of Minnetonka. It was moved by Andre, seconded by McWethy, that the application be approved subject to the foregoing conditions. Upon vote the motion carried, Manager Miller voting no, stating that he was not sufficiently familiar with the extent to which the City of Minnetonka regulated the adjacent wetland areas for stormwater retention. -5- Warren R. Hanson - beach sand mat to prevent weed growth and provide navigational access to dock area, Sec. 5AAD, Lake Minnewashta, City of Chanhassen, Minnewashta Shores. 82-13 The Engineer reviewed the application for placement of a beach sand mat to a distance of 82 feet from the shoreline. The Engineer noted that this was far in excess of the dimensions allowed by DNR rules, but that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources had approved a permit for this project in 1983. The Engineer noted that the District's present policy statement on placement of material in public waters is to deny permits for such work unless determined to be in the public interest and consistent with State and municipal land development guides. It was moved by Manager Miller, seconded~by Thomas, that the applicatiOn be denied. Upon vote the motion carried. Douglas C. Trask - after-the-fact placement of fill material on a vacant lot, Sec. 16CD, north of Shoreline Drive across from the Twin Birch Health Care, City of Spring Park. 84-16 The Engineer reviewed the application for renewal of Permit 84-16. The Engineer advised the Managers that he inspected the site and observed that erosion control.barriers have.not been- installed by the applicant. The Engineer advised the Managers that lack of placement-of the erosion control barriers will not have a significant, negative impact'on water quality. The Engineer recommended renewal of the permit, requiring the applicant to bring the site to final grade as soon as possible and to complete seed and mulching in the month of May. It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Andre, that the application be approved as recommended by the Engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. Following additional discussion, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Miller, that the District request the City of Spring Park to remove or cause to be removed automobile batteries stored on the adjacent property, with notice to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requesting a report back from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency with respect to the status of its response on this matter. Upon vote the motion carried.' Hennepin Co. Dept. of Environment & Energy - maintenance dredging of 750 cubic yards in a 50' x 400' area of Spray Island Channel, 300' rip rap along southeastern shore of Seton Channel, 100' of rip rap at both ends of Narrows Channel, 200' of rip rap at both ends of Boy Scout Channel, Spray Island Channel, Seton Channel, Narrows Channel, Boy Scout Channel, 4 locations on Lake Minnetonka. 85-17 The Engineer reviewed the pending application of Hennepin County with respect to the Spray Island dredging. The Enginee~ stated that the County staff had informed the.District that the County did not plan to prepare exhibits showing additional detail. The Engineer explained that typically, dredging projects are required to provide survey data tying the area to be dredged to the owner's property lines and requiring soundings to determine depth and the nature of the sediments to be removed. The Engineer stated that with respect to the County, these concerns can be handled by permit conditions prohibiting dredging above elevation 929.4 or into the lake bottom, and the other conditions set forth in the memorandum. It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Andre, that the application be approved subject to conditions numbered 1 through 4 in the Engineer's written memorandum. Upon vote the motion carried. Hennepin Co. DOT, - grading and drainage and other improvements to Excelsior Blvd., Sec. 20DAB, Excelsior Blvd. between Louisiana Ave. and Highway 100, City of St. Louis Park. 85-31 The Engineer reviewed the application for grading and drainage plan approval in connection with improvement work on Excelsior Blvd. between Louisiana Ave. and Highway 100. The Engineer advised that the project would have no impact on existing drainage patterns. The Engineer recommended approval subject to conditions numbered 1 and 2 in his memorandum. It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Andre, that the application be approved subject to the foregoing conditions. Upon vote the motion carried. Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. - street and storm sewer upgrading, Sec. 3A, Co. Road 61 between Co. Road 15 and T. H. 12 , City of Minnetonka. 85-42 The Engineer reviewed the application for street and storm sewer upgrading of Plymouth Road north of Highway 12. The Engineer stated that storm water retention ponds were to be constructed pursuant to the City storm water management plan. The Engineer requested that a skimmer be constructed at the outlet for Pond #881and recommended approval with that condition. It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Andre, that the application be approved subject to the foregoing condition. Upon vote the motion carried. Michael J. Gorra - main dredging of existing channel and dock area in Black Lake, Sec. 19BBB, Black Lake, Lake Minnetonka, City of~ Spring Park. 85-43 The Engineer reviewed the application for maintenance dredging of an existing channel and dock area in Black Lake. The Engineer reviewed the areas of proposed dredging and stated that it was not clear from the evidence presented by the applicant that the dredging proposed constitutes maintenance dredging. The -7- Engineer recommended that the applicant submit a current survey and other data to show the depth and nature of sediments proposed to be removed~ and recommended tabling the application pending receipt of that data. It was moved by McWethy, seconded by Miller, that the application be tabled pending receipt of the foregoing information. Upon vote the motion carried. Treasurer's Report Treasurer Andre distributed the Treasurer's Report dated April 18, 1985, a copy of which is attached hereto. The Treasurer reviewed the report and noted that temporary borrowing was proposed from the Data Acquisition Fund to pay current obligations pending receipt of the first-half tax settlements for 1985. It was moved by Thomas, seconded by McWethy, that the Treasurer's Report dated April 18, 1985 be approved and the bills paid as set forth in that report. Upon vote the motion carried. Lake Level and Creek Report The Engineer reported that Lake Minnetonka was at elevation 929.80 and that discharge through the control structure remained at 150 cfs. Water Quality Data/NPDES Permit at South Oak Retention Pond, St. Louis Park The Engineer'distributed a memorandum dated Apri~ 17, 1985 submitting information received from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency with respect to the status of the NPDES Permit issued to the City of St. Louis Park to discharge water from the South Oak Retention Pond to Minnehaha Creek. The Engineer stated that only one discharge has been reported under this permit in April of 1976 and the Engineer submitted the data supplied by the MPCA with respect to that discharge. Manager Spensley expressed concern with respect to the chemical contaminants shown to ~ave existed at the time the discharge occurred. Manager Spensl~y suggested that under flood conditions storm water containing similar chemical contaminants would be discharged to the Creek under the City's storm water'management plan for the South Oak Retention facility. Permit Guidelines The Engineer stated that his office desires to prepare four additional permit guideline documents and to suggest revisions to the four existing guideline documents for review by the Board of Managers. The Engineer explained that these guidelines would assist the Engineer and provide more specific indicators to applicants regarding the District's requirements for issuance of -8- permits. The Engineer stated that these guidelines could be in force until the Chapter 509 planning was completed. water Maintenance and Repair Fund/1985 The Engineer distributed a memorandum dated April 18, 1985 reporting on discussions with the City of St. Louis Park and the City of Minneapolis Park Board regarding the possibility of combining proposed dredging projects #1 and #9, located immediately upstream and downstream of Excelsior Boulevard on Minnehaha Creek. Following discussion, the Engineer noted that it was questionable whether dredging would provide a long-term solution to the present sediment build-up and suggested that the width of the Creek at that location may make it difficult to keep sediment material from being deposited regularly in that reach of the Creek. The Managers discussed the upstream maintenance dredging work as requested by the City of St. Louis Park and the necessity of that work. Manager McWethy stated that he will inspect that area and report back to the Board. Manager Andre raised the question regarding the standards applied by the Board to disburse W~terway Maintenance and Repair Funds. It was moved by Manager.Andre, seconded by Manager Miller, that the Engineer review the length of Minnehaha Creek from Gray's Bay to Minnehaha Falls to identify and to prioritize needed maintenance. Upon vote the motion carried. The Managers concluded that, in light of the investigation to be conducted at Excelsior Boulevard and the investigation to be done by the Engineer throughout the Creek, that the Managers would · defer action to allocate the balance of the Waterway Maintenance and Repair Fund for 1985 until receipt of reports of those investigations. Manager Andre also stated that, in his view, the Board needed to address the question of funding long-term maintenance for the Upper Watershed Storage and Retention Project but that he did not believe the present use of the Waterway Maintenance and Repair Fund was appropriate for that purpose. Upper Watershed Storage and Retention Project CP-5/Painter Creek Subwatershed The Engineer reported on the status of work on the Upper Watershed Storage and Retention project. The Engineer presented Pay Request #3 reflecting the completion of the control structure at Lake Katrina, in the amount of $13,772.86. It was moved by Andre, seconded by Miller, that Pay Request #3 be approved and authorized for payment as recommended by the Engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. Correspondence The Board noted receipt of correspondence from the Minnesota Water Resources Board dated April 15, 1985 to the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission, advising that the Water Resources Board would postpone action on the Minnehaha Creek boundary change order until May 10, 1985 to allow time for the affected cities to draft legal descriptions for the boundary amendments within those cities. Settlement.Stipulation-Project CP-5-Parcel 7 The Attorney reported that settlement had been reached with Hamilton Bros., Inc. and submitted a Settlement Stipulation for signature as to that parcel. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the President was authorized to execute the Settlement Stipulation on behalf of the District. Data Acquisition Fund The Engineer noted his memorandum of April 11, 1985 with respect to the Data Acquisition Fund. The Engineer suggested that the Board deal with the issues raised in that memorandum at a future meeting. The Board discussed the subject generally. Treasurer Andre suggested that consideration be given to establishing a revolvin'g fund to be used to pay current obligations of the' District in situations where tax receipts for that year's obligation have not yet been received. Manager Cochran observed that it would still be necessary for the District to undertake data collection programs as envisioned by the Data Acquisition Fund, particularly in light of the pending petition of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District for the Storage and Retention Project. The Managers deferred further consideration of the Data Acquisition Fund until a future meeting. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the regular meeting, Chairman Cochran declared the regular meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 0698n John E. Thomas Secretary -10- TWIN LABOR CITIES MARKET INFORMATION LABOR MARKET CONDITIONS VOL. 9 NO. 5 MAY 1985 The March unemployment rate in the Twin Cities area dropped to 4.6 percent, the lowest jobless rate for that month since 1980 when the rate was 4.2 percent. A closer examination of the February to March data and a comparison to national changes suggests, however, that the posi- tive labor market conditions of recent months may have begun to 'change. For the third consecutive month, the numbgr of employed Twin Cities area residents grew at a slower than usual pace. Between February and March, the r'ate of employment owth was 0.1 percent compared to an ge increase over the past 15 years of 0.6 percent. By way of contrast, total employment nationally grew by 1.0 percent in March, an above average rate. An analysis of seasonally adjusted esta- blishment data shows that the comparatively weak local employment growth was shared by many industries. The biggest dif- ferences between local and national employ- ment trends between February and March were in the construction and retail trade industries where employment grew nation- ally but dropped locally. Up to this point, the number of unemployed has con- tinued to decline locally even though em- ployment growth is slowing. This would .suggest that there is less pressure on the labor force from new entrants and reentrants than was the case in the late 1970's. LABOR FORCE ESTIMATES (Not Seasonally ~justed) AREA CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE TOTAL EMPLOYMENT UNEMPLOYMEI~T UNEMPLOYMENT RATE MAR.. FEB.. MAR.R MAR.. FEB.. MAR._ MAR._ FEB.. liAR., ilAR._ FEB.. liAR.. 1985~ 1985K 1984 1985~ 1985K 1984K 1985v 1985~ 1984~ 1985~ 1985~ 1984~ Minneapolis- 1,263.1 1,264.6 1,231.8 1,204.7 1,203.9 1,165.1 58.4 60.7 66.7 4.6 4.8 5.4 St. Paul MSA' County: Anoka 118,313 118,5OB 115,173 112,202 112.124 IO8,451 6,11] 6,384 6,722 5.2 B.4 5.8 Carver 22,124 22,176 21,826 21,078 21,063 20,373 ],046 1,113 1,453 4.7 5.0 6.7 Ch]sago 16,017 16,071 15,767 14,740 14,729 14,247 1,277 1,342 1,520 8.O 8.4 9.6 Dakota 118,387 118,62B 114,994 112,520 112,442 108,758 5,867 6,186 6,236 S.O 5.:2 5.4 Hennepin 548,473 548.831 534,977 526.611 526,246 509,002 21,862 22,585 25,975 4.0 4.1 4.9 Isanti 14,322 ~i4,240 13,716 13,174 13,165 12,734 1,148 1,075 982 8.0 7.5 7.2 Ramsey 268,167 268,397 261,385 245,341 256,163 247,77] 11,826 12,234 13,614 4.4 4.6 5.2 Scott 26,981 27,O60 26,232 25,157 25,139 24,316 1,824 1,921 1,916 6.8 7.1 7.3 Washington 68,621 68,805 66,856 65,541 65,495 63,349 3,O80 3,310 3,507 4.5 4.B 5.2 Wright 36,214 36,406 35,497 33,390 33,367 32,274 2,824 3,039 3,223 7.8 8.3 9.1 St. Croix, WI 25, 494 25,508 25,420 23,961 23,965 23,826 ],533 1,543 1,594 6.0 6.0 6.3 Bloomington 47,545 47,621 46,510 45,846 45,814 44,313 1,699 1,807 2,197 3.6 ~.8 4.7 Minneapolis 211,6B7 211,582 206,611 202,829 202,688 196,O47 8,B58 8,894 10,564 4.2 4.2 5.1 St. Paul 156,161 156,267 152,091 ]48,590 148,487 143,622 7,571 7,780 8,469 4.8 5.0 5.6 Minnesota* 2,195.3 2,195.3 2,158.0 2,052.2 2,042.7 1,994.9 143.1 152.6 163.1 6.S 7.0 7.6 United States' 114,393 113,592 111,827 105,768 104,690 102,770 8.625 8,902 9,057 7.5 7.8 8.1 Preliminary /3~_,~-'~ EMPLOYMENT, HOURS AHD EARNINGS in the Minneapolis-St. Paul ~etropolitan Area PERCEIIT PRODUCTION WORKERS' HOURS & [ARHINGS~1/ EMPLOYMENT CHANGE Average Weekly Average Hourly Average Weekly I~tDUSTRY (OOO) FROM Earnings Earninqs Hours MAR. Month Year Month Year MAR. Year MAR. Year MAR. Year ]985 Ago Ago Ago Ago 1985 Ago ]985 Ago 1985 Aqo ~OTAL HOIIAGRICULTURAL ]]89.7 88.5 1134.5 0.1 4.9 XX XX XX XX XX XX F~4UFACTUR]NG 260.0 260.4 249.7 -0.1 4.1 429.20 424.73 10.65 ]0.41 40.3 40,8 )uraole Goods ]66.2 166.7 I60.2 -0.3 3.8 441.38 439.95 ]0.6] 10.45 41.6 42.] Lumber & Furniture 6.9 6.7 6.9 3.6 1.3 444.81 417.78 11.83 10.55 37.6 39.6 Stone, Clay & Glass 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.1 -1.3 3]9.26 383.18 9.07 g.75 35.2 39.3 Pr]nary Metals 4.4 4.4 4.6 0.3 -4.5 383.88 360.26 9.14 8.83 42.0 40.8 Fabricated Metals 27.9 28.3 27.8 -1.5 1.2 480.06 487.46 1].43 ]].3] 42.0 43.! Non-Electrical Machinery 74.9 75.1 69.5 -0.3 7.7 467.32 456.84 10.97 10.80 4Z.6 42.3 Office & Computing Equipment 39.7 39.8 36.3 -0.3 9.3 XX XX XX XX X): XX Electrical ~achinery 16.9 17.1 17.0 -1.3 -0.8 340.66 361.79 B.37 B.76 40.7 41.3 Transportation Equipment 4.2 4.0 3.9 5.3 B.O 639.76 667.62 13.67 13.46 46.B 49.6 Scientific ]nstroments 23.g 24.0 24.1 -0.1 -0.6 412.]7 416.09 g.gB 9.86 41.3 42.2 Miscellaneous ¢.1 4.2 3.7 -0.1 12.2 380.60 337.27 9.86 8.97 38.6 37.6 ;~ondurable Goods 93.7 93.6 89.5 0.1 4.7 406.67 400.55 10.73 10.35 37.9 38.7 Food & Kindred Products 18.5 ]8.5 18.4 0.4 0.8 381.18 376.40 9.65 9.4] 39.5 4C.0 Textiles & Apparel 2.2 2.1 2.6 2.7 -16.3 215.51 !63.93 6.32 6.82 34.] 38.7 Paper & Allied Products 26.2 26.3 25.0 -0.3 4.7 436.54 433.36 11.28 10.78. 38.7 40.2 Printing & Publishing 29.4 29.1 26.6 0.9 10.6 406.69 394.80 11.36 ll.Og 35.8 35.6 Chemical & Petroleum Products 8.2 8.2 8.0 0.1 2.6 473.57 472.32 12.05 11.52 39.3 41.0 Rubber, Plastic, and Leather g.l 9.5 9.0i -2.2 3.5 368.92 356.61 9.20 8.96 40.1 39.8 NO[~)~NUFACTURING 928.6 927.0 884.7 0.2 5.0 XX XX XX XX XX XX iCONSTRUCTION 40.2 4C.2 34.] 0.0 17.9 609.02 594.75 16.46 ]6.25 37.0 36.6 Building Construction 11.0 11.1 ]0.3 -1.1 6.7 563.92 591.26 5.93 15.98 35.4 37.0 Highway & Heavy Construction 2.7 2.5 2.S 7.4 6.3 466.82 484.70 13.61 13.77 34.3 35.2 Special Trades Contracting 26.S 26.6 21.3 -0.3 24.6 641.82 608.29 16.89 16.62 38.0 36.6 TRANSPORTATION 45.0 44.9 42.9 0.0 4.9 XX X). XX XX XX XX Railroads 6.] 6.1 6.3 0.0 -3.6 XX XX XX XX XX XX Trucking & Warehousing 16.3 16.4 15.0 -0.7 8.2 414.96 440.70 12.35 . 12.31 33.6 35.8 PUBLIC UTILITIES i CON. 22.7 22.7 22.1 0.0 2.6 512.16 500.37 13.20 12.83 38.8 39.0 TRADE 292.2 291.9 275.5 0.1 6.1 240.27 240.58 8.09 , 7.94 29.7 30.3 Retail Trade 214.9 214.7 201.3 0.1 6.8 192.19 188.08 7.04 6.79 27.3 27.7 General Merchandise Stores 36.8 36.9 32.7 -0.5 12.3 182.54 172.20 6.59 6.15 27.7 2~.0 Food Stores 25.7 25.8 25.7 -0.2 0.0 243.67 252.15 8.52 8.49 28.6 29.7 Eating & Drinking Places 73.5 73.0 67.41 0.7 9.0 ]05.82 89.20 4.81 4.33 22.0 20.6 Specialty Merchandise2/ 78.9 79.0 75.41 -0.1 4.6 259.21 259.61 8.18 7.79 31.6 33.3 Wholesale Trade - 77.3 77.1 74.2~ 0.3 4.3 396.75 406.95 10.58 10.57 37.5 38.5 FINAl(CE, INS. & REAL ESTATE 8C..8 80.6 79.0 0.3 2.4 323.24 323.55! 8.76 8.47 36.9 38.2 Finance 34.1 34.0 34.3 0.2 -0.6 340.]8 329.77 9.32 9.01 36.5 36.6 Insurance 32.6 3?.6 30.9 0.0 5.4 365.03 359.45 8.86 8.62 4].2 41.7 Real Estate ]4.1 14.0 13.7 1.2 2.9 204.40 241.]5 7.00 6.89 29.2 35.0 SERVICE & MISCELLAHEOUS 288.9 287.3 272.7 0.6 5.9 xx xx xx xx xx xx Lodging & Recreation 25.3 24.6 24.0 2.8 5.4 154.55 149.91 6.38 5.96 24.2 25.2 Personal Services 13.7 ]3.7 ]3.2 0.5 4.2 XX XX XX XX XX XX Business Services 6~.0 67.6 61.4 0.6 10.8 XX XX X) XX X~ XX Repair Services 14.1 14.1 13.1 -0.2 7.4 262.43 257.32 7.31 7.13 35.9 36.1 Health Services 74.8 74.7 73.7 0.1 1.6 2~5.33i 246.81 8.29 8.31 30.8 29.7 Hospitals 27.0 27.0 '29.6 0.0 -B.6 X) XX XX XX X)i XX )~ursing Homes ZI.O 21.0. 20.4 0.1 3.2 XX XX XX XX XX Xx Other Health 26.8 26.7 23.7 0.3 12.9 XX XX XX XX XX XX Legal Services g.2 9.1 8.4 0.4 9.0 435.07 412.20 12.29 11.45 35.4 36.0 Private Education 15.6 15.5 15.9 0.6 -1.9 Other Services3_/ 64.6 ~..4 59.7 0.3 8.2 GOVERNMENT 159.9 160.5 158.5' -0.4 0.9 Federal 18.1 18.0 17.8 0.71 1.7 State 49.2 49.7 48.4 -1.0 1.6 Local 92.6 92.9 92.2 -0.3 0.4 Source: Less than .OS Average earnings data a~ on a 'gross" basis and are derived from reports of payroll for full- and part-time production or nonsupervisory ~mrkers. The payroll is reported before deductions of any kind. Bonuses, retry- active pay, tips, pay~nt in kind, and "fringe benefits' are excluded. Includes Building Materials, Aut~tive, Apparel, Ho~ Furnishings, Drug, Mail Order and Miscellaneous Retailing. ~ Includes Social Services, Fembership Organizations, and Miscellaneous Services such as Engineering and Accounting. Current Employment Statistics Program {Figures rounded to nearest hundred). !MPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS CONDITIONS [he number of nonagricultural wage and ;alary jobs in Twin Cities area esta- lents increased between February and However, the increase was less than usual because of widespread weak demand in the durable goods manufacturing sector, subpar growth in the retail trade industry, and no growth in construction. Dn a seasonally adjusted basis, total nonagricultural wage and salary employ- ment dropped slightly in March, the first such decline since 1983. The decrease in the number of local manu- facturing jobs mirrors the weakness in this sector nationally. On a seasonally, adjusted basis, there were cutbacks in all but two local durable goods industry groups, transportation equipment and scientific and medical instruments. The situation was not as bad in the nondurable goods industries with the exception of the sensitive plastics group." After strong performances in 1984, the number of jobs in the retail trade sector has grown at a slower than usual pace ~ast two months while the service continues to expand. Over the past year, nearly 3 out of 5 jobs added to local payrolls have been in either the retail trade or service firms. C~ARACT£RISTICS OF lq4[ %NSUR£D (Reguler )eneftts Program) MINN£APDLI$-$T. PAUt Week £ndtng 3/12/85 Percent Change Industry and From: Percent Percent l/ Occupmttonal Month Year of kong-lermJY Percent Attachment Number Ago Ago local Unemployed Women local, All Industries 23.q$4 -I.1 14.3 100.0 22.3 23.3 Construction ?.5~2 -4.6 )4.8 31.3 lB.8 3.0 M~nufacturin9 6.967 7.3 69.6 29.1 22.7 Our&ble Gm)ds 5,410 6.2 97.? 22.6 24.2 29.q Nondurable Goods 1.557 12.9 13.6 6.5 17.7 38.7 Trans,, Coetn., end Public Utilities 1,084 -9.3 -24.4 4.5 2?.4 16.! Wholesale lr&(e 1,631 -2.1 20.5 6.B 25.7 26.z Retail Trade 1,gBg -6.2 -?.5 8.3 22.2 Fin., Ins., and Real Estate I?S 2.R 14.6 3.2 34.5 5).4 Services 2.691 O.R -13.8 11.2 21.8 45.5 Public A~in. 329 -8.1 -4.4 1.4 2S.2 26.4 All Other 755 -11.4 -0.4 3.2 41.3 7.4 lnf. Not Available 231 - - Total, All Occupations 23,964 -1.1 19.3 100.0 22.3 23.3 Prof., ?cch., Hgr. 2.882 -0.2 ?.8 12.0 26.4 35.8 Clerical 2,074 -2.2 0.3 8.7 26.9 73.1 Sales 241 -5.1 1.0 [' 3.1 26.6 29.0 Service 1,037 1.4 -22.0 4.3 24.2 40.5 Farm., For., Fish, 470 -12.5 -3.3 2.0 47.4 8.5 Processing 443 -5.7 24.4 1.B 23.9 11.1 l~achtne Trades 1,954 12.0 68.6 8.2 20.3 16.9 Benchwork 2,926 5.4 87.5 11.B 20.5 47.4 Structur&l Work 7,643 -3.3 21.3 31.9 17.4 2.3 Ni$cellmneous 3,R24 -4.7 10t8 16.2 24.4 Inf. Not Available 20 NOTE: Percentages may not total to lO0.O due to independent rounding. 1_/ £ong-lem unemployed refers to unemplo~nnent insurance clttmants whose current spell o( unemployment has listed 1S weeks or longer. Economic Indicators Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area UI CLAIMANTS - REGULAR Percent Change Year Ago Initial UI Clalms~/* Mar 2,199 10.1 Ul Clalmants-Regular~/* Mar 18,678 19.2 Avg Wkly Hours in Mfg,/* Mar 40.2 -' -1.~ Help Wanted lndex~/* Mar 81 19.1 Residential Bldg Permits~/* Feb 1,43S ,t Retail Sales (Nilllons)~* Feb !,359 7.9 Consumer Price lndex~/ Feb 326.0 2.3 US Employment Cost Ineex~/ Mar 12S.5 4.8 Latest Month Available Sources: 1/ MOES, 2/ The Conference Board, ~/ Metropolitan Council, ~/ U.S. Department of Coemerce, and ~/ Bureau-of Labor Statistics. ' Oenotes seasonally-adjusted data. ** Not reported as volatility of series renders it misleading. 3 THE JOB MARKET Last issue's quarterly focus touched briefly on the topic of current employment conditions facing local teenagers. A closer look at the issue is warranted here, covering the occupational outlook, comparisons to other regions and the situation facing minorities. This article will concentrate on the broader concern of youth employment rather than just summer season conditions. The 1984 unemployment rate for teens in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area stood at 9.3 percent, the lowest figure since this statistic began to be compiled in 1975, with the gap between the overall and teen rates narrowing from prior years. As the table shows, out of a'sample containing twelve other large metropolitan areas dispersed throughout the U.S., ours had the lowest teen rate last year despite an overall unemployment rate that was merely sixth best. The dire situation for youth that began in the last recession has not persisted here as in most other parts of the country. Unemployment Rates in Selected Metropolitan Areas 1983, 1984 Annual Averages 16-19 . All Ages 1984 1983 I984 1983 Mpls-St. Paul 9.3 16.8 5.0 6.8 Dallas 13.2 13.0 3.7 5.2 Washington, D.C. 13.5 18.3 4.2 5.2 Denver 14.9 16.4 4.5 5.6 Philadelphia 16.2 22.1 6.8 8.4 Atlanta 16.8 17.4 4.8 6.3 San Diego 16.8 21.4 6.1 8.4 Boston 17.1 15.1 4.1 5.8 Miami 18.2 23.1 7.7 9.8 U.S. AVG 18.9 22.4 7.5 9.6 Seattle 19.0 20.2 7.9 9.8 Chicago 21.0 22.5 8.4 10.5 Milwaukee 22.3 22.0 6.9 10.4 Pittsburgh 24.9 24.2 11.2 14.3 Source: Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics It is not hard to spot the reasons for our improving situation. Half of all teen jobs are found in retail trade where employment grew by 7.9 percent from 1983 to 1984, second fastest of the seven industrial sectors. For this year, gains should slow to 5.4 percent, but still exceed overall growth. Furthermore, the estimated 16-19 year old population peaked at 183,000 in 1976 and numbers only 135,000 this year. At 72.5 percent, teen participation in the labor force has yet to approach the highs reached in the late 1970s. With less youth looking for work the outlook in certain occupations has begun to favor the job seeker. Three- fourths of all teens work in sales, service (primarily ~ood & cleaning) and low skilled blue-collar jobs (operators, assemblers, handlers and laborers). Of all occupa- tions, job applicants per opening are lowest in sales and service and competition for these jobs is less fierce now than during the last economic growth period. The approximately 25,000 to 30,000 area teens looking for just summer jobs and the much larger group of year round parti- cipants will probably have an easier time than any generation since those that came of age in the 1960s. Sales and service positions are plentiful and assembly/ laborer posts available for those willing to accept temporary assignments. The blemish on this improving picture is the troublesome situation minority youth face in finding work. It is amulti-faceted problem. Much of the retail trade, food service, recreation and light assembly job growth is taking place in the suburban ring whereas most minorities reside in the center cities. Low hours, and wages act as a deterrent 'to commuting the dis- tance. Discrimination (perhaps, but not necessarily founded on lower skill~levels) is also evident. Data from the 1980 census, a time when overall unemployment rates were similar to today, shows that white teen rates were virtually identical for center city and suburban residents and minority rates were two to three times as high in both areas. Moreover, while sixty percent of the metro-wide white teen population was employed at that time, only thirty-six percent of minorities were so fortunate. Actions that address teen unem- ployment locally may not need to create jobs or offer a reduced wage (there would be few takers), but should match the abun- dance of openings employers have with those who want an~ need the work. PUBLICATIONS NOW AVAILABLE: Employment, Hours and Earnings 1950-1985, Minneapolis -St. Paul Area and Minnesota Employmen' Outlook to 1990. No charge. Call 296-8724 or write the LMI Center to obtain. 97 RESOLUTION NO. 85-6q M@~ 21, 1985 RESOLUTION DETERMINING YALIDITY AND SUFFICIENCY OF PETITION FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT NHEREAS, a petition to construct sanitary sewer ana watermain extension as a local improvement under Chapter 429 of the Minnesota Statutes, has been received; and NHEREAS, said petition is signed by 100% of ail property owners in accordance With the requirements of M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3. NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: The petition attached to t~ls resolution and marked Exhibit "A" has been presented to the City Council and it is determined t~at the petition has been signed by 100% of the property owners to be assessed for the improvement. This resolution is adopted in accordance wltn tne provisions of M.S.A. 429.035. A copy of this resolution shall be puollshed in tne official newspaper· The foregoing resolution was moved by Counciimember Pe%erson and seconded by Mayor Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the a~lrma%lve: Paulsen, Peterson, Polston and Smith· The following Councilmembers voted in tne negative: none. Councilmember Jessen was absent and excused. Mayor Attest: City Clerk 98 RESOLUTION NO. 85-65 May 21, 1985 RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHEREAS, a petition has been received signed by ail tne owners of land to be specially assessed for the following: extension of sanitary sewer and watermaln to said property's westerly line, described as PID #13-117-24 22 0023; and WHEREAS, the owners of said proper<y abutting thereon and subject to assessment nave petitioned the Council to assess t~e entire cost against tnezr property; anm WHEREAS, under Minnesota Statutes Annotated, Chapter 429.031, the Council has the pwoer to order the improvement without a public nearing; and WHEREAS, the Council has revzewed sazd petztzon and tne feasibility of the project with the City Engineer· NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: Such improvements as set out above and for the project as above indicated are hereby ordered as proposed in the feasibilIty repor%. The City Engineer is hereby directed to prepare plans and specificatxons for making of such improvements. The total cos% of sa~d improvements shall be assessed directly and entirely upon the signers of the attached petition (EXHIBIT "A"). The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Smxtn. The following Counciimembers voted in the affirmative: Paulsen, Peterson, Polston and Smltn. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Councilmember Jessen was absent and excused· Attest: City Clerk Mayor EXHIBIT "A" RESOLUTION #85-64 PETITION FOR LOCAL I~ROVE~ENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: We, the undersigned, are all the owners of real property legally described as: Commencing at a point in South line of Lot 27 distant l~O feet , West from southeast corner thereof thence North parallel with said East line to southerly line of Town Road thence Westerly along said road line to a point 275 feet West from said east line thence South to an intersection with a line running east at right angle from a point in West line of section 13 distant 995 feet South from northwest corner thereof thence East 100 feet thence South 100 feet thence West 100 feet thence South to a point in a line parallel with and 25 feet Northerly from a line bearing South 88 degrees 39 minutes East from a point in west line of section distant 22.7 feet North from the South line of Lot 27 hereinafter known as line A thence South 88 degrees 39 minutes East to westerly line of channel thence Southerly along said channel line to a point in said line A thence South 88 degrees 39 minutes East to a point 376.2 feet measured along said line A from West line of section thence South 53 degrees 46 minutes East to South line of Lot 27 thence East to beginning. Lot 27 "LAYFAYETTE PARK, LAXE MINNETONKA" P.I.D. 16.13-117-24 22 0023 and hereby petition that such (area) be improved by the construction of sanitary sewer and watermain and, in accordance with M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, hereby waive any public hearing to be held on said improvement. We further state and agree that we are all the persons owning properties to be assessed:.for ..s.,a, id: imp. rov~ ~o t.. DELOR,~ O ~;CHWALBE NOTARY PUBLIC MINNESOTA .................. Commission Expires Aug 18 1988 ~/CATA'LYST PROPERTIES, INC. ADDRESS Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the required number of owners of property affected by the making of the improvement petitioned for CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA · WAIVER OF NOTICE OF ~EARING, HEARING, AND APPEAL ON ASSESSMENT, AND CONSENTING TO BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Mound did on. May 21~ 1985 adopt a resolution ordering preparation of a proposed assessment of that property within the City of Mound legally described as: Commencing at a point in South line of Lot 27 distant 150 feet West · from southeast corner thereof thence North parallel with said East -line to southerly line of Town Road thence Westerly along said road line to a point 275 feet West from Said east line thence South to an intersection with a line running east at right angle from a point in West line of section 13 distant 995 feet South from northwest corner thereof thence East lO0 feet thence South 100 feet thence West !00 feet thence South to a point in a line parallel with and 25 feet Northerly from a line bearing South 88 degrees 39 minutes East from a point in west line of section distant 22.7 feet North from the South line of Lot 27 hereinafter known as line A thence South 88 degrees 39 minutes East to westerly line of channel thence Southerly along said channel line to a point in said line A thence South 88 degrees 39 minutes East to a point 376.2 feet measured along said line A from West line of section thence South 53 degrees 46 minutes East to South line of Lot 27 thence East to beginning. Lot 27 "LAYFAYETTE PARK, LAKE MINNETONKA" R.I.D. 16.13-117-24 22 0023 for construction of a municipal sanitary sewer main and municipal watermain, and WHEREAS, the cost of said improvements have been determined to be $5,600.00 which includes construction, engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative costs and NOW, T~EREFORE, the undersigned owner of said property does hereby waive his right to published and mailed notice of assessment, does waive hearing and appeal for and from said assessment, and does consent to an assessment of $5,600.00 and 10% interest from October l, 1985 spread over a period of 5 years as his share and benefit of said sanitary sewer a~d water improvement. //CAT~L~'ST PROPERTIES, INC. IN PRESENCE OF (lOG% petition) RE~LUTION DETERMINING VALIDITY AND SLFFICIENCY OF PETITION FOR PUBLIC I~ROVE~ENT 'WHEREAS, a petition to construct ~~-~_~ as a local improvement under Chapter 429 of the Minnesota Statutes, has been received; and WHEREAS, said petition is signed by lOC~ of all property o~ners in accordance with the requirements of M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, ~und NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of The petitioq attached to this resolution and marked Exhibit A has been presented to the City Council and it is determined that the petition has been signed by iO0~ of the property to be assessed for the improvement. This resolution is adopted in accordance with the provisions of M.S.A. 429.035. A copy of this resolution shaii be published in the official newspaper. Project RESOLUTION ORDERING THE I~PROVEJvENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND 'SPECIFICATIONS WHEREAS, a petition has been received signed by all the owners of land to be specially assessed for the following: ~'~-~__~o~ ~:~- and WHEREAS, the owners of said property abutting thereon and subject to assessment have petitioned the council to assess the entire cost against their property, and WHEREAS, under Minnesota Statutes Annotated, Chapter ¢¢2~.031, the council has the power to order the improvement without a public hearing, and WHEREAS, the council has reviewed said petition and the feasibility of the project with the city engineer; NOW, T~EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Mound Such improvements as set out above and for the project as above indicated are hereby ordered as proposed in the feasibility report. The city engineer is hereby directed to prepare plans and specifications for making of such improvements. The total cost of said improvements shall be assessed directly and entirely upon the signers of the attached petition. PORT HARRISON TOWhHOMES COST OF UTILITY I~PROVEF6NTS ASSESSED TO CATALYST PROPERTIES SANITARY SEWER A-4 A-6 A-7 A-l} 8" PVC - 8'-10' Deep 25 L.F. ~ $ 9.50/LF: $ 237.50 8" D.I.P. - 0'-8' Deep 60 L.F. ~ $i}.60/LF = 816.00 8" D.I.P. - 8'-10' Deep 48 L.F. $ $13.60/LF = 652.00 Tree Removal LUmP SUM 300.00 Binder Rock 35 TONS $ $ 7.00/TN = 262.50 TOTAL SANITARY SEWER COST ....................................... $2,268.80 WATERMAI N B-2 6" D.I.P. - CL 52 156 L.F. ~ $ 14.}i/LF: $2,232.36 B-~ 6" Gate Valve 1 EACH ~ $~95.00/EA =' ~5.00 B-7 Binder Rock 42 TONS ~ $ 7~50/TN = 315.00 TOTAL WATERMAIN COST ........................................ $2,942. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ......................................... $~,211.16~ ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED TO CATALYST PROPERTIES .......................... $5,600.00 I 1 ! ! II Section 00~0 . PROPOSAL FORM Page 1 of A To: Jim Nordby c/o gdina Realty 4200 Lancaster Lane Plymo~t.h, MN 55441 (~) Bid of,, ~'~ ,c ~ z~__~ (f{rm name -.hereinafter referred to as the "Bidder") The Bidder in compliance with the Invitation for Bids, hereby submits the following Bid for construction work on the Project identified as: Utility Improvements of Port Harrison Townhomes, Mound, Minnesota (3) (4) The Bidder agree~ to accomplish. J ~the-w°rk in strict compliance with the Contract Documents dated' The Bidder, .having examined the drawings, specifications, and Contract Documents prepared by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc., having visited and examined the site of the proposed work, being familiar with~Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations that may in any manner affect cost, progress, or performance.of the work, and being familiar with all of the conditions surrounding the work and affecting the costs of the proposed Project, including the availability of materials and labor, hereby proposes to furnish all labor, materials, equipment, tools, transportation, services and supplies and to accomplish the work for which this Bid is submitted, in accordance with the Contract Documents, within the time set forth therein, and at the price stated below. This price is to cover all expenses incurred in performing the work required under the Contract Documents, of which this Bid is a part. (5) Bidder agrees to perform all of the construction work on this Project according to 'the following prices: NOTE: Items marked with an asterisk (*) will be for the Part 2 Project. PART A - SANITARY SEWER NO. ITEM QUANTITY UNIT BID A-1 $" P.V.C. O' - $' deep 74 L.F. $ ~,~ L.F. A-2 8" P.V.C. 8' - 10' deep gq L.F. $ (~,,Z/'d~ L.F. A-3 8" P.V.C. 10' - 3.2' deep 5 L.F. $ ?,~"~ L.F. TOTAL Page A-a* A-6* A-7* A-8 A-9 A-10 A-Il A-12 A-13* A-14 ITEM 8" P.V-C. 8' - 10' deep 8" D.I.P. O' - 8' deep 8" ~.I-P. 8' - 10' deep Tree Removal Std. manhold, &' dia., 0-8' deep w/cstg, in place Extra. manhole depth Type "A" service connection including 8" x 4" P.V.C. wye 4" P.V.C. Service Pipe in same trench w/l" copper Binder Rock (100%) crushed Stabilization below pipe if needed Binder Rock (100'4) crushed Stabilization belo~ pipe if needed Granular fill over sewer trench QUANTITY 25 L.F. 60 L.F. 48 L.F. 1 L.S. 2 Each 0.6 L.F. 4 Each UNIT BID TOTAL $ ~ L.F. Tons $ ?, O~ .ro~- $ ,¢ 3 zo'~ 35 Tons 250 Tons SUBTOTAL PART A PART B -WATERMAIN B-1 B-2* B-3 B-5 B-6 6" D.I.P. Cl. 52 Watermain 6" D.I.P. Cl. 52 Watermain 6" Gate Valve and Box 5" Valve Hydrant C.I. Fittings (body cstg. weight only) Binder Rock (100%) crushed Stabilization below pipe if needed ,,444 138 L.F. 156 L.F. (~. 1 Each I Each 500 Lbs. 38 Tons $ 7, ~'o Ton $ ~ ~S. oo ,3 q5.~° I I I I I ! NO. B-8 B-9 B-lO Page 3 of 4 ITEM Binder Rock (100%) crushed Stabilization below pipe if needed qUANTITY UNIT BID Tons $ ~,~ Ton 1" ~y}e "K" copper service pipe in same trench ~/4" P.V.C. 140 L.F. 1" Corporation Cocks 1" Curb stop and box Each Each L.F. Each Each SUBTOTAL PART B TOTAL $ ~,. PART C - STORM SEWER C-1 Outlet Pipe & Baffle C-2 Hand. placed Class II Riprap C-3 Silt Fence. I (6) Each $ ,~- 7 5': c c Each $ ,. ,~., P~'~. ¢ m c.'~. $ / ~-Y c.Y. $ ,.~/o, ~''' 250 L.F. $ ~ L.F. SUBTOTAL PARY C The low bidder shall be established according to the above quantities and unit prices. However, the final contract amount shall be determined from multiplying the actual quantities constructed by the above uni: prices. (7) Addenda: The~B~dder hereby acknowledges that Addendum instructions numbered .....~z/- have been received and/or the requirements therein have been incorporated in this Bid. The Bidder agrees, if awarded the Contract, to execute and deliver to the Owner an Agreement' in the form specified, together with satis- factory Performance and Payment Bonds written on the form sgecified by a corporate surety acceptable to the Owner, within fifteen (15) calendar days after written notification of said award. (9) Holdin~ of Bids: The undersigned agrees thac this bid may not be withdrawn for a period of sixty (60) calendar days immediately following the date of receipt of bids. (10) ~qmpletion of work: The Bidder hereby agrees to cona~ence work under this Contract on or before the time stipulated in the written "Notice Page & of & to Proceed", in accordance with the General Conditions, and to complete all work under this Contra=t on or before ~ /O~ /~5~'. (11) Bid Security: The Bidder submits the attached Bid Security in the form of a Certified Check, Cashier's Check or fid Bond,,in &cmordance with the instructions to Bidders, drawn to the ~rder of .. · The Bidder acknowledges the Bid Security may be retained by the Owner as specified in the Supplemental Instructions to Bidders and agrees if the Bidder defaults in executing the Contract within the time sen forth, or in furnishing ~he Performance Bond as-specified, the check rill become the property of the O~ner (or the Surety will pay the Owner the amount of the bond) as liquidated damages for the delay and additional expense to the Owner caused thereby. (12) In submitting this proposal, it is understood that the Owner reserves the right to reject any or all bids, to accept any alternate(s) in any order or combination, and to waive any informalities or irregularities in the proposals· (13) Information about Bidder: The undersigned operates as a: Partnership; full names of all partners: Corporation, incorporated in the (14) Respectfully submi:ted: Legal name of person, firm or corporation Address By. Title (Affix corporate seal if bid is by a corporatioff) May 16, 1985 545 Indian Mound Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 (612) 473-4224 Mr. Ralph Ruiz, President Allied Painting and Renovatin9 13721 South 34th Street Afton, Minnesota 55001 Re: 300,000 ga].lon tank in Mound, Minnesota Dear Mr. Ruiz: Based on observations and measurements this spring, your surface preparation work on the exterior of this tank is deficient. This was communicated to you verbally at our meeting on April 26, 1985 by representatives of E.A. Hickok and Associates and Twin City Testing, Inc. Enclosed is a copy of a report prepared by Twin City Testing at our request concerning the adequacy of the brush-off grade blasting work on this structure. This report futher supports our position. In accordance with 'the general conditions of the contract, we hereby provide notice that your work on the tank exterior is defective and request correction of this situation within thirty (30) days. Furthermore, your recent payment request will be held until this situation is remedied. Should you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Si ncerely, EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES ~etan C. Lichter, P.E. bt CC: JElam Curt Pearson United Fire and Casualty Co. PROJECT,' ~E~'O~7~'~-' LABO~AI'ORY NO. ~2 C.,~OMWELL ~,¥rcNUE ST PAUL. MN 5R1 t4 PHONE 61 ~'1645.3601 RIEPORTOF:: REVIEW OF ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANK 300M GALLON ELEVATED WATER TANK EVERGREEN STREET OATE, May 13, 1985 MOUND, MINNESOTA Hickok & Assoc FURNIBHEO BY, Attn: John Lichter COMES To: 545 Indian Mound INTRODUCTION: This report presents the results of our recent observations of the elevated water storage tank in Mound, Minnesota. We were requested to comment on the completeness of the surface preparations prior to application of a new coating system in the fall of 1984. Specifi- cally, we were directed to that portion of the specifications which requires that the ex- terior surface of entire tank .be sandblasted in accordance with Steel Structures Painting Council brush-off blast cleaning specifications (SSPC-SP7). We received verbal aurthori- zation for this work from you on April 26, 1985. ~CLUSIONS: Based on the results of our observations, our opinion is the exterior Surface of the tower legs were sandblasted in accordance with SP7 to a line about 8' above their base. Above this line, our opinion is that only spot sandblasting was performed in the areas of coating breakdown, thus not completely satisfying the project specifications which required brush- off blast cleaning of the entire exterior tank surface. BACKGROUND: The tank in question is a 300,000 gallon, double ellipsoidal elevated water storage tank built in 1968. The interior and exterior of the tank was repainted in the fall of 1984. Between the dates of October 23 and November 27, 1984, a representative of this firm was at the project on an intermittent basis to observe the surface preparation and painting process. During this time it was noted that the brush-off blast cleaning was perfgrmed · only in the areas of coating breakdown. Please see our previous report, Laboratory No. 5-7875, dated December 28, 1984. Peeling of the paint was noted in the spring of 1985. DISCUSSION: The project specifications require the exterior of the tank be prepared according to the brush-off blast cleaning method (SSPC-SP7). By definition, brush-off blast cleaning shall ave the surface free of all "...loose mill scale, loose rust, and loose paint. Tightly ddherent mill scale, rust and paint may remain on the surface. Mill scale, rust and paint are considered adherent if they cannot be removed by lifting with a dull,putty knife." REPORT OF: I:LUln C11:¥ I:ESl:lnCl 662 C~,"~.~W ~ L L ST PAUL MN 55114 REVIEW OF ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANK LABORATORY No. 4111 86-184 DA~E: May 13, 1985 PAGE: 2 DISCUSSION: (cont) A review of the entire tank for paint condition was performed on May l, 1985 by our firm. Delamination between the primer and finish coats of the original exterior paint system was noted. The finish coat was easily removed from underlying primer with a dull knife, The new paint applied to the exterior of the tank in the fall of 1984 is bonded to the original finish coat and thus is failing along with the old paint system. Also, the edges where the old paint remained were not feathered as is normally done, leaving an abrupt, jagged edge which can pull away from...the tank surface due to evaporating solvents when the new paint is applied. The delamination and subsequent failure of the new exterior paint system was noted on the top of the tank, the bowl of the tank, the tower legs, and the riser. The'new paint system which was applied to the sandblasted, areas has not exhibited any failure to date. T~,IIN CITY TESTING AND JINEERIhJ~o~ LABORATORY INC Donald E Johnson, PE Mgr, NDT Dept DJL/DEJ/lo PHONE NO. 296-3572 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 May 15, 1985 Mound City Council 5241Maywood Road Mound, MN 55264 Dear Council Member: I am writing to inform you that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will be holding a public informational meeting on Tuesday, May 21, 1985, to discuss providing public boat access to Lake Minnetonka. The meeting, which will begin at 7:20 p.m., will be held in the large auditorium of the Minnetonka Senior High School, 18301 Highway 7, Minnetonka. The DNR has been 'seeking additional public access to Lake Minnetonka for a number of years and has accelerated its efforts since 1979 when the lake was identified by a three agency task force, (Metropolitan Council, DNR and State Planning Agency, now the Department of Energy and Economic Development),' as a high priority lake in need of additional access. In 1981, the DNR identified property on Halsted's Bay, Lake Minnetonka as being suitable for public access and with a willing seller, but by February 1982, then Governor, A1 Quie, put a stop to the acquisition due to opposition from the local community. A task force comprised of citizen members, government officials and a chairperson was then formed to address recreational use of Lake Minnetonka and adjacent public land. In a report published in June, 1983, the Task Force said that additional public accesses were needed on the lake, specifically on the south and west shores, and that improvements to existing access sites were also required. Also recommended by the Task Force were additional shore fishing opportunities, primarily by installing fishing piers at various sites on the lake. The public informational .meeting will consider the issue of the need for additional and improved access to Lake ~innetonka. Paul Hansen, DNR Citizen Participation Coordinator will moderate the meeting and agency representatives will be present to answer questions and respond to concerns. Please feel free to contact me should you desire additional information in regard to this meeting or any related issues. Sincerely, Kathleen A. Wallace Regional Administrator AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612-291-6359 NOTICE OF MEETINGS ON SOLID WASTE GRANT AND LOAN PRIORITIES The Metropolitan Council is developing a grant and loan program to fund resource recovery projects such as composting and recycling. The program is funded through a surcharge on trash deposited at the landfills in the seven- county area. These funds are collected on a monthly basis and are expected to total about $600,000 for the 1985 grant and loan program. The Council's Solid Waste Advisory Committee has appointed an Abatement Fund Subcommittee to recommend priorities for the use of the funds and to review applications for the funds. The Abatement Fund Subcommittee will hold a series of meetings out in the community to get ideas and comments on the issues they will consider in setting priorities for the grant and loan program. These issues are listed on the reverse side of this page. The meetings will be. held: · Thursday, May 23, 1985--7' /~ Plymouth City Hall ~ Council Conference Room ~. 3400 Plymouth Blvd. '~.~ymouth Wednesday, May 29, 1985--7:30 p.m. Washington County Human Services Inc. Conference Room B 7066 Stillwater Blvd. North Oakdale Thursday, June 6, 1985--7:30 p.m. Burnsville City Hall Council Chambers 1313 Highway 13 Burnsville If you have any questions about these meetings, please call Katy Boone at 291-6421. LOOIS Op'en Housc Date:Wednesday and May 29 and .30 Thursday, Time: 1 PM fo 5:50 PM Place:2700 Freeway Boulevard, Suite .300 Brooklyn Center (see map) Please RSVP by May 22, 1985, fo 566-0050