HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-28-1995 Council PacketBl- •
AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1995, 7:00 P.M.
ORONO COU’NCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA
(*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City
Council under the Consent Hem* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are
available in the Public Packet which may be obtained upon request from the Recorder.
ROLL CALL
• 1. CONSENT AGENDA
7:00 P.M. JIM DANIELS - LAKE MLNNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
2. Lake Minnetonka Communications Conunission’s Proposed 1996 Budget
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
* 3. Regular Meeting of August 14, 1995
PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Robert Howells Representative
COUNCIL MEETING
AUG 2 b 1995
PLAN’NING COMMISSION COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person)
cmr OF ORONO
a
t
/
0
ZONING ADMLNISTRATOR'S REPORT
4. #2033 Donald & Arlene Kielley. 1670 Shadywood Road - Variances - Resolution
5. #2036 Robert J. Gountanis, Tv- Loma Linda Avenue - Variances - Resolution
j>6 #2042 Thomas Frank, 1233 Briar Street - Variances - Resolution
7 #2046 Lakeview Golf. 405 North Arm Drive - Conditional Use Pennit/Variance - Resolution
8* #2054 Tony Eiden Company. 2700 Countryside Drive West - Conditional Use Permit -
Resolution
* 9. 1995 Joint Use Dock License - Victoria Estates Homeowners Association - Resolution
.MAYOR/COLTSCIL REPORT
ENGINEER REPORT
CITY AD.MLMSTRATOR’S REPORT
110. Establishing Renewal Dates for "^dected Licenses - Ordinance Amendment
•p 11. 1996 City Assessor Contract
12. Set Date & Time for Joint Work Session
13. County Road 15 at Bracketts Point Curve: Road Maintenance/Rehabilitation Options
14' County- Road 15 Major Mainienancc Project: Orono Orchard Intersection and East
15 Interim Staff Assistance for Acting Police Chief
* 'Management Report - 1994 .^udii
*• police Officer Contract Senlement
CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
(-*18.) LICENSES
(*19.) BILLS
II
AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1995, 7:00 P.M.
ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA
UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS
08/28
08/29
08/31
09/04
09/05
09/11
09/12
09/18
09/20
09/25
09/26
Council meeting 7:00 p.m.
Council work session 8:00 a.m.
School meeting 9:00-11:30 a.m.
HOUDAY - Labor Day
Tuesday - Park Commission 7:15 p.m.
Council meeting 7:00 p.m.
School Board meeting 7:00 p.m.
Planning Commission meeting 7:00 p.m.
Highway 12 Policy Committee 5:30 p.m.
Council meeting 7:00 p.m.
School Board meeting 7:00 p.m.
’
PUIMMINO COMMISSIOH
PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE f\nfU ^
PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
NAME (please print)ADDRESS
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME OR NUMBER
COUNCILMEEnNG
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AUG 2 8 1995
CttY Of ORONO
DATE: Aug. 22. 1995
ITEM NO:
Departmeiit Approval:
N«b« Roa Moorse
Thie Cit>' Administrator
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Item DescnpUon:
Tiikp Minnetonka Communications Commission’s Proposed 1996 Budget
Attachments:1. T-nlcff Minnetonka Communications Commission 1996 Proposed
Budget
2. Fair 1995 Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission
Newsletter
Jim Daniels the Cable Administrator for the Uke Minnetonka Communications Commission
(LMCC) will attend the August 28ih Council meeting to provide information regarding the 19%
LMCC budcet and to answ'er any other questions regarding the activities of the Cable
Commission.
The operating budget for 1996 has increased 2.3% over the 1995 operating budget. The special
finds have increased 3.5% to enable the replacement of an office computer and the purchase of
cameras and other equipment to enable the cable casting of an 8th city council meeting.
COUNCIL ACT ION REQUESTED:
Motion to indicate the Council ’s support of the 1996 Lake Minnetonka Communications
Commission budget.
►
LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
540 SECOND STREET • RO. BOX 473 • EXCELSIOR. MN 55331-0473
612. 474-5539 • FAX 612. 474-0430
August 21» 1995
Mayor Edward Callahan
and City Council Members
City of Orono
2750 Kelley Parkway
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
0Cf»MVfN
Dear Mayor Callahan and Council Members:
The Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) passed the
lONGLAKE enclosed budget for 1996, at the full LMCC meeing on August 15,
1995.
As I have done over the last few years, I have scheduled a timed
item on your council agenda to spend a few minutes giving an update
on Commission activity and seeking city council support for the
next year's budget. It is important to remember that this budget is
not funded with tax dollars, but rather a cable company franchise
fee paid annually to the LMCC.
MINNETONKA
MBmmnsTA
ORONO
T. BONIFACIUS
I look forward to appearing before you and answering any questions
you may have regarding cable company performance. Congressional
changes in telecommunications and proposed action at the 1996 State
T.egislature.
ShOREWOOO Regards,
Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission
SWUNG PARK
TONKA BAY James W. Daniels
Administrator
VICTORIA
WOODIANO
JWD/cl
Enclosure
cc: Commissioner Pattrin
LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION1996 PROPOSED BUDGETApproved1995ProposedChangeINCPranohlse Fees
Beck Advertising
Interest
$128,349.77
2,100.00
3,500.00
5,650.23
2,100.00
0.00
OPtRATlMO EXPENSES
Adainistrator,
Access 6 Office
Staff
Secretarial Serv.
72,800
660
Payroll Taxes/PERA 9,450
Travel Expenses 1,810
Health Insurance
Legal Fees
Insurance/Donds
5,000
5,000
5,400
LMCC Accounting/
Annual Review 1,700
Conf., Schools &
Conventions 6,300
OffIce/studlo Supplies
Janitor Service
and Supplies 4,000
Membership Dues/
Subscriptions 1,500
+
+
2,400
20
0
95
150
0
0
Approved by the full LMCC 8-15-95Proposed % 1996 Change Desorlption$134,000
0
3,500
$133,949.77 + 3,550.23 $137,500
5,000
5,400
4,000
1,500
•• I
75,200 4- 31 Payroll for Admin.| Prod. Coord<»
PT Prod. Asst. 6 Adnin. Asst.
680 4 II Payroll services
9,450 01 PERA 6 employer w/holdlng contrib*
1,905 + 5%LMCC visibility at all cltles>
MACTA and errands
5,150 + 31 Amt. attributed to emp. health ihsi
Rato reg./franchise legal counsel
Workers Comp.> Dishonesty Bond,
Property Liability
1,750 4 31 Bookkeeping 6 annual audit
6,300 0% NATOA, MACTA, NFLCP
Normal offIce/studlo supplies.
copy machine adreement f $30/mo.
6 janitor service and auppliea
NATOA, MACTA, magazines, and
3 local Chambers of Commerce
• .•
* %LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 1996 PROPOSED BUDGET - Continued Pagft TwoApproved19959ProposedChangePropoaed19961ChangeDescriptionTelephone/VoiottNeil 2,150 ’+65 2,215 + 3%Monthly charges/answering serv.iPoetage/PO Box 1,350 ♦65 1,415 + 3%LMCC agendas/correspondence, fc PQ Box RentalNiBoellanBous9005095051VariesAdvert1•1ng/ProMo
.four Quarterly
Neve letters . ••4,200 •0 4,200 ot
4 Qtrly newsletters to all Interested cities, direct nail
promos, Trlax bill staffers
6 Annual Ch. 21 Awards
Office Equipaent •0 0 0 0%
Office Rent •8,500 200 8,700 + 2.31 Office rent 6 bank box
•
Bqulpaent Nsint.
6 Repair 1,000 0 1,000 0%
Increased hours on equipment
will create need for repair
. Elies Tax 1,500 0 1,500 01 Based on 6.51 of taxable
purchases
OPERATING PUND8
SUB-TOTAL $133,220 +3,095 $136,315 + 2.3%
I • I
t • -I
• I .*vi \*it i.
I • *
; lu
^ i
• » i‘ . I
r
t.'.
LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 1996 PROPOSED BUDGET - Continued P«9« Thr«9Approved1995ProposedChang*Propoaad I 1996 Chang*D*«orlption
tfiCXAL PONDS
Capital Fund*0 0 0 01
Tap* Stock 300 0 300 01 Replacement of videotape for prod*
T*ch/Pinancial
Rat* Audit 2,000 0 2,000 0%Future audit If needed
Studio Equlpaont 0 0 0 0%
Legal Fund 100 0 100 0%Future unforeseen legal expenses
Offlc* Equipment 1,000 + 500 1,500 +50%Replace office computer
Accaa* Equipment 4,000 + 1,000 5,000 +251 Cameras, porta-pack, misc. for
an eighth city council meeting
Accesa/Development 11,809,77 809.77 11,000 01 Coverage of 8 city council mtga,
film development, DeWolf Audio
Contingency 0 0 0 Ot
Sales Tax 600 0 600 0%Based on 6.5% of taxable purchases
SPECIAL FUNDS
SUB-TOTAL
OPERATING FUNDS
SUB-TOTAL
$ 19,809.77
$133,220.00
+ 690.23
3,095.00
$ 20,500.00+ 3.
$136,315.00
5X
. GRAND TOTAL $153,029.77 + 3,785.23 $156,815.00+ 2.41
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES FOR AUGUST 14,1995 GOUNCiLMEEnNGy
AUG 2 8 1995
ROLL cmr OF ORONO
The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Edward
Callahan, Jr., Council Members J Diann Goetten, Gabriel Jabbour, Charles Kelley, and
JoEllen Hurr. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney
Tom Barrett, Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Public Works Director
John Gerhardson, City Engineer Glenn Cook, and Recorder Sherry Frost Mayor
Callahan called the meeting to order at "^ 00 p m.
(•#1) CONSENT AGENDA
Items #8, 9, and 15 were added to the Consent Agenda Goetten moved. Hurr seconded,
tc approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Ayes 5, Nays 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
(•#2) REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 24, 1995
Goetten moved, Hurr seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council
Meeting of July 24, 1995. Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS
Use reported that the Park Commission is recommending a park dedication fee versus a
trail easement for several recently propo.sed subdivisions.
The presentation of the awards for the Friends of the Park program has been changed to
the November meeting of the Park Commission. Council was invited to attend this
presentation
PI^NMNG COMMISSION COMMENTS
Dale Lindquist had no comments at this time
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cm’ COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 14,1995
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
(#3) #2032 MICHAEL AND LYNNE GERHLICHER, 1375 REST POINT ROAD
VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #35S7
Mr. Geriilicher was present
Mabusth reported the application was for setback and height variances where fencing is
placed within the street rear yard at the 80' linear stretch to the front and 30' side The
fence will be 6-1/2' in height where 3-1/2' is allowed within the front street setback. The
privacy fence is a replacement and lower in height than the previous fence ranging from
5-1/2' to 7' at the post ends with an average height of 6-1/2'. The height at the entrance
will be 3-1/2'. The fence is professionally built on site and is in keeping with the
neighborhood. The Planning Commission recommended trimming ot shrubs along the
driveway entrance for safety reasons
Callahan asked if the entire yard was fenced and received an affirmative answer The
fence is not located in the 0-75' setback area and creates no visual impaa The fence
extends to the alley and garage along the east and south portions of the property, but no
fencing is placed from the alley to the lake Gerhiicher reported that the fence is for
privacy and security concerns. The majority of the neighbors have signed letters stating
their approval of the fencing including the neighbor w ho would be most affected by the
fence. The-** v '-x a Icuci from a neighbor concerned with dogs barking, but Gerhiicher
said he iiaJ oniy one dog
There were no public comments.
Hurr moved, Kelle>’ seconded, to approve Resolution #3587 for height and setback
variance for privac>’ fencing within the rear yard and at the street lot line of the property
located at 1375 Rest Point Road on the condition that the applicant obtain a building
permit for construction of privacy fencing within street and side yard Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#4) #2033 DONALD AND ARLENE KIELLEY, 1670 SHAD^'WOOD ROAD -
VARIANCES - RESOLUTION
Mr. & Mrs. Kiellev were present.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITV' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 14,1995
(#4 - Donald & Arlene Kielley - Continued )
Mabusth reported the application is for hardcover, structural coverage, and side setback
variances for a 10-1/2* x 42 -1/2’ addition to the street or rear side of the residence. The
proposal includes reduction in hardcover by the removal of paving and reductions in the
0-75 ’ setback area. The Planning Commission did feel these reductions were modest and
asked for further reductions. 866 s.f of plastic underlayment and 280' of paved walkway
will be removed. The Plarming Commission specifically asked that the area between the
two garages be plamed with grass. Nlabusth said the Planning Commission had asked
applicant to reduce the area of coverage of the detached garage. The applicant said he
had no basement and needed the space for storage.
The additions includes a covered deck, new extrance, and expanded family room and bath
as well as a new walkway to the residence. This results in 505 s.f, or 3 4%, increase in
new structural coverage with 270 s f for the addition to the principal enclosed structure
and 235 s.f for the covered deck. Structural coverage exists at 15.6% and is proposed at
19.0®/o for a variance of 593 s.f or 4®,o. The lot side variance e.\ists with an 8" variance
and the new addition would result in a 6' variance.
A variance was granted in 1982 for the garage. A condition of that approval required the
removal of a shed and the pavement between the garage.
Goenen responded that she had been on the Planning Commission at that time where the
new garage was allowed The applicant at that time had been told that no more new
structure would be allowed. Goetten finds it difficult to allow any more additions at this
time with the percentage at 52® o.
Jerry Roelofs, contractor, said the paved area was located at the apex of the curve of
CoRd 19, and the space was necessaiy to allow a car to back out of the garage in order
to proceed forward onto CoRd 19 Hurr questioned the need for 40’ to back up a car.
Roelofs said it was needed in order to go forward and make a left turn
Mabusth reiterated that the application is for 505 s f of new structural hardcover adding
that the code does not define the diftere«ice between structural and non-structural
hardcover. The landscaping hardcover was not in the 1982 calculations and the paving
was asked to be removed at that time also
Jabbour questioned whether this was a case of trading illegal non-conforming hardcover
for leual non-conforming hardcover.
Callahan questioned how the hardcover incieased from 3816 s.f in 1982 to 5073 s.f.
currently in a legal manner. Mabusth did add that hardcover was defined difterently at
that time Plastic underlayment was not calculated and no analysis was performed in
1982 Mabusth personally remembeis grass between the garages at that time as well as
the extensive paving and the shed, which was removed.
1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 14,1995
(#4 - Donald & Arlene Kielley - Continued)
Kelley said it is unknown where the additional hardcover came. The site is limited and
the proposed addition exceeds the ruling made.
Hurr asked if the garages both contained furnaces and tound that they did.
Jabbour said te was concerned with lot density and had a problem with trading
something that had been installed without approval. If the applicant wants the new
addition, Jabbour said new ideas need ♦.■» be created The lot coverage is the key issue
according to Jabbour.
Mabusth said the contractor wa- informed that the garage encroaches into the County
Road. She also noted that the 19i?. resolution noted the conditions in the chain of tule.
The owner at that time wanted to amend the resolution but didn’t proceed with the
variance application.
KcUey said he would be in favor of the application if the garage that encroaches the
roadway be removed.
Goetten said there was too much hardcover on the property and should have beer
removed with the 1982 resolution.
The applicant, Kielley responded, that he has talcen out the rock beds to turn then back to
a natural area as well as removed timbers. Kielley said he has taken out twice the amount
that he is adding. It was noted that the addition only e.xtends 10 ’ out and a vacant lot is
next door to the properly. Kielley also said that the project would allow better drainage
on the property if that was an issue.
Goetten said drainage is a concern, but hardcover is the issue. The plastic underlayment
removal was cited as being no comparison to gaining new structure Goetten said the
removal must be structural on this small lot.
Kielley said he would eliminate the concrete in the walkway and between the garages and
confine the turnaround area. He added that the house is small and the storage in the
garages is needed.
Hurr informed the applicant that the proposal could be tabled allowing the applicant time
to review If Council proceeds and denies the application, the applicant cannot come
back with the application for 60 days
Callahan moved. Hurr seconded, to continue Application #2033 to the next Council
meeting. Ayes 5, Nays 0.
It was suggested to the applicant that he amend the application.
MlNinXS OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY ’ COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 14, 1995
(#4 - Donald & Aricne Kielley - Continued)
Roeiofs asked if in concept the one garage, which encroaches the road, was remo\'ed and
the other enlarged, if this would be a feasible alternative It was clarified to Roeiofs that
the garage portion that extends into the right-of-way is not figured into the calculations.
Jabbour explained the 15®/« lot coverage allowance to the applicant and contractor.
Callahan said he would be interested in seeing the concept on paper as he does see the
benefit of changing the garage and removing it fi-om the right-of-way.
Kielley asked if concrete was counted as hardcover The variances, hardcover, and
structural coverage were explained, \labusth said paving was not structure. Paving is
hardcover. The allow’able is 15% in building and 25% in hardcover.
(i#5) #2036 ROBERT J. GOUNTANIS, 1098 LOMA LINDA AVENUE -
VARIANCES - RESOLUTION
Callahan moved. Hurt seconded, to refer Application #2036 back to the Planning
Commission per the request of the applicant. Ayes 5, Naj’S 0.
(#6) #2038 RICHARD HEIT, 1153 ELMWOOD AVENUE - VARIANCES -
RESOLUTION #3588
Contractor for Mr. Heit was present.
Mabusth reported the application is for a two story, 10x28 lakeside addition to the
residence, located outside of the 0-75 ’ setback but in front of the average lakeshore
setback There would be no impact on the neighbor to the south and the other neighbor's
residence is located on a higher elevation The expansion woulo of a dining room on
the second story and a screened porch and exercise spa on the lower level
The side setback variance reejuires an 8" variance with the structural now at 9'6" and
proposed at 9'4" There is a hardcover excess on the property It exists at 52% and is
proposed at 51% The difierence between this review and one from 1988 is in the
paving The paving is located in the City turnaround and was originally counted in the
calculations but has now been credited. The applicant's garage is located within the
platted right-of-way and the turnaround installed within the applicant's property. The
City is asking for legal combination of Lots 19 und 8
Mabusth reported in the Planning Commission review, erosion was noted along the north
side of the property. The Engineer has reviewed and recommended tile be extended to
the front of the residence, buried, and seeded.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST I4» 1995
(#6 - Richard Hdt • Continued)
Kelley referred to Exhibit G and asked how the nei^ibor to the north's property, which is
a vacant lot, is accessed. The grave! drive provides the platted ri^-of-way for the
access according to Mabusth The lots can still be combined even if this divides it It is
maiittained by the City. The vacant lot has been denied as buildable in conceptual review.
The owner of the lot's home is located across the street from the property
Goetten asked if there was any hardcover ranoval. Mabusth said one section of
hardcover would be removed. The Planning Commission had noted erosion problems
and recommended the retaining waUs and plastic remain for stabilization This area is
located downhill and water drains to it. Ttere is a culvert on the property. A bituminous
swale has been suggested to aid the drainage The Planning Commission suggested an
ot^neering plan to contain the erosion The resolution notes this suggestion in item 3 of
the conclusions.
Callahan questioned why the 1988 resolution allowed 3700 s.f of hardcover in the 75-
2S0* zone including plastic on the west side and the walkway by the garage and is now at
4213 s.f Mabusth said this was because the first application did not include the City
turnaround paving. There is now more arai included in the combination of lots in the 75-
250' zone.
Hurr moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve K solution #3588 per Planning Commission
recommendations and conclusions
Kelley asked if there was 56 s.f of h?rdrov»^ ncreasc. Mabusth said the structural
coverage is the increase but the tota’ ^ . ver is being decreased.
Goetten said the coverage should be limited to what is existing now.
Ayes 4, Nays 1, Goetten Nay Goetten said there is no justification to add more
hardcover.
It was noted that no variance was required on the structural coverage.
(#7) #2040 DOUG OLSON, 2601 WEST LAFAYETTE ROAD - VARIANCES -
RESOLUTION #3589
Dr Olson was present as well as his contractor. Jim Smith
Mabusth reported the property contains 800 linear feet of lakeshore. Before the
hardcover calculations were dev eloped, extensive areas of hardcover were removed.
This includes a 15x15' boathouse and a stone walkway to the peninsula area.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITV COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 14,1995
(#7 • Doug Olson • Continued)
The ^)plication is for removal of existing concrete patio and replaced with interi^king
blocks in sand rquhii^ in 65 s.f. less hardcover. The applicant would like to maintain
walkway to the dock Tte Planning Commission recommended approv’al of the
proposal by 3 of 4 total votes. The one Commissioner felt the stepping pads to the dock
were needed. Mabusth noted that the property is 24* from the 929.4 elevation
requiring a setback variance for the replacement. The application involves replacement ot
non-structural for non-structural with 170 s.f smaller area. The decking width is 9 and
remains the same.
Dr. Olson said there has beeri talk of remodeling. The goal now is for repair and time to
see bow it works. Olson asked the stepping stones remain to the dock due to the large
goose population
Jabbour said he appreciated the hardcover removal that has taken place and asked tor
consideration in the car parking area.
Hurr inquired of the two docks. One dock is used for the boat with canopy in the lagoon
area. The other 15’ dock is the swimming area.
Kelley moved. Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution #3589
Callahan remarked on the variance based on a possible remodeling when that may not
occur The City may re-evaluate the paving w hen lunher changes are made. Olson
responded that he would like to change me blacktop area but needed to see whether the
house was a good fit for his family Ayes 5, Nays 0
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT
Hurr left the meeting at this time.
Jabbour reported on the LMCD meetings recently attended. xMoorse had presented
Orono’s concerns to the LMCD regarding their budget. No questions were answered as
no board members with detailed knowledge of the budget were in attendance.
Harvesting of curasian milfoil was discussed but to no tiirther conclusion.
ENGINEER REPORT
(•#8) rflANGE ORDER nl (COMPLETION DATE) LIFf STATION HI
Goetten moved, Hurr seconded, to approve the Change Order #1 for Lift Station #7,
which extends the completion date of the projea to October 31, 1995. Ayes 5, Nays 0.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 14,1995
CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REFORT
(*#9> APPOINTMENT OF INSURANCE AGENT OF RECORD
Goenco moved, Hutr seconded, to appoint Mr. Cari Betmetsen of RL Youngdahl and
Associated, Inc., as Insurance Agent of Record for 1996 through 1998, at a fee not to
exceed $7,200 per year, including an>- commissions earned on policy premiums paid by
the City. Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(•#10) moratorium on development in the highway 12 AREA -
ORDINANCE #139, 2ND SERIES
Gocnen moved, Hurr seconded, to adopt the ordinance placing a moratorium on
development in the Highway 12 area. Ayes 5, Nays 0
(ill) SCHOOL LIAISON OFFICER PROGRAM AGREEMENT
Moorse reported having met with the School District s Business Manager receiving
positive feedback regarding the first year of the School Liaison Otficer Program. The
School Board recommends continuing with the program and extending the atp-eement for
another year.
Callahan questioned the 250 leftover hours from 1994 Callahan did not want to see
hours acciunulating from one year to the next.
By the end of this next year, according to Moorse, the problem with accumulated hours
should even itself out.
Kelley commented, with having children in the school, he has first hand knowledge of the
excellence of the program and noted the students ’ awareness of the liaison officer in the
school.
Callahan moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve the continuation of the school liaison
officer program for the 1995/1990 school year, and to authorize the Mayor and City
Administrator to sign the agreement Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(#12) SCHEDULING OF BUDGET WORK SESSION
The Budiiet Work Session was scheduled for August 29, 1995, at 8 00 a m,
(•#13) SALE OF POLICE VEHICLE
Goetten moved, Hurr seconded, to approve the sale of a police department vehicle to the
highest bidder as per City ordinance Ayes 5, Nays 0.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cm' COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 14, l»5
<*#U) TEMPORARY EASEMENT - WILLOW DRIMTHIGHWAY 12
PROJECT
Goetten moved, Hurr seconded, to authorize paymwit for a temporary casement fiom Gil
and Anna Braun for an amount of SI,000 to be paid fiom the Municipal State Aid fund.
Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(•#15) RESOLUTION #3590 & AGREEMENT FOR USE OF HENNEPIN
COUNTY’S GEO DATA BASE
Goetten iiKived, Hurr seconded, to adopt Resolution #3590 authorizing the City to enter
into a conditional use agreement for the use of Hennepin County’s proprietary
g eographical data base and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the conditional
use agreement. Ayes 5. Nays 0
(#16) LONG LAKE W ATER QUALITY PROJECT /YND COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT - UPDATE
Moorse reported he had met with the lead manager of the project, Tom LaBounty, to
obtain an update on the project and to discuss the agreement. LaBounty inlormed
Moorse of the direction the project is taking with construction ot the sedimentation
ponds. Two ponds will be located in Long Lake, an easement will be obtained for a pond
in Medina, and an agreement has alreadv been reached for a smaller pond located in
Orono A contingency is in place for a larger pond on the Orono property if needed.
The construction of the Long Lake and Medina ponds arc scheduled for the upcoming
wimer. The Orono pond is scheduled the following year. Alum will be introduced into
the lake in spring of 1990
Kelley inquired of the cost of cleaning the ponds It had been estimated at $7,000/year
for the City of Orono. Moorse said it will cost an average of $63,000 for all of the ponds
to be cleaned yearly.
Kelley asked if this process had been done elsew here before. Moorse said this had been
done in Wayzata for the Gleason Creek project.
Jabbour reported that a new project is begun yearly within the watershed district
Upcoming projects are Jennings Bay and Painters Creek.
In recent conversations Jabbour had with the MCWD, Jabbour asked that they come to
agreement with the pond piiTpeity owners tirst before meeting with the City of Orono
Jabbour also asked ihe MCWD to simplify the current agreement. He also questioned
how only Orono residents could be assessed It was indicated that the MCWD will be
developing a stormwater plan, and their philosophy is similar to that of the City of Orono.
Jabbour also indicated MCWD believes the money should be spent on fixing and not
studying a problem, with 60-70% of the money going towards a solution
‘ . .T,. . -1— a. _ I
Msorrcs of the regular orono cm' couNaL
MEETING HEI.D ON AUGUST 14.1995
(#16 - Long Lake Water Quality Project & Cooperative Agreement - Continued)
Goetten asked ^>out the cooperation efforts of the City of Medina Jabbour said Medina
b qu^wnii^ whetlKr the polhition is coming from Medina
Callahan asked that paragraph 3 2.1 be eliminated from the agreement
Jabbour said he had informed the MCWD that the contribution by Orono would not
exceed $2,000
Kelley moved, Jabbour seconded, to authorize approval of the agreement as amended,
dinunating pai^raphs 3 .2.1 and 3.2.2, with Orono's contribution not to exceed $2,000.
Jabbour will to the MCWD about the concerns as related in the motion Ayes 4,
NaysO.
CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
Barrett had no report
(•#17) LICENSES
Goettoi moved. Hurt seconded, to approve the following licenses: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Site Evduator/Dcsigner License Development Engineering, P A.
9051 Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN
One Day On-Sale Liquor License Paula Prahl
Smith College Days
Minnetonka Center for the Arts
2240 North Shore Drive
September 9, 1995
(•#18) BILLS
Goetten moved, Hurr seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
f
MINVTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cm’ COUNCO-
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 14,1W5
ADJOURNMENT
Mi^or Callahan adjourned the meeting at 8:4S p.m.
Edward J Callahan, Jr, Mayor
ATTEST;
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk
o o- a
y ^ a SS S u 42 3 3Cl o Uo *2 •-
r\
!i J - "
^ H -g -o
^ 4 3 o fc' „ a: OS
U S £;• £■
.o Q § y
-• 1/1 u u
w>
< <
-t
„ O'
OVu —•
M O
c
rx.
M\ oc
U2
O
in
U4
'v/)
A
UJu ';3
d
S)
«oo
Hi!
l!(<
lin
◄1 5
■n
nil
rfat^:*
lUi
illi
fish
It
i
ccuxciLf.'i"fi;;a
AUG ^ 8 1995
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: AQfifOfWeNO
ITEM NO.: J_j
Department Approval:
Name Jeanne A. Mabusih
Title Building & Zoning Administrator
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Zomng
Item Description: #2033 Donald and Arlene Kielley, 1670 Shadywood Road - Variances -
Resolution
Review of Amended Proposal
At the August 14th meeting of the Council the application was tabled providing applicants
additional time to consider reductions in structural improvements. Applicants have resubmitted
a plan reflecting reductions in structural coverage and hardcover within the 75-250’ setback area.
and Bl-2.Structural coverage is reviewed as follows:
Original
Proposal
Addition
278 s.f.
Deck
232 s.f.
Increase
Structural Coveraae
510 s.f.
Total Structural
Coverage on Property
2.768 s.f. or 19%
(variance = 4%)
Option A 278 s.f.84 s.f.362 s.f.2,620 s.f. or 18%
(variance = 3%)
Option B 281.75 s.f.80 s.f.361.75 s.f.2.620 s.f. or 18%
(variance = 3%)
Review of Hardcover
Review E.xhibit C. the amended proposal shows a 148 s.f. reduction in the addition and 78 s.f.
paving reduction. Hardcover in the 75-250’ area is amended as follows;
° Total area = 9,820 s.f.
Allowed = 2,455 s.f. or 25%
E.xisting = 5.073 s.f. or 51.65^
Proposal as amended by Planning Commission = 4,409 s.f. or 44.8%
Applicants' amended proposal = 4,183 s.f. or 42.6%
Hardcover variance = 1,728 s.f. or 17.6%
The enclosed resolution will be amended to reflect Council ’s tinal action,
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
To either deny or approve the amended proposal.
ch
i
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
VARIANCES TO
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C):
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; .\ND
SECTION 10.25, SUBDIV ISION 6 (B)
FILE #2033
WHEREAS, Donald R. Kielley and Arlene Kielley (hereinafter "the applicants")
are owners of the property located at 1670 Shady wood Road within the City of Orono
(hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows:
The South 2’ of Lot 7 and all of Lot 8, Shady wood, Hennepin County, Minnesota
(hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to .Municipal
Zoning Code S.ctions 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C); 10.22. Subdivision 2; and 10.25, Subdivision
6 (B) to permit construction of a __________ addition to the street side of the existing
residence to be placed from the north side lot line where a 10’ setback is required and
where the existing structure is located 8" from the lot line. The improvement will result in a
structural coverace excess of s.f. or % lor a total of % coverage where 15% is
allowed and 15.6% exists and a hardcover variance within the 75-250’ setback area of____
s.f. or % with total hardcover of____s.f. or_____% where 25% is allowed and 51.6%
exists.
Minnesota;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2033.
The property is located in the LR-IC, L.ikeshore Residential Zoning District
requiring .5 acre or 21,780 s.f. The property consists of 14,500 s.f. or .33
acres.
Pace 1 of 6
J
w
3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 17, 1995. and
recommended approval of the variances as amended based upon the tollowing
unique findings and hardships:
A. Limitations on the lot area and width of propeny cannot be remedied
because there is no adjacent undeveloped lands available for combination.
B Location of home on adjacent property to the north will minimize any
impact of the substandard side setback.
C.Majority of the lot e.xcept for the last 20 ’ adjacent to the shoreline is flat.
There are extensive grassed areas to allow for drainage m run over lawn
areas before entering lake.
D.505 s.f. of new structure will be offset by being placed over
approximately 189.5 s.f. of existing pavement and landscape areas
underlain with plastic.
E.The residence structure has no basement area. The two detached garages
on the property arc also used for residential storage.
F.In 1982, the City granted setback and hardcover variances for the second
garage on the property.
G.
H.
The property’ is serxed by municipal sewer and water.
The proposed improvement will result in a reduction ot hardcover within
the 0-75 ’ setback area at 225 s.f. or A.S% and in the 75-250’ setback area
there is a reduction ot s.f. or
The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar
to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that
granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor
pose a Virc hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely
serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary' to preserve a substantial property
Page 2 of 6
IRri^"
rieht of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent ot the
Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
5.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments
by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and
welfare of the community.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections noted above to permit constmction of a
addition to the street side of the existing residence, grants a lot coverage variance
------TTor a side vard setback variance of or and hardcover variance of-------
\J t ^ ^ ^ ^ ------ •
s.fT^____, subject to the following conditions:
1.All hardcover improvements scheduled for removal and as shown on Page 6 ot
this resolution shall be completed prior to the footing inspection for new
construction.
The area between the detached garages shall be cleared of all hardcover
improvements and replanted with grass or other suitable ground cover.
3.Applicants and future owners are placed on notice that any future requests for
structural additions to the residence, accessory’ structures or additions to existing
accessory structures may be approved only with matching or greater removals ot
existing structural improvements on the property.
4.Authorit ’ granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants,
but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building
pennit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will
expire on that date (August 28. 1996).
5.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the tenns and conditions of this
resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically
terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
Page 3 of 6
L___L_r
^i'i»
r .
6.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms
of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns,
hereby agree to the recording ot this resolution in the chain of title of the
property.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of August. 1995.
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin. City Clerk Fdwarl J. Callahan. Jr.. Mavor
Property Owner(s)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
ss.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of
Aueust, 1995. by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. & Dorothy M. HaUin. Mayor & City Clerk of the
City of Orono. a xMinnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf
of the City.
Notary Public
Pace 4 of 6
1/
I
1' ^
1—1 1
-
H
O t»T)o O D
V w
AUG 2 8 1995
REQt^T FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^
DATE: Aucust 24. 1995
ITEM NO.:
Department Approval:
NaiM Jeanne A. Mabustb
Title Building St Zoning Adminisiraior
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Zoning
Item Description: #2036 Robert Gounianis, 1098 Loma Linda Avenue - Variances
Resolution
Addendum to Application
Planning Commission reconsidered Mr. Goumanis’ request to construct a second-stor>'
garage addition rather than the singe-story as referenced in staff memo and resolution. The
Planning Commission unanimously denied applicant's request to approve a two-story garage
addition based on the original intent of Planning Commission to maintain appro.ximate building
envelope of existing structure i)n severely substandard lakeshore parcel. The Planning
Commission reaffirmed its original recommendation that allowed for a 48 s.f. expansion
(addition of 3’ x 8' comers of residence at northeast and southeast) of the original principal
structure envelope and a 22’ x 22’ attached garage addition (159.8 s.f. expansion) that would
replace the single-story detached 22.2’ x 14.6’ garage.
The findings and conditions of the original Planning Commission recommendation remain
as originally proposed to Council. The resolution also includes the findings for the denial of the
second request by applicant.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
To either deny, approve or amend the enclosed approval resolution
F
A RESOLUTION GRANTING V ARIANCES
TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.22, SL^DIVISIO.NS 1 (A) AND 2, AND
SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B)
FILE NO. 2036
WlffiREAS, Robcn J. Gountanis (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in
the property located at 1098 Loma Linda Avenue within the City of Orono and legally described
as follows:
Lot 10. Loma Linda. Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property ");
and
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for the following variances that
would permit construction of a 26.2 ’ x 38.5’ two-story residence and single-story 22* x 22’
anached garage;
A. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22. Subdivision 1 (A) - lakeshore setback.
Required = 75’
Existing =23’
Proposed = 30’ (principal structure = 30’. steps at lakeside = 33’,
garage = 63’ 6")
Variance = 45 ’ or 60%
B. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22. Subdivision 2 - hardcover.
0-75’ setback area = 5,348 s.f.
Allowed = 0
Existing = 1,338.15 s.f. or 25%
Proposed or variance = 1,097.7 s.f. or 20.5%
75-250’ setback area = 1,464 s.f.
Allowed = 366 s.f. or 25%
Proposed = 965 s.f. or 65.9%
Variance = 599 s.f. or 40.9%
C Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24. Subdivision 5 (B)
Required = 35’
Existing = 5’ 4"
Proposed = 5’ 4"
Variance = 29’ 8" or 85%
Page 1 of 7
- street setback
E.
F.
Minnesota
3.
Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B)
Requir^ =* 43,560 s.f.
Existing = 6,812 s.f.
Variance = 36,748 s.f. or .84%
- area variance
Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B)
Required =* 140’
Existing at shoreline = 70’
Existing at 75 ’ setback = 50’
Variance = 90’ or 64%
- lot width variance.
Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B)
Required = 10’
Existing = -6"
Proposed = 3’
Variance = 7 ’ or 70%
- rifiht side setback.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2036.
The propeny is located in the LR-IB Lakeshore Residential Zoning District
requirinc one acre in area. The property consists ot 6,812 s.t. or .16 acre.
The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application at their July 17. 1995
meeting and recommended approval of the variance application as amended, based
upon the following unique findings and hardships;
A.Lot 10 of the Loma Linda plat was created in 1912 prior to any standards
for residential development.
B.Based on the City Assessor’s record, the existing residence structure was
built in 1934 prior to any standards for residential construction within the
township at that time.
Page 2 of 7
1
c.The City’s tax records back to 1974 indicate the former owner received
homestead credit from 1974 to 1981. The property has been non-
homcsteaded to the current time.
D.Major portions of the property are located in the lakeshore protected area.
5,348 s.f. is located within the 0-75’ setback area and 1.464 s.f. is located
within the 75-250’ setback area.
E.The curvamre of the shoreline to the southeast of the property intensifies
the impact of the lakeshore setback upon limited building envelope of this
propert>.
F. The propeny has been assessed and is connected to municipal sewer.
The Planning Commission at their August 21, 1995 meeting reconsidered a
second request of applicant to install a second story over the 22’ x 22’ single-
story caraee. The Planning Commission recommended denial of applicant ’s
request to amend the Planning Commission s original recommendation of
approval based on the following findings:
A.A second stoty over the approved 22’ x 22’ garage addition would
intensify the impact of strucmre on this severely substandard lot.
B. The earage is located 3’ from a public access to lake and 5.4’ from street
lot line.
The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar
to it and do not apply generally to other propeny in this zoning district; that
sranting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor
pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely
serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property
richt of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent ot the
Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Page 3 of 7
6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports I'v City staff, comments
by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance oi the health, safety and
welfare of the community.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants variances to the Municipal Zoning Code Sections noted above to permit construction ot
a two-story residence at 26.2 ’ x 38.5 ’ that may extend no closer than 30 ’ to the shoreline and
a single-story attached garage at 22 ’ x 22 ’ that may extend no closer than 63 ’ 6" to the
shoreline, a right side setback variance of 7’ or 70%, a street setback variance of 29 8 or 85 ,o
and hardcover variances within the 0-75 ’ setback area at 1,097.7 s.t. or 20.5% and in the 75-
250 ’ setback area at 599 s.f. or 40.9%. This approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant or applicant’s contractor shall be responsible for obtaining a demolition
permit for removal of the residence and single-stall garage strucaires.
2. Upon application for a building permit, applicant shall submit an amended survey
as shown on Page 6 of this resolution confirming the location of all improvements
as approved by the City. Applicant shall also provide an updated hardcover
analysis ot all approved improvements and a drainage plan.
3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not • b the applicant,
but are permissive only and must be exercised by applicatioi, tor a building
p.r^it within one year of the date of Council approval, or this v j-iance will
on that date (August 28, 1996).
4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this
variaijce shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically
terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
5. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms
of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns,
herebv agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain ol Title ot the
property.
Page 4 of 7
l\
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting
held on the 28th day of August, 1995.
ATTEST;
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor
Property Owner (s)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )I
The foresoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of
August. 1995 by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin. Mayor and City Clerk of the
Ciw of Orono. a Minne.sota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf
m
of the City.
Notary Public
Page 5 of 7
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this dav of , 199 before me a Notary Public within
and for said county, personally appeared
known to me to be the perscn(s) described in and who executed the toregoing instrument.and
acknowledged that he (they) executed the :»ame as his (their) tree act and deed.
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this dav of . 199 before me a Notary Public within
and for said county, personally appeared
known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his ftheir) free act and deed.
NOTARY PUBldC
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this dav of , !99 before me a Notary Public within
and for said county, personally appeared
known to me to be the persimis) described in anu who executed the foregoing instrument.and
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Pase 6 of 7
L
■.4
&
^ c f ^/r i
) ,f»\
I?
'w '■y:^AW
I <v /
* I Cl I /-
1>
-w
I'-;-/
V \
Ivi r-..
>
./
\N.*‘
X iiu/?v(:v
i' »
S 5 5^3
I
• N.1
I*lit
>
1 k'^^E?07...
-X\J/• 1BOOLOCM5
‘—‘--.i, I 1—-I —
— •—r:Xi^
'v/'TEn’wmT^ 2ohtour '"°"
LAKE MINNETONKA
(NORTH ARM)
1
REQUEST FOR COUNCtt ACTION
DATE: August 2, 1995
ITEM NO.:
Department Approval:
Name Jeanne A. M^justb
Title Buildiof Sl Zoning Administrator
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Zoninis;
Item Description: #2036 Robert Gountanis. 1098 Loma Linda Avenue - Variances
Resolution
Zoning District: LR-IB
Total lot area = 6,812 s.f.
Pertinent Ordinances
The following are the variances as amended per the directives of the Planning
Commission recommendation. Four of the six member Commission in attendance voted
unanimously to approve Option fer the redevelopment of the substandard parcel.
Councilmembers are encouraged to •'Tview the enclosed staff memo dated July 7, 1995 tor
greater detail on the three options of t rvelopment presented by the applicant.
1.Section 10.03. Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of strucmral coverage
Allowed = 1.500 s.f.
Existing = 1,284.8 s.f.
Case 3 original proposal =» 1,541.5 s.f.
Case 3 amended proposal = 1,492.7 s.f.
No variance required.
Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (A) - Lakeshore setback.
Required = 75 ’
Steps
Principal stnicture
Garage
Existing
IT
23 ’
60 ’
Case 3 Proposed
33’
30’
63 ’ 6"
Variance = 45’ or 60%
3.Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B)
Allowed = 0
Existing = 8 ’
Case 3 proposed = 0
No variance required.
- Average lakeshore setback
Request for Council Action continued
page 2
August 2, 1995
Zoning File #2036
4.Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B).
A. Left side setback:
Required « 10’
Existing = 6’ 5"
Case 3 proposed - 10’
No variance required.
B. Right side:
Required 10’ (adjacent to public access)
Existing =» -6" (encroachment into public access)
Case 3 original proposal = -6"
Case 3 amended proposal = 3 ’
Variance = 7’ or 70%
C. Street setback.
Required = 30 ’
Existing = 5’ 4"
Case 3 proposed = 5’ 4”
5. Section 10.22. Subdivision 2 - Review of hardcover.
0-75* setback area = 5,348 s.f.
Allowed = 0
Existing = 1,338.15 s.f. or 25%
Case 3 original proposal = 1,201.7 s.f. or 22%
Case 3 amended proposal = 1,097.7 s.f. or 20.5%
Hardcover decrease = 104 s.f. or 1.9%
75-250’ setback area = 1,464 s.f.
Allowed = 366 s.f. or 25%
Existing = 158.25 s.f. or ll.%
Case 3 original proposal = 913.7 s.f. or 62%
Case 3 amended proposal = 9C s.f. or 65.9%
Variance = 599 s.f. or 40.9% (original variance
Additional Exhibits
= 547.7 s.f. or 37.4%)
U - Amended Proposal Approved by Planning Commission
VI-2 Amended Floor Plans for Case 3 Improvement Provided by Applicant for
Planning Commission’s Second Consideration of Proposal at 8/21/95 Meeting
W - DNR Letter 8/21/95 Received After 4:30 p.m.
Request for Council Action continued
page 3
August 2. 1995
Zoning FUc #2036
Brief Description of !lequest
Counciln^mbers arc encouraged to review the staff memo enclosed dated July 7. 1995
and the Planning Commission minutes of the July 17. 1995 meeting for more background and
detail on this rcvicw. Of the three improvement options tor the redevelopment of this property,
the Planning Commission opted for Case 3 which involved the relocation of a new structure
away from the lake at the approximate size of the existing structure. The single detached garage
would now be an attached two-stall garage approved by the Planning Commission at 22’ x 22
(original 24’ x 22’). The current single-stall garage has an access door that faces th'' street.
The proposed attached garage would now have side loading doors. The expanded driv'c area and
enlarged garage result in excessive increases m hardcover in the 75-250’ setback area. Side
setbacks arc improved with the Case 3 proposal. There will be no encroachment of an average
lakeshorc setback line. Structural coverage is under the allowed 1,500 s.f.
Hardcover in the 0-75’ setback area has decreased from 25% to 20.5%. Hardcover in
the 75-250’ setback area increases from 11% to 65.9%. Note the intensity of the increase
results from the limited area within the 75-250’ setback zone at 1,464 s.t.
The Planning Commission opined that Cases 1 and 2 involving either partial or total
repair of the existing foundation was a "band aid" approach to improvement of the property.
Members noted that leaving the property for seasonal use would not solve any problems as the
property would remain an eyesore. In fact, the adjacent neighbor to the immediate north was
present to support the improvement of the property.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the improvement plan
that would involve the reconstruction of a new two-stcry principal structure at a 38.5' x 26.2
footprint. Note this approval will allow squaring off of comers at the lakeside allowing a 3’ x
8' expansion from the original footprint at bo^ the northeast and southeast comers of the
struemre. The Planning Commission would not approve the squaring off of the comers of
structure in its present location. Ine Planning Commission also approved a 22’ x 22’ single-
story attached garage to be located a minimum of 3’ from the right side yard adjacent to the
public access and held structural coverage to the maximum allowed amount of 1.500 s.t. '^e
enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions of the Planning
Commission recommendation
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
To deny, adopt or amend the enclosed approval resolution.
Chair Petcrsofl and Orono Plaiming Commission Members
Ron Moofse, City Administrator
Jeanne A. Mabusth« IBniMing & Zoning Administrator
Date:July 7. 1995
Subject: #2036 Robert Gounianis. 109S Loma Linda Avenue - Variances - Public Hearing
Zoning District: LR-1B
Total lot area « 6.812 s.f.
Pertiiient Ordinance
1.
2
Section 10.03. Subdivision 14 (C) • Review of structural coverage.
Allowed = 1,500 s.f.
Existing = 1,284,8 s.f. or 18.9%
Case 1 proposed « 1,541.5 s.f. or 22.6%
Case 2 proposed = 1,541.5 s.f. or 22.6%
Case 3 proposed = 1,541.5 s.f. or 22.6%
Variance = 41.5 s.f.
Section 10.22. Subdivision 1 (A)
Required = 75’
Existing steps = 27’
Principal structure = 23 ’
Garage = 60’
Cases 1 & 2 proposed;
Steps = 27’
Principal struemre
Garage = 60’
Case 3 proposed;
Steps = 33 ’
Principal structure
Garaee = 60’
- Lakeshore setback
21.5’
= 30
Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) - Average lakeshore setback
Allowed = 0
Existing = 8’
Cases 1 & 2 proposed = 8‘
Case 3 proposed = 0
Section 10.22, Subdivision 5 (B) .
A. Side setbacks.
Left side;
Required = 10’
Existing = 6’ 5"
Cases r & 2 proposed = 6’ 5"
Case 3 proposed = 10’
1
m- Y
Zoning File HQ36f
July 7, 1995
Page 2
Right side:
Required * 10’ (adjacent to public access)
Existing * -0.58’ or 6"encroachnient into public access
Proposed Cases 1, 2 3 = -0.58’ or 6"
B Street setback.
Required = 30’
Existing = 5’ 4"
Cases 1. 2 & 3 proposed= 5’ 4
5. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Review of hardcover.
0-75’ setback area *
5,348 s.f.
75-250’ setback area =»
1.464 s.f.
Allotral 0 366 s.f. or 25%
Existing 1.338.15 s.f. or 25%158.25 s.f. or 11%
Cases 1 & 2 proposed 1,366.7 s.f. or 25.5%760.8 s.f. or 52%
Ca.se 3 proposed 1.201.7 s.f. or 22%913.7 s.f. or 62%
List of Exhibits
A -
Bl-2
C -
D -
El-2
F -
G -
H -
1 -
J -
K -
L -
M -
N -
O -
P -
Q -
R -
S -
T -
Application
Applicant ’s Addendum
Plat .Map
Property Owners’ List
Hardship Statement
Survey
Case 1 &. 2 Hardcover Facts. 0-75’ Setback Area
Case 1 & 2 Hardcover Facts. 75-250’ Setback Area
Case 1 & 2 Hardcover Site Plan
Case 1 Floor Plan
Case 1 Elevations
Case 2 First Floor Plan
Case 2 Second Floor Plan
Case 2 Elevations
Case 3 Hardcover Facts. 0-75’ Setback Area
Case 3 Hardcover Facts. 75-250’ Setback Area
Case 3 Hardcover Site Plan
Case 3 First Floor Plan
Case 3 Second Floor Plan
Case 3 Elevations
UJ
J 1 - ='
rkv >Zoning File #2036
July 7, 1995
Page 3
Description of Reque^
Applicant has presemed three alternatives for the redevelopment of this severely
substandard parcel. Review Exhibit B-2. applicant's description of those three options.
Case 1
Review Exhibits G. H. I, J and K. This improvement plan involves an 8’ x 3’ expansion
of the footprint at the northeast and southeast comer to the lakeside of the residence. Review
Exhibit J. existing foundation would be approved along the designated line. The darkened area
shows the 3’ X 8^ new foundation section. The remainder of the structure is not adequate to
support expansion or improvement of the second level. Structure w ill remain as shown with
only a first flexor living area.
Review E.xhibit I. Applicant proposes an addition to the existing garage, major portions
of which will be located out of the 0-75’ setback area. Garage doors will be relocated to the
north side of structure. The existing garage has doors opening out onto Lorna Linda. The
existing single stall garage is of questionable structural condition. It is doubtful whether this
structure can be expanded upon. It is also doubtful whether the City would approve ot the
improvement of a sirucnire that encroaches 6" into a year-round public access.
Case 2
Review E.xhibits G. L, M and N. There is no difference in the footprint/site plan lor
either Case I or 2. This improvement plan calls for the rounding off of the 3’ x 8’ comers on
the nonh and south side of the structure at lakeside. In this case, the entire foundation would
be replaced allowing for an expansion of the second story. Review E.xhibits M and N, note this
is not a complete second story addition. The only portion of sirucmre that will extend beyond
the existing footprint are the steps and front stoop that will encroach another 4 into the
lakeshore yard. Note hardcover improvements are the same for both Cases 1 and 2. The issues
for the detached garage remain the same as it was in Case 1.
Case 3
Review Exhibits O. P. Q. R. S and T. In this option of improvement, applicant proposes
the relocation of the same footprint funher away from lake and the garage would now be
attached to the structure but at the same approximate location from the street and right side yard.
The structure would now be located 10’ from the left side lot line. Compare the setback results
and the factual findings for setbacks noted above. Hardcover for this improvement plan is
reduced to 22^^ in the 0-75’ setback area and increased to 62% in the 75-250’ setback area.
Review Exhibits R. S and T. fioor plans suggest only a second floor expansion over the principal
structure footprint. Note in the elevations. Exhibit T. that applicant shows a second tloor above
the attached garage area. The proposed upper level expansions with this option will not
encroach beyond t'he average lakeshore setback line of the residence to the immediate nonh.
Zoning File #2036
July 7, 1995
Page 4
History of Property
Lot 10 of the Loma Linda plat was created in 1912. Based on the Assessor's record, the
structure was built in 1934 prior to any standards for residential construction within the to\. nship
at that time. The property was not zoned until November 20, 1950 at which time it became part
of the Forest Lake district requiring a 75* minimum frontage and 15.000 s.f. minimum lot area.
In 1967, the area was rezoned to an R-IC district requiring one acre. In 1975, it was rezoned
to LR-IB requiring also one acre in area and included more restrictive standard tor lakeshore
development.
Tax records back to 1974 indicate that the former owner received homestead credit from
1974 to 1981. The property has been non-homesteaded to the current time. From 1974 to
1995, the former owner ’s address was listed to a Minneapolis address.
Sfafement of Hardship
Review Exhibits El-2, applicant’s hardship statement.
Issues for Consideration .....What levels of improvement are reasonable for this property •}
1.Will you allow structural improvements to the e.xisting structure? What degree
of structural improvement is acceptable.’ Even if only partial toundation repair
is to be completed, existing structure must be raised. Would you allow only
replacement of the existing foundation or will you allow the 3’ x 8’ expansions
to the northeast and southeast side of residence?
W'ould you allow a new garage to be located within the footprint ot the 14* x 22
existine garage? If not. how far should structure be relocated from right side lot
line and provide adequate area for driveway and turnaround at north side of
garage structure? ... 3’? 5*? Why can’t garage be reduced to a 20* north/south
dimension rather than the 24* proposed?
Will you approve a structural coverage variance for these improvement plans
Applicant shows an excess of 41.5 s.f. over the allowed 1,500 s.f.
Would you allow the expansion of the roof structure within the 8’ average
lakeshore setback for Cases 1 and 2? The roof expansion involves merely an
alteration in the roof line.
If you are to provide direction to the applicant, the following points must be
addressed in your recommendation:
Zoning File #2036
July 7. 1995
Page 5
A.Proposed garage. What is a reasonable size for the detached garage and
will you approve the existing 5.4’ street setback as long as doors face
away from street? __ What is a reasonable right side setback from the
public access aixl still allow enough room tor a side door loading garage?
Note the majority of the structural improvements would be located within
the 0-75 ’ setback area. Should garage be relocated to the northwest side
yard?
B. What level of strucniral improvements would you approve?
• Replacement of partial foundation, complete foundation or total
rebuild.
C.
D.
Options of Action
If foundation is replaced or structure relocated, would you limit second
story expansions above principal structure?
Would you allow a second story expansion above the garage if attached
to residence?
1.
3.
Approval. If members feel applicant has provided enough information so that a
plan can be amended per Planning Commission s direction for Council s review,
then you may act on this application; or
Table. Planning Commission may wish to review the amended proposal before
passing it onto Council for formal action; or
Denial. Members should refer to Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A) (1-12) for
necessary findings to be addressed if a variance application is to be recommended
for denial. Members may find the unique history of this property and the way
propeny has been used in recent years that the property can no longer be
upgraded to a year-round residence but can continue to serve for seasonal
recreational use.
Isv
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee S20OX0
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee S1(X).00
(no change from original application) ^
Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00
After-ihe-Faci Fees (Double applicauon fee)
PROPERTY INFORMATION . ^
Site Address Z/yPA ^ -----AfA—
Property Idenuficauon Number (P.I.D.)—
%
;
¥
z' kj ‘ r r * cz» w» t .awu
A^rd^n .0 applicanon r«,u^d survey.
Date Property Arqnin»d < t'^ r -A-
' i^crv
t-f
Vf A.,
ai VV' ■ \
Date Property Acquired rr f'' , 7T~T----^
I fdo)^3olS5also own the adjacent parcels of
P««.nnnr^proptny: ^«s.dem.al ----other (spec.fy)
.............. • -*ri
Vi' V A t\ \'A . 1 J
VW/ Aw
Zoning District:
applicant
Name fltkeA'tJ-
Address: ^
Phone (home) /^/ ^—
_____ Phone (work) _________—
Cit>'; Zip^.fTjT^
Phona home) ______________(if differen^t^ Wlteant) Ph?«Twork)__--------------------
description of request ^
Describe request in detail:
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot .Area ___Width X Hardcover Lot Coverage
^ Setback:From X. Side Ji_ Rear J< Average Lakeshore
X Other (specify) _ J4K^
........
complbnce with Zoning Cods reqmremems:. ^ tT/i-C/fH t'l/f S-^-------------
IP
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
All rf.h, fnllnwin. information must hv the nnplicatlpn d^jidlin^ date in oa!g
for vour application to be considf **^^ complete;
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
"7 of owners within 150 ’ (you must obtain this list from
Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603. Govt Center, j48ox71).
/ Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). ^ . a
V Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed sur eyor and mclude .mdeov^^^
“calculations as required. In addition, provide oOc (1) copy x 11 tor
A/yf ^pographic survev (existing and proposed elevations) it any ctonges in existing grade
^ are pfoposed. In Addition, provide one (1) copy 8>^" x 11 for reproduction.
^ Sketches or plans of Ooor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy SA x 11 ).
^ ... - I _______\ wa'ifh in in
8.
9.
IT List of the legal names (include marital stams) of all persons with an interest in the
oroperty This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s).
g± Asan addendum to this application, please attach a separate list ot any other persons
vou wish notified ot this application.
7 Additional items as may be requested by City staff.
mTapplta^ provide all informaiion required or requested by the Zoning
Admhdstraor agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment)
Md/or consultam expenses incurred in review of this application, and cemties that the
information supplied is true and coreccj to the be^t his.her Itnowledge.
Applicant’s Signature Date
The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable
entry onto the propem by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council
members for purposes of investigation and venfication of this request.
Owner's Signature Date
ADDlicant must have all submittals into the City offices 2o days before the Planning Commission
Meeting Planning Commission .Meetings are held on the third Monday of each naonth.
-Vnnlicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Comnussion
ind Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangaments
to have an authorized agent anend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of
this change prior to the meeting.
8
If
pr
m^tcfne.
I
f~j^^ A
's /Vi/Ie® A^, K/T
Afn^e^eA/f A as ^ee^ rifA^e/y ^A-r^O ai A ja
C/A3JAy /y ^/yAc/i^/> 7^^e- /^y
/>* Aif^AP^ / /\ir Pe^7^ P ^ /v' r/
Itsfpo / c.A,/y Jc^ /X^ ^u:/^'^/:.
’/ ' 1
^•* -V
.^, -i' .-«•
J J
\ )
^k
fc
r *
pj^TcAf/^^rtfA^ /(^po e^s/.
/TrAr//i^y/ J?
e
/sr yfASSS^^i^^AA^S~ ^ ^<u>4?
* -^2-V S.^' /ilr€^i^s:^/^o>c: ^ f
o'A/'a^/f. At ^ A^A. /T^ o'S^ y^ AC/:^
^/Ky^A f>^C>/A/^ ^ ^y^'c, iP a ^'D
i/'e /f^cy>S £-y^i PA'J'c/A ^ 2 ^ 'y< A-S t*^
rA G- 3 'spAA/*^kj S f 3S-
^ /^X c■J.SpS s^'-^, K^£>
'/■s^ -V. pjf: ^/st v^ y-'y^
at ^asa- *f ^^r.T^y '.'^^TjTO y c isyy<z
A SSCOA^P Sr(?A^v. pj/:
w 3^J.
y
y
/JX/T^jS /j /T C c A^ s 3A So ‘ y ^ y^, . ■•tP
/A.Asy^of TAe '^^SSC- / >' SA/^^ <Td ^
oyjtJi PA-AAc7& jry yn e-A J C4-^f^
A^A^'P Cyf^S-O^ ^Z- - -2 ^ V t'/A' /Ay>Af/P yf yf yS^l>
A-I^yfy /rVAf A/^ lAk P X/ ^ Syr^ A A / y^^ TTy
^ Ayyy ah T S/p^ T^ AA^-k.j^ yyy£^
tie 4 A s^Ahjf-ok, ///>' c4se- y^ f\ps<^A^;7^s tA p ^
TA ka J^ ^//} ly^ Ay tA a C'^y C^J a = C*'^Sf£>OA.y^^
AX*i- A/ie-- zy/j /yAj SJ^iAcz /c'AAJ X/VZ>
rky$ i£/f,l AA^ y^ 3Z^ (^c^<r Afy^ATZ^,
r%
ifi ; ^ .J ., ; O o
1
-111-23-25
GOVT LOT 4
; hli' V MtOi tOf a \TMMVta'T-
I
r
!V;
». .
I
t/MFAVfa
I •
TAWAYIR
NAm/AOM
r
I
AOOR
^QMCR NAHI
. TAXRAYtR
. NAIC/AOOR
• •
%
• iv..- <
i t* •
’ ».
’ r •
I
f
■ •
^ i ' .i Ji M-iI7>tX tX R007 •IMA LOHA LINDA AVt • f AAAMZ a C K *«huunz ROMRT f RAOUCP MM RZVfR ^•unmNBroN m asaxi
'?• e«>117-tx IX MID
IIDM L0»M LXNM AVf
N N toon* f« A N L BOCXNANN
MLLIAN N ROCKHANN
IDM LIMA LINDA AVI
NOUM m SXSA4
M 0D>117-IX IS GDIS
•1140 LOHA LINDA M
• A • NOLDIND CO LTD DTMtSNR
• I 0 NOLDIND CO LTD DTNIISNR
C/0 LUCLLA OOLDCEM
7019 TVDA DR
IDINA >M AS4S9
NDDIEPItl COUNTY RMRfRTV SNYORNATiaH lYSTIH •RORtRn OMNUS LISTXD M-117-IX IX ODDS •1074 LOHA LINDA AVl M-ROARET f MATTSON NARBARIT I MATTSON 1079 LOMA LI>«A AVt MOUND MN S5XA4
SD 0D-117-IX XX 0011
•1094 LOHA LINDA AVf
LOUIS NIRHAN
LOUIS NERMAN
S14D CMQNIN AVI SO AIDS
MRLS MN 55414
XD M-117-IX IS Don
01119 LOHA LINDA AVI
N J A C J ROLLARO
MILLXAH j I CAROL J RUlLARO
1119 LOHA IINOA AVf
hound m 55344
TOTAL BATCH 505 00009
RfRORT N0{ R14S54D1 RAOC IXID M-117-XS IS 0009 DIM! LOHA LINDA AVI A N A F OAIVARI RHOSRON A FATIHIN DAIVAR* 1X54 CNfRRYNOOO RO NZTtCTOMUl (M 65305
SO M-117-IX IX 0011
01130 LOHA LINDA AVI
N H DOCKMAtMIT AL M/L 1ST
NILLlAM A DOCKMAIDI
1130 LOHA LX..OA Av
MOUND MN 55344
SD M-117-IX IS OOtt
01045 LOHA LINDA AVI
T 6 OSTERDfRO/K J OSTERDERD
TIHOTMY O/KRISTl J OSTERDERD
1045 LOHA LINDA AVE
hound 194 55344
I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE
DATE
M *• *uI .X
• < VA
‘ r ^ '
■ .» n. *»
CD
• L’
'*>• * I
TV.
t
U
. f -
HM t *
m •*
f^tJC^dr /f AJf^d!h jreA /i^ /A/^^
Jd^feT i»A^<>k //p<^. C'dA^^'^^y a U^
if^y^SS' A( f f:/!,4F ^yf^Ad- f ^ tA-^ f
TTP* <^-7T'' ff^/^^AcJC yi^^o/AG-'^^^/' ry^ /p^KG
fAp/le. y>^ A ^/‘GA /S <5= f^yH^=-
*/> A/a ot^L 6 B A B^t'/ZGO. T'^b ’ y^Aj'yZ bac ^sj
'TAfC^AAe T^
Bt/A/fAiBr^ ’B'AyUy Ayr/ZBBBfA^^ >^* A^^^Afr ^C b '
/\$-ij^CA//i ^At B/*yPs y- f tAB /B DBM,
f/zr CtyAAf/y^T^ Jc**ytXB cja T (fc*i/f t>SDiB Sb /J
^f/ /tT/aib '" c/ rtpA^^y ^ t^b ^V j:>a B sb ^^4^’A/
T(b ^Add^B ^^/// A^ytAP / A ^ T^Aey ry By< ^
/f B~ A yy ^ ^ *y^ ^ A B M BA A-
/^A.'^yB9/ys/Sy^*'^>’''^y^'^^>' A(r<i^/k/'^y B/XA/y
B *yA^"cf^Arf f\^ ^ A,' ^^^ B*''D4. Ba xD CliT-Ay ByK^
ru- /i
Z'/ er
A^yp ^ dP! ^ f A p- ^ Jr A D y fp. C u>MMB/^ /
'DA^y /f^^ c^yT'Af'J $~BB y4 C-^ A (^AfidBB *..
7c UeS‘f^4^d=<f^ ^ tiBXB Mfcp^fMBAtB^ />" CJ<fA^Je/L 9-
(^)Jy SBJ^yt'^ks^ // r'J^^D, 7"//x
CdSB MpJ/f/Br f^B Ccy/iASBj 'fpyBc/4-//AAy 7^^
c^iy ly i^//j TJb ^sy H MBM^y/d fyi <</v / ^ / X 2
'fp’A SiiA f ^~' I.(/^ c^A/ZBcT/^y ,
TL^^ f<*c'^/Ayy fr>A t^. f~Jit^y(yAcL / $. /^ cy*\yy r'BT^/
/C'' T'AU^ Jf ;^>/v > y t> r Jf 7^- B A- BP
IDAU' SuyytyAJ-y A'Any-yy^'i^^^AMB yy''S^yp/<yB/BD
u^ / /^4 ¥'/(J fcPyy ^ c^y'rBa Jrcrri^ fc^^ J/ic ^i>'B~
*7^/V BX/d/^PBP ^sydce JT A/BSD BP ^c fAc\J/^/B
tii^ b MAB pf dyP BlJeAlyydA^jy f', T>(b cic^/iADB/
^ pAdfB ujkUCi S BB Df
M CC i/H/f^c/x Je Tu>s C d/iS » T4.} X Bx/'^A^Syiy / /
7> TA/syy\y>^sd-L Qa /b ^ McUi€r/us
"fp T~Ae ^b JA mcXs c^cJrP^yy'/^y BKrjyAy e^'^rfA
TAb /’M6'SB/tyy /PCA- c fjXB ^SB yf-B^rJ
,r /14-^ XT ^ /
//'/> j:' /' ’-TV C>^D£A y> A /r/T/£^ At^/Ayf
F//PCS- auA J"^J
tCh CAS^ A/ r^^&- y^s t^ffA
A‘cl^/T^f ^ A ^^<y A lA0 "^^Zr
t -
y'
Ct^ KA j^A^/' a . a %^/C- /f <TA/^/f(/sd&P, A^tT a - / 2 y/^A
A S t:^& a /i) jT A> ^ cr A At PS A~ **f
a ^J^a /A a 0$^If~ a f /AP /lAcAj'tr^ AAct*'
Ttfaftt’/'x AcAt AJ^rAX'yAo/^^ TAs^i^/Ay
/s XtP Apj /sfA'J*
SS- X A^/<y >' A'^S CA r 'flf A A & f<f^' y\A ^
r A^ f'X/sA/A^ A^^^ss- f/ £^j> Ax
'TA x ^ x > Jp y>' yArAA A ^^'S.
A fAUDcxsp /y sAAep Tc .
HAx/^/ 'P^^ A>^A ce fA XAe C, Y^
A A x A p Y/ H <^ XA'A^. CX^y^A/Y/ Yr j
^"f Y/[p /•' A(p /'*d^ X* >^vr< A At T dT jpy ^ A's*-u ^ ^Aiy<^-Y/^>
r^ X A^/c^SxP. / /- YXi^ f t s Tc XA,e
k/^^S(r A-C<^AX yAti. A^Y'tS X/p/XyfS y^iXc-A yf-S
/XSS/AJtXAMp A€(^c-r //<5 hx/^k yjpx ya^YA^^cAXr
7A^f^^y/xiY^AAfrAy/Xsi.se^^p^AAA<9<: ^$ ^
f y'Xr^ii^ yfj TA x/f yfAYfc^^-p
As AAAiPPSy * TA// d-7 y^/r^/^c-S XA(-/f AHD XdyXn
/A/ AA^^ ^'~yX ^ S yf t^tr A ^-^^''a* SS/ %/<= •
XACcXSej ydicPVd 4//Xy^ff A^XS AeSAy '^tytc/s
A Q-cf^yc ^ A/iX^ y¥x HP XA yH'/i. /A 7 A £p X~/X ^yhAd-J^Pv
* / x“ ^ Ay A ^ A ^ t** ^C9t<, 'SrcJ&'/i^Ak ^A^ y'HA x^f a ^^// X/XS ^ A />
AA. xXse^yx-Y^^x/^ AxsA/^t^xA XA<^ <tAA xh
y^YA/fcA X^A^aXx''*' Yy0
-U- •
>/
vi‘
miHhJi c j
*5J14 i/I 17/2 J t^TANIS. HUBadvance surveying a engineering CO.5MiS.lhiyN.ltl Ml.......11. MN «W nk*c(ftl2|474T«M fw »*I2h74 tin?IMAFl i r), May24. tm RLVISLD .hwe I.I9W Rf yjStgJwwSimmussi BOB GOUTANISfiAmrnL May 19.1995 LE(iMLJ%$CRM*T 10^10,1.Ohl/, I..INOA, llcanafNii C'olilfty, KfkiaaMia UMiTATIQWiW« hav t ■irvtyai iha above descrihcd property which Oie cfeiB dinu to «nm or Nveari M owa hoM
VMM •■wciMWM records We mahe oo lepfewMalKm ihal llie chral does in fart own ihe propctly nor
"•* * *^*** r«fordi has hcca Made to dcicim.nc Ihe cxicnl aiM aatare of hn hnidifip!s If ihne is
Mird^ cower iMig the accwacy c( Ihe Icpal desenpHnn. cowipeteM legal counwl should be lelamed to
perfatM a mie search ^ iiaie a Mie oprann irn uur uk in pirpanaft ihe suivev VVe show only those
•MMtenis which Ihe dieni MfomM us of or svhich we happen to heroine awaie of ilnough olhci sowers
The survey shows only Ihosa unprovcinrms which air visible and which we deem unpiHiant
STANI MR l> SlYMnaA ATON VliNTIONS
VDenoles 1/2* Uj pipe with piaslic plug heaiin}; riiate I koisir Number 921^. sn. if *o‘ is COrd m Ihrn
deMHes found iron mooumetd
CI:-R.1ILK'AriON_
l^hochy ceiiify lhal ihis survey was prepared by me or under niv *im siin,-ivis«m and il.ai I am a
Surveyor under the I sws of ihe Mrle of Mninevda
^Sf>IJl ONI INfll IQUAIS 20 HIT
existing hardcover tabulation
0 - 75
HOUSE
GAPAG'’
Df.CKS « SlOOf’S
RIP RAP
0 • 7$ TOTAL
75 2W)
GARAGE
DECKS & StbOPS
GRAVEL DRIVE
75 •250 TOTAL
Pi
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE).75-250’250-500’.5avHW c
EXISTING hardcover IN ZONE
A. House 3C>y _2^,2.
Lctifih
^.o X
X
X
20'Z.
B. Garxfe
less ^
22.Z
C. Dnvewav.A S'. V
X
t
X
\
r ^2
jQ 7 Z
D. Sidcw3LK X
X
sf^/T E. Jtewwcit
3.7
X
X
-/
s
SB
F. Landscape
Uodertain
Bv Plastic
X
X
X
3=
S
G. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A 7T3^./r - B JTJ id.X 100
PROPOSED hardcover IN ZONE: CAS£:1~
A. House 2 A. J 26iZ
Length Widih
B. Garaee Z2.2./^,6
C. Dnveway X
X
D SiilewaJk X
X
sr^C^.
E. RaHiTTJofK
f^Af //></
V
l±.
\
\
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
\
X
X
G Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ___ -A B ruis.X 100 =
7J^.l S.F.
7'
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
32*f S.F
- 3/'2r
2 7 S F
S F.
S F
S.F
3Z S.F
2 2,2. S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
73JS . /S' S.F
S.F
ZUTKL %
J^^P. 7 S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
32*1 S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
tr.r _%
A
B
' f*- /
-** f
'H?
, S.F. A
<'}•/&.____S.F. B
H-
HARDCOV*ER CALCULATION WORKSHEET
SETBACK ZONE: {CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 ’
EXISTING HARPCQN ’ER IN ZONE
A. House ___________ ■ *
B. Garage A
/X.
D. Sidewalk
E. Potio/Oeck
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
/p.r
C. Driveway^ jT7 V
X
X
%
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2£(KS0Q’5»>1QQQ’
S.F.
WkHtl
S.F
S.F
S.F
/? rZ
3/.ZS" S F
2Z/z>o
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
w
V
m
G. Other
TOTAL H.ARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -
A /fy.zr ■ - B Hiji.
/rR.zs' S.F
S.F
X 100
PROPOSED HARDCOM lR IN ZONt: CASB ^ 2.
A. House _______________ *----------------------
B.
C.
Garaee
ui-SJ
Drivewav
D Sidewalk
E.
G. Other
Length
ZZ'2.
2.2. C
F. Landscape __
Underlain __
Bv Plastic
X
X
X
X
/<
X
X
T
X
X
X
X
X
X
WiUih
ZO
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
-•QTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A ^ B
3 2.V
s
39
7c
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
r32.S S.F
S.F.
S.F.
S.F,
S.F,
S.F.
S.F.
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
X 100 iO
A
B
/
f
//
• f
*■'
y^o.S S.F. A
S.F. B
- %
/
13
EDGE OF WATER AND ORDINARY HIGH
WATER MARK , 929 4 CONTOUR
ClA/Mee 7j
s/yo/^s’
MINNETONKAJtrr L^ rA/f/
paau»a/(^ lake
Cnorth arm)
c 4S^ 1.
^ A/S A/A'S
7
Vc ^ /
\
N
b-i:-
PS//
- -- 38
'i •
..’j:
-V-
,N
cAf£Z
-■ O
p/':O^VT
N ’
<"i
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET
RCLE ONE) (0^75^
FYiynNG HAgprovTR in zone
A. House ---------------- -----
Lengei
X
X
B. Garage
C. Driveway X
X
D. Sidewalk X
X
E. Paiio/Deck X
X
F. Landscape
Underlain
Bv Plastic
X
X
X
G. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A _ _ _ _ _ _ - B
ppnpnsm HARDCOVER IN ZONE 3
-- 'A. House
Length
f/B \
X
X
B.
C.
G^aec 2^
Dnveway X
X
D. Sidewalk X
X
E. PuiiuiDed^X
X
F. Landscape
Underlain
Bv Plastic
X
X
X
G. Other
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A _ _
r I’l. ’’
75-250 ’
•
250-500’500-1000’ ^
S.F.
Width
S.F.
a S.F.
s S.F.
S F.
ss S.F.
s S.F.
3^S.F.
»S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
s S.F.
s:S.F.
S.F.
S.F.A
S.F.B
X 100 =' %
3
Z6> Z /coS. 7 S.F.1 >
Width
/7 42 a ^ /-TJ S.F.
------
a S.F.
A ■ ^
s S.F.
■O :
/Q, ^
. A
J*2 V _S.F.
a S.F.
->'7
%
a S.F.•4V.:
S.F.r\
V
a S.F.
J“/J^zz.S.F.
a S.F.
%
SS •S.F.
w S.F.
a S.F.
•
S.F.
A. 7 S.F.
S.F.B
s'j'bS X 100 =22.%•
Fi
''I.. 1]
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET
X
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’
EXISTING HARDCOyTR IN ZONE
A. House ...............-
Ijtnfpii
%
X
X
B. Gangc
C. Driveway X
X
0, Sidewalk X
X
E. Patio/Deck X
X
F. Landscape
Underlain
Bv Plastic
X
X
X
G. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
-i- B
ppnpnSF.n HARDCONTR IN ZONE 3
A. House ^/7-tA.
Lengih Wttlih
X
X
X
B. Gurage,
f-* <*» ^
C. Driveway
Z2.Z-
11^X
X
2.0
• N
D. Sidewalk X
X
E. Patio/Deck X
X
F. Landscape
Underlain
Bv Plastic
X
X
X
G. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A - B 7 y 6 H _
f—-f; V 9 A c.
X 100 =
250-500’500-1000’r
S.F.—
S.F.
S.F.
=s S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
es S.F.
as S F.
s “S.F.
S.F.
3C S.F.
S.F.
m S.F.
m S.F.
as S.F.
S.F.A
S.F.B
%
/J“J S.F.
as S.F.1
as S.F.
SS S.F.
7 S.F.
rri S.F.
f
«
S S.F.*’ • »
• V
S.F.* , • r
S S.F.
S.F.
'‘N
SS S.F.' • f
%
S.F.•
S.F.
s:S.F.
••#
!
1 19
7/3.7 S.F.A
S.F.B
_%
r. ^
ft..............
•o '*>*.11 '9 u
f ‘i-
V5^.
V
}J
-t^
>S2g
•w. Wd
•%?o.
i)»X
<0
%
/
/ •
>
/
■/
V
SUfJVE ’y L/N e
(' »
------Q^07
7S' SBTI^ACK
A4K^
u^AS C(^r
ses c^. /Vxf y
phac^ia/^;
itCOGC or boulocru
water and ordinary Hiru
water mark , 929 4 c SStour ”
LAKE MINNETONKA
(NORTH ARM)
JJ
2vi7 FLOOR
\
c-^sy 3
1C
f/o/j
\
X X - ^
r 7^
■m
/y 1^---------£2.'38'-
r
I am aware of the property at 1098 Loma Linda. I am a neighbor
to that property and the variemce #2036 requested.
The current property is an eyesore to the area and should be
upgraded.
I understand that the new owner of the property is requesting
permission for reconstruction of a new two story principal
structure and an attached two car garage,
I approve of this plan and support this improvement to the
property.
OWNER ADDRESS
1.
^l\.tv ^ wJXp
ft
I 0^1 C> •
0,-^/VV ll3o Li^JyA
lo9d LcHf^
7.
8.
I
I *
f
' J
. ' d 7
f -------
I ?
t /
/
i\ * ‘ 9 • •
\
I' >/l it If
• !
, I
V«-:
i'. ■ 1
I
I I
vj
•vj
ilDVd Iy^it/ci y * u I
.1
I
I .
\
•(
vV
: \
/■'/.•; -y/,
1 ■). ••>;
1 ’
I .
i •
.
Ill
, (
----------ir: --------------------------------------------
uivd ±u n b»u>irii>4 * wudd ui*ci yts-iii-DllV
; t
I I \ • I
~~I
':ff Ofy
///.j O.VoVc
;••••' .V ' I /• / V/
TT~
«t'
<■.' ■—
/
•-
‘7\V"Kv ■*
r
___y
f —
y
' L
J.rj
r f ,i, >
|l
■« r'
__I
—J of' rf.y 1
.\ '
w Lw JltLtm u*£ETt^iGrequest FOR COt'NCIL ACTION AUG 8 1995ITEM NO.: vDepartment Approval:Name Jeanne A. MabusthTitle Buildmg A Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:ZoniniiItem Descriptioii: #2042 Thomas Frank. 1233 Briar Street - Vanances ■ Resolution
y of
and
ent.
Zoning District: RR-IB
Total lot area * 2 acres
Total dry buildable area = 39.400 s.f.
Property is sewered.
Additional Exhibits
J - DNR Letter of 8/21/^5 received after 4:30 p.m.
Description of Application
Applicant proposes the replacement of an existing deck 5 ’xl5 ’ with a new expanded deck at
annroximatelv 12 ’xir . refer to Exhibit I. The new deck will encroach approximately 3 beyond
ihe average ikeshore setback line (refer to Exhibit G). The topography and distance^tween
the two residences will minimize any impact created with the expansion of the deck. The dec
will not be seen from the view windows of each residence. The existing deck is approximately
137 ’ from the shoreline of French Lake. Applicant proposes the new deck at 131 . Both the
existing deck and proposed deck will be located within the required 150 ’ structural setback from
the natural environment lake.
Review Exhibit J. the DNR representative asks that structure not extend any closer to the lake
than the existing deck setback at 137 ’ and that applicant provide natural screening to protect
views from French Lake. Planning Commission felt the DNR representative should visit the site
as there is an extensive yard with existing natural screening. The house is^located to the extreme
southeast comer of property and not within direct view of shoreline ot French Lake. 310 sL^
deck will be placed over 95 s.f. of existing landscape and paved areas A corner ot the
proposed deck will extend 131 ’ from the shoreline. The remainder of the deck will be behind
the 131 ’ setback.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning ’ Commission recommended unanimous approval of the application as proposed.
The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions ot the
Planning Commission recommendation.
COLISCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
To deny, approve or amend the enclosed approval resolution,
ch
50
if
5.f.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO ML'NICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) AND
SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISIONS 16 (C-1) AM) (C*6)
file #2042
WHEREAS Thomas E. Frank and Barbara L. Frank Oiereinafter -the
applicants-) are owners of'the property located a, 1233 Briar Street w.thin the Cty ot Orono
(hereinafter "City") and legally described as Io IIonvs .
Lots 1 rnfp^Bi'^k'r^)-^^
r,—“ht th-ereor on me or of;-™ -
Recorder. Hennepin County. Minnesota (hereinafter the propert> ), and
WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City• r- 4 Caar-tinn in 28 Subdivision 5 (B) and Section 10.56, Subdivisions 16 (C-1) and c
m r^rmtt'constructton of a replacement deck at ^
located 131- f™-" ^'^“"^SurTw beyond the average lakeshore setback
'an^thf detk :all bl placed 42’ from the street lot line where a 50' setback is rec,uired and
where a 27.7 ’ setback e.xists.
Minnesota;
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono.
findings
This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2042.
The oropertv is located in the RR-IB. Rural Residential Zoning^Disirict requiring
?acreTirama The property consists of 39,400 s.f. of dry bu.ldable land.
Page 1 of 5
10,
me
Tte Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 21. 1995, and recommended approval of the variances as proposed based upon the followingunique findings and hardships:3ecause of the curvature of the shoreline and the angle of the residence on the property, the deck will not be visible trom the public view of theFrench Lake shoreline.
B. French Lake is not used by public boaters.
C. The deck cannot be seen from the residences on the adjacent properties
because of the distance between residences, topography and natural
screening.
D. The deck at approximately 310 s.f. will be placed over 95 s.f. of existing
hardcover improvements.
E. Only a comer of the deck will extend 131’ to the Ordinarv' High Water
Level of the shoreline of French Lake. The majority of the deck will be
placed behind the 131’ setback.
F. The interior layout of the upper level of the residence and the uses at the
lower level limit feasible areas for e.xtending deck.
G. The majority of the residence is UKated w ithin the 150’ structural setback.
The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar
to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that
granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor
pose a "tire hazard or other danger to neighboring propeny; would not merely
serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessar>’ to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property
right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Page 2 of 5
t!3lu
raira
iEK
[•miii
I and nents y andereby jclion
erg of
ubject
icants,
lilding
e will
3f this
itically
eanor.
: terms
ssigns,
of the
Adopted: by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of August, 1995ATTEST:Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor
Property Owner(s)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of
August, 1995, by Edward Callahan. Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the
City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was e.xecuted on behalt
of the City.
Notary Public
Page 4 of 5
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of .199 . before me a Notar>’ Public
within and for said County, personally appeared
known to me to be the personts) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) tree act and deed.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this dav of , 199 , before me a Notary' Public
within and tor said County, personally appeared
known to me to be the personts) described in and who e.\ecuted the foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) tree act and deed.
Notary Public
Page 5 of 5
TO:
S'.
Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorsc. City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator
DATE:August 8, 1995
SUBJECT: #2042 Thomas Frank. 1233 Briar Street - Variances - Public Hearing
Zoning District: RR-IB
Total lot area = 39,400 s.f.
IPertinent Ordinances
Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C-1) - Structural setback from namral environment lake, refer to
Exhibit I.
A. Principal strucnire
Required = 150’
Existing deck = 137’
Proposed deck = 131’
Variance = 19’ or 12.6%
B. Accessory structure . . .
Existing = 82’, refer to Exhibit A, applicant proposes minor repairs to existing
accessorv’ shed consisting of new windows, a reroof and replacement of rotting
boards. No expansions of building envelope are proposed nor are major
strucmral repairs.
No variance approvals required
Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L) - Review of hardcover.
0-75’ setback area = 14,750 s.f.
Allowed = 0
Existing “ 0
75-250’ setback area = 24.650 s.f.
Allowed = 6,162.5 s.f. or 25%
Existing = 4.504 s.f. or 18.27%
Proposed = 4.719 s.f. or 19.14%
No variance is required
Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (C-6)
Allowed = 0
Existing = 0
Proposed = 3’
V'ariance = 3’
- Averaee lakeshore setback, review- Exhibit G
Zoning File #2042
August 8, 1995
Page 2
Section 10.03. Subd. 14 - Lot coverage.
Total lot area is 39,400 s.f.
Allowed = 5,910 s.f. or 15%
Existing = 1,618 s.f. or 4.1%
Proposed = 1.833 s.f. or 4.6%
No variance required
Section 10.28, Subd. 5 (B) - Street/rear setback.
Required = 50’
Existing = 27.7’
Proposed =42’
Variance = 8’ or 16% (new deck extension along north side encroaches street setback,
refer to Exhibit I)
List of Exhibits
A - Application
B - Addendum
C - Property Owners List
D - Plat Map
E - Hardcover 0-75’
F - Hardcover 75-250’
G - Topographic Map - Average Lakeshore Setback
H - Survey/Site Plan
I - Enlareement of Residence
Description of Request
Applicant proposes the replacement of an existing deck 5’xl5’ with a new. expanded
P’xl7’ deck. The new deck will extend 3 ’ beyond the average lakeshore setback line and 6
further into the lakeshore setback. The existing deck is 137’ from the shoreline and the
proposed deck 131’. Review Exhibit I. note the entire existing deck and proposed deck are
located within the required structural setback of 150’. All nonstructural hardcover improvements
located within the 75-150’ setback area are conforming.
Statement of Hardship
I The existing residence was constructed prior to the current Shoreland Regulations
that now classify French Lake as a natural environment lake.
2. Applicant notes the actual open water area of French Lake is 500’+ from rear
vard.
Zoning File #2042
August 8, 1995
P^c 3
3. 3/4 of the subject property is now located within the lakebed of French Lake.
4. The topography of the area and the distance between residences on adjacent
lakeshore lots minimizes the visual impact of both existing and prop-jsed deck.
Issues for Consideration
1. Will you approve an increase in hardcover w ithin the 0-150’ setback area?
Will you allow the additional 6 ’ encroachment into the lakeshore setback? Can
a deck be extended into the rear yard without being located in the 150’ setback
area? Can the deck be relocated further to the south over the garage?
3. Will you approve a new struemre within the required street yard
4. Other issues raised by Planning Commission members.
Options of Action
To either deny or approve application as proposed or as amended
CITY OF ORONO - VARL4NCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee S200.00
(S50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee SIOO.OO
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures S200.00
After-the-Fact Fees (Double application tee)
PROPERTY INFORMATION^ ,
Site Address *Si ,
r
T • ^
.'r
C A t ( w
c ^ * • * *' .-•f -
-fc •
•» ' mm
• W — * .
Property’ Idennfication Number (P.I.D.) 3 ' -----------
Attach lesal description to application if not incited on required survey.
Date Pro^rty Acquired______________fo / ___________________(month year)
I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels df land.
Present use of property: ^ residential ___other (specifv’)^________________________
Zonini: District: _________________________________________________—•
APPLICANT
Name "T rV^YYv^^.
Address: CiT
Phone (home) M H ^ ~ ^ ^
_____ Phone(worlc) C\R(n ' Ml
City:_JjJa£^2sAts3____Zip:_^
0\\’NER (if different than applicant)
Name __________
Phonethome)
Phone (work)
.Address:Citv:Zip:
DESCRIPTION OF REQLTiST Estimated ConsiructionCost S % (C . OOP,___
Describe request in detail: (^gO^Or-^ Q (^Cf-iOv- f —Y 00~^y—
t v rlcMJ^ <> \rr>-VAt?ri bco/Cl CO ^ X i.<4-i —[lO^nr^----
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
rr,:r.
w : • .
W • ‘
. 1. 4.
• - . - t
^ . V • • •
• ' 1 •• ,
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area
Setback:
___Lot Width
Front Side
Hardcover Lot Coverage
Rear Average Lakeshore
Other (spec *V)
HARDSHIP/DESCRlPnON OF LTsTSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical diftlculty or unusual property conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requirements: T~
1A \ a \ Pt (^CJC ^ lC ^ ^ ^ tiy
^r-h CLiT^.—'\JP.yl Jr r tSdi. c^—7?^
^ O-’fKpnP \s
Amn-, Our" pa)npr4^P _______9.--------------------
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
All of the fonowing information must b€ subinitted bv the application deadline date in orde r
for vour aPDlication to be considergd complete*
-
6
1. Completed Application Form
if
3.
4.
“Certified Property Owners List of owners wiihinOlO; (you must obtain this list from
Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603, Govt Center, .j48o271).
Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). , . , ,
I/Cemncate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor and rnclude hardcover
calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8v^i x 11 for
reproduction. ’ ^
3.To^ns^ic survey (eSng and proposed devarionsHf any changes in existing grade
6.
7.
are^roposed. In Addition, provide one (1) copy 8'^ x ll"^ for reproduction.
8.
9.
✓ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy SA ■' I V>-
^>list of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the
~ property Tlhs would include name(s) of applicant!s) if not current owner(s).
As m addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons
you wish notified of this application.
Additional items as may be requested by City staff.
The i^oplicanl and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that yoiir
vnrinnre apDlicntinn i. not complete if the_ahoyeinfo rmation ha.s not been .incliid^.
APPLICANT’S SIGNATLRE ^ _
The applicant herebv agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning
Admimstrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff tune not covered by original fee payment)
and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and cemfies that
information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge.
Applicant’s Signature Date
OW’NER’S SIGNATLRE ki-
The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasona
entry onto the property by Chy staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council
members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request.
Owner’s Signature Date
Aonlicant must have all surtniitals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission
Meeting. Planning Commission .Meetings are held on the third Monday of each inonth.
AuDlicunts must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission
and Council. If an arnlicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements
to have an authoiized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of
this chunizc prior to the mceiLiiZ.
%
July Hr 1995
XC ^77
V'•n
Dear Jeafir
Thank you for your help in applying for the variance. As we
discussed. Tom and I would like to be scheduled for the August
21 meeting. We would like to be scheduled as early as possible
during the meeting. We would be very grateful.
The variance needs to cover the new deck we would like to
add, and also some maintenance work and improvements to the
little barn. Please let me know if you need further information
or^^here is a problem with the application. You can reach
A
me at 473-4392 as I am at home most of the time.
Thanks again for your assistance!
Sincerely,
n v'vj C'^'^ ^lO
Barbara Frank
JUL 1 2 13!15
tNhMM MTi sr/nm •Mca sas RcifcnN ouirr fSoafiTY infomution systemMOaflTY gMNERS LIST^ ■■ MM TAMAVnMM/ABM M E0>117-tS U OOM MMM AiMUSS UMSSXSMil NIlLtAM OOMLB UIISON MXLLZAM MNALD LARSON itOS nSNO* CREEK M MYZATA MM ffJtl
TAMAYIR
NAM/AOOR
% A
M 10*U7-tS EA Mil
OlOM NILLON DR %
•LORXA R ROOfR
aUMXA R ROMR
ItM MLLQH DR 8
MAYZATA MM SAS91
OMCR NAM
TANPAVIR
NAMi/AOOR
• f
M 10-117-n fl OOS4
OlOSf HXUON DR 8
§ $ J RAVE
DALI R A JOAN RAYE
lost NXUQN DR
NAY2ATA IM S5SA1
■i *
« •
ADM
OtCR NAM
TAXPAYER
NAM/AOM
SR 10-117-tS 31 OQ7S
OltlE RRIAR ST
RAJ RIEMN
RICHARD T RIEHtN
lilt RRIAR ST
NAYZATA m 55391
PROP AODR
ONNER NAM
TAXPAYER
NAM/ADOR
TOTAL RATCMJ 503 00012
■ A ■' • •
*
'
ft*
St 10-117-n n 000500030 ARORESS UNASSIGNEO L H NILSCN A E AOAHS HILSON t H NILSCN A E ARAKS NILSON not FRENCH CREEK OR NAYZATA m 55391
St 10-117-n ZA 0030
Oim RRIAR ST
T E FRANK A R L FRAM
THQHAS A RA»ARA FRANK
ms RRIAR ST
NAYZATA If4 55391
30 10-117-ZS SI 0073
012A5 ARROR ST
KAREN E RJERKENO
KARIN E RJEltCENQ
1245 ARROR ST
NAYZATA NN 55391
30 10-117-23 31 0093
02170 HINNLTQNKA AVE
H A J Hl CtEUAND
HICHAEt P HC CtELLAND
2170 hlftlETOMA AVE N
P 0 BOX 45
CRYSTAL RAY MN 55323
REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1030 10-117-23 24 001201005 NIUQM OR S HARTHA L SPENCER HARTNA ALICE LEIGH SPENCER 1005 NILLON DR S NAYZATA KN 55391
30 10-117-n 24 0031
Olios ARBOR ST
SIR CARLSON
STEPHEN C A RANDI J CARLSON
1165 AJ»OR ST
NAYZATA m 55391
30 10-117*23 31 0074
01224 RRIAR ST
MAYRELL KOHLS
HAYRELL KOHLS
1224 RRIAR ST
NAYZATA MN • 55391
^ * r*. * '*r
SO 10-117-23 32 0004
02220 FRENCH CREEK CIR
A h AYERS t E AYERS
A MERRILL AYERS
2220 FRENCH CREEK CIR
NAYZATA MN 55391
i
\ ‘
IKHCFIH COMIY «K»MTV INT0M1ATICN SYSTEM PiSKlTV (MCftS LIST RMMT NO. PI4SS%«1 ^ACf U
f* ■
r
n
n
^ ^ I* • ^ —
(12)
^■.*-
/5f
y
/?
R
5
R J"T*
R t
•*«
M W'lk
?|4?i ? ?*
/
*’" I
J’
X
■
:w\:t d
^ ^ j' 1 -
474 5 M4t^*,7^60 60
^( 56y - ’ C D-^' ^(50 nU ---r—^
5CL
?
a
.
?6 a • • V
»4: » ttt X
:s j, ?
•4C >4C R
?- f-»5 •
■'• --vi
a
—*
- ....• }| '^r a
22 p ^
»4c 14:
a
iR 2‘ T ^ i
IK 14:
a
?7 • s
14C t4:
a
S
»4C 14t
a
a -J) a* 4? V ?i
- -'
4C ^
-- r
a-•6 *'
-4) '•’•i4
40 a 40yyjyri/- a
a»4 4 :
'?i -2^'
4 0 40
^3
Vi:\N£' ON*'A
X»;> ! *
.
Ej^aoizii
V ' ‘'* ;
O ^
^ 1 4u
4' 4 ym
X-< •
D
431
V '4C
'4^
(44'
60 " ?‘«C»TSTAL 3 =
"■■"'39/"^ '32'’5 ^
<
iT 40 7 i4w3 ?'2''33;j
3 C I '• 4S .37 4-V-,V:-^j
, • '4_ V 5 _
a a* (34.
5C
■a\ ' *“ol V *3 ' ^ ' 55', ,^..^ io '
s CrtVSTAL
f3'l ^1 _ (.22)
bZ ^”*1 '®f 157.6: 2
'30 3/ (23
51 56 ,. ’I 'oj 146. 3i" "‘3
>? ,; 29 '^ '' 5^1143, o>( ^
:”4 3 6? 4
MTKA“W (35)
■Ji.-56 e '"/ '5.’ M 5 -N-
(rs^ -S' (26) ;•
a ^ ' q/ c7)^
M • ^ ' I • a
AVE
s
; ’9)?!'
-s( ’3) ;sf ^5;s
(^Oj
-»?> • '
9 3
- ( ’5)
^e. 5
J>1A (97)
U«n
( ICO)
Si
31 '
y>
a ^ 2>2 i
---------------1 —X /
f #*'
’ T.='\
f-}-
Tst\ fiAd^K HARDCO
* SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)
VERCAL
I
CULATlOiN WOKh^a££T
7S-2iQ’25-500’500-1000
msTtNC HARnrOVFR IN Z0«E
A. Houscf -
X
X
X
B. Garafe
C Driveway
• • » •• • • •
X
X
D. Sidewalk X-
X
E. Pacio/Deck X
X
F. Landscape
Underlam
By Plastic
Or Fabric
X
X
X
k<i *’•' •
G. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
total prop ^ty area in zone ^
|>pnPO«;FD TTi^Fr^QVT^R IN ZONE
A. House
LCDgdi wiaih
X
X
X
B. Garage
C. Driveway X
X
D. Sidewalk X
X
E. Patio/Deck X
X
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
Or Fabric
X
X
X
O. Other ----t
total HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA LN ZONE B X 100 -
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F. ,
S.F. - ,
S.F. *'
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
/f.7?g S.F. B
O _%
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
%
A
B
Ton hardcover <^eULA^
• snaACKZC»<E: (dRCtso."®) 0-7V «25-500*
pfpTTvr. BAKDro^ C< ZOtiE
A. House „ T<ff * .
22.5'
Lof0
!TX ^
T
X
X
dUS:-
2. €m
m
B. Gafiie' /A^
CfAtj-rs /4,i
C. Driveway _____________
FCAcm^jf ^
D. Sidewalk ___iJi
dffot
%
X
X
X'
>
X
X
/r. ^
C-3
t
5-.i
C, Patio/Deck
■<> 4>. r/f
X
X
F. Laodscapc
Underiaia
By Plastic
Or Fabric
X
X
X
PtA CSrat^fG. Otber
total hardcover ln zone
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A -4504 -• ®
X noi\jS4o_
m
CSO X 100 -
ppnpn^FD hardcover iN ZONE
A. House
Leofth
X
X
X
B. Garajc
C. Driveway X
X
D. Sidewalk • • • • •••••■X
X
E. Patio/Deck
X
^5 €'*- t
F; Landscape
Underlain
Ey Plastic
Or Fabric
a
X
X
G. Other
total hardcover in zone
total property area in zone ^ ^
SCO-ICOO’
-•
S.F.
?S.F.
4i S.F. ^5.\
S-F- 1 ^
307
ti
S.F.
9/
/7 9n S.F.
S.F.
/<?
25 S.F. /' ^
i?S.F.
• ••
S.F. .*
n ‘ S.F. f/-
S.F.
tS
S.F.//o
^/o S.F.
4504
.2
S.F. A
S.F. B
2 7 r*
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
__S.F.
Zis S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
^7/9 S.F.
if 5~t^ - S.F.
A
B
zo
o O ^
U. ^ S OJ
■^111
J“11
iificx'^ipfs sK ^ 2
□ X Z
^ X
< ^
y>u
LU
X
<s
z
—t------
1*9^ •
• •*<» % »»• .* ♦ «•
i)rtr. f C.'3i.Ui4
n«ONf NO.
S T A T f Of
^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
METRO WATERS, 1200 WARNER ROAD. ST. PAUL. MN 55106Li;^o
772-7910
August 21.1995
Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth
Building and Zoning Administrator
City of Orono
2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
RE; Thomas Frank Variance Application, French Lake (27-127). City of Orcno,
Hennepin County
Dear Ms. Mabusth:
We have reviewed the above-referenced lakeshore setback variance proposal (received
August 6, 1995) at 1233 Bria' Street (City #2042) and we recommend approval of the
proposal with the following modifications:
1.The proposed deck should not be allowed to approach any closer to French Lake
than the existing structure. An examination of the plat indicates that alternative
sites for the deck are available for the deck.
2. The applicant should screen the existing structure from view from French Lake.
Using vegetation, color and ether means approved by the City.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these variances. Should you have any
questions ple3»<? contact me at 772-7910.
Sincerely,
Joe Richter
Hydrologist
c:City of Orono shoreland file
Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist
Dale Homuth, Regional Hydrologist
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION o 3 1995
DATE:
ITEM NO.: ^
Department Approval:
Name Michael P. Gaffron
Title Assistant Planning &. Zoning i\dmimstrator
Administrator Reviesved;Agenda Section:
Zoning
Rem Description: #2046 Lakeview Golf Course. 405 North Arm Drive - Conditional Use
Permits/Variance - Resolution
Zoning District: RR-IB. Two Acre Single Family Rural Residential
Current Use: Lakeview Golf Course operates as a conditional use in the RR-IB residential
zone via a conditional use permit granted in September, 1968.
Application:
I.
II.
CUP to construct a 45 ’ lOO’ storage building to house grounds maintenance
equipment
Variance request to allow accessory building footprint ot 4500 s.f. where a
maximum accessory- structure footprint of 3000 s.f. is normally allowed.
CUP for land alteration to relocate fairways #15 and #16. involving movement
of approximately 1800 cubic yards of Fill. No import or export of fill is
proposed.
List of Exhibits
A
B
C
D
Resolution
Oversize Accessory Structure Covenant (standard form)
Notice of Planning Commission Action 8/23/95
Memo and Exhibits of 8/17/95
Discussion
Please review the memo and exhibits of August 17. Briefiy, the applicant proposes to
construct a 4500 s.f. storaee building at Lakeview Golt Course, to be located approximately
500' east of County Road 19 and 600 ’ south of North Arm Drive West, near the old silo. This
building will require a variance to the maximum oversize accessory structure footprint (3000 s.f.
allowed. 4500 s.f. proposed) and a variance for the total footprints of all accessory structures
on the property (6000 s.f. allowed. 6790 s.f. proposed). This building would be subject to the
standard Oversize Accessorv' Struemre Covenant.
Request for Council Action continued
page 2 of 2
August 23, 1995
Zoning File #2046
Secondly, applicant proposes to rebuild fairways #15 and #16 at the southeast comer of
the course. This will involve the movement of 1800 cubic yards of fill to redefine fairway
areas, but will not involve the import or e.xport of fill. A small pond may be created in the
upland between these tw'o fairways, under the assumption that some additiorial fill is needed.
The City Engineer has reviewed the grading proposal and tmds it acceptable.
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission reviewed this application at their .August 21 meeting and
recommended approval of both projects per the following conditions:
1. Approve oversize accessory structure footprint size variances and CUP for 4500
s.f. storage building, subject to;
Execution of standard Oversize Accessory Structure Covenant.
Applicant to work with staff on a suitable screening plan for the building.
Applicant to provide an updated sursey showing all existing buildings on
the property (may be completed as an ‘as-built* survey alter construction
is commenced but prior to Certificate of (Occupancy issuance) and
incorporating revised lot lines since 1974 surv'ey.
2. Approve grading of fairways #15 and #16 as proposed, including possible small
pond, subject to adherence to "Best Management Practices for Protecting Water
Quality in Urban Areas".
The only concern expressed by Planning Commission was that due to the size of the
buildin2 and the "openness " of the land around it. it may be appropriate to do some screening,
even though the building is quite distant from neighboring propenies and panially surrounded
bv mature'trees. Applicant agreed to work with staff to formulate an appropriate screening plan,
which staff would suggest ^ submitted for staff approval prior to issuance of the building
pennit
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of both the .storage building and the fairway grading projects
per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution for approval is attached.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by___, seconded by____. to adopt Resolution No.
grantins variances and conditional use permits to Lakeview Golf Course for lairway
reconstruction and'installation of an oversized accessory storage building. Vote:____ayes.
navs.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
A VARIANCE TO \a*NICIPAL ZONLNG CODE
SECTION ia.03, SUBDIVISION 9 (C) AND CONDITION.AL USE PERMITS
PER SECTIONS 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 iUND
SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 3 (Q
FILE NO. 2046
WHEREAS, Grant Wcnkstem (hereinafter the "applicant") is the owner of
Lakeview Golf of Minnetonka, Inc. located at 405 North Arm Drive within the City of Orono
(hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows:
E.xhibit A attached (hereinafter the "property"); and
W**^'rE\S, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a
conditional use p«'^n ’t per .Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20. Subdivision 3 (C) to construct
an accessoty * .me golf course operating within the RR-IB residential zone as a
conditional u.. - viriance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) to jtermit said 4500 s.f.
accessory -Tructui ’ exceed the 3000 s.f. maximum oversize accesscrv- structure hxMprinl
normally a!'owed, -iid to allow 6790 s.f. of total accessoiy buildings on the property where om,
5 ^ total of accessorv buildings would normally be allowed; and tor a conditional use
permit per Section 10.03. Subdivision for land alteration to reconstruct two fairways
involving fill movement in excess ot 100 cubic yards.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono.
.Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File ^2046.
^ The property is Uxated in the RR-IB Rural Residential Zoning District. The golf
course operates as a conditional use in the RR-IB zone via a conditional use
permit granted in September. 1968.
Page 1 of 6
3.
4.
The property is approximately 130 acres in area.
The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 21, 1995
and recommended approval of the requested conditional use permits and variance
based upon the following findings;
a.
b.
c.
The proposed accessory structure is for the storage of golf course
maintenance equipment which is currently stored outside. The other
storage buildings on the propert>’, including an 1120 s.f. two-stor\ storage
building at the southwest comer of the propeny and an 1170 s.f. garage
west of the clubhouse, are being used to capacity and do not provide
adequate storage for the necessary’ equipment used to maintain the golf
course.
Planning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) currently allows a
maximuiTi ndividual oversize accessory structure footprint of 3000 s.f. for
any propel y of 9.01 acres or more. That section does not otherwise
address appropriate .accessory- structure sizes for larger properties. By-
extrapolating the oversized accessory structure table of that section, an
additional 200 s.f. of individual accessory structure might be added for
each additional credited acre above 9 acres. A 4500 s.f. building would
then require a 17 acre parcel. The applicant proposes to construct this
building on a 130 acre parcel.
Similarly, the total allowance for all accessory buildings on a property of
9.01 acres or more is 6000 s.f., and the Code does not address allowances
for larger properties. When extrapolated, the current Code t.-ible allows
400 s.f. additional total accessory structure footprint area for each
additional acre, and therefore only a 12 acre lot might be required to
support the proposed 6790 s.f. of accessory structure proposed for the
property.
Pace 2 of 6
f.
g-
h.
I.
J
The &pplic(int will be required lo execute the standard Oversize Accessors’
Structure Covenant, which places limitations on the tuture subdivision of
the property in order to ensure that the oversized accessory structure will
not become non-conforming due to a future subdivision.
The building is proposed to be located 470 from the westerly lot line,
640 ’ from the northerly lot line. 800 ’ from the southerly lot line, and
1200 ’ from the easterly lot line. Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (C)
requires a mimmum 50 ’ setback from any property’ lines tor such a
struemre. The proposed building is sufficiently distant from neighboring
properties to have no signi ‘“icant impact on those properties.
Because the portion of property between the proposed building kx;ation
and the surrounding roads to the west and mirth is relatively open, it
would be appropriate to require a vegetative screening plan be developed
to minimize the visual impact of the building as viewed trom those roads.
The proposed land alteration to relocate fairways #15 and #16 involves the
movement of approximately 1800 cubic yards ot till on the site, with no
import or export of fill proposed.
No wetlands are involved in the project. However, there is the potential
of creating a 3000-5000 s.f. pond on the upland as part of the fill
balancing. Such pond will become an integral feature of the golf course.
No changes are proposed to tees or greens at this time. The proposed
work will be done in the Fall of 1995, and applicant has stated his intent
to commence revegetation immediately so that the course is in condition
to be playable in 1996.
This proposal is part of a long-term master plan for improvements of the
course. However, this review only involves reconstruction of fairways
#15 and #16 and the construction of the proposed storage building.
Pace 3 of 6
6.
The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar
to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district, that
granting the proposed* variance for the oversized accessory structure would not
adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other
danger to tieighboring properties, would not merely serve as a convenie^e to the
applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difttculty, is
necessary to presers’c a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be
in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Compruien.si\e Plan
of the City.
The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the
construction of an additional accessory building in the location proposed and
regrading fairways #15 and #16 as proposed will not be detnmental to the health,
safety or"general* welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor
pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property, nor will it depreciate
surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property
will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and
Comprehensive Plan of the City.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants a conditional use permit per .Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20. Subdivision 3 (C) to
construct an accessorv structure on a golf course operating within the RR-IB residential zone
as a conditional use; and a variance to Section 10.03. Subdivision 9 (C) to permit said 4500 s.f.
accessorv structure to exceed the 3000 s.f. maximum oversize accessory structure footprint
normally* allowed, and to allow 6790 s.f. or total accessory buildings on the property where only
6000 s.f. total of accessory buildings would normally be allowed; and a conditional use permit
per Section 10.03. Subdivision 19 for land alteration to reconstruct two fairways involving fill
movement in excess of 100 cubic yards, subject to the following conditions:
1 The property owner shall execute the standard Oversize Accessory Structure
Covenant prior to issuance of a building permit for the storage structure.
Page 4 of 6
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
8
Prior to issuance of the building permit, applicant shall provide for staff approval
a suitable screening plan for the building, such plan to reduce the visual impact
of the building as viewed from surrounding roads and properties.
Applicant shall provide all survey work required by the Building Inspections
Department for issuance o*' the required storage building permit. Further,
applicant shall prior to issuance of a Cenificate of Occupancy for the building
provide an updated survey of the golf coune property showing the location and
dimensions of all existing'buildincs on the property, and incorporating revised lot
lines since the 1974 survey.
Applicant shall obtain the required land alteration permit prior to commencing
grading work.
During the regrading of fairways .#15 and #16 and during revegetation. applicant
shall adhere to all erosion and sediment control measures required by the City,
including "Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban
Areas'.
Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owner,
but are permissive only and must be e.xercised by application for a building
permit within one wek of the date of Council’s approval, or the special
conditions of this resolution will e.xpire on that date (August 28. 1996).
Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this
resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically
terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms
of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns,
hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the
property.
Page 5 of 6
Adopted by the Ofono City Council on this 28th day of August. 1995
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan. Jr.. Mayor
Propeny Owner(s)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on thts 28th day of
August. 1995 by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin. Mayor and City Clerk of the
City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was e.xecuted on beha
of the Cit)'.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
. 199___, before me a Notary Public
knowu'^ufme^ descr^Ld in and who executed the foregoing instmment. and
:icknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.
On this dav or
Notarv Public
Page 6 of 6
CITT OP ORONO COVBHANT FOR
OVERSIZED ACCESSORY STROCTORB
THIS COVBHABT, made and entered into this - - - - day of
^ ^ by _ _ ^__ _ _ -
(single/husband and wife/a Minnesota corporation),
referred to as ’Applicants*) and the City of Orono, a Minnesota
municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the city j.
HITHESSBTB:
WHEREAS, Applicants have made application ff
for an accessory structure on property in Hennepin Coun y#
of Minnesota, legally described as:
(hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property"); and
WHEREAS, City staff have reviewed Applicants
application and have found that the structure requested is
defined within Section 10.03, subdivision 9 (C) °f Orono
Municipal Code as an Oversized Accessory Structure ( OAS ); and
WHEREAS, Applicants are aware that according to Section
10.03, Subdivision 9 (C)(3)(c), specific conditions exist for an
allowable OAS; and
WHEREAS, Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C)(3)(c) allows
issuance of a permit for construction of the subject OAS
conditioned upon the execution of this Covenant and its filing in
Applicant's chain of title; and
WHEREAS, in order to identify all parties within an
interest in the subject property, the Applicants are required to
provide title information to City staff as requested. "^^
parties with an interest in this property shall sign this
covenant .
Page 1 of 4
w
MOW, THEREFORB# THE PARTIES TO THIS COVENANT AGREE TO
THE FOLLOWING:
1. Applicants' request for one (1) Oversized Accessory
Structure COAS") on the Subject Property is pp ^
conditioned upon the execution of this Covenant by the C y
and the Applicants.
2. The following conditions shall control the existence of
the OAS:
A) No future subdivision of the Subject Property
be approved that places the OAS within a lot that has
no principal structure.
B) Should Applicants wish to subdivide the Subject
Pr’Operty, the OAS may remain without a principa
structure for a period to be determined by the Orono
City Council. If no principal structure is fully
constructed and completed on the property by the end of
the determined period, the OAS must be removed.
C) Should Applicants subdivide the Subject Property,
the OAS and the principal structure shall be located
within the same lot# which meets the miniinum lo^ area
requirement based upon the size of the accessory
building# which lot area requirement is detailed in
Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C)(2) of the Orono
Municipal Code. SetbacJc requirements as defined in
Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C)(a) shall also apply.
3. This Covenant shall be binding upon current and future
owners of Subject Property, and shall be filed within the
chain of title of the Subject Property.
4. Fee owner(s) of the Subject Property, if not the
Applicants, consent to the execution of this Covenant and to
its terms, as shown by his/her/their signature(s) upon this
document.
Pace 2 of 4
' V
CITY O? ORONO
By:
By:
Its Mayor
Its City Clerk
ACXMOWLEDGEMEMT
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
this
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
- - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - -' the
- - - - - - -- of the city ofand
and
Orono on behalf of the muncipai corporation
Notary Public
My Commission £.xpires
APPLICANT(S):
By;
By;
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (APPLICANTS)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
this
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
day of _ _ -19 , by
and
(husband' and wife/singieTa Minnesota Corporation) as their free
act and deed/on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires
Page 3 of 4
FEB OIIIIER(S):
By;
By;
ACKNOffLEDGEHBHT (FEE OWNERS)
STATE OP MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
this
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
day of _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _—» ^
and
(husband and wife/single/a Minnesota Corporation) as their free
act and deed/on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
Mv Commission Expires
Page 4 of 4
i
? s^-r
i.
CITY OF ORONO
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
473-7357
ZONING FILE #2046
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION
action
DATE OF NOTICE: August 23, 1995
TO: Lakeview Golf of Minnetonka. Inc
855 Red Oak Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Attn: Grant Wenkstem
COPIES: Gregor>' R. Eben
9356 Countv’ Road 19
Loreito. MN 55357
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance/Conditiorai Use Permit
VO IE: 6 FOR 0 AGALNSTDATE OF MEETING: 08/2 1 /95
Planning Commission recommends the following;
Approval subject to conditions noted below.
NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Approve oversize accessorv’ strucmre footprint size variances and CUP for 4500 s.f.
storage building, subject to;
• Execution of Standard Oversize Accessory’ Strucmre Covenant (copy attached).
• Work with staff on a suitable screening plan for the building.
• Provide updated survey showing all existing buildings on die property (may be
completed as an ‘as-built’ survey after construction is commenced but pnor to
Cenificate of Occupancy issuance) and incorporating revised lot lines since 1974
survey.
’’ Approve sradine of fairwavs #15 and #16 as proposed, including possible small pond,
subject to“ adherence to "Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality m
Urban Areas’’.
Applicant ’s ne.xt scheduled meeting is confirmed as:
City Council, Monday, August 28. 1995; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m.
If vou desire cenified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are avaUable
from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission.
To;
From;
Chair Steve Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorsc, City Administrator
Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator
Date:
Subject:
August 17, 1995
;i^2046 Lakeview Golf Course. 405 North Arm Drive - Conditional Use Permits/
Variance - Public Hearing
Zoning District: RR-IB, Two Acre Single Family Rural Residertial
Current Us ': Lakeview Golf Course operates as a conditional use in the RR-IB residential
zone via a conditional use permit granted in September, 1968.
Application:I CUP to construct a 45' x 100’ storage building to house grounds
maintenance equipment.
V’ariance request to allow accessory building footprint of 4500 s.f.
where a maximum accessory o.ucture footprint of 3000 s.f. is
normally allowed.
CUP for land alteration to relocate fairways #15 and #16, involving
movement of approximately 1800 cubic yards ot till. No import or
expon of fill is proposed.
List of Exhibits
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
f
I
— ^
I I
, J
Application
Plat Map
Property^Ow ner^^ List
Survey ( ^ -
Topographic Survey/Site Plan - Building
Topographic Sun-ey/Site Plan - Fairways #15 and #16
Golf Course .Mastei Plan
Storage Building Construction Plans
City Engineer's Comments
1968 Conditional Use Permit
MPG Notes re: Master Plan (future)
Accessor%- Struemre Size Limits (table)
• : i
Zoning File 4f2046
August 17, 1995
Page 2
I.PROPOSED STORAGE BL ILDLNG
Pertinent Code Sections
• Section 10.20. Subd. 3 (C): Golf course within residential zone requires conditional use
permit; all accessory structures s.'ving such use must be at least 50 from any lot line.
• Section 10.03. Subd. 9 (O: Maximum os-ersize accessory struemre footprint for lot area
of 9.01 acres or more is 3000 s.f.. w ith ma.ximum allowed total of all accessory structure
footprint areas on the property of 6000 s.f.
Pertinent Facts
P oposed setbacks;470’ +. from west lot line
640’ from north lot line
800’ + from nearest southerly neighb<?ring lot line
1200 ’ + from easterly lot line
At 4500 s.f.. proposed structure exceeds by 50% the maximum individual accessory
structure allowed by Ccxle for propemes exceeding 9 acres in area. The golf course is
approximately 130 acres in area. It can be argued that by e.xtrapolating the oversized
accessory structure table of Section 10.03. Subd. 9 (E.xhibit L), an additional 200 s.f. per
individual accessory struemre might be added for each additional credited acre. A 4500
s.f. building would then require a 17 acre parcel. Idiis extrapolation might be used as
a rationale for allowing a variance for this oversized struemre.
There are no Building Code limitations which w'ould prohibit construction of this
building.
Currently existing on the property are a number of other buildings including:
1120 s.f. storage building at southwest comer of property.
1170 s.f. garage west of the clubhouse.
- 2700 s.f clubhouse (considered the principal structure, not accessory)
The total of existing accessory buildings is 2290 s.f. which when added to the 4500 s.f.
proposed yields 67k) s.f.. exceeding the 6000 s.f. maximum for a property exceeding
9 acres in area. The same extrapolation rationale could be used as a basis for a variance
to the total oversized accessory structure allowance.
.As part of any variance that might be granted for exceeding the oversized accessory
structure limits, the standard covenant should be executed by the applicant. That
covenant includes tlte following stipulations:
Zoning File #2046
August 17, 1995
Page 3
1) No future subdivision will be approved that places the stracnire within a lot that
has no principal structure. The City may grant a grace period tor removal of the
oversized structure if such a subdivision did occur.
2) If the propeny is subdivided in the future, the oversized accessory structure and
principal structure will be located together on a lot that meets the minimum lot
area requirements for the oversized structure.
3) If a subdivision occurs, the setbacks required for the oversized accessory structure
must remain.
• Asa variance and conditional use. and considering the large size of the building, the City
may want to have the applicant address the additional issue of screening and building
appearance. While the proposed location is quite distant from property lines, the
property is open and the building will be visible from County Road 19 as well as North
Arm Drive West. As a point of reference, the building will be on the terraced area
above the small storage bam visible from the northwest comer of the property, next to
the old silo It is anticipated that none of the existing mamre trees would be removed
to accommodate this building
The construction is proposed to be a standard pole building with asphalt shingles and
steel walls. Th. peak height is 21’; he average height by definition is 16.5*.
• Considering the current use and size of the property, the proposed building would appear
to l»e appropriately located and sized. Planning Commission ^ y also wish to have
applicant confirm whether it is to replace or to supplement the Oiuer accessory buildings
i)n the property.
II. LAND ALTERATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Pertinent Code Sections
Section 10.03. Subd. 19: Requires conditional use permit for filling and grading.
Section 10.03. Subd. Jl: Allows exception to Subd. 19 only for amounts less than 100
cubic yards.
Pertinent Facts
Requesting CUP for movement of 1800 cubic yards of fill to relocate fairways #15 and
#16.
No wetlands are involved in this project.
21oning File #2046
August 17, 1995
Page 4
The proposal is to relocate fairways #15 and #16 slightly to the «xith%-est, to improve
the golf course.
No changes arc proposed to tecs or greens at this time. The proposal is merely to
regrade an area of the two fairways, balancing the amount of earth movement to avoid
any import or export of fill, thereby avoiding truck traffic.
It is likely that a small pond on the upland will be constructed as pin of the fill balancing
project.
The work is to be done this fall, and revegetated immediately so that the course is in
condition to be playable 1996.
Discussion
This proposal is pan of a long-term master plan for improvements of the course provided
to applicant by Williams. Gill and Associates Staff reviewed the master plan and commented
to the applicant in February regarding what types of permits would be needed for the many
individual projects involved (see Exhibit K). Applicant has indicated that not ail of these
projects will ultimately be undertaken, and those that do may take up to 5. 10. even 15 years
before they do iKcur. The current proposal is merely for a redefinition of fairways #15 and
#16. and likely will include creation of a small pond (3(X)0 - 5000 s.f.) as shown on the plan.
This project may also include a minor drainage tile addition, which will not impact any existing
wetlands.
One of the benefits of relcKating the two fairways is to allow creation of the two acre lot
(see Application #2047) northeast of the 16th fairway.
The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed grading of fairways #15 and #16 and has
indicated the grading appears acceptable from an engineering standpoint. He suggests however
that, in addition to the normal drainage and utility easements we w»>uld acquire as part of the
subdivision, the City should consider whether easements should be provided around the entire
coif course property as part of that subdivision process. (See Application #2047. staff memo).
The City has not been asked to approve the total master plan at this time. Therefore, the
applicant should be advised that as individual projects are contemplated, each will need to be the
subject of an additional CUP application.
I
i
Zoning File <^2046
August 17, 1995
Page 5
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Staff would recommend approval of the proposed grading activity involving fairways #15
and #16, including the potential excavation of a small pond in the upland. Any
recommendation for approval should include adherence to "Best Management Practices
for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" and the environmental control standards
of the Shoreland Ordinance, Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J) (5) (the proposed fairway
reconstruction is within the Shoreland District).
2. Any recommendation for approval of the vanances for individual oversize accessory
structure size and total accessory structure square fixitagc, and the conditional use permit
to allow such a structure in a residential zone, should take into consideration;
- Requirement for oversize acces.stjry structure covenant.
Screening/appcarance/color of storage building for aesthetic purposes.
Define continued use of other accessory buildings tm the property.
Other conditions or considerations at Planning Commission s discretion.
1 ,
t jt*z {
r - . - '
/'" V ’- f - - -
•—I ..i,
n fi--:
^ ')
- " i 0("Uri J' f J C
9 ♦• f
-
#
?3 r -i
• •
• -♦
cm' OF ORONO - CENXR.U. L.A.ND CSE AFPLICATIOiN
••v***"*
property location
Sis AidrtSS 4Q5 Nortih A tti Hrlyg --------- ----
Type of Appiicaiicn :o be ?;:eci Varianc,^ and Cl-‘P Recuesi
Proper::;/ Ider.::f.c-::ca Ncr.ber 'P.I.D.) 061172 3 32 002 -----
applicant
Nime Gregory ?.. Eberc
Pbxne ;0:cc:e)_________
Plxrs (wccO <:.ca-7ga4
C:7/ Loretto
Phcrs (hcce)__________
rheas {^ric; q.72-: = iQ
c.r/yieund ^^2
♦ ♦
Atddresj 93 30 Countv Road 19 _____
QWSZ^ (if diffesnt san ipcixia:)
Nane Lakeview Golf of Vitka. Inc«
A.CCrssi (Grant Wenicstern; _____
abo Ked C!ak La«e
<5 •• O**#*np**/ A »I •••/^
• W ———————— '■ " ■■
I (cc) (go acc) also '-".e -Gjaceal paroeis or .azG.
FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS -
5 50.CO For eacr. var.nce isques: 'vi± CUT applicaaci:
" S 125.00 Res;cer.::i; Acessser-' LUe
’ S2C0.ee >s:;G:::cr.2: or.urch. scGcoi. es.)
Sl'yCC Cues: Hruse.'Guest .Apartaieaij
’ S 150.00 Dupte.x CrscifBiGg
’ S250.C0 C:r7JT.er:-.2:.IaGusrr.ai Use
’ S20C.0C Lire >^:enucr.
Gnexg me rUImg - Gesiga^sG xcGind or liccdplaiz
Gncmg are filiag - 101 cu. yi. or mere
Graciae. iea'-vail. renaming wails wicGia 73 ’ of lakssGcre
PPJO'PD • see Fee ScGeGuie
’ SI00.00 Reaev.ai Fte t.c cGaage frcd crigiaai ippucauen)
' Aner-aae-Fic: Fee - Double Curreat ApciicaGca Fee
Z:a 55357
55364
(Ecathyveaf)
f * * •w * > w« . w 'ur
r - r T--T
W f A •- w
• • i • i}
i w » u •». w
* *■'*
• A rw ♦ • * ■
" . A
*. • V '
V .•
. • fc- '
A
r •
A
OTHER applications
S 200. CO r* ^••'-•'5 » Si''
S250 00 U* r* ♦ p
N ' ' (j TT 4 •4.* ,* «• * ^
S 00 22 4^»*-4^-4#-
S3 00 00 D ^ *Tj
» « W «a W ^ 4^
S3 00 00
SlOO 00 • •
(')r-.*- . r
PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY
?re:;er.! Zjrjr.a Dvicr-c:_____
-S.’l *.
A •
V • v\
^ « w O 4 ^^ r«% * ^ *X Ccaer (scecir/) Golf Corse
required SL'BMITT.\LS
1, ____ Completed Application Form.
2. ____ Describe requcit in detail.
3 p*ricertv Owners List of owners within a-0 (you can ootain this list from
Hennepin Count)' Department of Finance. A-60a. Government Center. 3*^8-3271).
4. Plat Mao. . ...
5 Cenificate of Surrey (signed by a licensed sur-eyor) - rerer to nandcut tor sur/ey
information.
____ Anach legal description to application if not included on require- rar.-ey,
7 Tocosrachic sun'cv (e.tisting and proposed contours) if land alterations involve
changes in elevation (grades). ^ .
;8 List of die leatai names ( include .marital satus) of ail persons with in mterest in L^e
procerr*'. Tnis wouid include name(s) of applicont(s) if not current owneris).
9^ Cor*structicn plan, if applicable (see start tor requirements).
JO. .As an addendum to dus application, please attach a separate list of any other persor^
veu wish notif.ea of this application.
YOU ARE REQLTRED TO SLTPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCOIENTS OR COPY
FOR REPRODL'CTIO.N (11 ” X 17" OR S>L\LLER) FOR ALL DOCL’MENTS
SUBMITTED. (.Staff wiil require to scale drawings or ail documents, plans, etc. to be
submitted.)
The Applicant and Preperr/ Owner must sign this application. Please remember ±at your
acclication is net compiete if tne above micrmation has not been included.
Certification by Cler.cai Department diat Land Lse .Application is complete.
Initials of Clerical Starr;^__________________________Date-------------------------------------
.Anciicant’s signarar^^^^^tzd!
APPLIC.ANT’S SIGNATURE . u . -r
The applicant herebv asrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning
Admumstrator. asrees to pay additional fees (staff tune not covered by onginal fee payment)
ar.cL'or*"unusuai e.xnenses incurred in review of this appiicaticn. and certir'ies that the information
supplied IS true and Innowledge.
Date 7/i-/^/f5_______
OV\>'ER*S SIGN.ATLRE
Tne owner hereby aclcnowiedges and agrees to this application and turdier authorized reasonaoie
entr.' onto the preperr/ by Ciry staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council
members far ourpesey^' mves'ugancn^ v^fca^ of this request.
Owner's signarur^rZ^*^^***^ 'V / /^?/^
A=cl:c2e'. reuse r.r.e u:! subrtucroli uiro O-.c C;r/ omets If aays -.eror: me Plaruuag Comeessioa .Meeting. Planning
Cjne^ssion Meeirsis ire feiii on ie -:rC Mor.Uiy ot eic.b T.cct.i. .Appi:cin'.s must be present it all sc.nrtlulecl
'evie-.rrr.eet:.iis ot uie P'.ieuir.g Commission ir.d C our.cil. If in ippiicint is unable to attend a sc.beduled meeting,
pieisc mijte irriegements to have an iumor.zed agen. attend m your place and advise the Buiiduig ii -oning Office
or '.his rhan^e pnor to the meetin;!
TT W
CUP Request » Variance
Lakeview Golf Course is requesting a variance for maximum allowed building square
footage from 3000 to 4500. The size of this building is necessary to store grounds
maintenance equipment
CL^P Request - Commercial/Tndustrial Use
Lakeview Golf Course is requesting permission to construct a 45 * X 100’ storage
building. The building will house unsightly grounds maintenance equipmert (lawn
mowers, tractors, hand equipment, etc.), keeping the course appearance neat.
CUP Request - Land .Mteration (IQl yards grading)
Lakeview Golf Course is requesting a land alteration CUP. We would like to relocate
fairway ’s 15 and 16 (see plan) to accommodate the "average” golfer and to make a more
attractive facility for our patrons, as well as our neighbors. We will nd be importing or
exporting any fill, simply moving existing soil and re-landscaping. (We will be moving
approximately 1800 cubic yards.) Please be assured this will happen in a very timely
manner to reduce impact on the whole area.
Ml DATE Q7/Q7/fS DATCtf SIA HEFfCPIH COUKTY DtOKRTY II«rO»UTIQN SYSTEM PHODfATY CM4ERS LIST RfPQfIT NO. Pl^SS^Ol PAGE S5CMCt NAIC TAXPAYER NMiyAOOR S4 01-117-EA lA 0004 M3Ei CO RO »«) 14 JAMES A EHLERS A NXFE JAMES A EHLERS SEI COUNTY to If MOUND m 55544 14 01-117-E4 14 000500425 CO to NO If J C A 0 L hC CORMICK JOHN C MC CORMICK 425 CO RO NO If MOUND m S5144 14 01-117-24 14 000404070 NORTH AM DR J J A R H LUCKING JEROME J LUCKING 4070 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55144
PROP ADOR
ONNER NAME
TAXPAYER
N/ME/ADDR
14 01-117-24 41 0001
04001 NORTH ARM OR
J L LINDER A C K CELINE
JOSEPH LINDER A CAill GELIt€
4001 NORTH ARM DR
MOUND til 55144
14 01-117-24 41 0002
00505 CO RO NO If
DOROTHY E NELSON
SCOTT A PATRICIA NELSON
505 CO RO If
MOUND m 55144
14 01-117-24 41 OOCl
00014 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
M A SASS ACL SASS
HARK A CHRISTINE SASS
224f0 MURRAY ST
SHORENOOO MN 55151
PROP ADOR
ONNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAHE/AOOR
14 OI-II7-24I4I OOOf
00405 CO RO NO If
DONNIE K GRANT
DONNIE K GRAY4T
405 CO RO NO If
MOUND MN 55144
14 01-117-24 41 0011
00415 CO RO NO If
STEVEN R POSTHUMUS
STEV^.N A DEDDIE POSTHUMUS
415 COUNTY RO If
H0U4O MN 55144
14 01-117-24 41 00^2
00445 CO RO NO If
G M HEJNA ARM HEJNA
GARY M A KATHLEEN H HEJNA
445 CO RO NO If
MOUND MN 55144
PROP ADOR
ONNER NAME
TAXPAYIA
NAME/AOOR
14 01-117-24 44 0001
00705 CO RO NO If
EDMUND P MEEHAN ET AL
EDMUND A JUDITH MEEHAN
705 CO RO If
MOUND MN 55144
14 01-117-24 44 0002
00605 CO RO NO If
S 0 CHAPMAfl I J K CHAPMAN
STEPHEN O/JEANNIE K CHAPMAN
DOS COUr^TY RO If
HOUR) U4 SS144
14 01-117-24 44 0004
004f5 CO RO NO If
T 0 RIES ARK RIES
THOMAS D RIES
4fS CO RO If
MOUND MN 55164
P^OP ADOR
OUIER NAME
TAJ<PAYER
NAHE/ADDR
ID 04-117-21 21 0005
04440 NORTH ARM DR H
DAL IVERSON
DANIEL A LINDA IVEC’SON
4440 NORTH ARM DR <
hOUNO MN 55344
18 04-117-21 21 0004
04460 NORTH ARM DR H
J A MYERS ET AL TRUSTEES
JATttS A MYERS
BOX 2800-274
CAREFREE AZ 85177
la 04-117-21 21 0007
04700 NORTH ARM DR N
RAO MAIJALA
RAYMOND G A DOROTHY HAIJALA
4700 NORTH ARM OR
HOUND MN 55144
PROP ADOR
ONNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAHE/AOOR
18 04-117-21 21 0008
00018 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO
ADMIN OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
NORMAN F I LINDA OESTREICH
4740 NORTH ARM DR
HOUR) m 55144
18 C6-117.21 El OOOf
04740 »40RTH ALM OR H
J A J HEODERG
JOHN A A JANICE HEDBERG
4740 NORTH ARM DR N
MOUNt HN 55144
18 04-117-21 21 0010
04740 NORTH ARM DR H
AOMIN OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
NORMAN F A LINDA OESTREICH
4740 NORTH ARM DR
MOUND MN 55344
. 4
•1
’!•!: ' I
V ! *
MM OATf 07/07/tS I^NNLPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM REPORT NO.PI4554Q1PROPERTY QMNERS LIST PAGE 54hATCn fil4 M 04‘U7-2S 2S 0011 38 04-117-23 23 0012 58 06-117-25 24 0005pw» Aocm MSSO NORTN SNORE OR N 047M NORTN ARM DR H 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO ,CMNiH HAm A V • S L BtARSTVEDT C FORCIER A K FORCIER R N ARMSTRONG ETAL •^TAXPAYfi ANPXN V OlARSTVfOT ELLEN JOAN FORCIER JEAN T ARMSTRONGNMC/AOm SM N NORTH »IORC OR 3104 DAICCTA AVE S 255 NORTH Am LANEMOUND HN iSS*4 ST LOUIS PARR MN 55414 HOUND MN 55564 i •
t
SO 04-117-2S 24 0004 58 04-117-23 24 0008 58 04-117-21 24 0011 1
PROP AMR 00B90 MOUTH ARM OR H 00570 NC»TH ARM LA 00544 NORTH Am LA
OHNER HAMi • L A J R HA6LUN0 RAN SMITH MAM LARSON •
TAKPAYER BARRY L A JANICE R MAGUMO 'RQSCOC S A HARRIET C SMITH HARK JAM LARSON
NAHi/AOM 4540 NORTN ARM OR N 570 MOUTH ARM LANE 544 NORTH ARM LA
t
)
MOUND MN 55S44 MOUND MN 55544 MOUND MN S5544
•
SO 04-117-23 0001 38 04-117-23 31 0003 58 04-117-21 51 0004
t
PROP ABOft 00420 NORTH ARM DR 00440 NORTH ARM DR 00440 NORTH Am DR
ONNER NAH6 RICHFIELD DR I TRUST TRUSTEE RAP STERHAU T J A S J HANFRR •
TAXPAYIR JOSEPH A JULIE CASHHORE RENE A PATRICIA STERNAU THOMAS J 1 SUSAN J HAMCR
NA»H/AOOR 420 NORTH ARM OR 440 NCHITN Am DR 440 N Am OR
/
1
MOUND MN 55544 MOUND MN 55544 HOUNO MN 55364
30 04-117-25 51 0005 58 04-117-25 51 0006 58 06-117-25 51 0007 t
PROP ADDR 00520 NORTH ARM DR 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 00560 NCXITH ARM DR
OKNCR NAHC THOMAS H RONNKVIST ET At PAUL HANSSEN T A S MAZER
TAXPAYER THOMAS 1 LEZLIE RONNKVIST PAUL HANSSEN THOMAS 0 A SUSAN S MAZER
NAHE/AODR 520 NORTH ARM DR 540 NORTH ARM DR 560 NORTH ARM ORf(MOUND MN 55564 HOUNO MN 55364 MOUID MN 5556^
,
•
38 04-117-25 51 0004 38 04-117-23 52 0002 58 06-117-25 55 0001
•
PROP ADOR 00500 NORTH ARM OR 00405 NORTH ARM DR 00660 NORTH SHORE OR H
OHNER NAME M 0 I H J HOY LAKEVIEH GOLF OF MIKA INC JAMES E BARUTH
TAXPAYER MATTHEH 0 A HEIDI J HOY LAKEVIEH GOLF OF MTKA INC JAMES E BARUTH
NAME/AODR 500 NORTH ARM DR 855 RED OAK LANE 660 NORTH SHORE DR H
MOUND MN 55564 MOUND MN 55364 HOUND MN 55364
38 06-117-25 55 0002 58 06-117-25 35 0005 38 06-117-23 33 0004 /m-
PROP ADDR 04760 NEST BRANCH RD 00710 r«3RTH SHORE OR H 04700 WEST BRANCH RD \
CM4ER NAME P N i 8ARTI6 A J M DARTIG G A V HfNKSTERN JACK 0 A JUDY A KRAHL *
TAXPAYER PETFR H J A JANE M BARTI6 GRANT R MErACSTERN JACK D 1 JUDY A KRAHL
NAHE/ADDR 476J NEST BRANCH RD 710 N SHORE DR H 4700 WEST BRANCH RO
HCANO MN 55364 HOUNO MN 55564 MOUND MN 55364
1
i.
I
lUN DATE 07/07/fSUTCII SMCMCt WWTAXPAYCfl
NAHE/AODft
AODi
OHNER NAHi
TAXPAYER
NAHE/ADDR
PROP ADDR
QNKER NAHE
TAXPAYER
NAHE/AODR
PROP ADDR
ONNER NAHE
TAXPAYER
NAHE/ADDR
PROP ADPR
0HT4ER N..HE
TAXPAYER
NAME/ADDR
PROP ADDR
OmER NAHE
TAXPAYER
NAHE/ADDR
COUNTY PRWERTY IKTORHATIOH SYSTEN PROPERTY OHNERS LISTSa 04-117-71 11 OOOS OOOia ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LAMVIEN GOLF HTRA LAREVXEH OOLf OF HTTU INC
OSS RED OAK LANE
HOUND m 5S144
10 M-117-21 11 000404400 NEST ORANCH RD JONN E RAKER JOHN E RAKER
4400 N RRANCH RD
HOUND m 5S144
10 04-117-21 11 DOOR
04440 NEST RRANCH RO
M L 4 J F SCHULTE
HXCHAEL L SCHULTE
4440 N RRANCH RD
HOUND HN SSSA4
10 04-117-21^4 0001
04520 NEST BRANCH RD
H A EASTHAN I T C EASTHAN
mCHAEL A/THERESA C EASTHAN
4520 NEST BRANCH RD
HOUND HN 5516h
10 .04-117-21 41 0001
00450 NORTH ARH DR
J BRAUCHLE A E SCHOONOVER
JEFFREY R BRAUCHLE AND
ELISA H SCHOONOVER
450 NORTH ARH DR
HOUND HN 55544
10 04-U7-21 41 0004
00720 NORTH ARH DR
J S LEECH I V E LAIS-LEECH
J S LEECH A V E LAIS-LEECH
720 NORTH ARH DR
HOUND HN 55344
18 04-117-25 45 0007
D0750 NORTH ARM DR
NILLIAH L SCHMITT
N L SCHMITT
750 N ARH DR
HOUND HN 55564
10 04-117-21 14 0001
04500 NEST BRANCH RO
DONNA E HAGER
DOFPU E HAGER
4500 N ORANCH ROAD
HOUND HN 55544
IB 04-117-21 42 0005
005B0 NORTH ARH DR
B V JOHNSON APR JOHNSON
BRYCE V A PAULA R JOHNSON
5B0 NORTH ARH DR
HOUND MN 55144
SB 04-117'21 41 0002
00480 * NORTH ARH DR
JOHN D BLACK
JOHN 0 BLACK
460 NORTH ARH DR
HOUND HN SS544
18 04-117-21 41 0005
00710 NORTH ARM DR
JERRY 0 OLSON ETAL
JERRY 0 OLSON
710 NO ARH OR
HOUND MN 55544
IB 04-117-25 45 0008
00740 NORTH ARM DR
HALFRID LARSON ETAL
HILLIAM SCHMITT
750 NORTH ARH DR
MOUNO MN RC544
REPORT NO. P141S401 PAGE 57IS 04-117-21 11 0007 00018 ADDRESS UHASSIGNED LAKEVIEN GOLF OF HTKA INC LAKEVIEN GOLF OF HTKA INC
855 REO OAK LANE
HtYTJO mN 55144
10 04-117-21 34 0002
OOOlB ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO
LAKEVIEN GOLF OF HINNETONK^
LAKEVIEN GOLF OF MINNETONKA
855 REO OAK LA
HOUND MN 55544
18 04-117-21 42 0004
00050 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO
VICTCRIA ESTATES H0HE0»t4ERS
VICTORIA ESTATES HOHEOHNERS
C/0 THOMAS HAZER
540 NORTH ARH DR
HOUND HN 55544
18 04-117-23 41 0003
00700 NORTH ARH DR
GR«iGORY M MARTY
GREGORY H HARTY
70 NORTH ARH DR
HOINO MN 55564
58 04-117-21 41 0004
00740 NORTH ARM DR
E G EINAR HAGBERO ET AL N/LE
E G HAGBERG
740 NO ARH OR
HOUND HN 55344
58 04-117-25 45 0009
C0770 NORTH ARH DR
CONNIE K PIEPHO
CONIIE K PIEPHO
770 NORTH ARH DR
HOiAK) HN 55544
RUN DATE 07/07/9S RATCH 514 HENI^PIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFOmAnON SYSTEH PROPERTY QHNERS LI$TPROP ADDR OMCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR
PROP AOOR
QNNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/AODR
PROP ADDR
ONNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/ADOR
PRW ADDR
ONNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/ADDR
PROP ADDR
ONNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/ADDR
n PROP ADDR
ONNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/ADOR
U 04-117-23 43 0010 00780 NORTH ARM DR D A CARLSON A D A CARLSON A 780 NO ARM DR MOUND MN 5S344M C RAY M C RAY
38 04-117-23 44 0016
00800 NORTH ARM DR
R M FRANZEL ET AL
RICHARD M FRANZEL
800 NORTH ARM DR
MOUND HN 55364
38 07-117-23^ 12 0004
00800 FOREST ARMS LA
R N BONNEMA A J R BONNEMA
ROBERT N A JANIS R BONNEMA
800 FOREST ARMS LA
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 12 0007
00890 FOREST ARMS LA
ELAINE C FARLEY
ELAINE FARLEY
890 FOREST ARMS LA
MOUND m 55364
38 07-117-23 12 0011
00825 FOREST ARMS LA
M D PARKS A K L PARKS
MATTHEH 0 A KAREN L PARKS
825 FOREST ARMS LA
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 12 0030
00875 HINOJAMMER LA
B T A C A BROGHAMMER
BRETT T/CAROLYN A BROGHAMMER
675 HINOJAttlER LA
MOUND MN 55364
38 06-117-23 43 001200645 NORTH ARM DR KireERLEA ANN HEEKS KIMBERLEA ANN MEEKS 645 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 11 0008
00835 HINOJAMMER LA
MARGARET A BLAZEK
MARGARET A BLAZEK
835 ime
HOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 12 0005
00830 FOREST ARMS LA
T K SAMUEL A A SAMUEL
T R A A SAMUEL
830 FOREST ARMS LANE
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 12 0009
00805 FOREST ARMS LA
J A A E S FRETHAM
JAMES A ELIZABETH FRETHAM
805 FOREST ARMS LA
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 12 0028
00865 HINOJAMMER LA
GERALD R HELGREN A NIFE
GERALD R HELGREN
865 HINOJAMMER LANE
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 21 0014
04505 HEST BRANCH RO
DAVID LEVY
DAVID LEVY
4505 MEST BRANCH RO
ORONO MN 55364-8277
REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 5838 06-117-23 44 000100790 NORTH ARM DR C E ENGELER ACM ENGELER CHRISTOPER A CLAUDIA ENGELER 790 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 12 0001
00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
LAKEVIEH GOLF OF MTKA INC
LAKEVIEH GOLF OF MTKA INC
655 RED OAK LANE
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 12 0006
00860 FOREST kWS LA
ROYETTA I MARCOTTE
ROYETTA I MARCOTTE-SNOH
860 FOREST ARMS LA
MOUND MH 55364
38 07-117-23 12 0010
00815 FOREST ARMS LA
M A M MC ELLIGOTT
MICHAEL A MARY MC ELLIGOTT
815 FOREST ARMS LA
H0U4D MN 55364
38 07-117-23 12 0029
00860 NORTH ARM DR
RAJ DAVISSON
RONALD A JUDITH DAVISSON
860 N ARM DR
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 21 0015
04455 HEST BRANCH RO
JANE E KLINE
JANE E KLINE
4455 WEST BRANCH RO
HOUND MN 55364
« I
mm MT€ 07/07/9SMTCN f 14 I^NNEPIN COUNTY PtOPCIITY ir^OmUTION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI4S5401 PAOE 5fPMF AOORTAXPAYERNAIS/ADl M 07-117-2S ZZ 0014 044IS NEST BRANCH RO ^ t J RUCf i X E SILiiR STEVEN RUCE A IRENE SURER 44ES NEST BRANCH RO HOUNO NN SSS44 TOTAL BATCH 514 00073
I
I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRl«
REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS
OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST
OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF.
DATE
• 4
!
t
!
1C
«»«:• jf
wd M
j[:IJf
I
t
t
nt.)
ii
11
i A•I «*
{^
^ M • 1
t ‘
1
•*i^ ^ r
V-*’
s;
^ I
!(
# i
vi
si
r*
'. £ n
1 r.
i’l
. .*
rL
m *
f •;
{•';
i *•
* " k
“V‘Kf
/ix
•
M
fr
‘ #
V
i
i*^«i tii: it
vS •’*
t* ■ ?* •'II»ipt-jt: VS i* I»
n
in
•■ I
• •
Irf
«• I
■f<y
f'*
I iv
^'i •{IV. s *
15f
% V.
A
I
I*
I *
^ .Sili
II.Mj
* * \i
frij
{>11* ij. i^.^‘
r‘\‘r T .tl
s 1 •. V i I:
ih?r;'! n ;••.•». t.'S
fiih
•■• .; ».•—•i
•• M
-n-c
•*1 • r
•'.ilij> # J i *
:: • )
W.|j ?' V X. s> «».••••'
v^.1(rA
.*w}’
I V.Ji
'i. i
T•wj
f \
*\
K
%
ii
.'■a'.
:* " '.vV - >“f r
i '
. *S •
• *.
♦. i'V-
* l'
-V
if
r I
'■ Ia,
<L
/ X \ •
I.;. 0)
i /';K
% % i
■A''' ^
...En 'd.
f i»
'1
&
t
;•: t
§
V
•}
Jt
L8
• •*.
•*%
* f
: 4:
. . l.‘
•,4’
• 'j>^*
V Jti-
li I j
i,'-I *
ritTr^ltrt:!
vT
i'
■*f
'l
.1
I
t
v|
I
It
• I
o.
r
1
. r-*%11
/Vv
'W
-»V C'V'H'.
—il_TTl-Tr
l\
, %
i
i
4
7
0
1 ■
^
I i
1 -
a
I
•^v oy ok
h.
<1
c).
C»
_J
VH-
S JI
0
■<h
’}
15n
»• 5
I
. a
V
()
'3
»r
t*
3
‘0
5 J»
>
5snu
V
. 4
r
n-
^ 1
•3-•
3
o«
\
r
(M P
y *
E ?, = ?, 3 M fi r tn UinSf. i*C ^y
u 3l!tsHI?S < 1 S53313!5t !!
V -
|1 S55* = n? =U *!Si=315i 1 n
1 4 •«
m
£s! j;5!! =: C
4 2 !! I = n a s 3 1 5 3
PM •->
•
■
£5 i •*"!!- i ^ * Jt 2
—/
>„. ^
o o
V
\
/\
■7
/ /.
,—-^rnv-
• '' •
V-&C^'I ./
« •I • • /"
V V X
r'
(
V • ’•
• f V* . >*
''.N,X
V -
• •V
X
^<r
V. ‘*
/V,
7
,*-i‘
nV
y
• -2 # •w
I /•;v
» X
4
• - '•»
4 ^
I*
>
WJf^Lfel
S#fes45 \ t
xX .
✓xH-
Ll«^Utdi
*X
/ /I
'T
kS.- --------
^ ^ I ;.(5 iK^
//• •'X'J
• •*• » • •
h • > f
5
' '^t-T *V' (4•' • \vi.5
\*'
'itii 7/
m ;'V ,'*r'.‘ 1 •'
*'I 7
l3t,.’{'/■
:MB•mm
y ;,;‘i ■,
__/'; M\
$ W-i\ ‘
r/'ir^V
>v’
r 1
,=? \
i A«'i' *
hM • ^• • • •
I • •
• I '
V.-'
i
i t ///< "•
.;•> '/ '
X V / '.• '1
• •
- t —
V_
A>.V7
X'L-J,'-..
gi^il « to«%4
f- "v> s
X •. —^ ^
U-v
/
,/
u
I
V Jjii^
7'
\!
ft ^i
II.
I
s
5
c
;
5
K
!•c
385 375 4 335 370 4
38U 360 4 300 391 4
155 135 3 120 156 3
465 445 5 370 473 5
2945 2800 36 2400 2848 36
5560 5225 70 4405 5424 70
Subd. f. Accessory Buildings
Lot Area
Maxifflum Individual
Accessory Structure
Footcrint Area
a-i.99 acre 1,000
2.00-3.00 acre 1,200
3.01-3.50 acre 1,400
3.51-4.00 acre 1,600
4.01-4.50 acre 1,800
4.51-5.00 acre 2,000
5.01-6.00 acre 2.200
6.01-7.00 acre 2,400
7.01-8.00 acre 2.600
8.01-9.00 acre 2.800
9.01 acre or more 3,000
C Area Restrictions. In all *1^" Districts no
accessory buildin? shall exceed 1.000 square fH*
except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square fee-
will be allowed under the follcwir.q conditions:
1, Hot more than one Oversized Accessory
Structure (OAS) shall be permitted on any property.
Accessory Structure* is defined as an accessory
print area in excess of 1.000 square feet.
followinq non-roofed accessory structures which
footcrint area are not considered as -Oversize Accessory
Structures*, but are sub:ect to the special setback restrictions of
Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (Dh
- Tennis courts
- Pools, when pool basin structure (excluding non-
encroachment-type patios J is greater than l.OOO s.f.
- Paddocks or arenas
2. oversized Accessory Structures are
regulattd by the following table:
Maximum Allowed
Total of All Accessory
Structure Footprint Areas*
on a Procerty
2,00C s.f.
2.400 s.f.
2.800 s.f.
3.200 s.f.
3.600 s.f.
4.000 s.f.
4.400 S.f.
4.800 s.f.
5.200 s.f.
5.600 s.f.
6.000 s.f.
* Excluding non-roofed tennis courts, pools, paddocks, arenas
3. Any Overside Accessory Structure shall be
subject to the following conditions:
a) No such accessory structure shall
be located within a required yard area (principal structure
setbacks must be ret). Further, no such structure shall be
the front lot line than the front line of the
on the property, and no such accessory structure shall be located
less than 30' from the side or rear lot line regardless whether
less strict principal structure setbac.ks apply.
b) The maximum height for s^ch
accessory structure shall be 30' or the defined height of
principal residence structure on the property, whichever is less.
c) Such structure shall be allowed
only when the property owner agrees and covenants in writing with
the City as follows:
i. No future subdivision will
be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no
rrincical structure, except that the City in its subdivision
approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized
accessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in
order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of
this time period the oversized accessory structure must be removed
if no'crincicai structure has been constructed.
ii. If the property is
subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal
structure will be located together within a lot that meets the
minimum lot ar ea*requirement for the given size of accessory
building.
iii. In subdivision approval,
the setback required for the oversize accessory structure as
defined herein shall remain.
Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property
owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property.
Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series
Adopted: 8-14-89
~ ir
____-il
• •
♦ r.,r>t ____ r^^Tie^yg^-^a—
^VQ/Lr^^^jujrvC*—
//^ut
* rr-v 4 ^ w, 1 -—-----------------------
T,^-. .>;h u fe
O-g /V/t<rf^->:. pre&«:^^t^~~ <>"->£- - ------------------------
' Ln^x^>^''.€ . c.ci f^c^- ' *^
I •
" Bu. r"^ £l_^iv f:
. u?..___>./■ 1 tr> .
yL /’»^fer^ .orz-^ /'->-g=’?6»4 ^
-------4 -
M»•
C^errzA-^ Cik.
2^'
/2^'T>{^pvAj;=>
J£.---------
* A>7^/uoC^ ,iro ^
____• <iOh^%XjJ^— A A>eV;^Cg2g::^^^—^.0^
f^/H * t^^TUjL
- ^U U M--rz. ^ rZ4E^^-AJt ~t^ \jUA^ ^f*i_
■l^Uc>r<^J^.• /^^fc^’-» ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C>-> 1^0 ^c.-
—^A> *r* ^
* ' U-w5 >_-7-7/J;^ ^ /S4-~?-*^0 ___
_ /^\^ /V Sf^esr- "t-irz.
/g^-CA^-r/-^f—£±2&ki&!!^
■A
^ U^T ^ r _r-------:^. T- ■, ------------------------------------ ^
p,„, ,-^ Awn^ pu<jmi=^£s<>ir^-
_______________________
•^cO*
/JH^
/•v/<i
SJ_D^
_______________________________________-
^9-5 > /C-^ 75^'
<a^/V^ArT^7l-7C-2^^^ C r c-r / ^3 : ^ »--..-:=i--^— ---------------— ------
7 ♦ r r,,J'-rr^xc.r A
^-^jr>tj fjCl^-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-y■ ■> ft"
^ ^ fZ^Jf^-----------------------—------------
^ ■ e=^pt MN p^A> C:> g L-SX-^e g .ger/^rA~<"~J —i=:j-------s«-_i_:-r_=—----------------------
* (^ C>t^<^T-(LM^cT~ /- /J^~>^ OUJ^-f-------------
1 I< ■ i ^ A . .« ;.. «r ft. '•“i'~ii!l:^ Ctf^Z^r-rl
AfSOV-’T- Gi? -------.x_^ =.y---------------------
lOC^^^/L, Rg7 ' ------------—
* ,V- -----------------------------------
d.;^w«£:>/AJ6. F^^/2 • rr.f^<r-l2^^C^ 4/^^ ’T'^5>-UI±
--------- . _ /T,____ _ Z'^') /yj^d-6- ItL^J^J^/g^rXhl
I -------------------—--------------------------------------------------------------
» I
•^/USTTSt^'
£uaj f ^
^S/2^?fcyvl ------- -------^
* (^Of^smsMj:^ Ai^^ AJ*^ (![1
2>fe??^/Jg^ r^/2JA)/r^
ror^^TTs^c^ ^ /2.r' ^
SV7t^ /4gr7t>tT- jSTD’ ^T- CL^ie^_
H> /V^6>^<C7/UAr C^^ir^f^^CKS-^ - C.U’^ /A/no
r r?AJ C> ^ ^ /^;g=fer^ -_g >t^ <rS > C . ^/^a^fgfcyaxy
2.0* F<e>t^ L^’T' l^i^'-^(='
/‘ty^’T^ ff-iTD t^yj --------------------------------------------
* Pof-^Q(Vb i^. : ihtT
^ * //0Aw^N-n£4tc^-r" A- /o^v^ —p-/<r:7— gr
f/Ltipi^Vy j ------------------------------------
J , f B f ---------
■ ’ T^TS^t-U-y pi^tUuf^
I t
r^c^<^n^cjr /JS'^ ^ ^60 ^^-‘Tt.p^
OLj>
V : • C on ^'n:ujjLX- a
eouA^/*;. ^
A>^fvi /^(g-AJ bv //A/ LOL^
#8 _______________________
0. .. , * -•
^ ^ V .•^ . . '. ^, '.-v,n.\^:?^'*.. - • • ‘!:_•___1___-..-’iV,
lI
-■**^\«/
> V - ’••■ *s %'• •.'
. -- -.-' ■ *
,
0
®-^
i 1
f •
« gy<?z>.t^ -rag Af-ec^ 'r_gg»!^
fO ^ T-T-rg ^ «^»y‘/u:LA.r'g Z
r-:^ • P-S/O^ .A /S'r-*nrgl j/
ijot^ C^nje>%A
A ^Uag/e?^^5" )c^aj 7^
-. V / '
«»,gy^>/e/jU/fy ••• '
» »
-------------------------------------------- ^
. fM^M/^r /Ca' ^fc2.7-A*^Q V^mgi^Lja ——
^!(.U tZ^^^JCr ^Of. ^ QCi^-nr^h> COot^OS.__________ ________
• -r?7T7»-t> r^Cc>i "■ -----------------—--------------------
% . • •
9 ?^u/j'i^ tr/2^.
■mv ^r<e. ^r' f;ga^;;L-^4:g2=:i^-g/!^^g^^mr" ------1.-=^-------==----------------------
r-tu^ 'r^*‘r' J^-J/-f-*^
(
i <>u*vM>^rTrv2^ __________________________
•!
}
1
1
1
. f2*rt^^/ue y-y PMRi^f^ . /4-C>i>_JI- P.^>v?^a-------
f
•■.
!l
n >.^L^ —--------
. '/Vn'b& A- Potot> 1^- Sl^i»- ^ t
^/O -----------------------------------------------------------------
1 ?
'. « ••- • » •• «. • ^
’—l«.Tr»"t'V^ • •‘mr r-m0^-0*~ m'
r. ‘ .• . .* • ■ ' *
•*•.*,* . e
Hr- • . ’ , • ' ' it--'.V • • v»' 4 * . .W>Nj 'f: W~^!i* ' « if! ^:^i
. - /, ' ' V.* * '*• “
-------
•^ - "J A- \ *_______
P-4P ■ ’
^ -
#^^Htgy/evj ^uf ~ <Pl/^ XH .
*r » •r*-".
------!•-•- '
/OoT«s ^Mi-y V^ST ^oJtni
* »-~ /'^,^yOiCiSi^^>Or/i^ft» pCti^OZAg^ /
*^ipr7g^ir~s •
Dfiot^O C.uf /AJ Q'lr:
/C^
!(^f^ce/f^. U/*OJn^t^ /A-* LAJerTVA^^-^—
%•
■ __ * fl/CiO'^ t ^Aor:C(/^irO_
- feiuir
^PT7 >N ^ ■ r
f /**7 ^
ti
• \ Pr^ *^0
f OKFS o O'? A->
- Ptn5^*M.T~ /AJ /J^?
/>fN\ ^C> f-7
-T7>^.,3 ’77 x10 -r^-^
•*. ••
1 !
f«t« 2 ~TnrnEimBBR■CNFUI P**e 42) Hov Manx buildings of what typo* alia* and location war.? uted for yoitr
buaiaass on this data ^
& CMuB/f^vse_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ■
ST*£^fC-
How such and what kind of aquipaent usad for business on this data
4) Hhat was the condition of buildings on this date
— U's*^ _ _ _ _
.‘ If there were any additions to buildings, used for business between
'.:'.Narch 11, lfS7 and March 10. 1968, please state date and site_ _ _
-s . *.• ^ I '•
C^¥4^00SC As^fr-fo^nf' V
Please enclose plat of your property, showing location of all buildings^
and dlnsnsiens of that part of lot and size of buildings being used for
buslness.purposes. Enclosed is a saaple that nay be us^ed for this purpose
sad guidance.
,^'S1
er^w . a
;v*‘
» m
d
i
>?i
• 0
I
%*
i!
ii
. ■*.;
“JL• «*4>
r • ,
!• ^
*• - • ' • •• r *
. « «•. ; * • a.u . • • . a
*■ • T • • ... .
r ,1
e * e '«•' %
, * * • ;•
il*’^
•Y •;■.
?w;. .
i*
.%•
^eT^^Rr.- A. 2
i
» n
‘•w'd
/i
. *
K*
i!
n
1
.»'3 * . 1^5
VILLAGE OF OtOHO
Ills in* w®*®*Fag* 3
QUBSTIONAIU FOR EXISTING NOH-CONFORMING CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT AFPLICATICi
Dat*V 2^.
i) Naaa of business and owner
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
# t
S) ' 9tto boRiaoss began
^ STATUS OF BUSINESS <N MARCH 11^ 1>S7
1) Vbat was the nature of your business on this date
0 / / 9JST^ - —
I.
.'»* •*
2) «any buildings of what type and site, and location were us«l for
■>w'bus"ilis‘s' on this diie /
jy^£L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
S) How such and what kind of equipaent used for business on this dito
^ •
STATUS OF BUSINESS ON MARCH 10, 1R6^
Nhat was the nature of your business on this date A/iC
/0^C- $4^/^ r>~ 'S^r_
^rc, c^SAZ.
If]
%-if,
■ ■4 ^
#•• k. , •»
• •*,' , <•'»' . . s ■ •.
i',K ■
V \ *^ «« t r« »* ». ,•:• ' _»W^ %•*■ W •>
• V*1
f
* . •>
-•
m *
« •
4
• •
-
tf w
•V/r
v««
t'
{:■«
I
#''
II
S'
- ViHage of Orono
CONOmONAL USE PER»T
No,, t. Pnte9»9«6.^
For Non-ConCornInc U$e
Fee
Case No.^
VILLAGE OF ORONO
Crystal Bay, Minnesota
(Cowplete in Duplicate)
This form to be used in all *PP^parcels°of^land,%acttinr and for retoninR. dividinR or consolidatinR parcels oi lan ,
streets, alleys and variances*
Type of Appl irn11 nn ,"ii-r ^'*’lVllUsiP*^^—
Owner of Property: Nane LnkgyjgwJjfilL- - --- -_Phone No. |7,i-t7Qi
K. L. We-ikstern Addre5S_j40SJjprj_h Ar^. PriYJI- - - --- - - - - - -
Applicant (other than owner): Name- -- - - - -__Phone No.^-- - -
Address_ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ _— ~
Relationship to Owner
Engineer: Name_ _
Land Planner: Nano
Subdivider: Name _
Phone No.
Phone No.
Phone No.
Location (How do we find it?)__
Legal Description: tot 6, Bl. 117. Plat_ij306, ^
Date Acquired S-l-S"______^Area (sq. ^^^SwM?5h'ip_
Date of last division of this property
Action Requested_ _ _ . -—- - - - -——-- - --- - - - -
Inspection Dept:
Administrator:
Village Council:
Village Engineer:
Signature of Applicant
■?rrORn OF ACTION TAKEN
Date AcUon . • 4
>>- 3-1$
I A
Plnnnins Commission: R.-ftoSS, "Mayor
Village Council: - --- -
y *»
Permit Issued: Dn tc ”- - -- - - - - - -
Condition of Non-Conforming Use:
Aoorollmnt.lr >*u .cron. On. club hou... .ppr«li«t.ly U’X 40-.
Z on. .«ru. bullOlnc. U’X 2b'. All u..J f.r ip.lf -nC p.rlln,.
•• I • A *
, • • • A •». • •»
V
. . • r«* •• •
. *• ^ i •
(f . • • : % • j» • r. *
V.. V I •• *
• ; • • **%•
A w^*. i:
• ^ V *
- ••
? ( • • t| '4t » •.« • * *•
•: C *'
. • » A •*• ^
'A.i • A *.•« .%»»•
‘4-r-« tt*‘ ' <••. ••
VaA • c*a *;
% A***** •*»»' ' '
« A *, *^«
' W ^ ^*r- l;«« • **'
,• 1 <•. y ••♦••V /
V • • •.* -r
**•♦•.% .V •* •. •.
V I IV ^ **^
... ^
I ••. • i/%» .
V : An;^«? • ••
^ A* • •• I* ^
•/ * *. U.1 *V >
M • ^ U 'S. *•
' y*»* r • ‘*
« •. A A
.’ Cc3f**-.’* *t
.» * . % H**» **
•♦. _* • ( .■^^,^ I
•• » >A-i* %
* % u *t
“•.‘tM.y *.
%» — t 'Hmr •*
«i *«• • •n«i ,y
*• . >-*5; f
% • ib>r » %!.•
C**t i. • X »• *
!•».. ' . ..• •*
• . •I**' V
f: . ‘H:v< *•
m .. f • •%, • • q,» i
in%0r V >tf *♦ •' .<*
.1 «• V* v*.«*«*
• /* ■ • »w«*
r • \ ■ ••
V . 1 ** *•
Ac• M T.;
■t r n
l/l Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik&
|\J| Associates
Engineers & Architects
August S. 1955
Mr. Michael P. Gaffron.
Asst. Building and Zoning Administrator
City of Orono
Post Office Box 66
Crvstal Bav, Minnesota 55323
Re: Lakeview Golf Subdivision
File No. 139-2046
Dear Mike,
We have reviewed the proposed Lakeview Golf Subdivision at 405 North Drive m
Orono The proposed subdivision and grading activity appears acceptable ftom an
engineering standpoint. The applicant should deteimine the P’f'*'P “
access location. We have reviewed the grades and site distance and it appears that the
south end ot the property is best suited for the access.
The applicant should provide drainage and utility easements uound the propos'd 2 acre
lot 10 feet wide along the right-of-way and 5 feet wide along all lot lines. The city should
consider whether easements should be provided around the enure golf course properly.
Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Yours very truly,
BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC.
Shawn D. Gustafson. P E.
2335 Wes't Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, .VN 55113 • 612-636-4600
- — - - 7- —T--;:rc ♦—
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AUG 2 8 199t
DATE: Auf^ i)f 0ii6N(
ITEM NO.:
Department Approral:
Name Jeanne A. Mabusth
Title Building & Zoning Administrator
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Zonine
Item Description: #2054 Eiden Company, 2700 Countryside Drive West - Conditional Use
Permit - Resolution
Zoning District: RR-lB
Lot area = 2+ acres (approximately 14.450 s.f. or .33 acres of Type I wetlands).
Pertinent Ordinances
Section 10.03, Subds. 19 and 21(2)
approximately 600 cubic yards of till.
- Conditional use permit required for the filling of
Brief Review of Application
Applicant proposed the borrowing of 600 cubic yards ot fill to create a walkout design and
positive drainage w ith the raising of the building pad. The proposed filling is not covered within
the scope of a building permit which would allow only the borrowing of 100 cubic yards. The
fillinu will have no impact on adjacent residential I rs nor the approved drainage plan for the
subdivision.
The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of conditional use permit based
on conditions set forth in the engineer’s report. E.xhibit E.
The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions of the Planning
Commission's unanimous recommendation.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
To either approve or amend the enclosed approval resolution
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
A CONT>mONAL USE PERMIT
PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.03, SUTOIVISIONS 19 & 21(2)
HLE #2054
WHEREAS, Tony Eiden of the Tony Eiden Company, (liereinaftcr "the
applicant") has an interest in the propert>' located at 2700 Countryside Drive West within the
City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as:
Lot 4, Block 2. Old Cr>stal Bay Road Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota
(hereinafter "property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a conditional use
permit to permit the filling of 600 cubic yards on an undeveloped lot per Municipal Zoning Code
Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19 and 21(2).
Minnesota:
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
1.
2.
3.
This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2054.
The property is located in the RR-IB Rural Residential Zoning District requiring
2 acres of dry contiguous land. The property consists of 2+ acres. .33 acres of
which consists of a Type 1 wetland, not classified as a designated wetland of the
City of Orono.
On August 21, 1995, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application
and recommended approval of the application as proposed based upon the
following findings:
The proposed filling will have no impact on the adjacent properties nor on
the approved drainage plan for the Old Crystal Bay Road subdivision.
Page 1 of 4
B) This type of filling would have been approved by the City at the time of
the subdivision review of the Old Cry stal Bay Road Addition had the land
alterations been shown and approved on the final grading plan.
C) Tlie majority of drainage from this building site will drain to the wetlands
to the northwest and will have no negative impact on the wetland.
4. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the filling
of 600 cubic yards will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare
of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other
danger to neighboring properties, nor w ill its use depreciate surrounding property
values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with
the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by .staff and comments ot
the applicant and the affect of the proposed use on the health, safety, and welfare
of the community.
CONCLLSIO.NS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council
hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivisions
19 and 21(2) to pennit the filling of 600 cubic yards on the undeveloped residential lot located
at 2700 Countrvside Drive West, based on the grading plans prepared by Mark S. Gronberg
dated July 27. 1995. Job #95-268. Approval is subject to the following conditions;
1.Erosion control shall be in place prior to any grading activities on this property.
Applicant shall he re.sponsible for contacting the Orono building staff to confirm
that erosion control is in place before building permit can be issued by City.
.Applicant to amend the above referenced grading plan by creating drainage swale
alone the south side of the driveway in order to protect the septic test sites to the
southeast of the property.
Paee 2 of 4
3.
4.
5.
ATTEST:
Authorities granted by this resolution are permissive only and must be exercised
by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council
approval or this conditional use permit will expire on that date (August 28, 1996).
Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this
resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically
terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms
of this resolution and on behalf of the Tony Eiden Company, its heirs, successors
and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title
of the property.
Adopted by the Orono Cit>’ Council on this 28th day of August, 1995.
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Iidward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor
Property 0\vner(s)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of
August. 1995. by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the
City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was e,xecuted on behalf
of the Citv.
Notary Public
Pace 3 of 4
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this dav of , 199 before me a Notary
Public within and for said county, personally appeared _________________________________
known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed
the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free
act and deed.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
NOTARY PUBLIC
On this dav of , 199 before me a Notary
Public within and for said county, personally appeared ____ ________^ _______________
known to me to be the pe;. ,i(s) described in and who executed
the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free
act and deed.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Pace 4 of 4
To:
From:
Date:
Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorsc, City Administrator
Teanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator
August 9, 1995
Subject: #2054 Eiden Company, 2700 Countryside Drive West - Conditional Use Permit -
Public Hearing
Zoning District: RK-IB
Area = 2.1ii acres (approximately 14.450 s.f. or .33 acres)
Pertinent Ordinances
Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19 and 21(2) - Conditional use permit required for Hlling of
approximately 600 cubic yards of till.
List of Exhibits
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Application
Addendum
Plat Map
Property Owners’ List
Gustafson Report
Survey
Elevation
Description of Application
Based on the existing elevations, the applicant proposes the borrowing of 600 cubic yards
to create a partial walkout.''Refer to E.xhibits F and G. final grading/drainage plan will have no
impact on the approved drainage plan for the subdivision nor on adjacent properties. The
majority of drainage will be dire“cted northward eventually to the wetland that eventually drains
west to the culvert at Countryside Drive West.
Review E.xhibit E. Gustafson notes concern with the tinal grades along the south side of
the driveway asking that a swale be created along the south side to ensure that drainage does not
encroach the drainfield site. The Engineer al.so asks that prior to any land alterations that
erosion control be installed around the wetland. The contractor should call tor the necessary
inspection to confirm that erosion control is in place.
Review Exhibit B. applicant asked t-. be scheduled before the Council at the Augu.st 28.
1995 meeting because of the delays created with the need to file a co- ditional use permit betore
the building permit could be issued.
21onmg File #2054
August 9, 1995
Page 2
Staff Recommendation
To approve a conditional use permit for the Tony Eiden Company for the property
located at 2700 Countryside Drive West that would permit the filling of 600 cubic yards of fill.
This approval is based on the preliminary grading plans prepared by Mark S. Gronberg dated
July 27. 1995, Job No. 95-268. Approval is subject to the following conditions;
1 . Applicant to amend the above referenced grading/drainage plan by creating a drainage
swale along the south side of the driveway in order to protect the septic test sites to
the southeast of the property.
2. Erosion control shall be in place prior to any grading activities on this property.
Applicant is to be responsible for contacting the Orono Building staff to contirm that
erosion control is in place before building permit can be issued by the City.
1 *20t-J •
f
i.'
CITY OF ORONO -GEI^RAL LAND USE APPLICATION
A^ I
PROPERTY LOCATION
Site Address --------
Type of Application to be Filed
APPUCANT
Vam«- r2>.Vi^ —Q£j-^
Address ArfcT/^/r*:
Phone (hotne)
Phone (work).JSC-7£±L
rin.^ 'fjyc*:-*Th/____Zip .r-TWC.
0\V'NER (if different than applicant)
Name____________---------------
Phone (home)
Phone (work)
Address Citv'Zip,
DatcProperty Acquired____ ^ ' i
I (Ju) (in wi^ also own the
fees - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - nnnlication
S 50.00 For each variance request with cUP application
’ S125.00 Residential Accessory Use
S200.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.)^^\j\J .\J\J
” S175.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments
” S150.00 Duple.x Credic'BIdgS>1DU.UU UUpiC.\
” S250.00 Commercial/lndustnal Use
” S200.00 Land Alteration
• • r” 11’ __ ^ ^ 9 t
U Lana .^iicidiuuu ^ t •
Gradinc and filling - designated wetland or floodplain
;:7 Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more
Grading, seawall, retaining wails within 75 of lakeshore
PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule ,
S 100.00 Renewal Fee (no change from ongmal application)
After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee
OTH^^Rj^200^0™^erc:al Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees)
■ 5250.00 Vacation
^ S175.00 Easement Vacation
---------$ 75.O') Easement Vacation With Subdivision
5300.00 Rezoning (PLTD - reter to fee schedule)
~ S300.00 Comprehensive Plan .Amendment
5100.00 Appeals
' Other - see Fee Scnedule
present use of propertj
Present Zoning Dismet _
Present Use of Property , Residential Other (specify )
(month/year)
. 4
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
Completed Application Form.
■ Cenified Pro^rty Owners List of owners within 350’ (you can obtain this list^from
’ Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-60.\ Government Center. j48-3^71).
■ Cenificaw of Suney (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey
description to application if not included on required survey.
: Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve
changes in elevation (grades). , .
List of the legal names (include mariul satus) of all persons with an interest n the
■ oropertv. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s).
Construction plan, if applicable (see staff tor requuements). ..hemersons
■ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons
you wish notitied ot this application.
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUTPLY 30 COPIES OF
roR reproduction (11" \ 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL uucuMtiXia
SL^MITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to e
submitted.)
The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your
application is not complete if the above inlormation has not been included.
Cettirication by Clerical Depanment that Land Use Application is complete.
Initials of Clerical Staff;__________________________----------------------- - '
1.
2.
ji.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ThTtpptonT hcfe'btMreefm provide all information requited or requested by the Zoning
?in,in^ am acmes to pav additional fees (staff tune not covered by original tee payment)
fnd/or unusual e.xpenses incurred in review of this application, and cenifies that the information
supplied is true and corf^t^o the best pj^^er knowledge
»■ /,DateApplicant’s signature
The'^wIfer^herl^^a^^ and agrees to this application and further authorized
entn,' onto the property by Cit>’ staff, consultants, agents, commission members, an
members for purposes ^ investigat^n^verification ot this request.
Owner’s cipnaturev, 1 A Date
Annlicaat mus. have all submiilals imo Ui. C.tv- elT.ces ’5 days be.otc die Platmiag Commission ““‘‘“S'
Applicant m ^ ^ ^ Mondav of each month. Applicams must be present at all schedule
of 1^ ^^aiZ Colission and Council. lian appiicam is unable lo ailend a scheduled m«i.ng
ITi^e^angements 10 hale an audiomed agen. allend in you, place and advise die Budding di Zonmg Olfic.
of this change prior to the meeting.
^m-' Atsi lj3.nj/.unS
_/» o. ^
/^aV ±,1“^*^ ■ .
ifeir,/? ^ri/ie.
I ry
c/^/^y/^^ £»7^ <« if/^(:^*nS/
cs 7~ •f^ y C‘"'i 'o>^^/ /''->^ ^Pr/rii A T.7CO
C^z/^iruS^'cAe ‘^f^aec/
//,yZt'^ ^'Tv/.^zA^e//^-
, - A /y^y'.r/u UA’/'^/ ■' '^■ZZA 'h ’■'^'-
frvjec/^ cr.n J ',t /5 ^4/ /-^ c-./
/jciC'C 'V7,/4 ^
/crn^oU'/'^/^ ^ //3
/
< j/^ f f> ^ ^ y
y<z(
/
/
jA/^ 'V/fj 7-^^ *'(.<f-e
/Jtti. ^L
>A
X
U^'.(, r< ''' c:Prl //^
ijAi/c/ /TA'iu/ yy^A/z?/^
/i
mm un nr/u/fsMTCfl §m mf9mpm county mokrty iNromanoN systctMOKRTY CMCRS LIST<MCR NIK TAXRAYiR NAMC/AODR, t .
MOP Aaot
CRMER NAHi
^ TAKPAYIR
NANE/AOOfI
PROP AMR
CMNER NANR
TAXPAYER
NAHE/AOOR
PRC^ ADDR
C»t€R NAHC
TAXPAYER
NAHE/AODR
PROP ADDR
QHNER NAftE
TAXPAYER
NAHE/AOOR
n M-U7-EI IE 0010 OtTM COUNTRYSlOE DR N QRONO tXNXTED PARTNERSHIP TONY iXOCN CONPANV 4100 KRKSNXRf LA PLYHOUTH HN SS444
M 04*117-ES IE OOlS
0E470 COUNTRYSIDE DR N
TONY EXOEN COMPANY
TONY EXDEN COMPANY
4100 KRRSNIRE LA
PLYMOinil MN 55444
SO 04-117-ES IE 0017
0I7SS COUNTRYSIDE DR H
ORGNO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
TONY EXOEN COMPANY
4100 DERKSHIRE LA
PLYMOUTH MN 55446
SO 04-117-25 12 0020
00058 ADDRESS PENOIHD
CITY OF ORONO
CITY Of ORONO
PO BOX 66
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55525
58 04-117-25 15 0006
02655 COUNTRYSIDE DR H
TONY EIDEN COMPANY
TONY EIDEN COMPANY
41D0 BERKSHIRE LA
PLYMOUTH ^t4 55446
SB 04-117-E5 18 0011 02760 COUNTRYSIDE DR N TONY EXDEN COMPANY TONY EXDEN COMPANY 4100 KRRSHIRE LA PLYMOUTH m 55446
SB 04-117-25 IE 0014
02650 COUNTRYSIDE OR N
ORONO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
TONY EIDEN COMPANY
4100 BERKSHIRE LA
PLYMOUTH m 55446
SB 04-117-25 12 OOIB
02755 COUNTRYSIDE DR H
ORONO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
TONY EIDEN COMPANY
4100 BERKSHIRE LA
PLYMOUTH MN 55446
SB 04-117-25 12 0021
02645 THOROUGHBRED LA
ORONO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
TONY EIDEN COMPANY
4100 BERKSHIRE LA
PLYMOUTH MN 55446
5B 04-117-25 15 0007
02655 COUNTRYSIDE DR H
TONY EIDEN CO
TONY EIDEN CO
4100 BERKSHIRE LA N
PLYMOUTH MN 55446
IKPOIT NO. PI4S54B1 PAGE 45SB 04-117-25 12 0012 02700 COUNTRYSIDE DR N TONY EIDEN COMPANY TONY EIDEN COMPANY 4100 BERKSHIRE LA PLYMOUTH MN 55446 I.f •
SB 04-117-25 12 0016
02775 COUNTRYSIDE DR N
TONY EIDEN COMPANY
TONY EIDEN COMPANY
4100 BERKSHIRE LA
PLYHOUTH m 55446
»•
SB 04-117-25 12 0019
02715 COUNTRYSIDE DR M
ORONO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
TONY EIDEN COMPANY
4100 BERKSHIRE LA
PLYHOUTH HN 55446
ifO
58 04-117-25 15 0005
02695 COUNTRYSlOE DR M
ORONO LIMITED PARTr4ERSHIP
TONY EIDEN COMPANY
4100 BERKSHIRE LA
PLYMOUTH MN 55446
n
i’':
TOTAL BATCH 504 00014 »
I ‘ .
•
«• •
r • .
•UN BATf 07/Zt/fS •ATCN 10%HENNEPIN COUNTY PHOPfUTY INPQNHATIQN SYSTEM PftOPtRTY CWNERS LIST RtPonr NO. Pi%ss%oiPACE
It
TO
•f in•>
o • t: fV
l
It®
I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESEKTED ARC AN ACCURATE AND TRUE
REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS
OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST
OF MY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF.
DATE
• •
;■ i •
1 •
‘ I* *
I «
I ./ {
*. # • *
1
PROPOSED GRADING PLAN
FOR TONY ElDEN COMPANY
OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2, OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD ADDITION
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
vrrr^ru
'L
£i T/(tA^s
0 s 798, 4
z) cr r 978.7
3) iou/fyr r 9 > /. 2
-- - -lExistiny contour
— : Proposed contour
w
REQr^'ST FOR COUNCIL ACTION A(JG 2 8 199,«^
DATE: ORMO
ITEM NO.;
Department Approval:
Name Michael P. Gaffron
Title Assistant Planmn^ & Zoning Administrator
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Zoning
Item Description: 1995 Joint Use Dock License - Victoria Estates Homeowners Association
List of Exhibits
A - Resolution
B - Application
C - 1995 LMCD License
The Victoria Estates Homeowners Association submitted their 1995 Joint Use Dock License
application on August 7. The late fee was included.
This Association maintains a six-slip joint dock located in the channel at the north end of North
Arm per approvals originally granted in 1978. The current application indicates no changes
from previous approvaFs. The City has received no complaints on this joint use dock.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of a 1995 Joint Use Dock License for Victoria Estates Homeowners
Association per the attached resolution.
COt'NCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt attached resolution granting a 1995 Joint Use Dock License to Victoria Estates
Homeowners Association.
PROPOSED MOTION; Moved by . seconded by ___, to adopt Resolution No.
directing staff to issue a Joint Use Dock License to Victoria Estates Homeowners Association
subject to conditions noted therein for the period of January 1, 1995 to December 31. 1995.
Vote: ayes, ____navs.
Isv
r* ' S
RESOLUTION DIRECTLNG STAFF TO
ISSUE A JOLNT USE DOCK LICENSE
TO VICTORIA ESTATES HO^IEO\^TsT:RS ASSOCUTION
SLWECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREIN
FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1995 TO DECEMBER 31, 1995
WHEREAS, the Citv of Orono. hereinafter "City" is a municipal corporation
oreanized and existing under the laws ot the State of Minnesota
re^onsibility under Minnesota Statutes. State Statute 41., et. seq. and
seq^, to protect the health, safety, and general welfare ot the citizens of ihe City and other
members of the public within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit
of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of
Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the reculation of the navigable waters involves an exercise ot police
power of the State, LMCD, and the City of Orono. all of which have adopted rules to eiLsure
w all equal enjovment of the public rights and equal protection from activity on or near the
public waters and on the land within the City which, if unregulated, may be detrimental to the
public health, safety and general welfare; and
\VHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of Orono regulate
the propertv riehts of the riparian owners both as to residential owners and the commercial
marL owners m the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoimng their
nropertv The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must tultill their trusteeship over the public
waters bv protectinc acainst interference by anyone, including those who assen the commonlaw
rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or residential owners,
WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjoyment exists between
and is shared bv riparian owners and the public generally, no one riparian owner has exclu^ve
prilile-es overUke Minnetonka. The only additional private nght that any ^
have over the public eenerally is to construct one dock to the navigable depth of the pu
waters There can be no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Uike
Minnetonka has the richt to use the entire surface area ot Lake Minnetonka for all suita
purposes in common v^ith all other riparian owners. This right is a right not only to members
of the public but the right to each riparian owner.
This mutual richt of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners and the public generally
induaes The J^rea.ionaJ bonefus of the lake such as boating and fisMng .heren: .he npanan
owner has no exclusive privileges to these rights; and
Pace 1 of 2
WHEREAS, Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only
as long as all riparian users of the lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse
of the limited riparian rights: and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding the
construction and use of lakeshore and dock facilities when such facilities are used and maintained
by three or more families, which regulations include the annual licensing ot Joint Use Docks
pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth tlic above noted general
conditions and concerns and the following special conditions as they relate to an application for
an annual Joint Use DiKk License described on E.xhibit A attached.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City
of Orono hereby directs the S'ati lo issue a Joint Use Dock License according to the facts and
conditions noted on Exhibit /a •’.hcd.
Adopted by i w C o Kil of the City of Orono at their meeting on the 28th
day of August, 1995.
Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST;
Dorothv M. Hallin, City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foresioine instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of
Auizust. 1995 by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City
of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the
City.
Notary Public
Paee 2 of 2
Address; 440 North Arm Drive, Mound. MN 55364
n.
unincorporated homeowner’s group
incorporated homeowner’s association
unincorporated club or recreation group
incorporated club or recreation eroun
other
License Period - Januarv' I, 1995 o December 31, 1995
BOAT DENSITY
The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number show'n on the
attached plan. Exhibit B , and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number
of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year’s license.
Authorized Boat Density per attached plan
Bav
Transient (Day use only) Slips
Permanent Moorage Slips
Boat Lifts
Sub-Total: Slips at Dock
Offshore Buovs
Maximum Boats in Water
Maximum Boats per prior license
MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY
North Ann
6
6
Exhibit A
Resolution No.
Page 2
on the
umber
cense.
Exceeding this maximum boat density, or exceeding the number of permitted slips, lilts or buoys
is a violation of this license subject to revocation and/or prosecution tor violation of Section 5.4^.
Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal Code.
ffl. DOCK LAYOUT
The dock structure or layout authorized by this license shall be as shown on attached Exhibit B.
Any changes in this layout shall be subject to prior review and approval ot the City Council.
IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinance of the City and/or
the LMCD. The issuance of this license is subject to full compliance with these conditions.
Failure to comply w ith these conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the
City.
1 . Six slips are approved for Victoria Estates Homeowners Association for 1995
subject to the stipulations set forth in Resolution #962 dated December 18, 1978.
2.All boats permanently moored at this Joint Use Dock must be registered to the
applicant property owners.
V.Nothine in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit ot any property any
vested richt to use Lake Minnetonka or the premises in a manner permitted by this
resolution, but the use of Uke Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such
regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory' authorities shall
deem necessary from time to time in the public interest.
oo
o
CATWALK OVEB.
WETLAMDS TO SllOBE.
• I i *
4' BOAT DOCK x IQ0.‘ LOMG.
54--
. t
_ JO -Sk
^ ^ if ■ O 2:£ O ro '35 -Y -o 'Y --J r u\
>. '' —^ ^**o
^ N* V *V "n ®o M
S^VM vCk
' I M , I '
o ^
APR 13 '3'3
• •*•
1- n!xac iaow of-
ri Mo S^ ^ ••
-p o» O
\
Plat
I "‘I ^ I
of'V'.€toyjac'l&- I
f r S ^t r 3^ u< a s
» 5
%-l
K
^ -T>
Jsiatel ^ p,' • ^ C' r
\y%
f'
■57^ "K
^ *
^o -\
CO
\ I
CITY OF ORONO
P.O. BOX 66
CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323
473-7357
LICENSE \T:AR 19 ^
r 03
ANNUAL JOINT USE nnCK I irFNSE .^PLICAXIQN
Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.42
Date Form Sent by City Staff 3. 1995
Date Application Returned to City
Fee Received S By Employee
Section 5.42. Subdivision 2. UCFNSE REQmEED - It is unlawful for any (group or
association of persons or families, more than two m number, whether mcorporated or not) to
engage or partfcipate in ... joint use (of any lakeshore property) without first having obtained
a license therefor from the City'.
PLE.ASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED^PUCA^ON^
ATTACHMENTS, AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CIT\ CLERK BY
JANUARY 31 OF THE LICENSE YEAR.
AS.SOCIATIQN INFORMATION
Association title or name (if any) \l A—
Lake \IV(: Bay ^
1
Person responsible for this application:
Name — Phone Q>nO£\ame \ -- --—- -- - - - - - --- --- - - - - - - -
MaUing Address <-/VO Q/-. ,
---- ... AjTt1~ I'frl A .4 -e_Relationship to association
Association is (check applicable items):
unincorporated homeowner’s group,
incorporated Homeowner’s Association,
unincorporated club or recreation group,
incorporated club or recreation group.
Page 1 of 5
w -
.-.iv.
- w*
?
)up or
not) to
)mined
HRED
K BY
r* i t V V
«»
• ' -I V*.
-i.- • **'Tr 1 • C-*
•4. 1 ••
. U* W . •. J. 1 V-> w’ •
•: • . tr
7.
8.
9.
Principal purpose of joint use dock is (check applicable items):
y provide boat mooring and lake access for residential property,
provide swimming access, beach, or offshore dock,
provide a club or association gathering place for activities.
Dock is located on (check applicable item):
_____ one member’s private property.
^ easement or outlot owned in common.
_____ property leased by the group/association.
____ property owned by the group/association.
List Dock location and owmership information:
Street address r.OiJ\A^ ^ \l^K.
Listed property owner(s)S<rr^
Names of abutting lakeshore property owners: .
<'Northt''West) VfcO jOcirHA OiT .
(South/Eastl
(Name + Address)
Tow^ A a -2.<v /* lOio/'VUiQ^. \)lj ssx
(Name + Address)
Names of other affected property owners: i
Si<A\.wv.scj>rv 5~r0 /U<yVV> CV. (i)60^o
^ iName + Address)
Insurance Coverage - ine jomuy used
property owner's homeowner ’s policy.
f(30 »A(
of the following:
y
^s'^c. y
^ separate group/association owned policy.
List the following information:
Name of insured V) o f)aJVJU/S f~ ^
. J t
Policy No. V XSr (*? 7 -o Effective date of coverage S~~/S ~
Amount of coverage: Public liability, per person, per occurrence $ S^6,a«o
Public liability, per occurrence $ ,CO e
Page 2 of 5
10.Swurity and policing of the jointly used dock and property is provided by (check
applicable items):
_____ fencing ____ security lighting __t- property owner’s presence
contract security service other (specify)
11.
1
irK INFORMATION
List Dock Use Area Specifications:
Width of shoreline: fUo ft- Length of main dock from shore: ft. tiffuK
Dock setbacks from side property lines at shore: --------552 ft-
Dock Construction (check applicable items):
seasonal dock (relocated or replaced each year)
permanent piling with seasonal deck __permanent piling and decking
wooden decking _____ metal decking
List Dock Accessories:
Number of fire extinguishers available at the dock
Number of life preservers available at the dock
List number of slips in each category ("slips" includes boat lifts):
Transient (day use only) slips ______ Transient (day use) off-shore buoys -------
Permanent moorage slips G ___ Permanent moorage off-shore buoys ------
Dry Stonge (tack) slips ___________ Mitimum number of boats at the dock
15.List number of off-street parking spaces available for users of the joint use dock.
Parking, if provided must not be separated from the dock by any public road.
___ spaces.
FROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
16. Shoreline is protected by (check applicable items):
stone rip rap ___ wood seawall ___ metal seawall concrete seawall
y grass and vegetation only____other (specify)
17. Depth of water at shoreline: )- ft: at 50 ft. out:at 100 ft. out :
Page 3 of 5
REQUIRED attachments The following must accompany this application:
A.
B
C.
DOCK PLAN - ALL APPUCATIONS
A dock plan, drawn to scale, showing the shoreline width of this property, the side
property lines the location, layout and dimensions of all docks, slips and buoys. If
off*strect parking, drv storase or other on^lai^ tunctions are intended, these also should
be shown on the plan.
UNINCORPQRA i ED GROUPS OR ASSOCIATIONS
1. A list of th? names and mailing addresses of all members and/or slip users.
2.A certified copy of the by-laws or agreement for joint use.
Note; This copy "is not required if the applicant initials and cenifies the following staiement:
"This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same by-laws or
agreement onginaliy made in ______ (state year) and on file with the City.
Applicant’s mitials
INCORPORATED CLUBS OR ASSOCIATIONS
1. A list of the names, mailing addresses and titles of all corporation officers
2. A statement as to the total number of members in the club or association.
Q> members
3.A certified copy of the articles of incorporation and by-laws ot the corporation.
.Note: These copies are not required if the applicant initials and cenifies the following statement:
"This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is lo be operated under the same articles of
incorporation andy'or by-laws as ongmally made or last amended m f (state year) and
on file with the City."
e.s.Applicant’s initials
D. ANNUAL LICENSE FEE - ALL APPUCATIONS
Joint Use Dock License Application Fee according to the current City Fee Schedule
INITIAL APPLICATION FEE
RENEWAL JOINT USE FEE, per year
PT IT.S SLIP FEE for each permanent moorage slip,
lift, dry ’ stack, or buoy
(fi slips @ 2.00 each
TOT/kL DLT THIS APPLICATION
Page 4 of 5
20.00
iX >d)0
51.00
LATE FEE - Renewals
Application for renewal of licenses shall be made no later than March 1 of the license year. JM
City shall not accent renewal license applications received after January 31 unless theapplicatjop
is accompanied bv a late fee of S25.00.
REVIEW PROCEDURE
When a complete application is received, the application will be reviewed by the C;t>- Council
and, in the case of new or unusual applications, also by the Planning Commission and Manna
Committee. The Council will pass upon the application after complete review.
THE SUBJECT DOCK MAY BE INSTALLED AND/OR OPENED FOR USE ONLY UPON
approval of the LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests the Orono
Citv Council to review this Joint Use Dock License Application, and agrees and authorizes the
City of Orono and the City’s employees and agents to enter upon the property at any reasonable
time to perform safety and code compliance inspections.
C
Signed
\Date
Pate 5 of 5
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 160 • WAY2ATA. MINNESOTA 55391 • TELEPHONE 612473*7033
EUGENE K STROmiEN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
BOARD MEMBERS
WiMiam A Johnstone
Chair. MinnetonKa
Douglas E BMxcock
Vict Chair. Spnng
Joseph Z\eak
Secretary. Greenwood
RoPert Rascop
Treasurer. Shorewood
Mike Bloom
Minnetonka Beach
Albert (Ben) Foster
Deephaven
James N Grathwol
Excelsior
Duane Markus
Wayzata
Ross McGlasson
Tonka Bay
Craig MoUet
Victona
Eugene Panyka
Minnetnsta
Tom Reese
Mound
HertJ Suenh
Woodland
Orono
March 28. 1995
Rene Sternau
Victoria Estates Homeowners Assc.
440 No. Arm Drive
Mound, MN 55364
Subj: 1995 Multiple Dock and Mooring Area License
The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of
Directors has approved your multiple dock license
for the 1995 season.
The license and the approved site plan with
stipulations, if any, are enclosed. Any change
will require a new license.
Your continuing cooperation in our "Save the Lake"
program is appreciated.
Sincerely,
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Gregory S. Nybeck
Administrative Technician
end: license, site plan
c/encl: municipality- City of Orono
60*. Oecrc eo Cone'll
3C** Pom
)T 150.00
M« 95-71 12 WSU
6 BSU Units
MULTIPLE DOCK AND MOORING
AREA LICENSE
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVAFION DISTRICT
County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ss.
, One Hundred Fifty and No/100 *s ______________ DOLLARS
to^hTTreLVw of Slid LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT u required by
District ind complied with •» the reqoiiemenu ol slid Ordininces necessary for obu.mng ihu Ucenw
NOW, THEREFORE, By order of the Board of Directors of said District and by virtue hereof, the said
Victoria Estates Homeowners Association u hereby licensed and authorired to
operate i multiple dock subject to e.isung and future density policies and regulations adopted by the District's Board
Per 1/13/79 site plan.__________________________________________of Dtrectots, ■— *
• j 1995 Dockfor the penod of the —
leison and
ending December 31 19 95 «,i>iect 10 all the conditions and provisions of said Ordinances.
Violations of the provisions of the District's Code ^ Ordmances
are punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 da>s or imposition of a fine of not more than S700. or both.
G,..n .nd«. m, band .rd .h< corpo™» K- »l •*« lAKE MINNCTONKA CONS^VATION DISTRICT .bis
2 2nd
Attest . ^ I ^-------W - -WM II» —-----------
Exccuiiv^ifeciof Eugene R. StroinmenChaifman^_Wjjdl£m_A^^^Jol^tone
LIGHTING OF MULTIPLE DOCKS
adjoining dock use areas or create a hazard to navigation.
The LMCD board encourages all licensees to examine the intensity of their
Tiahts frortL water. Lights beaming significantly beyond the dock use
area should be adjusted by redirecting the beam, adding a shield if redirect-
ina the beam does not correct the beam intensity and possibly reduc:.ng the
light source wattage. This cooperation is urged to eliminate the need for
more restrictive lighting regulations.
Outlot C rQi
EXISTING CHANNEL •
%A
180 ’-h
22* Sedan 'V 24* Cruiser 14' Sunfish
VQ ifl 1 * »
. H " I I ^'
I.M
y/ .,,T,.„^g rO-n r-q -
hi !H|
f
1:Ln |';:'i 'iiiT 'i|i
TT-
■' 'i . 1;------------^^
•n
4’ CATWALK OVER
WETLANDS TO SHORE.
4’ BOAT DOCK X 180 ’ LONG.
*-• -r
: •
V • 'n
*; i
tA '«• N.
I*
• • -%
^ ^ -
'o ^ ‘
Outlot B
’ ' • ' ‘ ' il
APR 13 1979
^ ^
VC7
BOAT DOCK LOCATION
NO SCALE
* \y\•0
o
Plat of Victoria Estates
LM C O.
i '
1 ''
f ■
■- --^vS--
iT-'';'.
. ^
-j
fun
ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIES
g
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 5.35, ADOPTED
4/1/84 AND ENTITLED "GARBAGE AND REFUSE HAULERS"; SECTION 5.37,
ADOPTED 4/1/84 AND AMENDED 2/10/92 AND ENTITLED "ON-SITE SEWAGE
TREATMENT SYSTEMS CONTRACTOR"; SECTION 5.38 ADOPTED 2/10/92 AND
ENTITLED "ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS SITE EVALUATOR AND
DESIGNTR," AND SECTION 5.40 ADOPTED 4/1/84 AND ENTITLED "HOME
OCCLTATIONS."
The City Council of Orono ordains:
SECTION 1. Ordinance Section 5.35 adopted 4/1/84 and entitled "Garbage and Refuse
Haulers:; Section 5.37 adopted 4/1/84 and amended 2/10/92 and entitled "On-Site Sewage
Treatment Systems Contractor". Section 5.38 adopted 2/10/92 and entitled "On-Site Sewage
Treatment Systems S=te Evaluator and Designer", and Section 5.40 adopted 4/1/84 and entitled
"Home Occupations" are amended to read:
Section 5.35. Garbage and Refu.se Haulers.
Subd. 5. License Period. All licenses for garbage and refuse haulers shall expire on
May 31 of each year. Application for renewal of an existing garbage and refuse hauler s license
shall be made to the City Clerk at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date.
Section 5.37. On-Site Sewage Treatment Systems Contractors.
Subd. 6. License Period. All licenses for on-site sev age treatment sptems contractors
shall expire on March 31 of each vear. Application for renewal of an existing on-site sewage
treatment system contractor's license shall be made to the City Clerk at least sixty (60) days
prior to the expiration date.
Section 5.38. On-Site Sewage Treatment Systems Evaluator and Designer.
Subd ^ License Period. All licen.ses for on-site sewage treatment systems evaluators
and designers shall e.xpire on March 31 of each year. Application for renewal of an existing on
site sewaee treatment systems evaluator and designer's license shall be made to the City Cleik
at least si.xty (60) days prior to the expiration date.
Section 5.40. Home Occupations.
Subd. 3. License Period. .Ml licenses for home occupations shall expire on September
30 of each year. Application for renewal of an existing home occupation license shall be made
to the City Clerk at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date.
Pace I of 2
STOffil mi
iiMlil
COUNCIL MEETING
ftUG 2 8 1995
REQIjEST for COCNCn. ACTIOS J.JPJ 0|l QK0I40
DATE: Aug. 22, 1995
ITEM NO: / j
Approval:
Name Ron Moone
Title City Admini&tmor
Item Description:
1996 City Assessor Coniracl
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
City Administrator’s
Report ____
7
Attached is a proposal from R^f ^ The attached proposal has
This increase is made up of a 2.15 .o increase
of $500.00 for miscellaneous expenses.
from Rolf Er.cKson Emerpnses for Cry .Assessor services for
the year 1996 be approved.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
tm1955iONO
TOi Ron floors?, Qrcnc C i * »' n • str* tor
For the Orono Ms’^or and City Counc i 1 memo? r i
FROM: PolEricKson, Orono City MSSSttor 4,3~’g44
RoU Erickson En tsror i s?s. Inc. dts SoutnMSSt
DATE: AuQUSt 22. IP'^5
RE: \ 99ty Aii-r isfrt#r.t Contric*. ^ ^ ^ ^
T?rfn of ContrJict: 3*Dt?nb9r 1. 1 through ^iu■5ust :;.l . \99o
Current Contract amount;*74.337.00
Reoussted amount tor .hs 5 ? 5 imen t ;S73.500.00
Number of new nousei in 1 '-4
56 of
itract
My reoueat tor increase ,s O-ased on the *o'’ci..mo two factors
Cos t of f 1 '■> I n o.. do 1 n o bu s ^ n e « *
1*031 C'f acor a. I s I HQ r. ei.vi or ooer ? i t =
TOTmL
■2.1 5/.)
SI .o 13 .0 0
-T.ciT.;.o«. or-»K.
Council recjests m. oresence at a meetmo olease c^.l.
St at tne ne:-t Cit- Council meetino
I^ ‘Soo cc
X
o'
-Ctji
ny a v-A-LyfV-e c!^
c c > c^V, \\AAJi^
/60
=pai: PCLF cirr AScEcSCr
PE j ElfT^GET FOR THE r?'-s ASScScMeJT
C>-TE5 AUGUS"* 2.
t immF^ «• <«» W
^Jp_9j^_J(f.70 —us rurrHE the e ^pe ?jse
PORTION OF THE HESEEcOPE BLiwOE"
'ifcb(MUzr
1. us ARE RERLi-iCIfiG ?WJY OLE^UHITE FICTLiRES UITH COLOR 09
PICTIJREE.
2. THE COUNTY r.HE£ = OOR 0 OFFICE IB GOir;G PAPERLESS BY
«ND UE r-PE F ECU'IF EC TO BUENIT MO=E .C ''ICPE OF OUF
r—1 r—« -- t ■■ fif"i‘ T Yr<iB,i '
iiOiim lit 1 I ^TaTTiF
Tifrr
Knu
11ummi
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
COUNCIL MEETING
AUG 2 8 1995
CITY Of ORONO
DATE: Aug. 24. 1995
ITEM NO: > 5
Administrator Reviewed:Department Approval:
Name Ron Moorse
Title Ciry Admini-itrator
Item Description*: ... ^ .
Countv Road 15 at Bracketts Point Maintenance/RehabUuation Options
Agenda Section:
City Administrator’s
Report
In Ihe Council’s initial consideration of the maintenance of County Road 15 *e Counctl
J^emlal mtaSuon"' tain's Point curve and the area east of
Orono l^ne.
The County has provided a desisn that enables a widening of the roadway
reql« purchase of add.tlonal right-of-way. This
ITe rtviincii mpetine The oropertv owners on the lakeside ot KracKetis t oini iw'c
expressed concern regarding disturbing the hill that is adjacent to the roadway for rehabilitation
of the roadway.
The Countv is currentlv overlaying County Road 15 through Minnetonka Beach and "“ds to
taow whether the Bracketts Point curve should be overlaid at this ume versus a major
maintenance project at a later date.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to indicate the maintenance option selected for the Bracketts Point curve,
a.) Overlay the existing roadway
b 1 Further exploration of widening the roadway within the current right-of-way
rr
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
COUNCIL MEETING
AUG '' B 1995
cmr or orono
DATE: Aug. 24. 1995
ITEM NO: j tj.
Administrator Revieuod:Department Approval:
Name Ron Moorse
Title City Adnunistraior
Item Description:
Countv Road 15 Major Maintenance Project: Orono Orchard Intersection aiKl East
Agenda Section:
City Administrator ’s
Report
As requested by Council. Heru'^ipin County has provided information regarding right-of*\^ay
acquisition needs and costs related to the Couniv 15 major maintenance project, which includes
the intersection of Counts^ 15 and Orono Orchard Road and east to the Orono/Wayzata border.
The total riehi-of-way costs chargeable to the city are S 100.000. This amount is significantly
greater than anticipa ’.ed. Hennepin County staff will be available at the meeting to answer
questions regarding the project and the right-ot-way needs and costs.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to direct the County regarding whether or how to proceed with plans for the major
maintenance of County Road'^ 15 from tlie Orono On hard Road intersection to the
Orono/Wayzata bordc.
rtniTO
[•riiiri
aiim
•UUMiVCiHtJ
9SA1
mm
LtMStJ
1
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
August 23, 1995
Ron Mocrse, City Administrator
Gary Cheswick# Chief of Police
Interim Staff Assistance for Police Chief
At a previous meeting, you asked me to provide you with an
explanation of need for staff assistance to me. Since assuming
the responsibility of interim chief of police, 1 have h'^.d to
combine the duties of the Lieutenant with those of the Chief.
Some of these duties need to be delegated to other staff.
Since the departure of Stephen Sullivan, I have had to delegate
some of the responsibilities to the corporals and clerical staff.
This is becoming increasingly difficult due to schedule changes,
increased work load, days off of personnel as well as the
corporal's concern they have not been able to provide the
necessary patrol to the city.
Based on this, I hereby request Sue Bobzien to be assigned
additional responsibilities to assist me.
The following reflect some of the duties that Sue Bobzien would
be assisting me with:
Payroll; Scheduling (including comp time, TOC., vacations); auto
maintenance, schools (training and development); mail; holding
cell inspection; update of policies and procedures; court
calendar; billings for part-time work; assist emergency
management; direct CSO's in their duties; newspaper reports; in-
house computer analysis/computer enhancement; prepare monthly
and year end reports for contract cities; assist clerical
department as needed; provide training for clerical personnel;
perform budgetary research; monitor communication inventory
(radios, MDT's); help in purchase of department equipment,
supplies and materials; other duties as assigned.
Because of the increased responsibility Sue would be undertaking,
some of her daily clerical duties will need to be picked up by
other clerical staff. I hereby request that Kris Knollenberg's
work schedule be inc -^ased to 40 hours per week at a rate of
$10.08 per hour, ar.c Sue Bobzien's pay rate be increased to
$14.30 per hour to compensate for the additional
responsibilities.
It is understood that this position for Sue and Kris may be
temporary until the en'-‘ of 1995, and possibly continuing through
1996. It is understoou both Sue and Kris may revert back to
their present job status depending on a final administrative
structure. I wish for these two changes to be made as soon as
possible.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
COUNCIL ir.ccii..
AUG 2 8 1995
CriY OF ORONO
DATE: August 24,1995
ITEM NO
•
Department Approval:
Name Tom Kuehn '
Title Finance Director
Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Citv Administrator's
Report
Item Description:
Management Report - 1994 Audit
Attachment: Management Report Year Ended December 31, 1994
The Management Report from the City’s auditors, Malloy, Montague, Karnowski,
Radosevich, & Co., P.A. is attached for your information. If Council wishes we will
arrange for the auditor to attend a subsequent meeting to discuss the report.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
No action is required.
PRINCIPALS
KENNeiH W MAELOV CPA
THOMAS M MONTAUUf CPA
THOMAS A KARNOWSKI CPA
PAm A RAOOSFV1CH CPA
To the City Council
City of Orono
Orono. Minnesota
We have prepared this management report in conjunction with our audit of the City's financial reutrds
for the year ending December 31. 1994. The purpose of this report is to ct'mmunicate information
relevant to city finances in Minnesota and to provide comments resulting from <>ur audit process We
have organized this report into the folloTs ing sections;
Statewide Trends and Comparisons
Financial Trends and Conditions of the City of Orono
Accounting and Report ’ng Comments
Formal Required Communications
We would be pleased to further discuss any of the informatiim contained in this rep»>rt or any other
concerns that you would like us to address. We wo'ild also like to express our thanks for the courtesy
and assistance extended t(' us during the course of our audit.
/•/.i
Mav 17. 1995
cer^Tiriro
Accoursi r A»MTn
4t0 PAMK NATKjMAI HAtaK BUU
WAvZATA BtXJl f VAHO
MiNNf Af*Ol.lS. MiNNf SOTA bS416
ttinntONt 61?M'>04^4
T! I M AJ» til? S4*> 0569
I
Statetitde Trends and C omparisons
This section of the report is to provide v^iih a sununary of financial trends of Minnesota cities of
comparable size. Most of this information is based on data as of December 31, 1993 and prior years.
Go\trnmestal Fi nds Soi rces ofR e\tmt;
Governmental funds include General, Special Revenue. Debt Service, and Capital Project Funds. The
following per capita revenue by class illustrates recent revenue trends;
Population Class 1991 Per Capita 1992 Per Capita 1993 Per Capita 1994 Per Capita
20.000 to 100.000 586.32 610.33 636.21 N/A
10,000 to 20,000 608.32 633.01 645.47 N/A
2,500 to 10.000 531.31 577.03 591.01 N/A
2.000 to 2.500 575.91 585.93 574.75 N/A
1,500 to 2,000 684.73 661.88 642 60 N/A
N/A - Not available
1991 Per Capita 1992 Per Capita 1993 Per Capita 1994 Per Capita
City of Orono
1994 ba.sed on
estimated
population
of 7.380 468.52 570.21 591.26 676.56
-1-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The components of revenue in the governmental funds by class is useful to ci^mpare the reliance t>n
Certain revenue sources.
SlainftMic fi«r Year Eadmf December M.
mo lo.orm 20 (mn 2.500 10 turn 2.(5m 2.5<m l..Vm-2 fHio
Proper^ tixet 25 6 I 21 1 «22 7 %25 0 f 19 « %
lOJ 9 9 7 7 4 X 4 0
Otfirr ttxei 2 •10 0 <0 2 0 1
Special nifMmrnli 11 7 11 5 10 9 5 2 6 4
LKcnees and prnmis 5.2 24 2 5 1 H 1 0
25 I 55 9 57 X n 1 49 X
ClMif es for am Kcs 6 S 6 1 6 9 9 4 7 5
Otfier 14 7 14 I 11 5 12 5 12 1
ToUl re\ enuc |00 0 %100 0 %100 0 %100 0 %urn 0 9
Cit> of (N^tao
IW
42 * %
11.7
ZOJ
!!.•
lb ? %
24.?
I7.i
II ?
100 0 ^100.0 %
T ax Rates
Sluggish growth in real estate market values was one ot the most significant highlights for property taxes
in 1994. Much of the problem can be an outed to actual declines in the market values for apartments
and commercial and indu.strial properties. The.se declines were coupled with growing residential
homestead values and. as a result, many communities experienced significant shifting of the property tax
burdens to their homeowners.
Although it is impossible to ctmsider every aspect and variable of local government spending, average
tax rates are often u.sed as a benchmark.
Rates expressed as a percentage of tax capacity
Average
City
Tax Rate
Average
County
Tax Rate
Average
School
Tax Rate
Average
Special
Tax Rate
Taxes collectible in 1994
All cities statewide 26 4 37 6 62.6 4.2
Metro area cities 23 2 36.3 64.2 5 6
City of Orono 16.3 37.4 65.0
7.4
GO\l1lNMENTAL EXPENDITI RE TRF.SDi?
Due to the differences in cities and the services they provide, it is very difficult if not misleading to
compare allocation of service expenditures to individual cities. HiTwever. we have provided a five-year
statewide trend which portrays the typical level of expenditures by function for cities over 2.500 in
population.
Expenditures (excluding debt principal)
General government
Public safety
Streets and highways
Sanitation
Health
Libraries
Parks and recreation
HR.A and economic development
Airports
Interest and fiscal charges
Miscellanet'us expenditures
Capital outlay for Enterprise Funds
Total expenditures
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
10.8 %10.2 %9.8 %10 3 %11.3 %
22.1 21.4 21.7 23.7 23.3
21.7 21 6 23.6 22 1 21.9
1.6 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.6
1.0 10 10 1.1 10
2.1 2 0 2.1 2 1 2 0
9 4 9 3 8.5 8.5 8 5
10.5 12.0 13.7 11.9 12.5
0.4 06 0.5 04 0 4
104 10 0 9.7 9.4
8.7
6 9 7.3 4.4 4.5 3.9
3.1 2.8 3.3 4.2 4.9
1000 1000 %100.0 100.0 100 0 %
-3-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Financi .\l Trends and C onditions of the Cm ’ of Orono
G eneral Funi »
The General Fund has continued to imprenc its financial posititm since 1989, and has a cash balance of
$1,344,283 and a fund balance of $1,430,558 at December 31, 1994. The General Fund's healthy
financial p<>sition has helped to suppiirt the growth of the operation and has provided positive cash flow.
A healthy fund balance al.so helps in the following ways:
o
o
0
Avoid volatility in tax rates
Minimize the impart of state funding changes
Allows for adequate funding of sers ices. repairs, and unfore.seen costs
Can be a factor in determining the City ’s bond rating and its resulting costs of financing
The following graph illu.strates the financial trend over the past ten years. We have also included a
revenue line to reflect the change in the size of the General Fund operation over the same periixl.
General Fund Financial Position
Years Ended December 31
3500
•P.Fund balance Cash balance Revenue
The significant drt»p in cash and fund balance in 1989 reflects the planned transfer of funds to finance
a portion of the City facilities' construction. These monies were previously accumulated in the General
Fund until the Capital Project Fund was established for the pr*>ject.
4-
I
I A kc>* aspect in determining a sufficient le\'cl of fund balance relates to the corresponding cash flow.
This is particularly important because of the high and low cash flow points throughout the year caused
by the timing of tax and state revenues. One can sec from the following graph the impact of the sute and
tax revenues received primarily in July and December. The City's General Fund cash and investment
balance fluctuated by almost a million dollars during the 1994 fiscal year.
1400
1200
General Furxj Cash & Investment Flow
Monih-Eral Balance for 1994
i‘ >,v:
1000 4-^^'*///A *///a
’V//>—
i i i 1600
ri ii.....
W// v'/‘. ^yy yAlr»ininrt-
11
mW. mm
-5-
The following chart reflects the City’s General Fund reliance on its rexenue sources
Gan«al Fund Revenue By Source
31.19M
9C
CKf ee» Id* eeregei 2S 1%
The following table and graph present the City’s General Fund revenue s<'urces for ihe past five years
Taxes Stale Other Total
Year Amount Percent Amount Pcaeni Amount Percent Revenue
I99f)S 1.581.77(S 53 6 $ in .626 38 ^S 1 258.069 42 6 %S 2.951.471
1991 1.620.232 58 9 140.448 5 1 988.932 36 0 2.749.612
1992 1.561.034 53 >219.667 7 6 1.122.0tu 38 6 2.902.705
1993 1.546.814 48 7 398.003 12 7 1.227.792 38 6 3.P3.509
1994 1.645.133 50 1 442.512 13 5 1.195.950 36 4 3.283.595
As reflected in the illustrations of General Fund revenue by source, taxes and other revenue ha\e
remained very level over the past several years As ct'mpared t*> most Minnesota municipalities, the City
of Oromi receives a very small pt^rtion of its revenue from state aids. The City receives no Uxal
Government Aid (LGA). The increase in state aids reflected above is a result of tax formula changes in
the form of state paid tax credits (HACA). The increa.se in HACA only offsets the loss of tax capacity
by these changes.
Geners! <=urKl Revenue By Source
Years Ended December 31
inc —
o^rr
j:■i
I ♦-I
no
i
»o
0 —I
!—
•
!------ -|
1 j_____
1
LJKi_
i ,
1V
Jk j
II
tftl 1»»]IW4
^ Twm. P Si*i# % OI»W*
-6-
The following chan illustrates the components of the City’s General Fund spending for 1994
General Fund Expenditures By FurK:tk>n
Year Ended December 31.1994
Pubic uf^ Mr;
I For the past several years, the City has held General Fund expttiditures below budget and with little
increase from year to year. Expenditu*'.: • • 19> ♦ were under budget by $50,071. As the graph below
shows. General Fund expenditures have been held fairly level, experiencing a 17t total increase over the
five-year period.
General Fund Expenditures By Function
Years Ended December 31
1750 ^
1500 -w
1250 - V
*11000
3
^ 750 - f s;%
250
1S90
- - -*v
- -
i_s\-
'v.
fc V N
l§m.
*0
V
j; ^
• ^
‘x
>
« '
c'-
>v'-
:N'
i4i
■‘C' ^
1991 1992 1993 1994
Public safety
Recycling
General govi
■ Parks & rec
B*: Streets
K
-7-
Enterprise Funds
The Enterprise Funds comprise 4 considerable portion of the City ’s activities. The following graph
reflects the revenues generated by the City ’s Water. Sewer, and Golf Course Funds.
I
I
I
I
I
I
600
3004
200
100
Enterprise Revenue
Yeais Ended December 31
1985 1986 1987 1968 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Water ^ Sewer ^ Golf course
L
I
-8-
r
r
I
I
I
I
Water Oper -ATIN c ; Find
The table below shows a summary of the Water Operating Fund financial results for the past five years.
The operating losses experienced by this fund have remained fairly constant over this periixl of time.
The increase in metered water sales and resulting improvement in operating results for 1994 is mainly
due to rate increases effective January 1. 1994. The increa.se in nonoperating revenue in 1994 is basically
the tax revenue levied to support debt repayment on the 1989 water and sewer revenue bonds. The
majority of nonoperating expenses is interest on these revenue bonds.
During 1994. the W'ater Operating Fund received $71,483 of residual equity from the 1980 Improvement
Bonds Debt Service Fund. This transfer was directly recorded to coniributed equity and it Ls intended
to be used to help finance the revenue bond debt.
Water 1990 1991 H92 1993 1994
Mclcrcd water sales $ 159.289 $ 153.199 $ 169.470 $ 151.798 $199.208
Total operating revenue
Total operating expenses
$ 161..565
202.068
$ 157,152
200.912
$ 171.376
219.277
$ 15-5.126
198..527
$202.446
231.518
Operating loss
Nonoperating rev enue
Nonoperating ex peases
Operating transfers in
Net income (loss)
Depreciati*'!! on coniribuied
assets charged to opcratimis
(40..W)
I0.^.50.<
(76.299)
(43.760)
77.691
(77.013)
(47.901)
50.315
(74.808)
(43.401)
10.2.52
(70.143)
142.088
(29.072)
40.976
(64.691)
$ (13.299) $ (43.082) $ (72.394) $ 38.796 $ (52.7S7)
$ 33.329 S 33.329 $ 33.329 $ 33.329 $ .34.873
We have also indicated the amount of depreciation expense on contributed assets which is included in
operating expenses. These are assets that were paid for by other funds which typically were financed by
special a.s.ses.sments or taxes. In sc’me ca.ses. it is mn the intent of the City to entirely recover this
depreciation through user charges.
-9-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sfwtr O perating FinsT)
Sewer rev-enue increased significantly in 1994 mainly due to an increase in seuer rates. This increase
in revenue enabled the City to improve its operating results althi'ugh still experiencing an operating K\ss.
Similar to the Water Operating Fund, the increase in nonoperating revenue in 1994 relates to the bond
tax levy, and the majority of nonoperating expenses relates to bond interest expense.
Sewer 1990
1991 1992 1993
1994
User charges S 401.342 $.7%. 378 $ 397.159 $ 397,993 $544.471
Total operating revenue
Total operating expercscs
s 423,592
438,066
$446.776
475.109
$ 402.475
588.328
$ 441.255
655.835
$556.360
647.610
Operating loss
Nonoperating revenue
Nonoperating expenses
Net operating transfers in
(14,474)
160.406
(72.777)
(28.333)
166.253
(74.730)
(185.853)
141.412
(72.843)
(214.580)
116.744
(68.5311
98.912
(91.250)
151.670
(63.160)
Net income (loss)$73.155 $63.190 $ (117,2841 $ (67.455)L (2.740)
Depreciation tm contributed
assets charged to operations $127.582 $127.264 $ 122.905 $ 122.905 $121.775
G oi .fCoi rsk Opkkaiim ; Fim>
The City's Golf Course Operating Fund I'perating profits have remained fairly consistent and have
continued to bring the fund s retained earnings balance to a healthy position.
Gross profit from sales
Total operating rcseiiuc
Total operating expeiLscs
Operating income
Nonoperating revenue
Nonoperating expenses
Net income
Depreciation on ctnitributed
assets charged to operations
$ 7.S28
127.281
102.825
32.284
1,026
$ 3.78'<
127.649
107,973
23.459
2.942
(798)
$ 5.623
142,320
115.814
32.129
5.8.M
$ 5.750
136.620
123.616
18.754
4.581
$ 8..»49
169.9.^4
130.461
47.822
5..582
(8.774)
$ 33.310 $ 25.603 $ 37.983 $ 23,335 $ 44.630
$2.M S 2.M $2.M 2.M $2.54
-10-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AccoiwiNG AND R eporting C omments
Follow-up on "Study and R ecommendation 's of Accounting R esponsibilities and
Procedures ”
Upon the completion of the 1993 audit, the Council requested that wc further study certain acc«)unting
responsibilities and priKcdures of the City. The .study and resulting report focussed specifically on the
segregation of duties involving;
General cash receipts
Golf course receipts
General check disbursements
Payroll
Cross training
Throughout the past year and during the course of the 1994 audit, we ob.ser\ ed changes and mtxlifications
of responsibilities and prixedures. The City has taken an active appr<iach u* improving .segregation td
duties and its internal controls. As a result, *e have removed reference to a "lack of segregation of
duties" in our 1994 repons on internal controls. It must be undersnwxl that segregation of duties and the
other aspects of internal controls can never be absolute or perfect, and should umtinually be reviewed
for improvements or tine tuning.
General Purchasing Police
The City finance staff has developed a proposed purchasing policy for our review. This policy has been
under design since our study a year ago.
The policy appears to have a simple and logical structure of documentation and approvals, while
providing for a cenain level of practicality for small and/or recurring purchases You may find some
initial resistance to using purchase order requisition forms to generate purchase orders, but this is the
preferred method. It is al.so good to require budget item information so that depanment heads and the
finance department can better manage and control the budget.
We suggest that you implement the purchasing policy as it is proposed. Monitor the effectiveness and
efficiency of the system and modify after a trial period, if nece.s.sary.
C omputer Svste.m C onversion
The City is currently undergoing a major hardware and software computer conversion affecting all of its
major data processing systems. Previously, the City used a computer .service bureau. A project of this
magnitude u.sually places additional workkiad on your staff and there are usual'y questions and concerns
over procedures and controls that arise. Please let us know if we can be of any assistance during this
process.
-11-
Formal R eqiired C ommunications
r
Statement cn Anditing Standards Number 61, "Communication With Audit C«'mmittecs," requires the
auditor to ensure that certain matters related to the conduct of an audit are communicated to those who
have responsibility for oversight ot the financial reporting privess. This is required for audits ot financial
statements for periixls beginning on or after January 1. 1989. This letter constitutes our communication
of such matters.
The A uditor ’s RESPONsiBitm LNi>er C i nkr .\li.^ A ccffted aitiiting Standards
Generally accepted auditing standards require auditors to plan and perform audits to obtain reasonable,
but not absolute, assurance about whether the finaiicial statements are free of material misstatement. An
audit includes examining, on a test biLsis. evidence supponing the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made
by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
SlGNinCANT ACCOUMINt; POLICIES
There were no changes in significant acct>unting pidicies or their application during the year audited
DlSAliKFEMENTS WITH MANAGEMENT
We have no disagreements with management concerning the application of accounting principles,
accounting estimates, the scope of the audit, disjosures in the financial statements, wording of the
auditor's report, or any other matter significant U> the City ’s general purpose financial statements.
DimCUITIES ENCOl’NTf;RED IN PEKI ()R.MIN(; TIU; AlTUI
We encountered no difficulties in dealing w ith management relating to the performance of the audit
-12-
•
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AUG ? 8
cmr OF ORONO
DATE: August 25. 1995
ITEM NO = n
Department Approval:
Name Ronald A. Moorse
Title City Administrator
Administrator Reviewed:
&
Agenda Section:
City Administrator’s Report
Item Description: 1995/1996 Police Officer Contract Settlement
The police officers have ratified proposed contract settlement for the years 1995 and 1996. The
attached memo explains each ot the elements of the contract proposal. The settlement proposal
is as follows;
1.
4.
Wages
1995: 2.75% increase
1996: 2.85% increase
Insurance Contribution
1995: $10/monih increase (from $291/month to S301/month)
1996; 50% of the average premium increase to a maximum of $15/month
Coun Time Standby Pay
One hour of pay at the regular rate if the officer is placed on standby and the trial
is cancelled or rescheduled.
Corporal Differential Pay
1995: 2.75% of regular pay (approximately S97/month)
1996; 3.0% of regular pay (approximately $106/month)
Part-time Officer Pay Schedule
The following pay schedule is applicable only when an otticer works more than
14 hours per week:
Step I Step 2
SlLZlIir Sll.HSlir
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Step 3
Si:.54.'hr
Step 4
S13.19/hr
Step 5
S13.87/hr
Step 6
S14.60/hr
Motion to approve the 1995/1996 Police Officer Contract Settlement as s.t out above, and to
authorize the City Administrator to prepare and sign a contract refiecting the settlement package.
,»~f> ^
To;
From:
Date:
Subject:
Mayor and City Council
Ron Moorse, City Administrator ^
August 10, 1995
Police Officer Union Contract Negotiations Update
After a very prolonged negotiation period, the Union steward and Union business agent have
package for <he years 1995 and w"!'
recommend to the membership for approval. TJe proposa mu« **
membership and then must be authorized by the City Council. The issues addressed in the
settlement package are as follows:
1.
'y
3.
4.
5.
Wages.
Health insurance contribution
Coun time standby pay.
Corporal differential pay.
Part-time officer pay.
An explanation of the proposed settlement package is as follows.
1.
2.
3.
Waees. Wages are proposed to increase 2.75% in 1995 and 2.85% in 1996. The
2.75% increase in 1995 is in line with the increase provided to the City s non
union staff. The average 1995 wage increase for police officers in the metro
area is 3%. There are very few 1996 settlements at this time. It appears the
1996 settlements will be between 2.75% and 3%.
Health insurance. The City’s health insurance contribution is to
increase by $10.00 per month in 1995 (from $291.00
month), and to increase from $10.00 - $15.00 per month m 1996.
increase is in line with the increase provided to the non-Umon staff. The City
health insurance contribution has been increasing at the rate of $20.(W per mon^
in recent years due to substantial increases in insurance premiums. However, m
1995 two of the three insurance carriers did not increase their premiums. ne
carrier increased premiums approximately $30.00 per month.
The proposal holds the 1996 increase to the $10.00 increase but allows for a
$15.00 increase if rates increase more significantly. The City has generally
covered 50% of the average insurance premium increase.
Court time standby pay. The timieg of coun appearances by police officers
involves substantial uncertainty because of uncontrollable variables such
length of jury trials and the potential for working out a plea arrangement, ims
uncertainty many times requires that an officer be placed on a standby stams for
-
Police Officer Union Contract Negotiations Update
August 10, 1995
Page 2
up to several hours prior to a court appearance. This avoids the officer having
to sit in the court room for several hours, but ensures the officer is available to
respond to coun when the case gets to trial. When an officer appears in coun
outside of a regular shift, the officer receives two hours of pay at the overtime
rate. This pay generally provides compensation for any standby related to the
trial.
At limes, after being on standby for several hours, the trial is canceUed either for
rescheduling or because a plea arrangement has been worked out. In these cases,
the officer docs not appear for trial, and so docs not receive the overtime pay.
Therefore, the officer receives no compensation for the standby time. The
settlement proposal provides one hour of pay as compensation for this standby
time.
4 Corporal differential pay. The corporal differential pay is pronosed to be 2.75%
of regular pay in 1995 and 3% of regular pay in 1996. This is equivalent to
$97.00 per month or $.56 per hour in 1995 and $106.00 per month or $.61 |^r
hour in 1996. The corporals serve as shift leaders to provide direction and advice
to the officers as well as taking on numerous special projects. There are very
few departments who have corporal positions that Orono can use as comparisons
concerning the corporal pay differential. However, departments do have pay
differentials for a number of special duties. These differentials generally range
from $100.00 per month to $125.00 per month.
5, Part-Time Officer Pay. The City ’s part-time police officers have been paid
according to the pay schedule in the City ’s non-union compensation plan since the
City began using part-time officers in approximately 1990. This pay schedule is
applicable as long as the officers work less than 14 hours per week as their
normal work schedule. This pay schedule is shown as Item #3 on the attached
proposal of police officer pay schedules dated January 31, 1995. If the part-time
officer normal work schedule is greater than 14 hours per week, they become
members of the police officer bargaining unit and their pay and benefits become
subject to negotiation with the Union.
Rnrkpround Concerning the Part-Time Officer Pay Issue
In 1993. due to a prolonged absence by a full-time officer for health reasons and
increased expectations regarding patrol presence by the contract cities, one of the
part-time officers worked well beyond the 14 hours per week normal schedule.
The Union took the position that because the officer worked more than 14 hours
per week he was eligible for pay and benefits set out for the full-time officers in
the police officer contract. The City took the position that the police contract
does not include language regarding pan-time officer pay and benefits, so that the
-1.
Police Officer Union Contract Negotiations Update
August 10, 1995
Page 3
City’s part-time pay schedule was applicable. This issue was resolved through
the binding arbitration process. The arbitrator ruled that for all hours worked
beyond 728 (14 hours per week times 52 weeks) the officer should be paid a full
time officer rate as indicated in the contract.
Because the arbitrator’s ruling did not meet the desires of either the City or the
Union, and to avoid future disagreements regarding this issue, the City and Umon
have negotiated a part-time pay schedule that is proposed to be made part of the
police officer contract.
The Union ’s Regarding Part-Time Officer. £ay
The Union does not want a situation where the City uses part-time officers to
simplv replace full-time officers with a part-time officer at a sipficantly lower
pay rate. The City has indicated the main purpose of the p^-time officers is to
fill in gaps in the schedule when full-time officers are on sick leave or vacation
so that the City docs not have to pay other full-time officers at an overtime rate
to fill these gaps. This benefits both the City and the officers. The City is able
to pay less to fill out the schedule and the officers have more fiexibUity m takmg
time off.
The negotiations were focused on the number of hours per week at which a part-
time officer should be paid a part-time rate vs. the full-time rate. The two ends
of this continuum were not in dispute. If the officer works less than 14 hours per
week, the pay rate is determined by the City and is set out in the non-umon
compensation plan. If the officer works a full-time schedule, the officer wUl be
paid according to the police officer contract for full-time officers. It was agreed
that if the part-time officer works 35 hours per week or more, the officer would
receive psy 3CCording to the full-time officer contract.
The remaining issue was what the level of pay should be if the officers worked
a schedule greater than 14 hours per week but less than 35 hours per week. To
resolve this issue, a new schedule was developed that added two steps to the
City’s current part-time pay schedule. This schedule is set out and explained as
Item #2 on the attached proposal regarding police officer pay schedules. The
work schedules of the part-time officers will be reviewed each three months to
determine the applicable pay schedule.
This proposed pay schedule provides the City with flexibility to use part-time
officers more than 14 hours per week but less than 35 hours per week without
paying them at the full-time officer rate. The increase in the part-time pay
schedule is significanUy tempered by the fact that the part-time officers are only
eligible for the top two steps when they are working a schedule greater than 14
hours per week.
• . fjf ?~rHi .. I
PROPOSAL . POLICE OmCER PAY SCHEDULES (1-31-9^
3 WAGE SCHEDULES FOR POLICE OFFICERS
* *# -r.
A ^
i 1- * •
• *«i*'
1. Full-time work schedule
Pay schedule per current contract
2.
3.
$13.19 $13.87 $14.60
Pan-dme schedule greater Uun 14 houra/week (Proposed for 1995)
,.„i Siaa San4 SlsU
$11.22/hr $11.83 $12.54
Movemcnc through the steps will be based on each 1040 hours of work untU Step
4 is reached; then each 2080 hours for Step 5 and 6.
steps 5 and 6 wjU
Sra ^r^^ror^b^aaLTu'S) The pay schedule for those off.cers
who« Sedu™” rnains at less' than 14 hours per week is shown m number 3
below.
Part-time schedule less than 14 hours/wcek
Pay schedule is determined by the City. The 1995 pay schedule is as follows:
Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
$11.88 $12.54 $13.19
Step 1
$11.22
»»
A .
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: Aug
ITEM NO:
Ci# v ^4C4L ii« • j
AUG 2 8 1995
Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Name Dorothy Hallin
Tltk City Ocrk
Licenses
Iton Description:
Lkcnscs
Home Occupation license Norum and Pearson, P.A.
Annual Review 3264 North Shore Drive
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve above listed license
CITT OF ORONO
?.C. Bex 66, ——-
Crvsral Bay, MN £53-.-
application for annual HCJffi OCCBFjrJTXO^
“-f5«“'S.cense A??rovec;_ ....— -----1
^ ^ * -
2,’* Heviev Fee - S5C.00
-ICSSS2 err^a^ Review Fee - S3C.0C
BfiniTIl Pparsnn. F-^
;DDRS£S i ^7fL/. Mr>i>rh qhnre lira
;o. cf Irplcyees viP>.i.n epera
?~ovade 3isa c- aazies c_
RHON2: 7-471
__ <—t pay7ara ---------
.cr-:jrhr£e —Phis aaalica'icn. ,— *-vees cr. aac.v. c- —
-=“-'“””“^;Z:;-i-^c1S OK ECME CCCOPATION^
ORCNO MnmcrPAi. srsomsioN 4 (c)PDRSOAST to SZOTION 10.20, E-==-‘-
oceuwa*::-
A. w ^ w .
-evicr. to
is ur.law-fu-
—crs.^s —ww.-.—
«ow «• w
, .• . . - — a^Pzr^cCi—^2S«‘cm.— —tisc iicrr^s.
rc- a-^v business epe-S-^--- 2.-
v-uncuu ureper licenses.
—<—..c- *^fi»s*ce I —e - -___.• - --0 -usuness;^.li es-SCT.s e.-Ct.-e_ — ----- - .• n
_____,— -lor -Than sigr-s perniP-ec
_____e-=ial sicr.s ?err.------e-
sinenu—a^ rene.
—ses • . . --i^v re suc-e- w-.- -------jic excessive succx -w—••>'--
^ sa*es is ncu allowed.^ — o♦* reua—sc.—^ —*. o ^ * - e w w >— * ,
r:us-> be gained fren .......................e
Zr-nrance n e ^ ^ccouuanac
"I-!Lrsiraed herary a?raas_rc ■
icanal Ccce anu an!* t.——. —
ne
««* W . '
'■-•cr.s cnenee above frer. Phe ^
cnF-he'ciny nay require.
-^-^a c: , rj. , ---- 0a1:a:_P ^'^'----j^
~~~~~~~~~’“~~'ZZ~Z' a.o-r*ev or eppli-auacn, s—-- --
’ ^ ^SS C.t^— • __^ ***^®use
cvnn•<*T
__effio[2^*^une C— ijO.*—g ' 15* • *1 ^
il • ' w'V'u'A'L*
•* J •••“•- •- •' • V •
< V • ♦ C: •.■‘•’‘•*•7
w* - "• “' -J. •’M •
'■^zri>.<
i-i ri’
i '
’jaaa
f
3S
o
ij
m m m •CB PRREGOREMP # NAME YTDDPT GROSS CURRENT,GROSS471668060474563339
476921819
471840871
475443862
468113870
468843008
472503991
469526026
475989721
468821018
472529007
468701868
470089708
469686562
468420832
474667812
475380151
477500666
475444249
477463877
471569863
473141624
471848180
472500574
121262417
475344512
480843542
477561040
470987727
477700023
334506281
477028779
473108428
468909535
476783251
476866274
470700901
469848107
471487919
474167795
473746173
473609629
468320409
470566529
469629194
475569177
472563051
474663296
470704904
475505292
468629488
471067937
477881539
ANDERSON, BRUCE L 31
BOBZIEN, SUE A 31
BORIS, SCOTT W 31
BOSMA, JAMIE L. 12
BRINKHAUS, JOHN F 42
CALLAGHAN, JEREMIAH 35
CARLSON, MICHAEL B 31
CHESWICK, GARY B 31
CORNICK, JAMES L 31
DEMBOUSKI, JAY C 31
ENGLISH III, IRVING 31
ERICKSON, KURT R 31
FISCHENICH, DAN T 31
FISCHER, CHRISTOPHER 35
GAFFRON, MICHAEL P 33
GERHARDSON, JOHN R 42
GREGORY, JAMES D 42
HALLIN, DOROTHY M 12
HANSEN, STEVEN C 42
HANSING, CAROL J 31
HASEMAN, CAROLE 12
JOHNSON, BRADLEY P 31
JOSTROM, FOREST J 93
KNOLLENBERG, KRISTIN 31
KUEHN, THOMAS M 15
MABUSTH, JEANNE A 33
MCINTYRE, WILLIAI4 E 93
MCNICHOLS, DAVID L 31
MELTON, NEIL W. 31
MILLER, CHRISTOPHER 15
MOORSE, RONALD J 12
MOROWCZYNSKI, JAMES 31
NELSON, DAVID D. 35
OAS, DANIEL 0 93
OBERAIGNER, SCOTT G 42
OBRIEN, RANDY L 92
OLSON, JOHN C. 15
OMAN, LYLE E 33
PALMER, GREGORY A 42
PERSELL, WILLIAM R. 31
PETERSON, JACK W 93
RATHBUN, BARRY J 92
ROSS, JOHN A 93
RUTHER, ALVIN C. 93
SCHCENHOFF, JOHiN B 31
SKREEN, DALE S 42
STEFFENHAGEN, RONALD 93
THOMTON, MARK R 31
TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F 31
TOMCZYK, MARK W 31
VANG, BRUCE L 33
VEE, LIIJDA S 12
WALKER, NATHAN T. 93
WECKI4AN, STEPHEN-^ 33
32403.3218311.27
21051.51
10203.30
28884.38
2569.96
5827.68
30885.39
31760.03
31903.37
29216.67
27169.22
28343.36
1363.38
26402.25
39903.96
22248.46
22744.19
21035.31
10945.94
18200.17
28996.25
1450.00
6842.92
38842.93
33065.18
2536.80
28716.75
2218.95
19544.29
43240.47
29440.42
643.12
2411.80
21500.02
21352.61
16697.40
26402.22
21212.97
5555.18
3542.55
21159.64
1023.70
635.55
21362.39
21481.26
22744.16
27431.73
28956.20
2'">^95.82
21 ;2.15
18623.64
1284.00
21088.93
18181071
1238
591
2388
206
269
1945
1943
2041
1581
1611
1581
344
1555
2357
1381
1340
1229
580
1071
1611
191
321
2288
1948
255
1506
89
1180
2449
1898
102
65
1540
1283
1017
1555
1358
145
456
1143
133
114
1283
1143
1340
1581
1937
1611
1340
1071
417
1242
.04 .20
.77
.88
.88
.93
.31
.60
.90
.05
.35
.53
.36
. 06
.53
.73
.11 .
.00 .
.46:
.48
.20
.52
.40
.73
.48
.08
.20
.08:
.76!
.32 1
.44
.57
. 90
.10
.40
. 05
.68
.52
.12
.87
. 00
.69 I
.4 0 ;
.00 I
. 95
. 63
.00
.36
.17
.52
. 00
.20
. 00
.48
63,774.04
wCOUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 17 CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT 1995 01:02:54VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT 8 INVOICE PO NUM.Page 1 MANUAL1995/08/17 $5,671.00 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNI SAVINGS Vl/H 6 TRANSF 9999-2030 003120 OH033837$5,671.00*
1995/08/17 $156.54 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF 7/95 8/95 COUNCIL 9999-2030 003114 OH
1995/08/17 $9,423.08 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OP FIT,FICA,MBDCR WITHH 9999-2030 003114 OH
1995/08/17 $156.54 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF 7/95 8/95 COUNCIL 9999-2030 C03114 OH
1995/08/17 $2,815.74 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CITY SHARE FICA,MEDC 9999-2032 003114 OH
033838 $12,551.90*
1995/08/17 $36,372.60 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NET PAYROLL 9999-2030 003117 OH
'^33839 $36,372.60*
1995/08/17 $1,265.00 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURA DEF COMP W/H 9999-2030 003123 OH
033840 $1,265.00*
1995/08/17 $164.82 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPOR THOMTON 8C0266780 9999-2030 003119 OH
033841 $164.62*
1995/08/17 $174.50 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPOR SKREEN #C0262310 9999-2030 003110 OK
033842 $174.50*
1C95/08/17 $100.00 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-DEF COMP WITMUEIO 9999-2030 003122 OH
033843 $100.00*
1995/08/17 $2,795.83 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVE STATE TAX WITHHELD 9999-2030 003115 OH
033844 $2,795.83*
1995/08/17 $55.00 MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE DEF COMP WITHHELD 9999-2030 003124 OH
033845 $55.00*
1995/08/17 $100.00 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DE DEF COMP WITHHELD 9999-2030 003125 OH
C33846 $100.00*
1995/08/17 $175.10 PEBSCO/OBRA DEF COMP W/H 9999-2030 00312^OH
1995/08/17 $75.00 PEBSCO/OBRA DEF CVMP W/H 8/95 CO 9999-2030 003127 OH
033847 $250.10*
1995/08/17 $1,085.00 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYO DEF COMP WITHHELD 9999-2030 003126 OH
033040 $1,085.00*
1995/08/17 -$388.02 PERA CREDIT 7/17-7/30/95 9999-2031 003116 OH
1995/08/17 $4,527.60 PERA PERA CITY SHARE 9999-2031 003116 OH
1995/08/17 $3,461.96
PERA PERA W/H 9999-2030 003116 OH
033049 $7,601.54*
1995/08/17 $29.00 UNITED WAY CHARITY DONATIONS W/9999-2030 003121 OH
033850 $29.00*
$68,216.29
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Fri Aug 25 CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT 1995 00:16!l3VENDOR DESCRIPTION REPLACE LAMPS ACCOUNT # 0099-4342 INVOICE9267-26 PO NUM Page 1 MANUAL OH033854
033855
033856
033857
033658
033859
033860
033861
033862
033863
033864
033865
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/20
1995/00/28
1995/08/28
$46.60$46.60*
$89.37
$87.28
$177.20
$50.00
$403.85*
$63.88
$63.88*
$49.50
$49.50*
$36.99
$36.99*
$1,000.00
$1,000.00*
$7,075.00
$7,075.00*
$1,104.20
$1,104.20*
$71.09
$71.09*
$17.60
$10.74
$50
$2
$8
$8
$114
66
34
60
60
74*
$524.31
$524.31*
$505.84
$187.68
$693.52*
$75
$111
$2
$2
$1
91
22
55
66
14
ALL STAR ELECTRIC
AMERICAN NATL BANK
AMERICAN NATL BANK
AMERICAN NATL BANK
AMERICAN NATL BANK
AT6T INFO SYSTEM
AUGIBS MOBILE CHEF
BOB2IEN\SUE A
BRAUN, GIL
AGrNT FEE THRU 8/20/
AGENT FEE THRU 8/20/
AGENT FEE THRU 8/20/
AGNET FEE THRU 0/15/
CELL PHONE CHARGES
SANDWICHES FOR RESAL
UNIFORM SHOES-BOB2IE
EASEMENT - BRAUN
BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC PAVE PW REAR LOT
CARGILL SALT
CITY OF LONG LAKE
CITY
CITY
CITY
CITY
CITY
CITY
OF ORONO
OF ORONO
OF ORONO
OF ORONO
OF ORONO
OF ORONO
COCA COLA VENDING
COLONIAL LIFE INS CO
COLONIAL LIFE INS CO
COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL
LIFE/GRP
LIFE/GRP
LIFE/GRP
LIFE/GRP
LIFE/GRP
SOFTENER SALT
HARTviNGTON LIFT STAT
REPAIR TIRE
KITCHEN SUPPLIES
EMPLOYEE PICNIC SUPP
ADD'L POSTAGE
ADD'L POSTAGE
ADD'L POSTAGE
POP FOR RESALE
SEPT INSURANCE
SEPT INSURANCE
SEPT INSURANCE
SEPT INSURANCE
SEPT INSURANCE
SEPT INSURANCE
SEPT INSURANCE
0909- 4630
0910- 4630
0912-4630
0907-4630
0099-4320
0591-4002
0129-4221
0351-4512
0651-4530
0549-4234
0569-4344
0590
0099
0039
0099
0549
0569
4341
4210
4399
4210
4321
4321
0591-4802
0129-4152
9999-2030
0129
9999
0069
0569
0549
4152
2030
4152
4152
4152
003161
003161
003160
003159
003151
28670
003151
003144
6720
708002
8
003150
003150
003158
003150
003150
003150
1785340
808950001181
800950001181
003139
003139
003139
003139
003139
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OK
OK
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Fri Aug 25 1995 00:16:13 Page 2CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT ff INVOICE PC NUM.MANUAL
033866
1995/08/281995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
$24.25$.85
$21.67
$12.75
$253.00*
COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFB/GRP
COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP
COMMERCIAL LIFB/GRP
SEPT INSURANCE SEPT INSURANCE
SEPT INSURANCE
SEPT INSURANCE
0039-41520590-4152
0249-4152
0174-4152
003139003139
003139
003139
OHOH
OH
OH
033867
1995/08/28 $34.95
$34.95*
CROWN MARKING INC DESK SIGNS 0099-4210 8097 OH
033868
1995/08/28 $113.90
$113.90*
CYS UNIFORMS PANTS-FISCHENICH 0129 4221 15313 OH
033869
1995/08/28 $54 .40
$54.40*
EARL F ANDERSON ASSC UTILITY DROP BOX SIG 0099-4232 143137 OH
033870
1995/08/28 $178.30
$178.30*
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE BEER FOR RESALE 0591-4815 556154 OH
033871
1995/08/28 $115.61
$115.61*
FEED RITE CONTROLS CHLORINE 0549-4234 60474 OH
033872
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
$44.73
$52.19
$96.92*
FISHER ENTERPRISES
FISHER ENTERPRISES
TREES-P.O. LOT
BLACK DIRT-CRYSTAL B
0290-4231
0290-4231
34679
47499
OH
OH
033873
1995/08/28 $79.00
$79.00*
FRED PRYOR SEMINARS WINDOWS SEMINAR-HASE 0039-4356 003153 OH
033874
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
$69.02
$8.28
$8.28
$49.68
$2.60
$2.60
$68.21
$8.28
$49.68
$2.60
$269.23*
G 6 K SERVICES
G Si K SERVICES
G Si K SERVICES
G Si K SERVICES
G Si K SERVICES
G Si K SERVICES
G Si K SERVICES
G Si K SERVICES
G S. K SERVICES
G St K SERVICES
FLOOR MATS
RATHBUN
RATHBUN
STREET EMPLOYEES
STEFFEHHAGEN
STEFFEMHAGEN
STREET EMPLOYEES
RATHBUN
STREET EMPLOYEES
STEFFENHAGEN
0099-4343
0549-4221
0569-4221
0249-4221
0590-4221
0590-4221
0249-4221
0569-4221
0249-4221
0590-4221
565737
565739
550171
558170
55816%
561992
561993
561994
565730
565736
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
033875
1995/08/28 $50.00
$50.00*
GANGELHOFF, DONNA DEER PICKUP 0105-4360 003146 OH
033876
1995/08/28 $18.04
$18.04*
GERHARDSON, JOHN 4 DOOR STOPS 0099 4343 003162 OK
033877
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
$89.25
$89.25
$178.50*
GOPHER STATE ONECALL
GOPHER STATE ONECALL
JULY SERVICE
JULY SERVICE
0569-4306
0549-4306
5070531
5070531
OH
OH
Council check register Pri Aug 25 CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMCKJNT
033887
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/23
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
033888
033889
033890
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
$207.33$207.33*1995 00:16:13VENDOR GRAYBAR
$15.00
$15.00*
$263.39
$263.39*
GREGORY, JIM
HACH CHEMICAL CO
$118.00
$118.00*
$14.88
$14.88*
$72.26
$72.26*
$546.19
$546.19*
$141.68
$141.68*
$83.09
$83.09*
LIEBSCHER, GARY
$2,205.00 LOGI.S -SUITE 300
$24.60 LOGIS -SUITE 300
$10.55 uOGIS -SUITE 300
$793.92 LOGIS -SUITE 300
$308.00 LOGIS -SUITE 300
$667.00 LOGIS -SUITE 300
$379.01 LOGIS -SUITE 300
$16.25 LOGIS -SUITE 300
$526.00 LOGIS -SUITE 300
$226.00
$5,156.33*
LOGIS -SUITE 300
$10.00
$92.76
$102.76*
$5,695.62
$5,695.62*
$71.65
$71.65*
LUNGANKI, JEREMY
$100.00 MALLOY KARNOWSKI CO
P*g« 3DESCRIPTIONACCOUNT UL.S. LIGHTBULBS 0569-4232 104-322S25 OH
WTR OPERATOR LICENSE 0549-4383 00314S OH
CHLORINE PILLOWS 0549 4234 1S23S4 OH
DWI BLOOD TEST 0129-4399 003134 OH
POSTAL VERIFICATIONS 0099-4321 003130 OH
LIGHT BULBS 0099-4232 O010fi-204151 OH
BRAKE REPAIR (1425 0249-4341 50430 OH
REPAIR FAIRWAY MOWER 0590-4342 1S467 OH
REFUND CREDIT BALANC 9673-1191 003158 OH
JULY SERVICE 0099-4352 AR0795 OHJULY DISC SPACE 0569-4355 AR0795 OHJULY DISC SPACE 0549-4356 AR0795
V-/I1
OHJULY DISC SPACE 0129-4355 AR0795 OHBANYCN P/R CONVERSIO 0099-4352 AR0795
v/ri
OHJULY SERVICE 0129-4352 AR079|
v/i 1
OHJULY DISC SPACE 0099-4355 AR0795
W*l
OHDATA PROC COURIER 0099-4353 AR0795
V/ ft
OHJULY SERVICE 0569-4352 AR0795
wfl
OHJULY .SERVICE 0549-4352 AR0795 OH
SHARPEN BLADES 0590-4342 1512 OHREPAIR WEED WHIP 0590-4342 1401
wfl
OH
SWEEPER BROOM FOR JO 0633-4560 003130 OH
REIMB MEALS 0129-4382 003143 OH
AUDIT PAYMENT «3/EIN 0549-4300 23927 OH
i
COOMCIL CHECK REGISTER Pri Aug 25 1995 00:16:13 Pag» 4CHECK NO CHECK DATE#CHECK AMCXrNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT i INVOICE PO NUM.MANUAL1995/0S/28 $120.00 MALLOY KARNOWSKI CO AUDIT PAYMENT #3/FIN 0S69-4300 23927 OH1995/08/28 $85.00 MALLOY KARNONSKI CO AUDIT PAYMENT #3/FIN 0590-4300 23927 OH1995/08/28 $2,652.00 MALLOY KARNOliSKI CO AUDIT PAYMENT 83/FIN 0020-4300 23927 OH1995/08/28 $3,281.00 MALLOY KARNOWSKI CO AUDIT PAYMENT »3/FIN 0069-4300 23927 OH033891$6,238.00*
1995/08/28 $406.09 MCNICHOLS, DAVID TUITION REIMB (L.L.S 0129-4356 003133 OH033892$406.09*
1995/08/28 $532.02 MED CTR HEALTH CARE SEPT INSURANCE 9999-2030 1307456 OH1995/08/28 $461.72 MED CTR HEALTH CARE SEPT INSURANCE 0249-4151 1.397456 OH1995/08/28 $160.71 MED CTR HEALTH CARE SEPT INSURANCE 0129-4151 1387456 OH1995/08/28 $602.02 MED CTR HEALTH CARE SEPT INSURANCE 0174-4151 1387456 OH033893$1,756.47*
1995/08/28 $2,668.55 MEDICA CHOICE SEPT INSURANCE 0129-4151 195244102552 OH1995/08/28 $262.79 MEDICA CHOICE SEPT INSURANCE 0549-4151 195244102552 OH1995/08/28 $412.54 MEDICA CHOICE SEPT INSURANCE 0569-4151 195244102552 OH1995/08/28 $1,272.42 MEDICA CHOICE SEPT INSURANCE 9001-1298 195244102552 OH1995/08/28 $488.17 MEDICA CHOICE SEPT INSURANCE 0174-4151 195244102552 OH1995/08/28 $2,368.64 MEDICA CHOICE SEPT INSURANCE 9999-2030 195241102552 OH1995/08/28 $1,204.04 MEDICA CHOICE SEPT INSURANCE 0249-4151 195244102552 OH1995/08/28 $675.33 MEDICA CHOICE SEPT INSURANCE 0069-4151 195244102552 OH1995/08/28 $1,163.50 MEDICA CHOICE SEPT INSURANCE 0039-4151 195244102552 OH033894$10,515.98*
1995/08/28 $332.96 MIDWEST ASPHALT HAND PATCH 0249-4233 S0741MB OH1995/08/28 $47.50 MIDWEST ASPHALT HAND PATCH 0249-4233 60619MB OHl1995/08/28 $166.48 MIDWEST ASPHALT HAND PATCH 0249-4233 60605MB OH1995/08/28 $142.02 MIDWEST ASPHALT HAND PATCH 0249-4233 60491MB f OH033895$688.96*
1995/08/28 $47.14 MIDWEST BSNS PROD MISC SUPPLIES 0099-4210 29226%OH1995/08/28 $107.97 MIDWEST HSNS PROD MISC SUPPLIES 0099-4210 3 0131 s’OH033896$155.11*
1995/08/28 $49.45 MINNEGASCO UTILITY CHARGES 0099-4324 003156 OH1995/08/28 $49.23 MINNEGASCO UTILITY CHARGES 0099-4324 003156 OH1995/08/28 $64.60 MINNEGASCO UTILITY CHARGES 0549-4324 003156 OH1995/08/28 $10.72 MINNEGASCO UTILITY CHARGES 0569-4324 003156 OH033897$174.00*
1995/08/28 $74.22 MN BENEFIT ASSN SEPT INSURANCE 0129-4152 003147 OH033898$74 . 22*
1995/08/28 $683.03 MN POL RECRNMT SYS 1ST,2ND QTR 1995 0080-4303 003142 OH033899$683.03*
1995/08/28 $3,331.33 MN STATE TREASURER 2ND OTR, 1995 SURCHA 9001-2222 003141 OH033900$3, 31.33*
i
*
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Fri Aug 25 If95 00:1«:13CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTIC*! ACCOUNT • INVOICE PO NUM.Page 5 MANUAL0339011995/01/28 $18.50$16.50*MOBILE RADIO ENG. INC.REPAIR CELLULAR ANTE 0129-4341 5410 OH0339021995/08/21 $95.00$95.00*NATL FIRE PROTECTION A NFPA MEMBERSHIP-OMAN 0174-4300 003137 OH
033903
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
$7.21
$90.45
$45.02
$34.52
$73.58
$6.64
$4.24
$10.87
$4.89
$276.42*
NAVARRE HARDWARE
NAVARRE HARDWARE
NAVARRE HARDWARE
NAVARRE HARDWARE
NAVARRE HARDWARE
NAVARRE HARDWARE
NAVARRE HARDWARE
NAVARRE HARDWARE
NAVARRE HARDWARE
MISC PARTS
MISC PARTS
Ml SC PARTS
MISC PARTS
MISC PARTS
MISC PARTS
MISC PARTS
MISC PARTS
MISC PARTS
0S69-4234
0590-4232
0129-4232
0099-4231
0249-4232
0290-4232
0174-4232
0549-4232
0569-4232
003140
003140
003140
003140
003140
003140
003140
003140
003140
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
CH
OH
OK
OH
033904
1995/08/28 $2,234.06
$2,234.06*
NSP STREET LIGHT BILL 0249-4325 003155 OH
033905
1995/08/28 $7.70
$7.70*
OLD DUTCH FOODS INC.CHIPS FOR RESALE 0591-4002 772610 OH
033906
1995/08/28 $2.15
$2.15*
OLSON, JOHN C.UTIL BILLS TO P.O.0569-4301 003157 OH
033907
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
$38.24
$65.93
$361.52
$465.69*
OTTEN BROS
OTTEN BROS
OTTEN BROS
BLACK EDGE FOR BLDG
EDGING-CC CHAMBERS
TREES FOR CRYSTAL BA
0099 4232
0099-4343
0395-4530
25672
26607
9506
OH
OH
OH
033908
1995/08/20 $285.84
$285.84*
PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR TOWING CHARGES 0129-4396 00314<|OH
033909
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
$78 . ,?0
$166.60
$64.35
$309.15*
PIONEER
PIONEER
PIONEER
LAND USB APPS
ORD «137
SAM'S C.U.P.
0099-4322
0099-4322
0099-4322
920
916
919
CH
OH
OH
033910
1995/00/20
1995/00/20
1995/00/20
1995/00/20
1995/00/20
1995/00/20
1995/00/20
$229
$1,166
$275
$794
$33
$10,657
$367
00
20
00
60
00
42
50
POPHAM
POPHAM
POPHAM
POPHAM
POPHAM
POPHAM
POPHAM
HAIK
HA IK
HAIK
HAIK
HAIK
HAIK
HAIK
fir
&
k
St
Si
Si
St
ASSOC
ASSOC
ASSOC
ASSOC
ASSOC
ASSOC
ASSOC
$13,523.52*
MAY LEGAL
MAY LEGAL
POLICE PERSONNEL
G. NELSON MAY
L. NEHRING MAY
MPRS LAWSUIT MAY
MAY APPLICATIONS
0080
0000
0000
0000
0080
0080
0840
4303
4301
4303
4303
4303
4303
4303
2443063
2443063
24430G3
2443063
2443063
2443063
2443063
1995/00/20 $169.64 PRAIRIE OFFSET PURCHASE ORDER FORMS 0099-4322 105514
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
CdOHCIL CHECK REGISTER Fri Aug 25 CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT 1995 00:1C:19 VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT I Page CINVOICE PO NUM. MANUAL033911$169.€4*033912 1995/01/2*$66.19
$6C.13«
PRECISION BUSINESS SYS REPAIR HAND RECORDER 0099-4340 109779 OH
033913
1995/0B/2S $135.26
$135.26*
PRECISION TURF fungicide 0590-4231 6606 OH
033914
1995/08/20
1995/08/20
1995/08/20
1995/08/20
1995/00/20
$37.33
$45.60
$27.52
$39.95
$30.60
$101.00*
PRO TIRE C EXHAUST
PRO TIRE k EXHAUST
PRO TIRE k EXHAUST
PRO TIRE k EXHAUST
PRO TIRE k EXHAUST
OIL CHANGE #170
OIL CHANGE. SVC #171
OIL CHANGE #166
ALIGNMENT #174
OIL CHANGE #172
0129-4341
0129-4341
0129-4341
0129-4341
0129-4341
6289
6106
6165
6131
6132
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
03391S
1995/08/201
1995/08/20
$33.40
$76.20
$109.60*
REED VENDING
REED VENDING
CANDY FOR RESALE
CANDY FOR RESALE
0591-4802
0591-4002
15965
15971
OH
OH
033916
1995/08/20
1995/00/20
1995/08/20
$7.93
$10.96
$40.59
$59.40*
RITZ CAMERA
RITZ CAMERA
RITZ CAMERA
FILM DEVELOPING
FILM DEVELOPING
FILM
0129-4210
0129-4210
0099-4210
3765536
3765032
3765200
OH
OH
QH
033917
1995/00/20 $6,254.04
$6,254.04•
ROLF E ERICKSON SEPTEMBER ASSESSING 0059-4307 00314B OH
033918
1995/00/20
1995/00/20
$1,415.12
$126.50
$1,541.62*
SAFE BENEFITS
SAFE BENEFITS
SAFE BENEFITS-SEPT
SAFE BENEFITS-SEPT
9999-2030
0299-4306
15907
15907
OH
OH
033919
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
$25.09
$16.22
$41.31*
SCHARBER k SONS INC
SCHARBER k SONS INC
REPAIR JOHN DEERE
PARTS FOR JOHN DEERE
0590-4342
0590-4232
107555
10702 1
OH
OH
033920
1995/08/28 $59.41
$59.41*
SCHERER MEATS STAFF PICNIC FOOD 0039-4399 003131 QH
033921
1995/08/28 $12.71
$12.71*
SCHLUMBERGER GASOLINE CARDS 0099-4232 172250 OH
033922
1995/00/28 $35.15
$35.15*
SCHWAAB INC DATE STAMP 0590-4210 L792896 OH
033923
1995/00/28 $133.12
$133.12*
SECOND CHANCE VEST CARRIERS 0129-4221 59014 OH
033924
1995/08/28 $15.00
$15.00*
SKREEN, DAI.E WTR OPERATOR LICENSE 0549-4383 003132 OH
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Fri Auq 25 1995 00:15:13 Pag« 7CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTIC^ACCOUNT 8 INVOICE PO NUM. MANUAL0339251995/05/25 $118.15$118.15*STRGAR ROSCOE FAUSCH T.H. 12 STUDY 0299-4900 952196-5 OH0339251995/05/28 $74.10$74.10*THORPE DIST CO BEER FOR RESALE 0591-4815 63973 OH
033927
1995/08/25
1995/08/28
$40.90
$144.84
$185.74*
ULTIMATE AWARDS
ULTIMATE AWARD.S
AWARD CERTIFICATES
AWARD PLAQUES
0840-4243
0129-4232
5504
5467
OH
OH
033928
1995/08/25 $102.78
$102.78*
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED BALANCE DUE 0129-4221 003129 OH
033929
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
$7.71
$78.43
$86.14*
US WEST CELLULAR INC
US WEST CELLULAR INC
CELL PHONE CHARGES
CELL PHONE EQUIPMENT
0129-4320
0129-4320
003136
003135
OH
QH
033930
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
$26.63
$45.94
$17.75
$133.12
$223.44*
US WEST COMMUN
US WEST COMMUN
US WEST COMMUN
US WEST COMMUN
DATA LINE CHARGES
US WEST CHARGES
DATA LINE CHARGES
DATA LINE CHARGES
0569-4355
0549-4320
0549-4355
0099-4355
003152
003152
003152
003152
OH
OH
OH
OH
033931
1995/08/28 $192 .41
$192.41*
VALLEY SCHOOL SUPPLY CHAIR CADDY 0630-4540 10554691 OH
033932
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
1995/08/28
$116.34
$181.49
$378.11
$675.94*
VILLAGE CHEVROLET
VILLAGE CHEVROLET
VILLAGE CHEVROLET
MIRROR FOR UTILITIES
ADJUST CARS
ALIGNMENT #420
0569-4232
0249-4341
0249-4341
97165
CTCS67011
CVCS65935
OH
OH
QHJ
033933
1995/08/28 $418.24
$418.24*
WALDOR PUMP REPAIR L.S. #3 PUMP 0569 4344 35003
1
OH
033934
1995/08/28 $99.05
$99.05*
WARNING LITES OF MN BARRICADE RENTAL 0249-4331 74714 OH
033935
1995/08/28 $5.80
$5.80*
WECKMAN STEPHEN MILEAGE REIMB.0174-4301 00312B OH
033936
1995/08/28 $588.35
$588.35*
WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIR TIRES FOR #428 0249-4232 85232:A OH
033937
1995/08/28 $104.79
$104.79*
WESTWIDE EQUIPMENT WINDSHIELD WASH BUCK 0099-4232 48650 OH
033938
1995/08/28 $1,088.00
$1,088.00*
WIDMER BROS REPAIR GRINDER STATI 0569-4344 14641 OH
»
$79,929.43
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Fri Aug 25 1995 00jl«tl3VENDORCHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT •Pag* 8INVOICE PO NUM. MANUALI COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY Pri Aug 25 1995 00:16:21 Pagt 1
FUND i 001 GENERAL FUND $52,590.11
FUND «112 PARK FUND $361.52
FUND i 114 IMP/BQUIP O/L FD $5,688.03
FUND I 115 BLDG CAP O/L PP $7,875.00
FUND tt 344 82 IMP BD D/S FD $50.00
FUND »346 92 IMP BD D/S FD $177.20
FUND »423 MUN ST AID CO/FD $1,000.00
FUND «672 MTR OPERATING FD $2,448.34
FUND «673 SWR OPERATING FD $3,323.18
FUND i 674 G/C OPERATING FD $1,601.37
FUND i 999 PAYROLL CLEARING $4,614.68
$79,929.43
I
information
ITEMS
COUNCIL MEETING
~. ■«CiL MEETING
AUG 2 8 1995
CITY Of ORONO
OF
-....................... ■■■
INFORMATION ITEMS
1. Staff Picnic
2. Long Lake Water Quality Project Update
3. County Road 6 Update
4. Update Regarding Health Concerns at 1972
S^dywood Road
5 . Neighborhood Request tor Vacation of Scotch
Pine Lane
6. Minnesota Police Recruitment System
7. New Inquir}' Regarding Public Versus Private
Roads
8.Clarification of Agreements Between the City
and the Orono Baseball Association (OBA) for
the Use of the Bederwood Ball Field and the
New Youth Baseball Fields
9. Letter Dated 8/8/95 From Rosemary
Burmaster
10. Letter Dated 7/18/95 From Matthew Nicoll
tOUNCILWtEnKG
I^UG 2 8
ffPf Of ORONO
w•1t^
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Mayor and City Council
Ron Mv. sc. City Administrator '
August 23, 1995
SUBJECT; Staff Picnic
The staff appreciation picnic has been scheduled for 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday. August 30. The
city offices will be closed from 2:30 p.m. till 4:30 p.m. A temporary receptionist will answer
phones during the time the city offices are closed.
I have received an inquiry from a Councilmember regarding the Councilirembers attending the
picnic. This was discussed by the Employee Appreciation Committee which indicated staff is
very much aware of and appreciative of the Council's authorization and funding for the picnic.
However, the picnic will be a new opportunity tor staff to socialize in a rela.xed setting. Adding
the Council to this mix could inhibit this interaction. I suggest we wait for another event or a
future picnic as an opportunity for the Council to panicipate. If any member ot the Council
feels differently, please let me know.
TO:
FROM;
DATE:
Mayor and City Council
Ron Moorsc, City Administrator
August 24, 1995
SUBJECT: Long Lake Water Quality Project Update
I have talked to Tom LaBounty of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to indicate
the Council ’s approval of the Long Lake water quality project and project agreement, with the
exception of the S7.000 annual cost for maintaining the sedimentation pond and the stormwater
management plan requirement. Mr. LaBounty indicated he will take the city s response to the
MCWD Board for consideration. He also addressed the two exception items.
Sedimentation Pond Maintenance
Mr. LaBounty indicated the estimated average annual cost of maintaining the four sedimentation
ponds is $63,000. On the basis of the MCWD funding 50% of the this cost and the three cities
sharing the remainder equally, each city would pay $10,500 annually. The MCWD has
determined that they will reduce this amount to an amount not to exceed $7,000 per year in
order to get agreement from the cities. Mr. LaBounty indicated another option available to the
MCWD is to sub-assess the benefitting cities for the cost of the maintenance. This would
involve placing a tax levy on the property in the city in the amount of the city ’s share of the
maintenance cost.
Stormwater Management Plan
Mr. LaBounty indicated the MCWD is the regulating body concerning stormwater management
plans. They have responsibility for ensuring the cities in their jurisdiction develop stormwater
management plans within some reasonable time frame. Mr. LaBounty indicated the
Metropolitan Council did review the water quality project. Their response was that ?hey were
very suppot ve of the project. They also urged the MCWD to really push cities to move ahead
with their stormwater management plans. The MCWD is w’illing to work with the city regarding
a reasonable time line for the development of a stormwater management plan.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Mayor and City Council
Ron Moorsc, City Administrator //^
August 24, 1995
SUBJECT: County Road 6 Update
inhere are two major areas of interest related to County Road 6 between Watertown Road and
Highway 12. One is the intersection of County Road 6. Watertown Road, and McCuIky Road.
Thie other is a potential first phase of an interchange at County' Road 6 and Highway 12.
County Road 6/Watenown Road Intersection
A plan showing the proposed design of the County Road 6/Watenown Road/McCulley Road
intersection is attached for the Council's review. The design provides for a continuous flow of
traffic on County Road 6. a continuous flow on V Culley Road nonh onto County Road 6, and
an indirect connection between County Road 6 and Watertown Road. The design sketch also
shows the impact of the new right-of-way on the residentia« nroperties. Because this is a
preliminary design sketch, the County has not made any rigi * 01-way cost calculations.
County 6 and Hi>?h\vav 12 Interchange
The Ci>unty has developed a preliminary design for a biif* ding an overpass for County
6 over Hichway 12 and • "button hook" connection from tl >. »»Jge back to Highw'ay 12 to
provide for all mming m'^sements currently occurring at the • alked intersection ot County
6 and Highway 12. This bridge would be the first phase ol an intercliange at County 6 and
Hichway 12. The bridge would provide a continuous flow of traffic along County Road 6 and
would be designed to serve as the bridge for the future full interchange. The current 6 and 12
intersection and signal light would be moved to the new three-way intersection formed by the
button hook connection from the bridge to Highway 12.
The Council may want to schedule a wivrk session to discuss the two preliminary designs.
TO;
FROM:
DATE:
Mayor and City Council
Ron Moofsc, Citv’ Adminiscraior
August 24, 1995
SUBJECT: Update Regarding Health Concerns at 1972 Shady wood Road
By order of the Hennepin County Health Department, Mr. Nehring has stopped all feeding of
w^ildlife and continues to clean up his lot. The pest control service has done its work on the
Nehring property and on adjacent properties. The rat problem is being controlled. The City’s
Building and Zoning and Police Departments, the County’s Health Department, and pest the
control service will continue to closely monitor both the rat problem and the general activities
on the Nehring property. It is very important that Mr. Nehring refrain from feeding any
wildlife. The plan is to convince Mr. Nehring to enter into a plea arrangement through which
he will agree to refrain from feeding any wildlife on his property for an extended period of time.
Much of the information regarding this issue is private or confidential. The details of this issue
should not be discussed at any public meeting.
To:
From:
Date:
Mavor Callahan and Orono Councilmembcrs
Ron Moorsc, City Administrator
Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator
August 24, 1995
Subject: Neighborhood Request for Vacation of Scotch Pine Lane
List of Attachments
A - Letter and Sketch from Property Owners
B - Moratorium Ordinance
Staff has received a request from the three homeowners serv'ed by Scotch Pine Lane for a
vacation of Scotch Pine Lane.
Concurrently, they propose a replat which would leave two lots on a shared driveway at the
existing Scotch Pine/County Road 51 intersection, with the third lot having a new dnveway onto
Countv Road 51. Hennepin County DOT s initial reaction to this was positive.
While staff feels this proposal is not specifically subject to the current moratorium. Council may
conclude otherwise (moratorium document attached). The proposal certainly raises questions
which the City intends to be addressing as pan of the moratorium.
John Gerhardson and I have reviewed the proposal, and while it seems to make a lot ot sense
for this neichborhood, it may not be in tune with Citv ’ policy regarding public roads/private
roads/driveways.
We anticipate the neighborhood will shortly file a joint formal application for the vacation and
replat. If Council feels such an application is inappropriate, please advise staff.
i
r 4
N& Mike Ga£&c3i
ChyofOrcno
POB0X66
Crystal Bay, Ma.
55323
Re: Scotch Pine Lane
August 23, 1995
D»r Mr Goffron:
Per our conversation with Dave Zctrerstrcn: cf Heanepin Counn\ John Gerhardsen and
yourself on August 23, 1995, we the honeewners respectfully request that the City of
OrtHU} vacate Scotch Pine Lorre.
The reasons we would like to make this request are:
.1. It remove several thousand square feet of hard cover and lessen the run oiY of salts
and oil ftom the street into the marsh and lake
2. It will save the City the cost of maintaining the existing street.
3. It will reduce the number of car tnps to and from Scotch Pme by lost people.
4. It will reduce the casual driver from tumine down the street locking for access to the
lake.
5. It wnll make the area safer for diildrca.
5. It will increase security to the existing hemes
,6. It will improve Lhc aesthetic \icw from the lake.
Tnese are some of the reasons for vacatmg uhe street We welccmc the opportunity to m.^e
a veibal presentation.
We are comforted and pleased by the response and encouragement given to us by the people
of Henncpui Countv' and the officials of the City of Orono This is a win-win situation for
evervone
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours very truly.
- i 5 n
Samuel S Marneld
, A r/n V ^
liam Mark Toies
DICON ADDITION
• • m __
ORDINANCE i 139 t 2ND SERIES
INTERIM ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO
SUBDIVISION 4, PROHIBmNG THE GRANTING OF . yS
APPROVAL OR OTHER PERMITS AND APPROVAL FOR PRIVATE DRIVE
WHICH SERVE THREE OR MORE RESIDENCES.
THE CITY OF ORONO ORDAINS:
The Municipal Code of the Cit>- of Orono is amended by adding Ordinance No.
138, 2nd Series
more residences. Suen applications may ansc m me womc\i
rearrangements of existing developments.
I, appears to the Counc.l that the cor^equences of allow,ng
undSrable and mav generate future problems for the salets- and welfare of ^ .
^?rCou^ 1 therefor; finds that it is necessary to study the impact of apphcai.ons under
SL"s seetton io.02; 10.03. subd. 3: and 10.60, subd. 16; 3*^*;
may also implicate the City's Subdivision Code Sections 11.0a; 11.10. ll.a.. and 11.33 tha
would allow such reads.
The Council further finds that if. as a result of this study, the land use controls and zoning The Council rurm revised, such revision is a process that cannot
r""°"„,isTeTumil afmdv has“^^^ During this period, it is
desira ihout savines of public and private e.xnendimres and to provide the
Sidet:: to fomr^cTaern* s!n?e enactment of an amendment to the c^e would
public guideim ^ . ' i^tjcns concerning permined land use and zomng performance
mr<^rantin2 of prelirainar.’ approval of subdivision applications or other permits for
''' J dricew^rsen in. more residences would be contrary to the purpose of the
no .nTbtL act Statutes Section 462.351. et seq. The Council funher tmds t^i
zoning enabling is^. individual development to occur durmg this
u\\ould fore ’ council ’, authonty to grant preliminary approval to subdivision
btudv. • ^ ^ drivewavs outside of the subdivision conte.xt shall not be
fo?hm"d7^^^ fo. Otd-inance. e.scept as provided in Seetton 3.
cfctthn ' '' Srudv The Council hereby refers this matter to the Planning
rrfiniriite a ^mdv reuardins the implications of its current ordinances governing
nm^'drivrewavs to seme three o‘r more residences and the potential need for amendments to
L City code to'implement the results of that study.
Paae 1 of 2
SECTION 3. Rgstrictions nn rhe Granting pf Frelunipafv Suytvisicn AECKval
^ ^nUc ZnZ
driveways to serve three or more residences.
SECTION 4. Duration, Ordinance shad exp« on Sepiem^^^^^^
without Council action, or it may be repealed earlier it me CouncU detennmes inHudin<^
studies have been completed and adopted and the arpmpnate ev^uation and
anv necessarv revisions of the zoning code, have been tinalized. The ^ _
m^v be e.xtended by adoption of a subsequent Ordinance for a total ot not more than 18
additional months.
SECTION 5. Vnriar.c«. Th= CouncU may gram a variance to this Ordinance
if the Council finds after careful review of all the facts that a proposal is not conuary to the
intent of the comprehensive comniumty manacemcni pian. that it is compatible wi e
“Xial coZl amendments bemg considered by the City, that it does
the health, safety or welfare of the ciiiaens and that it otherwise meets the requuements of the
Orono City Code and state law.
SECTION 6. .Serarabilitv-. Everv' section, provision, or pan of this Ordinance
is declared separable from everv other section, provision, or pan; and if any section, provision
or^n ^ or action taken hereunder shall be heid invalid, it shall not atfect any other
section, provision, or pan.
SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall be published in the THE PIONEER and THE
LAKER and shall be effective immediaiely.
July
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on the 24^ day of
1995, cy a vote of ^ ayes and____nays.
ATTEST;
D^othy M, Hallin. City Cler.k Edward J. Callaljan. Ji., Mayor
Page 2 of 2
MINNESOTA POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM
4642 IDS CENTER • 80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55402 • i>U)*1X4212-------
iAugust 15, 1995 "AUG 1 5 1995
Dear City Officialil. •
I am writing to update you on the status of the law suits tiled against the NIPRS and
its members WTule your community no longer is a member of the MPRS, it does
remain a defendant in these lawsuits
The second portion of the trial in this matter w as completed on June 29th (This
portion of the trial dealt with the issues of damages and remedies ) Both sides now
have submitted their post tnal briefs and responses We anticipate a decision on this
matter as early as mid-September, although Judge Solum does not have to issue a
final order until mid-November
Once Judge Solum's final order has been received, we immediately will schedule a
meeting of the defendants in these lawsuits At this meeting we can discuss the
impact of the Judge's order, how damages may be assessed, and whether an appeal
of the order is w arranted
Enclosed is a copy of our post trial brief I encourage you to read this brief and to
share it w ith your City Council .As always, if you have any questions or comments
in this matter, please feel free to contact me.
Very tru'v yours,
Larry^2>®^P*°^ 0^
Executive Director
LDT cm
Enclosure
STATE OF MIN’^TESOTA
COLTrTY OF HENNEPIN
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTr JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Case T/i^e: Discrimination
Christopher Anthony » ^ «
& t
V.
Minnesota Police
Recruitment System,et. al..
John Starics,
C- ^ n ^ C C
. ,*> (2 ***wA«> a> «
V.
Minnesota Police
Recruitment System,et. dl..
curt File No; EK93-00218
DiriKDAMTS' POST TRZAL
BRZE ON RSMBOZIS AND
DANA
Court File No: EM93-00219
KZICIEDY & GP^AVSN, CHARTERED
diaries L. LeFevere, No. 61839
John M. LeFevre, Jr., No. 61852
Joe Y. Yang, No. 254939
47C Pillsburv’ Center
Minneapolis, 55402
(512) 337-9300
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDArnS
ZHTROOOCTZQH
t^ie court has made a finding of disparate irrpact with regard
to a testing process eirployed by the KFRS. Plaintiffs now allege
that they are entitled to certain damages and ref-edies. The
evidence at the hearing on carages showed th plaintiffs are not
entitled to back front pay because they would not have been hired
even if they had passed the M?RS test. Further, plaintiffs are not
entitled to damages for mental anguish because they failed to carr'/
their burden of proof. .^s to .non-monetary remedies, defendanta'
believe that appropriate relief can be granted by the Court without
imposing a num—er of the burdensom.e, impractical or unwarranted
remedies suggested by plaintiffs.
DAMAGES
Z. PACTS
Plaintiffs clai.T. e.ntitle.T.ent to dam.ages for lost past and
future wages and m.ental anguish. Plaintiffs must show that they
would have been hired, absent the MPRS test. However, Plaintiffs
have been unsuccessful in applying to a number of non-MPRS cities.
Plaintiffs have failed to secure law enforcement positions because
of problem>s in prior employment and their failure to be forthright
and complete in their disclosures to prospective employers.
A. Wage Claim
1. John Starks. Starks is now pursuing an education
career after being re:ected by numerous non-MPRS police agencies
for police positions. Reasons for rejecting Starks for these
cos It ions had nothing to with MPRS test me.
Starks was a :f.err:er of the United States Air Force from 1977-
1979 and received reprimands tor failure to comply with military
rules and disrepect of superiors. Ex.2003-2006. An Air Force
psychiatric evaluation described Starks as having rr.ix'
personality disorder, chronic severe unchanged. Manifestec by:
severe paranoid features, passive aggressive behavior, some anti
social elements, lack in insight, no desire to change". Ex.2007.
Ultimately, Starks was discharged because he was "unable to adapt
to militar*/ life". Ex. 2007.
While a college student at Bemidji in 1980, Starks stole a
payroll check, forged the signature and attem.pted to cash the
check. Starks was charged with a felony but was convicted of
misdem.eanor theft. This conviction has been expunged. Ex.2010.
Starks wcrke Sears security in 1988-1989 and was
terminated for sexual harassment. According to complaints by
fe.male co-employees, Starks made inappropriate explicit sexual
comments a.nd continued to hirasc and threaten the wom«n. Ex.2041.
Starks filled out a Peace Officer Background * rm in which he
indicated t;.at he was terminated at Sears, Donaldson's and Kentucky
Fried Chicken for violation of company policy. Ex.2045
In 1989, Starks applied to be a police cadet in Minneapolis
but was not hired due to "inconsistencies" in his background.
Starks worked for a few .Tionths at the Registry Hotel where he
received a negative reference for failing to show up for work.
The Hotel decided to iire Starks when they found that his excuse
for aose.nce was a lie.
While a student at the LETC in 1990, fellv^ students
complained that Starks made inappropriate comments about being a
pimp and a prostitute and that women were always giving him gifts
for sexual favors. On one occasion, a fellow classmate stated that
Starks displayed a leather whip and dildo, stating that wcm.en
really liked it when he used these things on them. Ex.2040.
Starks applied to be a police officer in Minnetonka in mid
1990 but was not hired because he failed the oral exam. Ex.2014.
Starks was not hired by the City of St. Paul as a police
officer because of 'inconsistencies* in his background.The
investigation found that Starks lied about issues of employment,
certification of documents by a notary who was living with him.
threatening remarks made to others and sexual incidents. St. Paul
also cited a poor military record, a theft conviction and twelve
re^ectic.ns for various reasons. Ex.2036A, 20363.
St.i.,OUlS Park reiected Starks in 1991, citing
inconsistencies' and 'reservations' from the psychological report.
Ex.2001-2013.1 he Airport Police Department rejected Starks as a
'"andidate in 1992, citing the Sears incident, the LETC incident and
overall "inconsistencies' in his background. Ex.2041-2043, 2047C,
2047D. The Dakota County Sheriff's office rejected Starks in 1993
because of 'inconsistencies' in his background. Ex.2044, 2046.
Other police agencies where Starks applied but was rejected due to
failed e.<a.ms were Anoka and Washington Counties, Hopkins, Columbia
Heights, West Sc. Paul and Maple Grove.
Starks worked as a cccmunity service officer with the City of
Richfield, froa I??! to 1954. while there. Starks received
reprimands and suspensions for speeding and unsafe driving,
improper personal use of the city's cellular phone and citizen
complaints about his conduct. Ex.2014-2016. 2019. 2022-2C24. 2026.
Starks left Richfield under the threat of termination.
Starks received a job offer from the Richfield police
department contingent on background and psychological reports, but
the offer was withdrawn because his background search found
"inconsistencies" and the psychologist expressed "reservations"
about recommending Starks. Ex.2013, 2030. 2047B.
,.3 to all of the above rejections. Starks admitted that none
of them were MFRS related. Starks acknowledged that a police
officer job is contingent on written, oral, background and
psyc.hological exams. Ke recognized that a diagnosis fro.m the
military that he was "unable to adapt to military life", the theft
ccnvintion in Bemidji, the sexual h-irassm.ent incident, and failure
to pass non-M?RS tests were all issues that would be considered by
police agencies when evaluating candidates and were non-MFRi
related. Ke acknowledged that he had failed to meet all of these
requirements of POST Board licensing. See Minn. Rules 6700.0700.
2, Christopher Fields.Fields is currently a
corrections officer with Scott County. Fields has applied to
several police agencies in t.ne past but was rejected for reasons
t.hat had nothing to do with MFRS testing.
In 1964, Fields worked at Marshall's in Richfield where he was
convicted of a felony theft as a juvenile for stealing store
w
narchandise. Ex.2051C. Fields served in the Navi’ in 1986 buc was
discharged for authorised absence. Ex.2059A-2059C. Fields was
fired by Walser Ford in 1937 due to misconduct and asking a co-
es^loyee to help him cover-up. £x.2051A. In 1999, Fields walked
off his job at Bituminous Roadways. Ex.205IE. To get a 30b at
Chicago Lake Liquors in 1989, Fields lied about his age, his
ed*r:»a-on and his Navy ranking. Ex.2051E. In his application to
McCoy Federal Protection Seivices, Fields concealed past jobs and
lied about never being dismissed or forced to resign from any
.osition fo cause and about his juvenile conviction. Ex.2051E.
Before leaving his job at Little Si.x, Inc., he was cited for breach
of company policies. Ex.2057, Fields failed to pass probation at
the Hennepin Home School in 1992 based on negative reviews, which
judged him disruptive, abrasive, disrespectful, sexist, immature,
untrustworthy, unbending, manipulative, controlling and lacking in
common sense. Fields rece,.ved reprimands for speeding and reckless
driving, wearing inappropriate, offensive clothing and for
inappropriate touching with the staff. Ex.2053E, 2053C.
He applied to the St. Paul Police Department in 1992 and 1993
but was not hired because cf onsistencies■* in disclosures about
his past employment. St. Paul found in its investigation that
p’leids had lied to or about every employer age 16 to present.
Ex.2051D-2t51H, 206CE. Fields applied to Mi.nneapolis in 1990-91
and 1992 but was re:ected because cf inconsistencies.
Minneapolis investigators found that he had omitted information and
lied on his background questionnaire. 2052E-2052O, 2060A-2060E.
Other police agencies where Fields applied but was rejected
because he failed tests or backgrcunds were Anoka and McLeod
Counties, Brooklyn Park, Eagan and Richfield.
Fields agreed that when a background investigation points out
•inconsistencies’, the concern is credibility and that passing oral
and written exartinations. psychological evaluation and background
search are necessary to becoming licensed as a police officer in
Minnesota. He further agreed that he failed background searches
for reasons that had nothing to do with the MPRS testing.
3. John Spetch Testimony. Spetch served as a police
officer for 16 years and has been the Chief of Police the last 10
or 11 years for the city of Robbinsdale. Spetch did investigations
as a lieutenant and has sat on oral interviews when hiring police
officer candidates. As Chief of Police, Spetch has the final
aut.hcrity on hiring decisions. Spetch testified that the hiring of
a police officer is a very competitive process, involving 50 to 75
candidates for a single position. The very deliberate process of
hiring includes a biographical write-up by the candidate, MPRS
testing and scoring, and a request for a list of candidates,
including minorities vf available. T.he City asks for letters from
the candidates, who then go through oral ir.terviews. A background
c.heok and psychological evaluation are then conducted followed by
selection. When evaluating the candidates, Spetch testified that
honesty, ability to deal with people and conflicts, ability to
communicate effectively, good work ethic, good decision-making and
intelligence are ail important attrioutes. Spetch testified that
di rector for the ci ty of H
ed that 44.ik»process
tests (?c:» ir» <4* A s4 -ARI) .
a r«vi«w of plaintiffs' availaPl# erplo>'Tient; records raised serious
•red flag* concerns, such as crininai convictions, marginal
academic performance, military reprimands and discharge.
JTjesticnabie emplciment history. inappropriate behavior,
performance and personality problems and lack of honesty in
disclosures.
4. John Irakine TeatiaoBy. Erskine has an extensive
background in police work, including work as superintendent of the
Bureau of Crim.inal Apprehension for 7 years and as the public
chfield for 8 years. Erskine
for Richfield is comprised of
an i.nterview, pyschological
evaluation, m.edical exam* and baokground checks, and is completely
separate from .MPRS. Erskine testified that from a list of 300 to
400 eligible candidates, they would interview only the top 20 to
40. Erskine testified that they may reac.h down for protected class
m-imjters. Erskine testified he looks for honesty, integrity,
demieanor. tem.pera.ment and inconsistencies which would raise
questions about these traits. Erskine m.ade a contingent offer of
a police position to Starks but wit.hdrew it based on a record that
indicated Starks could not be trusted, reservations on the
psyc.hological report and the crim.inal record from Bemidi. Erskine
testified t.hat Richfield would not rehire Starks as a CSO, and he
was not willing to consider Starks for a police position.
B. Mental Anguish Claim
1. Dr. Robert Neal. Dr. h'eal conducted psychological
and ecosionic dantages evaluations cn behalf of plaintiffs. Dr. Neal
acknowledged that 50% of his work is forensic, of which the great
majority is for plaintiffs. The other 50% is with the chronic
mentally ill. Currently, he dees no screening for police
departments. Ke offered opinions about plaintiffs' intelligence,
despite the fact that .he did no intelligence testing. He offered
opinions on their employability, although he did net consult anyone
that was an expert in police hiring. In his economic loss report
on Starks, Dr. Neal did not include the assumption of expectation
of teachers salary, even though it was Starks' plan. He also
ingnored the fact that Starks is currently working 40 hours per
week for the school district, not the 30 hours he assumed. He
agreed that both Starks and Fields had significant employment
problems including discipline and termination, although he assumed
for his estimate of wage loss t.hat they would immediately obtain
police 3obs and hold those jobs to age 65. Dr. Neal made his
findings knowing that in order to obtain a police position, the
plaintiffs had to pass a written e-xamination, oral examination,
background search and psychological evaluation according to POST
board regulations, and tha*: plaintiffs had repeatedly failed each
of those requirer.ents.
while wearing his "psychologist" hat. Dr. Neal found that
plai.ntiffs had been upset by tite MFRS testing experience, but he
admitted t.hat all of the ether problems disclosed by the background
inform.ation. such as :cb renections, 30b discipline and job loss
which were not related to MFRS testing would also be causes of
I
stress for Starks and Fields-
Further, Dr. Neal had nvany rnccnsistencies within his report.
For exartple, in his report on Fields, Dr. Neal writes, “He feels
angry and frustrated leading to social alienation and avoidant
be.haviors-. This is followed, t.hree lines later, by Dr. Neal
writing, “He ruxes well and is able to interact and feel
comfortable in the compa.ny of others*. Other exairples of these
i.nccnsiscencies in Dr. Neal's report are, “...unable to accomplish
tasks on a day to day basis* follcwec oy “...energetic, activity
oriented and likely to seek out competitive situations*; and “there
is some loss of self-confidence* followed by “He is assertive and
rather independent". Dr. Neal characterized both Starks and Fields
as honest and sincere, knowing that they were disqualified from
police 30bs for “inconsistencies" on background investigations.
Ex.1000-1003, 1005. Dr. Neal's reports are not entitled to be
given significant weig.tt by the court.
2. Dr. R. O. Nelsen.Nelsen submitted
psychological reports on both Starks and Fields based on extensive
interviews, record review and exa.minations. Ex. 2049, 2061
respectively. Dr. Nelsen reported that Starks' clinical profile
was within normal limits and that Starks did not report any
psychological conflicts or e.moticnal stresses that are providing
great difficulty for him at ime. He showed no signs of
depress 1 .^4*Dr. Nel.sen determined chat Starks was getting
“sufficient satisfaction out of his life at this time". Dr. Nelsen
acknowledged t.hat Starks e.xperienced emotional distress from MPRS
testing, but qualified that stater.ent by stating that "the distress
was not extensive and has not resulted in significant restrictions
or iinitaticns in his daily activities*. Of particular importance,
Dr. Neisen wrote. *his history reflects characterological problems
which antedated M?RS testing and which resulted in a variety of
problems in both military and civilian life".
Based on his evaluation of Fields, Dr. Neisen found that he
had not sustained any significant long-term psychological damage.
ZZ. ARGOMEMT
A. PLAZMTZFFS ARB NOT ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OP BACK PAY
A plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that he is
entitled to backpay.* Tavlor v. Phillies Industries. Inc., 593
F.2d 783 (7th Cir. 1979), holds that a plaintiff must first
establish that he has sustained an economic loss caused by
defendant's disorim.i.naticn. Damages are mieasured by the difference
bet'ween actual earnings and those which a plaintiff would have
earned absent the discrimination.*
T.he burden then shifts to defendant, who may establish that
plaintiff 13 net entitled to damages because he would not have been
hired absent discrimination, because no vacancies existed or
oecause ^ o claimant failed *4 l* 1 TZ 'w non-discriminatory
prerequisites for employment.
•Albgrmarle ?ac:er ii. v. .Mredv. i22 U.3. •*35, 55 S.Ct. 2362, 45 L.Ed.2d 280
(1575) .
r'ar.cerss v. tTE Autcratic Elec., Ir.c.. 603 ?.2d 558 (7th Cir. 1579).
Cchen v. •..'est Haver, rd. cf Police tcr.'rs, 638 F.2d at 459 (2nd Cir. 1980) .
10
The purpose of the Minnesota Kurban Rights Act (MKRA) is to
place individuals discrirdnated ag _nst in the sar.e position they
would have been in had no discmination occurred.*
In Frev v. RCCHS. 51T N.W.2d 591 (Minn.App. 1994), the court
held that an exployer can rely on evidence that shewed t.hat an
errployee was not qualified for er.ploytr.ent and would not have been
hired if the employer knew of the disqualifica- 3n. The court,
considered a line of cases (cited at 597 and 596) to the effect
that the very act of dishonesty in completing an employment
application may bar a claim of discrimination in hiring.
In Evans v. Citv* o£ Evanston. 881 F.2d 382 (7th Cir. 1989) a
Title VII class action, the court found that the scoring of a
physical agility test had a disparate impact on women. The trial
court ordered the city to submit a new test or scoring method but
refused to order the city to hire any of the plaintiffs or to
advance them to the next test. Since only 1.2 percent of the
applicants who pas.^ed the physical agility test were actually
hired, the class me.mbers Ic-Jt not a job but a long-shot chance at
a ]cb. Rat.her than rewarding the class members with a job that may
not have been offered to them in the first place, the court held
that the class members may .have the opportunity to take a valid
test and will be restored to the place they would have occupied if
they pass the test. As to the back pay issue, the trial court
determ.ined the award to be 4.68 percent of the salary of those who
^Sretherheod cf Fv. S.T, Clerks Freiirh- Handlers. £xr. station Elr.p.. Lode
364 V. State ov Ea ^: rur. SI? N'.a.Ic: 3 Mir.n.S.It. 1?T5).
were hired since wcnen (the class nerhers) were 4.68 percent of the
applicants. In this award the court was discounting backpay by a
measure of Che probability that the women would have obtained the
pay but for the discriminatory test scorin;g.
In • • m Ck> ^ ^ t 569 F.2d 1231 (3rd Cir. 1577),
plaintiff brought action under the Age Discrinination Act and the
trial court stated that rebuttal evidence, offered by the employer,
could have included factors such as disqualifying mental attributes
or inability to pass any city examination.
The court in Rogers v. EEOC. 551 F.2d 456 (D.C, Cir. 1977).
found liability under Title VII for race discrimination. The
Appeals Court denied injunctive relief and back pay because the
plaintiff was not the best qualified applicant for the position.
The court held t.hat monetary relief should be denied if plaintiff's
qualifications were such t.hat he would not, even absent the
discrimination, have been selected. at 457.
As :n the Evans case, this Court should not award back pay
damages to Starks or Fields because chat would, in essence, be
awarding them a job that would not have been offered to them in the
first place. Based on the evidence, it is highly unlikely that
either plaintiff would have been offered a job even if he had
passed the MPRS test. Evidence of criminal charges, lack of
communication skills, inappropriate sexual comments and behavior,
numerous serious ano repeated repri.mands from previous employment.
raiieo psychological, oral and written (non-MPRS) exams and
documented dishonesty all indicate that neither plaintiff was a
Qualified car.didate for a sworn police officer posincn.
Instead of ccnsiderins a back pay award, this Court shouid, as
in Evans. provide another opportunity for Fields and Starks to take
the revised test and be restored to the place they would have
sass the test and meet other entranceoccupieo It tney ^
reQUiren\ents. To date, neither has shewn that he would have been
hired even if he had passed the MPRS testing. 3oth Fields and
Starks applied to r.any non-MFRS cities and failed the written.
oral, psychological or background exaits. The court should note
that since MPP.S has restruotured its tests, pursuant to court
order, neither Fields or Starks .has sought re-testing.
Moreoever, even if p..ainciffs were qualified, the probability
that they would have been hired is statistically very low. The
overall selection rate ranged fren a high of 14.8% to a low of 5.4%
during the relevant period. E.x.2063. At best, plaintiffs lost a
Ic.ng-shot cha.nre at a jcb, not the lob itself.
A discrimination plaintiff forfeits his right to back pay if
he refuses a ]ob substantially equivalent to the one denied or if
he does not seek out available work for which he is qualified.*
"laintiffs failed to mitigate when they failed to re-take the
revised MPRS test.
B. PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF FRONT PAY
The following decisions provide authority for denial of front
pay. In Di 1 lor, v. Co j, 746 F.2d 598 (3rd Cir. 1984), the court
•Anderscr. v. Hunter Marshall Co., 401 N.W.2d 75 (Minn.App. 1987),
dff'd ir. rart . r«v' d. Tr. -rner rrrur.ds 417 N.W.2d 619 (Minn. 1988).
13
found discrimination but denied front pay. The court found that
such an award would have been too speculative, because of two
factors: (1) the uncertainty of a hiring date; and (2) disputed
issues between the parties about the plaintiff's competency and
ability to get along with her co-workers and superiors. These
factors cast doubt on how long p.aintiff would have continued in
employment had she been hired.
In McKenncn v. Nashville Banner, 115 S.Ct. 879 (1995), the
Supreme Court, in holding that later-discovered evidence of
misconduct which impairs a plaintiff's fitness for continued
emiplovment bars reinstatement or front pay.
In Cos ton V. Flitt Theatres, 831 F.2d 1321 (7th Cir. 1987),
the court awarded other damages but denied front pay, based on the
speculative nature of tne remedy on the facts. Specifically, the
court noted that neither party addressed the issue of whether the
plaintiff intended to work, or was physically capable of working,
until his full retirem.ent age.
In McNeil V. Cconom.ics Laboratcm/, Inc., 800 F.2d 111 (7th
Cir. 1986), the appeals court was unwilling to award the plaintiff
front pay up to age 70 (plaintiff was already 65) after a finding
of age discrimination in an .iCE.i claim.. Based on insufficient
evidence, the court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that he
would have received a prcm.ction, and that he would have been likely
•v/ork to age 70.
As in the above cases neither plaintiff should be entitled to
any front pay. Such an av;ard is too speculative when considering
14
r
the uncertainty of two factors: 1) whether they would have been
hired in the first place; and 2) hew long they would have held
their jobs had they been hired.
Defendants have noted that it is highly improbable that
plaintiffs could have obtained sworn police positions. With regard
to the second factor, extensive evidence shows that neither Starks
nor Fields would have lasted very long had he secured a police 30b.
Both plaintiffs were fired from previous jobs or left under
undesirable conditions. In addition, psychological examinations
cited many "reservations", indicating that neither plaintiff was an
appropriate candidate for emplcytnent as a police officer. Even Dr.
Meal, plaintiffs' e.xpert, caid certain police duties would be
inappropriate for plaintiffs. In short, plaintiffs' ability to
retain police employment is highly doubtful-
C. PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF DAMAGES FOR
MENTAL ANGUISH
Although damages for emotional distress are available under
the MHF-A. such an award is not appropriate here. Court holdings
require plaintiffs to show causation and objective proof of such
damages.
In dorQ V. Turner. 563 ?.2d 159 (5th Cir. 1977), the court
held that plaintiff was entitled to emotional distress damages for
a § 1981 violation. The court qualified this by stating that "an
award for e.motional distress .must be preceded by a finding of a
sufficient causal connection between the defendant's illegal
actions and the plaintiff's injury." at 164.
Emotional distress is customarily proven by showing the nature
mmir.
f ■ •
i
and consequences of Che wrong and its effect on Che plaintiff.
Carev v. Piohus. 435 U.S. 247, 263-264 (1978. Although riental
suffering and emocional anguish are essentially subjective,
genuine injury in this respect inay be evidenced by one's conduct
and observed by others." Id. at note 20.
while plaintiff's own tescir.cny may be sufficient to establish
humiliation or mental distress, damage awards have been reduced
where no effort was made to identify an objective basis for
quantifying the loss.-
The Minnesota courts have reqpiired plaintiff to show actual
injury before he receives mental anguish damages under the MHRA.
A violation of civil rights by itself is not sufficient.'
Applicable case law illustrates that the range of damages for
mental anguish is generally sec between $450 and $15,000.* The
following caselaw, cited in footnote 1 had substantial evidence of
emotional distress produced at trial.
’’See, e.o. Eailev v. Andrews, 311 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1987) (finding in a
51933 acticn that ccir.pensacory daff-age award cf 255,000 was not a raasonable
estimate of intangible loss where plaintiff lost no time from work and did not
incur bills for treatment of physical and emotional injuries). See, e,g.. Erebia
V. Chm/sler Plastics Products, 772 F.2d 1250 (6th Cir. 1985) (evidence did not
support dam.ages of 310, jOC for emotional distress where evidence consisted of
plaintiff's statements that he was highly upset about slurs and that he could
only cake sc much).
Minneacolis Police Pert, v. Minneapolis Ccmn. on Civil Rights, 402 N.W.2d
125 (Minn.App. 1587i.
'Vovk V. Tom Thumb Food Markets. No. 91-2377, slip op. at 1 (Minn.App. July
28, 1552» 1310,000), Dect , o: Hurar. riohts v. Tasks Unlimited, Inc.. No. 92-981,
slip op. at 1 (Minn.App. Nov. 3, 1952) i515,000), de.Rochemcnt v. D & M Printing.
No. 94-159, slip op. at 1 .Minn.App. 3pt. 20, 1994) $10.000). Giuliani v. Stuart
Coro., 512 N.A.2d 539 (Minn.App. 1954) ($12,000), Evans v. Ford Motor Co.. 788
F.3upp. 1318 (C.Minn. 1991 (<$10,300', Tretter v. Liouioak, Intern. Inc., 356
N.W.2d 713 (Minn.App. 1964) ($4,500), teot . of H’u.man .Ric.nts v. Soiten, 424 N.W.2d
815 iMi.nn.App, 1938) ($3,000), State nv 7ccoer v. Mower C;. . 434 N.W.2d 494
(Minn.App. 1989) ($2,000'. State v. Pcrter Farm.s. Inc.. 332 N.W.2d 543 (Minn.App.
1936i ($500), Siourdscr. v. Isanti Ocuntv. 386 N.W.Zd 715 (Minn. 1986) ($450).
16
I
Ir. Vcvk. the court awardsd $10,000 for rnental anguish after
the plaintiff produced evidence of headaches, inscr>nia, depression
and her lack of confidence in her ability to be a manager. .he
court in Tasks awarded plaintiff $15,000 for mental anguish upon a
showing that she had been suo:ected to daily sexual harassment tor
over one and one half years. Awarding $10,000 for mental anguish,
the deP.ochemont court statec that objective evidence of phsyicai
manifestation emotional distress protects against
"possibility of trumped up claims" and considered that the
plaintiff offered her own suojective testimony and the objective
testimony of .her mother and form.er boyfriend that work-related
stress caused her to suffer 11 stomach ailments, 2) headaches, 3;
sleeplessness, 4) nervousness, and 5) frequent crying episodes.
Each of the plaintiffs here testified that he was upset by
taking the MFP.S tests and by the wording of specific questions.
However, the court heard no evidence from plaintiffs or their
farhlies about the extent or severity of the claimed emotional
distress. There was no testi.m.ony about any therapy or counselling
undertaken by plaintiffs. There was no evidence of medical
treatm.ent or expenses incurred by plaintiffs. Even Dr. Neal,
plaintiffs' psychological expert, had neither provided, nor even
recommended, any counselling or therapy.
Furthermore, there was no e%'idence that the plaintiffs were so
upset as to interfere with their e.mpioi-'m.ent or activities of daily
living. Thus, other than the uncorroborated subjective complaints
of plaintiffs, there 13 no ibjective verification a.n-'
17
substantial or long-tem erotional distress. Dr. Nelsen testified
that in the face of such subjective complaints, a psychologist
looks for such objective corroboration. Finding none, he concluded
that any distress was not severe.
Moreover, there was no atterr.pt by plaintiff or their expert to
separate out the numrerous possible causes of stress in their lives
to establish a causal connection between the claimed distress and
the MPRS testing experience. For e.xample, both of the plaintiffs
had suffered family probie.ms, job rejections and employment
difficulties during the same time frame as the MPRS testing
experiences. Plaintiffs and Dr. Neal admitted that these are all
distress-prcduc-..tg experiences. But Dr. Neal failed to isolate out
and verify any causal connection between any distress experienced
and MPRS testing incidents. In fact, while Dr. Neal claimed that
there was a ti.me connection between certain stress symptoms and
MPRS testing occasions, on cross-examination he could not recall,
and his report does not miention, the dates of any of the MPRS
tests. For example, when asked how many times Fields had taken the
MPRS test. Dr. Neal answered that the number was "somewhere between
2 and 12". His approach to determine causation m.ay have had seme
validity, but he failed to do his homework. Plaintiffs have
t.herefore failed to establish causation for this element of their
claim.
18
S. TKB COUHT SHOULD NOT TREBLS OR MULTIPLY AMY DAMXGI8
R.-rher V. Karp 11. 364 F.Supp. 1525 (D.Minn. 1994), sets forth
the rule for deterr^ining whether trebling ccrrpensatory damages is
appropriate, "The primari/ consideration is whether the damages
awarded by the 3ury fully compensate Hyther and restore him to the
same position he would have attained had there been no
discrimination".
Plaintiffs'claims for monetary relief fall into two
catgories: claims for lost wages and claims for mental anguish. As
to wage claimiS, plaintiffs are not entitled to either bac)c or front
pay. The MFRS test did not prevent plaintiffs from earning wages
since they would not have been hired even if they had passed the
test or no test had been given. Therefore, there are no wage claim
damages to multiply. The Court cannot conclude that plaintiffs are
not adequately compensated without multiplying such damages because
they have not proven entitlement to any compensation.
Moreover, the statute does not provide for multiplying any
award for m.ental anguish.'* Thus, the authority to award damages
for m.ental anguish is in addition to t.he authority to award treble
dam.ages for actual damages. The legislature did not intend mental
anguish damages to be multiplied.
The relevant .art of Minn. Stat. 5 353.071, Subd. 2, provides that the
court shall order * . . .corr.pensator'/ damages in an amount up to three tunes the
actual damages sustained. I.-, all cases t.he acLministrative law judge may also
order the respondent to pay an aggrieved party, who has suffered discrimination,
carnages for mental anguish or suffering and reasonable attorney's fees, in
ada:tion to punitive damages in an a-mount not mere tnan 33,500".
19
B. PUHZTZVB DAMAGES
Punitive damages are disfavored by the law and are awarded
solely to punish defendants and deter future wrongdoing.-^ Smith
V. American Ser^/ice Co.. 611 F.Supp. 321 (D.C. Ga. 1984), a Title
VII case, held chat punitive damages were not appropriate because
the evidence did not show that the defendant acted with malice,
willfulness or reckless disregard for plaintiff's federally
protected rights.
Under the Minnesota Human P.ighcs Act, punitive damages are
provided for in Minn. Scat. § 363.071 subd. 2, and § 363.14 subd.2,
but with a cap of S85C0 per plaintiff.
Punitive damages should be allowed only upon clear and
convincing evidence that the acts of the defendant show a willful
indifference to the rights or safety of others, see also § 549.20
subd. 3. Awards of punitive da.mages shall be measured by several
factors including the duration of Che misconduct, any concealment
of it and the attitude and conduct of Che defendant upon discovery
of the misconduct. State bv Cocoer v. Moorhead State Univ.. 455
N.W.2d 79 (Minn.App. 1990).
Punitive damages are inappropriate in the present case. There
has been no showing that MPRS acted with malice, recklessness or
reckless disregard for plaintiffs' rights. The Court found, in its
order of October 5, 1594, that defenda.nts had not intentionally
discriminated, and the MPP.S promptly changed to a different form of
the Watson Glaser test upon being i.nfcrmed that some found test
•Val-rer3 v. Citv af Atlanta. 903 F.2d 1135 (11th Cir. 1986).
:o
I t/i W
questions objectionable. Therefore, it is clear that punitive
barrages are not warranted in the present case.
RSKBSZBS
2. Tlie MPRS Testing Process Cen be ASMnded To Address issues
Rsised By the Court's Order of October 5, 1994.
The principal objection to the MFRS testing process described
in the Order of the Court of October 5, 1994 is that the
effectiveness of the test to predict job performance is not
sufficiently compelling to outweigh the adverse impact on black
candidates. The primary areas of concern to the court were the use
of objectionable questions, the use of the AP predictor and the
emphasis in the scoring process on the Watson Glaser test.
A number cf changes could be .made to the testing process to
address these issues. These include: elimination of the AP
predictor; elim.inaticn of questions 6-10, 41-43 and 73-75 on the 21m
form of the Watson Glaser test and creation of conversion tables
for the abbreviated test; and elimiination of the use of cut scores
on the CG and 3?. predictors, so that all candidates who present a
valid psychological profile and pass the physical agility test will
receive a score and will be placed on the eligibility roster.
These changes would re.medy all objections to specific
questic.ns and all objections to the use of the AP predictor. They
would also substantially dee.mphasize the cognitive parts of the
.MPRS testing process in general, and the Watson Glaser test in
particular.
3y eliminating the A? predictor, the only predictor which is
100% cognitive would be eliminated. A,dditlonally the EAS total
score (Che cognitive test score having the second greatest adverse
iinpact) would be eliminated entirely, since it is only used in v,he
AP predictor. This would also eliminate the “double impact" of the
Watson Glaser test, since it then would only be used in the CG
predictor.
Dr. Sackett's exhibit 2085 shows that the amended procedures
would reduce the emphasis of the Watson Glaser test from 21% to
12%; reduce the emphasis of the HAS total score from 15% to 0%;
reduce the emphasis on math skills from 17% to 5%; reduce the
overall emphasis on cognitive skills by more than half, from 38% to
]7%; and increase the emphasis on the CPI subscales from 61% to
S2%^^
The elimination of cut scores would remove all hurdles based
on cognitive skills and would allow all candidates to be placed on
the eligibility roster, so that cities could consider the whole
person in their police selection procedures.
Whether this amended test and scoring procedure is legally
acceptable must be decided by the Court; but defendants
respectfully submit that this decision should be made against the
backdrop of the evidence of available alternative testing
crccedures .
••Defendants do net agree that testing for ■proble.'n solving ability* must
be limited to 1/1-lth of the test because it is one of l-l K3AP clusters. But even
if this anai-/sis were accepted, there were three KSAPs which were not included
i.n the -written test (oral presentation skills, interest in police work and
listenina skillsi. Of the eleven remaining KSAP clusters, if each were weighted
eq-uall-/, the test e.mphasis for eacn K3AF cluster would be 9.1%, or roughly the
same as the 12% emphasis of the Watson Glaser test in the ^^ended procedure.
Moreover, if there were separate tests for other cognitive skills identified in
the study among the 11 K3APs, suc.h as written communication and reading
comprehension, adverse impact -would be even greater.
22
r
No one seriously ccncested that in our society today a one
.andard deviation difference between mean scores of blacks and
whites is to be expected on all cognitive skill tests, including
reading comprehension, written communication, logical reasoning,
math, IQ and knowledge tests. Nevertheless, the nationwide survey
conducted by the MPRS showed that of 220 responses, the written
examinations of 205 cities included tests of cognitive skills. Of
these, 157 tested for only cognitive skills in their written exams.
In this same survey, no test was found with equal or greater
validity and less adverse impact that the MPRS testing process.
Against this back-drcp defendants submit that the amended MPRS
testing process stacks up very' well. Since no available tests were
identified with equal validity and less adverse impact, the
evidence sucuests t.nat if cities are not allowed to use the amended
process, or are discouraged from doing so, neither the public
interest in securing competent police officers nor the public
interest in reducing adverse impact would be well served. Whatever
the shortcomings of the MPRS testing process, t.he record does not
support a conclusion t.hat there is a better alternative.
However, even if Court concludes that the a.mended testing
procedures would be lawful, there remains a serious practical
problem with continuing testing with the amended procedures.
Although the am.ended prcceaures address the most serious concerns
expressed by the Court i.n its Order of October 5, 1994, it falls
short of addressing them. all. Many aspects of the test validation
process and of the test's validity which were cited in the Order as
- j
shortcoinings cannot be remedied retroactively or would not be
addressed in the amended procedure.
On defendants motion for interim relief, the Court found on
November 18, 1994, that an amended testing procedure very similar
to the one described above was sufficiently different from the
original testing procedure that it could not be considered unlawful
by reason of the October 5th order.
If the Court approves the am.ended testing procedure merely by
concluding that the October 5th Order does not necessarily make it
unlawful, it is very doubtful that cities will use the amended
procedure. Other tests available for use by the defendant cities
may have shortcomings, but no other test would have the same cloud
of uncertainty over it resulting from unaddressed, unremedied
judicial criticism of the October 5 Order. As a practical matter
if the amended procedure is lawful, it will onlv" be used by cities
if the Court's order re.moves t.hat cloud. Defendants therefore
respectfully request that if the Court concludes that the amended
procedure is lawful, t.he Court's order and .memorandum be so drafted
as to rehabilitate the validation process and the validity of the
amended procedure and to declare unequivocally that the amended
procedure is lawful, notwithstanding the shortcomings described in
the October 5 Order w.hich are not remedied by changes to the
testing process.
II. An Order Compelling African American Hiring Quotas is Not
Warranted.
Dr. Friedland suggested a program to determine why there are
not more blacks in the pipeline to becomte police officers and the
24
— ~i » M •••■■» 1— ••• II - - - tr-w— II
initiation of a public relations campaign to encourage blacks to
become police officers. Plaintiffs' counsel suggested affirmative
action under the supervision of a special master. There was no
challenge to the adequacy of the affirmative action plans
defendants already have i.i pl*ce, which were not even reviewed by
plaintiffs' counsel. In a.ny case, the evidence demonstrates that
the MPRS and defendant ci; ^es are already engaged in affirmative
action efforts. The mean jcore of white applicants who pass the
MPRS testing process is 65.28, while the mtean score of the white
applicants who pass t.he test and are hired is 74.35. The
corresponding scores for blacks are 60.87 for those who test and
'^8.10 for those who are hired. Ex 2086. Obviously the cities are
"reaching down" lower into the test scores to hire black applicants
for affirmative action or to achieve greater diversity in the
workforce.
If the percentage of black applicants applying to defendant
cities does not matc.h the percentage of blacks in the total
workforce, there may be many explanations. MPRS communities cannot
reasonably be e-xpected to remedy all of the impediments to blacks
becomiing POST Board certified and eligible under state law to
become police officers. To the extent reasonably possible within
their .means, these cities are already attempting to encourage the
qualification of potential candidates through cadet or CSO
progra.ms . Any re.medy, if cne is to be ordered, should be linked to
he e:npic>cr.ent practice which is at issue. That practice is the
MPRS testing process, not defendants' other hiring practices.
25
Additionally any order of affir^-ative action efforts would be
extraordinarily complicated given that there are 34 defendant
cities (seme of whom are no longer memrjers of the MPRS). No one
city has any authority or control over the hiring practices o*.
another, and all have different hiring needs and affirmative action
practices.
Counsel for plaintiffs urged that the defendant cities should
be required to meet a hiring goal of a 5% black workforce and pay
liquidated damages for failure to do so. Nothing in the record
would warrant such an extrem.e remedy. The courts have sometimes
set hiring requirements to remedy the effects of past
tiffs' exhibit 1G11» d t
of blacks in ^ ^ ^4 it -
discrimination, but not beyond achieving parity with the relevant
applicant pool.
ICll, at page 2, showed that the
the metropolitan area labor force
(including those who were unemployed since 1985) was 2.67%. Thus,
even using this statistic, it is clear that a 5% quota is
unreasonable. However, this figure (2.67%) represents the entire
workforce. No evidence was presented that this 2.67% of the
workforce had the educational prerequisites to become a police
officer required by state la and this suit did not c.hallenge
t.hose educational requirem.ents. .Moreover, the defendant cities
includes comm.unities which are not even within the metropolitan
area, such as Fairbault, St. Jam.es, New Ulm. and Redwood Falls.
Finally, Larry Thompson testified that many of the black candidates
who pass the POST Board certification process have already been
hired and are cherefcre net available for hire.
Clearly the best evidence cf the relevant labor pool is the
candidates who apply to the MPRS cotinunities. Indeed, if the
passing rate of blacks frer. that applicant pool had been at 80% or
more of the white passing rate, there would not even be a prima
facie case of disparate impact. Because the MPRS testing process
was a hurdle, the success rate of black applicants was Che
dispositive statistic in determining disparate impact. However, in
determining the appropriateness of hiring quotas, the selection
rate is the relevant statistic because racial preference is not
warranted after the effects of past discrimination heve been
remedied.
Hiring statistics presented by the MPRS included both persons
who were hired by defendant cities through the MPRS process and
those hired outside of it. Exhibit 2087 demonstrates that the
hiring race of blacks (12.5%) is 52.4% cf the hiring rate of whites
(14%), well in excess of t.he 80% rate specified in EEOC guidelines.
In absolute nu-mbers, the number cf blacks hired (6 persons) is
only one half of one person short of the number for blacks would
have been hired if the selection rate of blacks had been the same
as the selection race for whites (6.5 persons).
To achieve a 5% quota of blacks in the workforce, the
defendant cities would be required to hire blacks at a rate many
times higher chan the .hiring rate of whites. Where the selection
race cf blacks essentially .matches the selection race of whites in
the applicant pool, no quotas are warranted.
27
fsfur^'
Even if hiring quotas were warranted, quotas and penalties for
failing to meet quotas would not be workable with 34 defendant
cities. These cities have police departments as small as 6 and as
large as 101 officers. Some cities already have a higher
percentage of blacks than the applicant pool; and some may be
unable, despite their best efforts, to hire qualified black
applicants. If an overall quota were established, there would be
no way of ascertaining which city or cities were responsible for
failing to meet it.
Even if the record supported the conclusion that further
hiring of African Am;ericans were required to remedy the effects of
past discrimination, an order to meet specified hiring goals would
not be justified.
As It recently confirmed, the Supreme Court views any race-
conscious classification with "strict scrutiny.N 44.Moreover, even
when such classifications are justified, their use must be limited.
designed only to remedy the wrong that justifies them.^^
The hiring process at issue in this case involves two separate
steps. Candidates seeking e.m.ploym.ent with one or more of the 36
member cities are first required take a written test
administered by Defendant MFRS. The names of candidates passing
the written test (and thereby "eligible" for hiring by a member
‘*Adarand Ccnstri' -crs., Tr.v. v. Per.a. 115 S.Ct. 2097 (1995). This leval of
scrutiny means that r«ce-casec classifications are suspect even when they are
ostensibly ’benign." Id.
•'Missouri V. Jenkins, 115 S.Ct. 2038 (1995), (noting that the "principle
that the nature and scope of t.he remedy are to be determined by the violation
.means simply that federal-court decrees must directly address and relate to the
constitutional violation itself.*'
28
city) are then provided to the menber cities of the candidate's
choice by Defendant MPRS. This court concluded chat the first of
these steps was discriminator^'. This court did not find or
conclude, however, that the member cities, collectively or
indiv’idually, engaged in discrim.inator>’ conduct during the second
step of the process — hiring from the list of "eligible* officers.
An order approving an acnended test and scoring process would
directly address the practice found by the Court to be
discriminatory, i.e. the MFRS teacing process. An order compelling
hiring quotas would relate to the second step of the hiring process
which was not alleged or found to be discriminatory; therefore such
an order would not “directly address and relate to the . .
violation itself." If the first step is removed as a hurdle, there
is no reason to believe that cities would discriminate in selecting
from the applicant pool.
The need for significant justification for a race-based
classification and the limited circumstances under which one may be
used are the cornerstone elements of judicial review of any race-
based classification. It is, therefore, not surprising that a
race-based classification will not pass "strict scrutiny"
constitutional muster unless it is: (1) narrowly tailored to(2)
achieve a ccm.pelling governm^ent interest.* The Supreme Court has
held that there is a compelling government interest in remiedying
‘Adarand, 115 S.Ct. 205t il?95).
29
the effects of past discrinination. •* Among the range of potential
remedies for past discrimination, however, -race-conscious hiring
is still the exception..." to what is considered to be "narrowly
tailored- to achieve that interest.** As a commentator quoted by
the Green court advised:
While the circuit courts of appeals have indicated that
they possess [the] power [to award race-conscious
affirmative relief), they have been reluctant to use it.
the federal appellate courts have preferred to issue less
harsh orders such as recruiting and posting of notices of
vacancies. Thev have tended to impose hiring orders only
demonstrated•
640 F.Supp. at 1553 n.48 (emphasis added).
In decermiining whether a particular race-conscious remedy for
past discrimination is narrowly-tailored enough to pass
Constitutional muster, the Supreme Court has loc)ced to several
factors. Those factors are: (1) the necessity for the relief an-’
the efficacy of alternative remedies; (2) the flexibility and
duration of the relief; (3) the relationship of the numerical goals
to the relevant labor .market; and (4) the impact of the relief on
third parties.-' The factors ensure that the remedy at issue is
limited to redressing the effects of the discrimination justifying
he case before this Court, an examination of theit.i?
•■United States v. P'trgdise. 430 U.S. 149, 157 (1987); -Avgant v. Jackson
3cAird ct Hcinc^itic—4, 4*o j.o, , ^^4, ^95 (19So) (opinion or Powell, and
concurring opinion of O'Conner, J.).
••green •/. United "tates Ptoel Corn., 540 F.Supp. 1521, 1552-53 (E.D. Pa-
1985). See d.;c Pr.ee': Meta, '■•■'ory.ers v. EECC, 478 U.S. 421, 475-76 (1986).
'Ed-wards . Citv c* Houston. 37 F.3d at 1113 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing United
States"-. Paradise. 480 U.S. at 137 (Powell. J. concurring)).
•'See Jer.l^.ir.s, 115 S.Ct. 2033 :1995).
relevant factors shows that any remedial order in this case should
be liinited to providing Af rican-Arp.erican officers with the
opportunity to be hired and should not icpose any actual hiring
requirements.
All four of these factors militate against hiring quotas.
First with respect to the necessity for the relief and the efficacy
of alternative remedies, an order giving all blacks an opportunity
to be hired and the elimination of the test in the form found to be
discriminator'/ fully addresses the violation itself. There is no
reason to doubt the efficacy of such a remedy. Nothing in the
record suggests that the m.emher cities will not hire African-
American if given this opportunity.
Second, a quota would be a highly inflexible remedy, and given
the very low numbers of blacks who test with the MPRS in any given
year, m.ay have an extended duration.
Third, as noted above, no quota is warranted on the basis of
the relationship of numerical goals to the relevant labor market.
Hiring by defendant MPRS communities of blacks is already at the
sam.e race as whites, considering total data for some seventeen
years.
Fourth, a hiring quota will impact on the rights of ocher non-
minority members who would otherwise have been hired in place of
minorities. If cities select minority candidates because they are
the best candidates for the job (and there is no reason to believe
they will not), quotas will be unnecessary.
This IS not a case involving a recalcitrant defendant who
31
f.'
refuses to take steps to rerf.e^iy the effects of past discrirrsination.
To the contrary, this Court found that the Defendants did not
intentionally discriminate. As a result, there is no reason that
an order ensuring that future African-Airerican candidates are given
the opportunity to he hired hy the merher cities will not
effectively remedy the effects of the discriminatory conduct
3 entified hy this Court. Consequently, this Court should limit
any race-conscious remedy to providing African-American candidates
the opportunity to be hired.
III. Ordering Further Changes to the Testing Proeeas is Mot
Appropriate.
Plaintiffs have suggested a number of remedies relating to the
creation of a new or altered testing process which are not
reasonable for various reasons. One such suggestion by Dr.
Friedland was that candidates be referred to cities in "bands"
(i.e. a range of scores) rather than rank ordering by test scores.
This could be helpful to an individual black whose score was
within the band but was lower than the scores of white candidates
within the band. However, in the course of the trial no test was
identified which has no adverse impact against blacks. Therefore,
this suggestion would be counterproductive because whatever band
was chosen would tend to e.xclude blacks in disproportionate
numbers, and requiring that bands be used would prevent efforts by
cities to “reach down" to consider blacks with lower scores for
diversity or affirm.ative action purposes.
Dr. Friedland suggested that a transportability study be done
on the test developed by Richardson Bellows and Henry (R3H). The
32
RBH test has validity which is comparable to that of the MPRS test.
However the RBH test results in a difference between mean scores
of blacks and whites of .62 standard deviation. Dr. Sackett's
estimate of the difference in mean scores under an amended MPRS
testing process was .5 standard deviation for the CG predictor and
.3 standard deviation for the SR predictor. There is no
justification for the great expense of a transportability study of
a test which has no greater validity and is likely to result in
greater adverse impact.
Plaintiffs have also suggested that the MPRS be required to
use the AB forms of the Watson Glaser test. The greatest problem
with this suggestion is chat the AB forms are available in advance
CO the test takers. A test of this type cannot be relied on to
give valid results if test takers have prior access to the test.
Even if test security were not a problem, there is no evidence that
the AB forms of t.he test have equal or greater validity than the 42
forms or that they would have less adverse impact. The only
argument for using the newer forms of the test relates to the
objectionable questions in the older forms. If these questions are
eliminated fro.m the older forms, there is no reason to compel the
use of Che newer ones.
There was some discussion at trial of further diluting the
impact of the cognitive Watson Glaser test by adding another
cognitive test, such as a content-based test, to the MPRS test
battery. The proble.m with this suggestion is that no concent-based
tests were identified which do not have any adverse impact. As
33
explained by Dr. Sackett and adnitted by Dr. Friedland, if two
tests with adverse irpact are combined, the resulting adverse
impact is greater than that of the single test having the greater
adverse impact. EIx.2099,2099A.
Another suggestion was that the MPRS use the amended testing
procedures but that the Court would maintain jurisdiction to
reevaluate the validity oi the testing process in light of its
future impact on blacks. This suggestion is simply not practical.
No other testing process available to cities for police officer
selection would be subject to an automatic determination of
invalidity merely upon a showing of adverse impact. Under this
proposal, the validity of t.he testing process would not only be
open to Question, but the validity itself would be determined by
its adverse impact rat.her than its :ob relevancy. In the case of
all other testing processes, a process which results in adverse
impact can be defended if it is sufficiently job related. It is
extremely unlikely that any city would voluntarily continue to use
the MPRS testing process under such circumstances. Nor would it be
reasonable to compel any city to use the MPRS testing process under
such circumstances, since, if the process has an unacceptable
adverse impact in the future, the cities would incur liability for
use of a process which they had beer, ordered by the Court to use.
In any case, the Court m.ay approve the use of the testing
px'ocess without the use of cut scores. .>t this occurs, the MPRS
written examination will no longer be a hurdle; and the success
rate on one part of the selection process is only problematic if it
I
Jli
it operates as a hurdle. With the elimination of cut scores, any
adverse impact will be the result of other emploiTnent practices
which are not the subject of this lawsuit. If future hiring
practices of the defendants constitute either disparate treatment
or disparate impact they should be the subject of a separate
action.
If the testing process in amended form is lawful, cities
should be allowed to use it without the uncertainty created by the
potential that its validity is still questicnable. If the testing
process in its amended form is not lawful, its use should be
discontinued entirely.
Finally, plaintiffs have suggested that the defendants be
required to develop a new test under the direction or supervision
of the Court or a special master. There are a n’umber of reasons
why this suggestion is not reasonable or practical. One is that,
as evidenced by the original study, the development of a police
officer selection test is an extraordinarily complex and time
consum.ing effort requiring significant expertise and the exercise
of subjective professional judgment. The Court is neither well
suited for, nor well served by, involvement in the creation of a
new testing process.
The Court should also be m.indful of the complexities created
by the fact t.hat there are 3 4 individual, me .pendent defendant
cities. Courts have perhaps involved themselves in oversight of
development of a new testing process where there is a single
defendant, particularly where the process is for a single civil
35
service board or a single promocional examinacion.
In this case there are 34 ertplcyers, each with individual
hiring needs and philosophies. Over the years some Minnesota
cities have decided that those needs and philosophies -\re served by
using the MPRS testing process. However, the membership of the
MPRS has continuously changed over time as cities have decided, on
the basis of cost, hiring needs, hiring philosophies and other
factors, whether the MPF.S testing process was consistent with their
needs. Some cities which have used the MPRS testing process are
no longer members and are not defendants in this suit. Others have
joined since this suit was commenced and have not used the process
which was declared unlawful by the Court's Order of October 5, 1994
for any hiring decisions.Still others have discontinued
membership since this lawsuit was commenced.
Those cities which have used the MPRS testing process for
hiring decisions and which are also defendants in this suit acted
in good faith on the assumption that the MPRS testing process was
a lawful, 30b related selection device. If it is the decision of
this Court that the MPRS testing process, even with the changes
described earlier in this Memorandum, is not lawful, they should be
free, as they always have been, to select any lawful examination
which meets their needs.
The defendant cities have limited financial resources. The
riginal MPRS validation study, developed at a cost of $238,000 in
1978 dollars, was financially feasible only because it was paid for
by a federal grant. Any cost for development of a new testing
process would result ir. a corresponding loss of resources for
public services, including police protection.
A new testing process developed under court supervision might
or might not be equally predictive of successful job
performance, and might or m.ight not have less adverse impact. 3ut
in any case a new testing process may not meet the future needs, or
be consistent with the hiring philosophies of the defendant cities.
The defendant cities should not be precluded from selecting other
available written tests in the future, possibly including tests
which have less adverse i.mpact.r,ven if the court rules
unequivocally that the amendments to the MPRS testing process are
sufficient to make it a lawful employee selection device, the
cities should not be compelled to use the MPRS testing process, or
to involuntarily continue their membership in the MPRS.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above. Defendants respectfully request
that the Court deny plaintiffs request for damages and remedies.
Dated: July 29, 1995 KEhT^TDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED
^ - V /
C.haries L. LeFevere, No.
John M. LeFevre, Jr., No,
Jce Y. Yang, No. 25493
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
ATTOPCJEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
37
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Mayor and City Council
Ron Moorsc, City Administrator
August 24, 1995
SUBJECT: New Inquiry Regarding Public Versus Private Roads
Staff recently met with Bob Beach, a resident of Salem Court-a cul-de-sac off of North Brown
Road-regarding the issue of public versus private maintenance of -oadways in the City. Salem
Court is a private roadway, which was recently reconstructed. The residents are interested in
the City taking over responsibility for the roadway so that they will not have to incur further
costs for maintenance of the roadway.
Staff related to Mr. Beach the city’s policy regarding the private responsibility for roadways in
the rural area of the city. Staff also indicated the Council recently reviewed this policy and
determined that no changes should be made. Mr. Bea^h plans to pursue this issue. He indicated
he mav contact property owners on other private roads lo gain support for the city taking over
responsibility for the maintenance of the pri’ aic roads.
•.________
8 8'95
Tog 1 5 1995
To Orono City Council Members:
My name is Rosemary Burmasier and ! lia^e lived on the comer ot
Livingston Avenue and Couni>' Road lor the past 1 1 y ears. My husband
worked tor the city of Orono for appn wimaleb 28 y ears.
I was at the city council meetine where the abuse center was the main issue
and I am writing to thank you lor examining aii the pn's and c»ms ot the
abuse center and reaching the nght decision.
If Mound wants to have the abuse center so desperately. let them have it.
The same jiues tor 'vVav/iata. Navarre d*K*s not need it.
.Ml the people that have wntten articles to the oarer cemdemning Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Callaiiati. and Mr Jarbour for luriimg tlie abuse center down should
reallv think about what they wrote. Would they .*aiii the abuse center right
across fnnii their fnnil yard'.’ That's where it would be in my case and that
makes me verx uncomtortable.
I just want to thank those gentlemen again tor their decision. .Mso if the city
ot M(Mind wants the abuse cenier so radb. let them have ii in their town.
Thank You.
Rosemarv Burmaster
Navarre resident
To:
Froffi:
Mavof and City Council
Ron Moorse, City Administrator p'X
Date:
Subject:
August 25, 1995
Clarification of Agreements Between the City and the Orono Baseball Association
(OBA) for the of the Bederwood Ball Field and the New Youth Baseball
Fields
Recently I have received inquiries from Councilmembers regarding the Agreements between the
City and OBA regarding ball fields at Bederwood Park and the school dbtrict site. In response,
I have attached materials which set out these Agreements. The materials are as follows.
1.Excerpt of minutes of the March 26, 1990 Council meeting setting out the
conditions of the OBA’s use of the Bederwood ball field.
9
Mil •
A memo from John Gerhardson dated April 6, 1996 setting out the conditions of
the OBA’s use of the Bederwood ball field.
3.An excerpt from the OBA’s original proposal related to Bederwood Park
indicating the OBA will be responsible for overall maintenance of field and
surrounding area.
4 An excerpt trom the sublease with the OBA for the school district site setting out
the covenants under which the OBA will use the ball fields on the school district
site.
■Summary' of Agreements
A brief outline of the major elements of these Agreements is as follows:
1.The original Agreement regarding the use of Bederyvood Park allowed the OBA
to constWt the ball field improvements and to use the field four nights per week.
The Agreement also called for the OBA to maintain the fields and facilities.
The .Agreement related to the school district ball fields called for the OBA to
construct and maintain the ball field improvements. It also called for the OBA
to limit its use (,>f the hall field at Bederwood Park to two nights per week.
I
MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCH 26, 1990
LITTLE LEAGaE/BEDERWOOD involved witd -.he OBA
parh. GrabeK -••nl;-benefit of children deservedwho volunteerea Werr tr^e .or ^
the support of -«sou—s than for our children,better way to use cur park >esou---5
It was moved bv Mavor Grabek, seconded by Councilmertber
Callahan, to accept
exclusion or vottng aga-no_w - concession stand that is
staff so that it is
insoected on a yearly
oe fencing, dugouts, bleachers ^
constructed with the ih?ut_
suitable for the Park.he
by
be
basis and the City maxntains OBA should be given a
Farh if there is just cause to do so. structures
three year tern to use the^ ?ar^. ^^«^ed by the
constructed by tne Je '<eot to a .aini.tun visual
council. ^”®,f°°hal° bi n^.lectric scireboards, no FA systeo, impact anc .ne shal-je anywhere on the prf^^^es.
nor wil-L dny - *-u,o on^ hour beiors came
T.he CBA will have use „ increase .next year,
nights a wee.<. 1. -he nu.-nce t-cii —view. Security can be
frcr5anacl.h=r the field, but should
p'^rt.lll/^a^ol.V L-o:-usl.ng 3- f^eld^ when tc nnc^belhg
^-hi^ed == “-and^A ;tn^^^^^ .=-vje..d an ^one
Goetten also hhicrnec tne . , a n^
-^r-ocont ai^ or W*i6 oir.aci ^ l. ;
"^’Go'et-^n said tnat sne -F^ould approve nothing
lor me ^ -^-oDosad onis evening. Mayor Grabe.<
additional oeyonc set of bleachers and that
further thought that this
there be no PA system. -natt®- being reviewed each
was a ne i's^VcosTd to ling term use of
year. Callahan said^u. Callahan said that ne is
BederwocG Par.< x.wr un-.s ^ -ecominc an attractive
concerned about tne “be watched carefully,
nuisance and tncucnt .-eview, he would lixe
Callahan sale as - ,, .^nat steps are bei.ng ta.cen
me OBA to provide senio' orooerty. Council.te.moer
toward t..e i^riumerius phone calls and
Callahan 'issue. Callanan was i.mpressea oyletters regarti-ng -his issue wn’cn tnev oresentsc
attitude of both sices Ayes-4,‘ Nays-0, Motion
oertinent faCwS ro
oassed.
used
must
vear.
opportuni
for
and
the
he
PUBLIC COMMENTS:There were no public cemment-asented this evening
- 11 -
4690.IHD
fos
Proa:
Date:
Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adaiiniatrator
John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director
April 6, 1990
Subject: Little League Improvements - Bederwood Ball Diamond
On Monday, March 26, 1990, the Orono Council approved
improvements to the ball diamond at Bederwood Park.
The Orono Baseball Association (OBA) will allowed to:
1. Fence the entire ball diamond.
2. Construct dugouts.
3. Construct concession stand/press box (one level).
4. Provide portable bleachers.
5. Install scoreboard (not electric).
6. Remove ag-lime infield - place grass infield (City will
assist with equipment for this chase only).
7. Have exclusive use of ball diamond only from one hour
before game time to dark Monday through Thursday, June 3 **
June 30,* 1990 (additional use to July 15, 1990 tournaments
or play offs only).
8. Three year commitment with an annual review.
The above approval is contingent upon:
1. OBA to provide funding for all improvements except City
participation for Item 6 above.
2. OBA to provide affidavit of insurance.
3. OBA to provide plans of all structures to City
Inspection Department for review and approval.
4. Structure to be temporary as possible and within
building codes.
5. No artificial lighting.
6. No loud speakers.
7. No advertising on any structures.
8. OBA to post schedule of use at ball diamond.
City staff will review and prepare information on the need
to expand parking lot and parking safety concerns on Stubb's Bay
Road.
« *«• * ^
i
3. 1991 to *>
- At least for 1991 and 1992 Little League will
h*\ve exclusive use of field fron oid-April to
nid-July with sane post-season provisions as
above.
- Major Leagues will use field on a regularly
scheduled basis, with ainor league using field
as tine peraits. Each youth in the program will
have the opportunity to use the field.
- Eventual plan is to build permanent fields on
school property across from Orono School
canpus. Those fields would becone permanent
home for OBA. These fields are in early
planning stages. "Best guess'* now is that
Bedervood would be priaar/ site
League t.hrough 1993 season.
or Little
C. BEYOND 1993
Continued use of field for OBA. but on a less formal
basis. Fence and backstop would remain, other
structures remain if so desired. Would bo ideal
"home field" for our minor league system.
VI. MISCELTAMEOnS
A) Fin^r.cirg - OBA will finance improvements proposed
above.
►
•
Kr
te-
»'*
I *
iu
■j
r**
V*
t.
r-
I
t
OBA would welcome any contribution t.he city <ii Irc*'...
night make in the torn or oquipraent and laoor fi.e.
tractor, post-hole digger, truck, aiscei laneotis laoor
on the site, or on the structures).
Maintenance - OBA will be respo.n.i ib la for over-ail
maintenance of field and surroundxng akrea* It would
a tremendous help if City of Orono-could* mow grass. foi;
us, especially i.n the outfield
be-. :u-
.«** '» *r. *
With the cooperation of the City of Orono, the Orono Park Eo-ird
and the parents and youth of the Orono Baseball Association, we
believe a quality facility can be built to serve our
community. Furthermore, this facility can be the cornerstone
upon -which we can build a first-rate baseball program that
hundreds of our area's youth can enjoy and benefit from for
years to come.
Respmetfully submitted.
■:nC.MO aASEE.\LL association
1991
- At lM9t for 1991 and 1992 Littlo Laaguo will
have exclusive use of field fron oid-April to
aid-July with saae post-season provisions as
above.
- Major Leagues will use field on a regularly
scheduled basis, with ainor league using field
as tiae peraits. Each youth in the program will
have the opportunity to use the field.
- Eventual plan is to build permanent fields on
school property across from Orono School
campus. Those fields would become permanent
heme for OBA. These fields are in early
planning stages. "Best guess** now is that
Bederwood would be primary site for Little
League through 1993 season.
C. BEYOND 1993
Continued use of field for OEA, but on a lass formal
basis. Fence and backstop would remain. Other
structures remain if so desired. Would be ideal
"hone field" for our minor league system.
VI. MTSC^LrJ^NEOUS
A) Finar.cina - OBA will finance improvements proposed
above.
B) OBA would welcome any contribution t.he city of Irene
might make in the form or equipment and laoor fi.e.
tractor, post-hole digger, truck, niscelLaneous lanor
on the site, or on the structures).
C) Maintenance — OBA will be respwnelble for over—all
maintenance of field and surrounding area. It.would be-jJ-;
a tremendous help if City of orono-could*mow grase-fop
us, especially in the outfield area. ' •■ • ••a
With the cooperation of the City of Orono, the Orono Park Sc.-ird
and the parents and youth of the Orono Baseball Association, we
believe a quality facility can be built to serve our
community. Furthermore, this facility can be the cornerstone
upon which we can build a first-rate baseball program that
hundreds of our area's youth can enjoy and benefit from for
years to come.
e • ♦
Respectfully submitted.
K;m
r,’»
l-..r
ev
t . -
I . *
I'
r *•
Vi,
c^‘
r .
•i;
»
• ■ w
•iT'
&
i
1
I.
•
CnCNO BASEBALL ASSOCIATICM
.. ■ tvith i>e exainlion or earlier tenoinatioa of the Groundnot sooner teminaied. shaU terminate with the eap
Lease for any reason.
. c w. Tn addition to its obligation to comply wth the
(a) No amfidal Ughting shall be installed or operated at the Uased
Premises eacept a sec-drity Ught on die concession stand:
(b) No loud speakers shall be used at the Leased Premises:
(cy No advertising shaU be displayed at the Leased Premises:
(i) me schedule of the Subtenar.^ ^ of the ballfields operamd at the
Leased pLises shall be posted at such b^.elds: and
(e)
limited to two
es Stiau DC Uaia —- -
me use of me ballTieid at Bederwood Park by the Subtenant shall be
(2) nights per week.
«u.., i ....ssf’ “
accordance herewith.
If to Sublessor:
If to Subtenant:
City of Orono
P.6. Box 66
Crystal Bay. Minnesota. 55323
Orono Baseball/Softball Association
P.O. Box 503
Long Lake, Nlinnesota 55 j 56
7. mfniill: Remedies. In
Ground Lease, which provisions are Premises and conduct the
Default hereunder if Suotenant shaU fail to (i) p ‘ comparable UtUe league
Utde league basebaU program ^Pa^MetropoUtL .^ea. as determined
basebaU faciUiies and programs in the Minneapohs/S . P condition, (m)
b“subIessor. (ii) maintain leased Premises^^^ ^
cease to exist or become macuve, or ^od aUowed under Section
“-^.f^.rG“:ufdtr d Dc-aul^ Sub.essor shaU have the
remedies set forth in Section 22 ot the Ground Lease.
g. .nsumnce. It is expressly agreed mat S“bm^t sfa^ be
obtaining the i^I^Fii^iTequired under Section la o. the Ground Lease, pro
444/22038143 5/l9i94
m
CB COMMERCI \L
Real Estate Grolr Inc
UmOKEMMjf. \\0 U^MCVT
M VN sms iCLi
LiCtNStO «E.^ feST\n »8« Hvril
My 18,1995
Orono City Council
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Re: Proposed Sewtr Line for Smith A vtm e
Dear Council Members:
• .
.-TV -,T
c 'r.3 A CB
fJUL 2 i 3,90^
COMMERCIAL
Lacml KtufwMfe Worid%%de
POtND&O
MXTTHLW N. MCOLL
SEMOU \ ICE PHI SIDE NT
Minnesota Regional Manager
M: 924-4690
S3 i->0:3 F\\
I am a resident of 160 Smith Avenue having acquired the property in May 1993. The lot is
approximately 2.5 acres and has ample capacity to expand the septic system if the need should
arise in the future. It is my understanding that a majority of the homes on the east side of Smith
Avenue are in excess of two acres and have ample room for their septic systems.
It is also my understanding that due to lot sizes of less than one acre for a number of homes on
the south side of Smith and two homes Lyman Avenue that it is the city s intent to ultimately
serv’ice these lots with a sanitary sewer. It is turther my understanding that the cost of the sewer
installation w ould be borne by all members of the neighborhood.
we purchased our home it was extremely important to me that the e.xisting septic sy stem
was in good shape and the lot was of adequate size to provide for future expansion if necessary’.
Part of the value of a two and one-half acre lot is the ability to relocate your septic system in the
event of a failure. This flexibility is built into and is pan of the value of a lot of this size. If it is
determined by the city that there are homes in our subdivision that cannot function without a
sewer line then it should be their sole responsibility to pay whatever the cost is for sewer service
to their homes so they are conforming. To spread the cost over conforming users that have no
use or need for sewer in an effon to make the whole project feasible and less costly for non-
(^Qj^'onning users is simply not equitable. If there is a need in the future for a homeowner not
initially hooked up to the sewer then they should be charged at that point in time and the initial
contributing members should be reimbursed pro rata.
Please keep me advised of any further discussions regarding this proposed sewer line.
Sincerely,')
i L/
Matthew N. Nicoll
Senior Vice President
Minnesota Regional Manager
MNN/ams
"•W) F9 \NCE .AVFNI E SoLTH SiTTE TTQ M|NNE \HKIS MINNESOTA 55435-52.S2
16732 Cedamwod Circle
Cemtos. California 90703
August 6,1995
HonoratXe City Council
City Hall
United States
RPOUeST FOR SUPPORT
IMMIGRATION STABILIZATION
WELFARE REFORM
BALANCED FEDERAL BUDGET (Passed by Congress)
FEDERAL COURT TERMS
ENGLISH LANGUAGE OF GOVERNMENT
■AUG 1 7 ass5
Dear Counciimembers;
pos 'on ma! can n,ake th.s proposal a raal.ly No. all areas
been overwhelmingly impacted by illegal immigration as Los Angeles Some
fepresen'atives do "no, realise tba,is a vital issue that will P ajnaior pa«
the 1996 Presidential campaign Therefore, it is incumbent to let
even voters in their home district support reform measures
AS a member of CALIFORNIA/NATIONAL ENGLISH CAMPAIGN^^
member ENGLISH FIRST, and 620 000-member US ENGLISH, I also reques
TouT suppon Of English language m government Writing personally to loca
governm"enl resulted m support from 41 counties and '2 cities, ^"^losed is a hs
of known agencies and organizations from 30 states. If you know of addilio
agencies, please inform me so ihe list may be complete
Having studied si* foreign languages. I realize the twofold benefit of 'anguages-
to increase mternalanal business, and a national language so government
business may be done efficiently
Copies of each of the bills, except for federal judge terms which is sf
may be obtained from your federal representative. Sample resolutions are
endosed for your convenience Acknowledgement of receipt of this letter and
any resolution copy would be appreciated.
Sincerely.
Thomas S. Brachko, MPA
engus32
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF (Organization. State!
SUPPORTING IMMIGRATION STABILIZATION
TO RESOLVE, that our nation enforce its immigration lavi« and stabilize annual immigration:
VWSREAS. th« Unitad SlaSa « « magnarunwwi nation o» divtne citijans moat a4x>aa *ricaatofs wara immigran^or ara
Immigrants cama for ma common purpoaa to oOtam and creata Amancan (Otos to improva tnair standard ol Nvmg,
WHEREAS immigrants art an asset to tha nation. t>ui unmanagad anmigfatioo undemsnes ^
hfa and OMarcro¥rtmg tha job mamat housing, pubbc health, schools, and the government has not defined ttie purpose
immigration m a mature, mdu^nattzed nation as oun and
dK^ annu« legal immigration was about 800 000 m 1902 illegal immigration is about 300.000 each year and illegal
entries about 3 - 5,000 000 each year and
WHEREAS the Center for immigrahon Studies states the total taidiayer cost of assistance for
MCQD^ oer year criminal immigrants in California cost taxpayers o< state and county criminal |usMce systems
JSOO 000 000 per ^ Arizona, California, Ffcyida and New jersey have sued the Federal govemmeni to pay lor the costs of
immigrants (Ftonda s amount is $V500 000 000) and 25% of federal prison inmates are aliens.
WHEREAS lUlegal aliens are eligible for 100 federal benefits programs according to the Congresswn^ww^ Service,
rwigmg from earned income tax credit to business loans while citizens e«penenca difficulty quaufying for benefits, a
WHEREAS 5 agerKies nave endorsed immigration stabilization and reform to stabilize immigration
THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED thai the members of iName ol Qraani^abonj have voied and approved adopbon of
comprenensive specific and self-executing federal immigration stabilization legislation that wiM
ai Enforce existing kivnigralien laws including employer sanctions against hinng illegal
b) issue tamper-proof citizen and alien cards containing fingerprint and photograph xlentification.____
b) Establish practical annual inwniqratlon levels with consideration to national and state unemploymenl
undefempioyment levelsunaefempioymcru
c) Rfolect our national borders- land sea and aif • from illegal alien entries thorougniy cheewng
regarding immigration law to provide a lawful society
BE rr FURTHER RESOLVED that this body su^pnrts federal bills HR 3862 (Stump, R-AZ) with ^ ^
HR 4, 373. 375. 570. HJR 64 in the House of Representatives and SB 1923 (R^*^ D-NV), S160, 268 in the Senate an
erKOurages other organizations to support immigration reform
BE IT FURTHER RESCLVEO thjt Ih. Clerk cf the Scerd ic hereby dirocted to d«ie—ate <ro^ o' th^s
' enate President Dole Speaker of the House Gingrich Governor____________. Li Governor--------------— —
Senators _____State Representatives _______________________ politica) parties; Chambers of Commerce.oenaioTs____________ ------------- '■ -
and other pubic offciais as the Board may deem appropriate
PASSED. APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF , 1995
Clerk Board President
STATE AGENCY PATE
KANSAS
THOMAS CO 06C3/94 ^994-12
NEBRASKA
DIXON CO 05/17/94 05294
grant CO 06/1094 51
OHIO
WILLOWICK
SOUTH DAKOTA
FAULK CO
8/5/95
12)06/94
0609/94
SPEC MOTION
1000
iL.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF fAa^cv, Sfafel
SUPPORTING WELFARE STABIUZATION
IN THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS
TO RESOLVE. Ifia! our nation reform and stabilize federal and state welfare benefits:
WHEREAS, Oty and county gouamrwm wrt govOTmtnl luntdctions that pfovida sooai services to peooit and depends on
tax revenue from federal and state govemmenis to provide these mandated services county government budgets afloeiAe
n«rty 40% of revenue on w^are and other pubfec asstmee programs requvmg efficient manage me nt of tax monies; and
VVKREAS. moderate income taxpayers pay the mafortfy of the taxes for these programs, not the weatthy. for example. w\
Fiscal Yaar 1991 the Aid to Families With Dependent Children program cost S20 CXD CXX) CXX) provided to 21 000000
reopiefits over 8% of our natxxi s population and
WHEREAS, we lfare fraud m Califoma has cost taxpayers $750 000 000 arviually: Los Angeles County implemented a
FfNGERPRtNVNG PROGRAM for General Relief recipients m July 1901 that SAVED TAXPAYERS $5 400000 or 56
PERCENT of program costs m sa months- MORE MONEY WAS GOtNG TO FRAUDULENT CASES THAN LEGtTIMATE
ONES and the Lot Angeles County annual heallh cart budget is $2 500 000.000, about 67% of recipients are unemployed,
the abte^-bodied patients should be given top pnonty and encouragement for job placement; arxj
WHEREAS, state govOTment dworce laws alow convenient quicH OissoMk of mamage Jling m widasprMd financially
impovenshed single parents and children the ag gre gate amount of child support due to Ame« i-an mothers m 1909 was $16 3
billion but they received only 69% of that amount- $11 200 000 000, the remainmg $5,100,000,000 has to be paid each year
by private ir>dtviduftis or the taxpayer, and
WHEREAS deadbeat facers and mothers delinquent in court-ordered spouse and children financial support has been so
neglectful that government -run programs are necessary to collect and distribute morwy. mandating expensive programs paid
by taxpayers convenient divorce laws did not solve all family social problems but initiated a new era of finarKial deperxJence
on government (other taxpayers) and poverty which has been detnmertal to our society
WHEREAS a growirig number of unmamed illegitimate parents able to wodi are not held financiaHy responsibte for the
support of their children and are eligible for public assistarKe but government makes the wortong taxpayer responsible for
these children and
WHEREAS, illegal alien mothers-lo-be cross our national borders are permitted to have their babies at local hospitals; our law
automaticatly provides citcenship to the bat)y and the parents are immediately eligible for welfare benefits Amencans who
sponsor legal immigrants promised to keep them off public assistance but cannot be held accountable by our court system if
receiving benefits as a result m 1992 over 6CD 000 immigrants received unearned fedeiai supplemental security income, and
WHEREAS government public policy is misplaced when it encourages permanent rekance on tax-supported public services,
housing, and health rather than promoting our trao»t»on of independence and self-sufficiency
THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED, that the iname of orga ni^ationj has voted in favor of the adoption of logical, coherent,
federal and state welfare stabilization legislation that wiH
a) Stabilize cost of social services by denying citizenship to those who entered illegalty.
b) Establish sensible public policy and enforcement of eligibility for public assistance programs
c) Require hf^gerprintlng of welfare recipients to prevent fraud
d) Establish tamper-proof cards for woiliing. voting and receiving bef>ertts with fingerprint and photograph
Identification as exist in France Germany Sweden Italy and Mexico.
e) Initiate national registry of births and deaths to protect government against fraud in issuance of cards.
f) Require fingerprinting and social security numbers of both father and mother be placed on their child ’s birth
certtficale to ensure financial accountabiury
g) Require flnarKial support of immigrants common law spouses, legai spouses and all children resulting from
these unions
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this body supports HR 1010 and HR 3500 (Michel R-IL) with 160 co-sponsofs m 39
states the Welfare Reform Act in the House of Representatives and corres pondmg legislation in the Senate and at the state
level and encourages other organizations in the nation to support welfare reform and stabilization
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the marne of organization) is hereby directed to disseminate copies of this
resolution to President Clinton Vice President Gore forrrer Presidents Ford Carter Reagan and Bush former Vice
Presidents Mondale and Quayle U 5 Senators _______________ U S Congressmembers -------------------------------
Governor ______Governor _________________________ Slate Senators ________________ State Representatives
Chambers of Commerce National League of Counties, (state) League of Counties. National
League of Cities (state) League of Cities and other organizations m the state
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 1995.
Clerk
KANSAS
THOMAS CO
NEBRASKA
DIXON CO
GRANT CO
FNe Agencies SuDDorllna R9i
05f23S4 1994-14
05/17.04
(J6/1G94
05394
52
President
onn
OHIO
WILLOWICK (Lake Co ) 12X»94
SOUTH DAKOTA
FAULK CO C6JC9/94
SP MOTN
1002
RESOLUTION NO-----------A RESOLUTION OF___(Organization, Stata)__^SUPPORTING A BALANCED FEDERAL BUDGETTO RESOLVE, to support our ferte.-a. vovemment which has adopted a balanced federal tiudget
_____ _ each fisc^ ¥«w W'*'' ftW) ta*p«yw» r#«ufcng tn
«-s* »«u s o«»™« - T^-y. ^
Managefnent S wvk *. and .
WHCRCAS fwjwal gmvnirmrt ftnrKial ww«t to imptotowil towrr r r ^ .n, ,»to, «
_______ y--™- «, 0« toco,n» —-V —
tocal communities, and
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nation s ta» dollars *^4-—1
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that tha members of j.N^m^ wSi^ ^
a) Balance tbe federal budget.
'’,??15^rrc2S^!r«.“ S^tototo «»» to. to»«»v. of ,ov«nn,.rt.» mo« gto«n«„
are enaoied by state constitutions
legislation that was passed in the Senate and signed by President Clinton
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Cerit of and'^B*!^"^^
Congre^smemoers -------sJ^^Tl^ntat'^^ljZZIIIIII---------
c7;?^n.n^;7^ubl.c Otf^ials and organ^nors as me Board may deem appropriate
PASSED, approved . AND ADOPTED THIS-DAY OF __
political parties Mr Thomas Brachko of
. 1995.
President
Clerk
KANSAS
THOMAS CO
NEBRASKA
DIXON CO
grant CO
OHIO
AMHERST (Lorain Co)
WILLOWICK (Lake Co)
SOUTH DAKOTA
FAULK CO
,.V ’SUPPORTING A Hat ANCED FED£RALBMQS£I
06/23(94 ’994-13
05/17(94 054B4
06/10(94 53
01/2506 R.9S1
120604 SP MOTN
0609(94 1001
006195
Budget
RfSOLUTIDIi NO.
A Nf SOLUTION Of IQrqanizatkifi. Sute)
SlffPORTING TIERMS OP OFFICE AND TERM LIMITS
U S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES AND FEDERAL JUDGES
AME9^E)MENT TO U.S. CONSTITUTION
TOH£SOL^ mst our go¥9frmmrt 9StsbSsh fms
a Qfnc§ for U S Cou/r Ji/slfcws §nd
WHEREAS fedtrii ju^icM h«v« a po^warfui aixl costty influanca on Mcral, slMt and loo^ govtmmtnl and cfliaenry, ruia for
lifa arH) art not accoun^filt to th« pgD^ for joO ptfformanct tnay rumt)af m excess of 700 and
WHEREAS tn 1962 fht U S Suprerna Court voted that public education canrKil be denied to children \Mio entered the country
itiegaify burdening local taxpayers nanonwide contntxitmg to illegal immigration and local govemmerS benaruplcy m 1961. a
U S Otstnct Court Judge malKlated voter-approved OfTciai English legislation m Anzona, m 1966 the Supreme Court declared
staN laiee kmemg the terms of its federal officenoiders uncortstautional and
WHEI^AS. State Si^reme court lushces m an overwheimrig maionty^ 47 of 50 staiae serve a term of office and the average
term is o years stale supreme court lustces m the other 3 stales may sarve unbi aga 7D and m only ONE stata may serve for
life
WHEREAS, C governors are dnied to serving no more than two terms, more than 25.000.000 voters m 23 states have
passad term iimitatior^ laws for ts state and federal employees pnor to the Supreme Court ruling: Alasica, Anzona Arkansas.
Catiforma Cokxado Florida Idaho Maine Massachusetts Michigan Missouri Montana. Nebraska, Nevada. Nor^ OakoU.
Ohio. Oklahoma Oregon. South Dakota. Utah, Washington Wyoming, and
WHEREAS, the executive and legislative branches of the federal government are sub^t to terms of offfce and accountability
to the pubic for performance but the federal ludciary rs ret subfect to the same responsibility in our democracy
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the members of (name of organization) have voted to support oftce terms for the
federal judicial tnd the Board of Directors cai) for the adoption of an amendment to the United States Constituten of logcai.
coherent ie^ siati ki mat will
a) MiHh terms of office for over 700 members of the federal judciary located in each state and DC tho U S
Court Courts of Aopeai ar>0 Ostnet Judges
•> je for a confirmation election of these ludges by the electorate m aH 50 staftes and DC upon completion of
^ ai Presidential appended ♦erm
c, I ^ ^ two four-year terms and two term limits for justices
BE IT FUPT*-^ s. RESOLVED, that copies of this resoii/tion be forwarded to Presidefrt CUnton, Vice President Gore U S
Senators______ U S Cengressmembers________ Stale Supreme Court: Federal Bar Association, and other
officials as the Board may deem appropnate
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS__DAY OF___________, 1ff6.
Clerk President
AGENCIES SUPPORTING THIS RESOLUriCN YOUR AGENCY
0/4^
Fedcourl
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF tOfoanization. State!
ENGLISH AS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
DECLARATION OF A COUMUNICATtON EMERGENCY
TO REaoLVE. that our common language be our governing language
WHEREAS, t cofnrnon language m the United States enables communtcabon between peoples of many divsfse languages
vM to creM and mamtam a high standard of Kvmg and.
WHEREAS a common languaga m govamment anows fu« commumcMion nacassary to conduct daity govamment busffitss
such as attandmg public school, rtcaiving county haailh care a siatt dnv#f*s ficansa. and crW sarvanl amploymant and
WHEREAS a common languaga m govammant providas a rnafhod for commumcafion batwaan divarsa trnJivtduals. uniting
citizans and eUrwrtfting misundtrsttnding. separation and discord and.
WHEREAS though multifingual citcans are an asset to our natter a go^'amment withal a common languaga is impractical
pMK policy costing milhons of fadarH and state taxpayar doOars to provida govammant tarvicas. for exampla. the federal
govammant mandates 375 voting oistncts m 21 states to provide voting ballots m foreign languages California gives dnvars
licansa exams m 27 languages and Cai forma puttie schools teach immigrant students m at least 42 languages arxJ
WHEREAS, no heavity industrialized n^ion of ma)or significance »n terms of communication tedership and standard of living
has been muititmgual and support for English has come from 22 STATES from coast to coast and border to border, 41
COUNTIES and 15 CITIES and
WHEREAS 70% of Amancans favor designating English as our n^ions official lar>guaga of govammant (US English/Gallup
poll. January 1991) and
WHEREAS, the tasiglatura of the iname gf itatf) has voted to request State officials to support and implenfitnl the English
Language Proposition and endorses our state and nation to have one common language- ENGLISH
THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED hat the (name of it^ej hereby adopts ENGLISH as the official language of (nt®SjSf
state) and supports adoption of comr ehensive specific and seif-executing Language of Government legislation that will
a) Save taxpayers costs of duplicating every government function m many languages
b) Establish sensible public poiicy on government use of multiple languages allowing for essential services of
emergency health safety and lustice while stipulating that official acts records and citiizenship ceremonios be
cof>ducted in English
c) Place the communication focus //here it belongs on empowering new American adults and children by teaching
them our common language English m a short term profioency program with an employer tax credit and
d) Transfer the responsibJif/ and ultimate cost for teaching English on the federal government which
controls and regulates the admission of non English speaking persons
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this txxly suppons state bills and competing federal bills m Washin^on National English
Campaigns HR 1006 (King R-NY) with X cosponsors HR 124 English Firsts HR 739 (Roth R-WI) which has 61
cosponsors m 10 states US Englishs HR 123 (Emerson R-MOi which has 207 sponsors in 30 states HR 2850, HCR 12.
HJR 171 in the House of Representatives US English s S 366 (Shelby R AL) which has 17 cosponsors in 10 states. S 1670
in the Senate and supports efforts of other organizations designating English as the common governing language of the
United SUtes
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Cierx of the Board is hereby directed to disseminate copies of this resolution to
Governor Lt Governor Attorney General Secretary of State Treasurer Controllef Public Instruction
Superinlenaent insurance Commissioner Senate President pro Tempore Speaxer of the House President William Clinton.
Vice President Albert Gore former Presidents Ford Carter Reagan and Bush former Vice Presidents Mondale and Quayle
U S Senate President Dole Speaker of the House Gingrich U S Senators and_______ and the entire U S
Congressmember delegation Mr Thomas Brachxo and other offic.ais as the Board may deem appropriate
PASSED. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS _DAY OF 1995.
Clerk.President
(List of governments/organizations supporting English is on reverse )
ENGUSA
I
UNITED STATES AGENCIES
SUPPORTING OFFICIAL ENGLISH
AMENDMENT TO U S. CONSTITUTION
As of August 1. 1995
List of knovwi states, courties. cities and organizations that have adopted resolutrans,
ordinances or letters of support for English as our Lariguage of Government States in bold
large font have adopted English as their official language of government Counties are in italics
Cities are identified by county; dates indicate when adopted When available, resolution numbers
are provided for your convenience Support requested by Thomas Brachko resulted in
resolutions and letters from 41 counties and 12 cities in 14 states
22 STATES. 41 COUNTIES. 15 CITIES, 4 ORGANIZATIONS
IS. NEW HAMPSHIRE 05/00/95
NEW JERSEY
Sussex
NEW YORK
06/23J93
QMS Rm N o
1. ALABAMA 19U
2. ARIZONA 1998
klOh9V9 11/20191
3. ARKANSAS 1987
4. CALIFORNIA 1986
Gl9fin 06/2V93 90^42
Lett 9 06T2S93 93-111
M9fC9d 06/16/93 93-153
Teheme C»20«3
Oil's
Aiaowda {AlsnmSs)06/13/65 10660
Ctov^ale iSonomsf 06«/90 44^93
Cypress fOfsnget 01/16^
Dubitn {AJ9m9ds)02/10/92 9-92
Lake Forest (Orsngef 06/17/90 93-66
Live Obk I Sutter)07/21/93 43-1993
Saratoga (Ssnts Oarsf CBO&93
Vernon (Los Angetesf 02A3492 604G>
5. COLORADO 1988
S. FLORIDA 1988
7. GEORGIA 1986
a. HAWAII 1978
9. ILLINOIS 1969
Manon 12/14^93-114
10. INDIANA 1984
KANSAS
Thomas 0&C3/94 :®4^11
11. KENTUCKY 1984
12. LOUISIANA 1811
MASSACHUSETTS
Norfotk 11/1 7«3 C
MICHIGAN
Cheboygan CB/14190
Iron 00/14193
Sagna^11/12S1 E
City
Oak Park (OaKland^03/18/91
13. MISSISSIPPI 1987
14. MONTANA 04/01/95 HB 37(
TreHtjrf 04^>494
15. NEBRASKA 1920
Dixon 06/17/94 06194
Grant 05/ia94 so
AOegheny 11/18/93 33-93 List compiled by:
Caffauraugus 11/18^33-93 Thomas S. Brschko, MP.\
Cayuga 11/18/93 33-90 I6T32 ( IitIc
Chautauqua 11/18«3 33-93 ( erntos, ( alifomiji 90703-2S45
Ene 11/18«3 33-90
Genesee 11/18«3 3393 8X)696
Us/m^one 11/18^33-93
Monroe 11/18CT 33-90
Niegera 11/18/93 30«
Onteno 11/18^33-93
Orteens 07/21 S3 33-90
Schuyler 11/1 IMS 33-90
Senece 11/18^33-93
Steuben 11/1 8m 33-93
Wayne 11/1 8m 33-93
Wyorrwng 11/1 8m 33-9C'
Yates 11/1 8m 33-93
17, NORTH CAROLINA 1988
18. NORTH DAKOTA 1987
OHIO
R-1^94Darka03«16®4
Ena 01/2404 94-17
git*?
Blue Ash (Hamaton)10/27/94 94-20
BrooK Par l« (Cuyahoga)ii/iem 47-1903
Findlay (Hancock)06/17/94 22-1994
WiQowick ILaka)12/0604
PENNSYLVANIA
Allentown (Lehigh)0907/94 ^-1994
19. SOUTH CAROLINA 1987
20. SOUTH DAKOTA 03/20/95
Bannatl 06/1704 3
21. TENNESSEE 1984
TEXAS
Coke 0Q/13m
Concho oa/27m
Cray 11/ism 93-926
Uberty 1Qf25«3
San Augustme 1Cy25«3
guy
The Colony (Danton)CX3X)696 9602
22. VIRGINIA 1950/86
WISCONSIN
ShatMygan 09/2401 20
ORGANIZATIONS
1 American Legion 06/25/92 543
National Org 00^36/94 47
2 American Legion
Dept of Nebraska
3 American Legion
06/24/94 7
07/1493Dept of New York
4 American Legion
17
04/23^Dept of Pennsylvania 707
J
COUMCIlMttnNQ
WG ? 8
CITY OF ORONO
NOTICE OF COLTsCIL WORK SESSION
NOTICE, is hereby given that the Orono City CouiKil will meet in a work
session on Tuesday, August 29, 1995, at 8:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley
Parkway, Orono. Nlinnesota. The purpose of this meeting is to review with staff the proposed
1996 budget.
This meeting is open to the public.
fl- ./s/ Dorothy M. Hallin
Citv Clerk
Posted at:
City Hall
Navarre Post Office
Lxme Lake Post Office
Crystal Bay Post Office
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Item Description
Budget Update Memo
General Fund Expenditures by Department
General Fund Revenues by Source
Tax Levies
Tax Capacity rnd Tax Rate
Effect of the Budget on Residential Properties
General Fund Changes in Fund Balance
PIR Fund Changes in Fund Balance
General Government Capital Outlay
Police Department Capital Outlay
Enterprise Fund Capital Outlay
Proeram/Depanmeni Budgets
1-3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11-12
13
14
15-38
!
i
f
V <
«•
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Mavor and Citv Council
Ron Moorse, City Administrator /«
Aueust 24, 1995
SUBJECT: Proposed 1996 Budget - Update
The proposed 1996 budget has now been placed into its final form for adoption based on Council
direction at the initial budget work session and on the determination of final cost amounts for
several expendimre items.
The proposed 19% budget addresses several short term issues such as:
1.
^ *
3.
4.
Recodification of the city ’s ordinances
Computerized mapping
Employee appreciation/recognition
Update of the city's pay structure
The budget also addresses a number of long term fiscal issues including
1.
3.
4.
5.
Potential loss of revenue related to contracted services provided by the city
Funding for storm water management plan
Funding for storm water drainage projects
Funding for infrastructure ($40,000 levy)
Reserve for potential UACA reduction
Tax l^w
The total tax levy required to fund the proposed 1996 budget is $2,080,840. This is an increase
of $64,670 or 3.21over the 1995 levy.
General Fund F.xrendimres
Citv of Orono
General Fund Budget
For 1995 Jic 1996
1995 1996
S Increase
(Decrease)
Personal Semces 1.561.592 1.922.850 61.258 3.29%
Supplies & Maintenance 354.296 365.850 11,554 3.26%
Other Expenses 890,222 90S.795 18.573 2.09%
Capital Outlay 124.130 150.260 26.130 21.05%
Total 3.245.015 3.347.755 102.740 3.17%
The General Fund budget continues to be funded without an increase in the tax Ie\7. The
proposed General Fund expenditures are $3,347,755. This is an increase of $102,740 or 3.17^
over the 1995 expenditure amount. This expenditure level reflects several expendimre increases
not included in the preliminary budget figures. They are related to two contracted services
costing more than initially estimated for 1996, and several contractual police officer pay step
adjustments that were not included in the preliminary budget figures. An explanation of these
expenditure increases is as follows;
Prosecution Services; The prosecution services cost is proposed to increase from $31,8^3 to
$35,880. This is an increase of $4,057 or 12.7%. This increa.se is due to a combination of
increased costs and the reallocation of the costs among the participating cities. Orono s share
of the total costs has increased due to the prosecution work load of Orono versus the work load
of the other cities. Although this is a significant one year increase the cost is still very
reasonable. This is the first significant increase since the ciiy^^*gan to receive prosecution
services from the City of Minnetonka in 1992 at a cost of $30,'lint
Mound Fire Service: The Mound fire service costs have increased from $65,896 to $70,706 an
increase of $4,810 or 7.3%. This increase is due mainly to an increase in funding for major
vehicle repair.
Police Pay Steps; A final review of police salaries identified several police officer pay step
increases that were not included in the preliminary budget figures. The amount of these step
increases totals approximately $8,800.
2.85% Pay Adjustment; The preliminary budget proposed a 2.75% pay increase for city staff.
A police officer contract settlement (now approved by the police officers) includes a 2.85% pay
increase. The 2.85% pay increase has been calculated into the budget for all staff. This has
resulted in a total increase in expendimres of approximately $2.^^mil
General Fund Revenues
The General Fund Revenues were also reviewed to ensure they were accurately, yet
conservatively, projected. This review resulted in increases in the building related revenues of
approximately $15,000 and an increase in interest revenue of approximately $4,000.
General Fund Reserves
The General Fund Reserv'es have been redesignated as follows;
1. Designation for HACA reduction $100,000
2. Designations for potential police contract revenue reduction $100,0(X)
3. Designated for working capital $925,000
Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund Reserves
Through transfers from the General Fund Reserves and a $40,000 lax levy, the proposed 1996
PIR Fund Reserves are as follows:
1.
2
3.
4.
Infrastructure (road and bridge projects): $267,361
Infrastructure (storm drainage projects): $90,000
Stormwater management plan: $50,000
Emercenev contingency: $325,000
Equipment Replacement
The Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund is funded at a level of $64,900 per year to
provide for the planned replacement of all capital equipment in General Fund departments other
than Police. A list of the equipment to be purchased through this fund in 1996 is attached (page
11-12). The total amount to be expended is $67,380. This amount is relatively high due to the
replacement of two trucks in the Public Works and Parks area. Both ot these trucks will have
been driven approximately 100,000 miles at the time ot their replacement.
The police department equipment replacement proposal is similar to prior years in that it
includes the replacement of two marked squads along with switch-over costs and related
equipment. An additional item for 1996 is the replacement of a third squad-the Investigator
squad. Although the Investigator squad dees not have high mileage it is showing signs of
requiring significant expenditures for maintenance and repairs. The proposal is to replace the
Investigator's squad through the purchase of a rental vehicle through Avis or similar.
The proposed capital items in the Enterprise Funds are shown on page 14. The major item in
the Sewer Fund is the replacement of lift station n^6 at a cost ot $65,000. Lift station ^6 is the
third of four of the old stvle lift stations that are being replaced over a four-to-five year peritxl.
Capital Projects
The preliminary budget overview indicated several capital projects planned for 1996 including
the Old Crystal Bay Road bike trail and County 6. Based on the funding designated in the PIR
fund for stormwater drainage projects, it is recommended that $20,000 be budgeted from the PIR
fund toward stormwater drainage improvements for 1996.
cmr OF ORONO __GENERAL FUND EXPENDnURHSDawiilmeotaTYOOUNatADM1NISTRA110N
ELECTIONS
ASSESSING
HNANCE
LEGAL
CENIKAL SliRVKliS
HUMAN SI-RVICES
POLICE
RRE
PIANNING & ZONING
EMERGENCY PRItPARIiDNlISS
ANIMAl. CONIROL
ENGINF-ERING
SIREEI MAINril-NANdi
PARKS &Ri:CRIA110N
RECYC:UN(j
SPECIAI^SERVICIS-CONSUI I. & KM.ia-
SPECIAl. PROJECTS & a)NnN(U:N('Y
IRANSI EU lO i:ouipoun AY I UNI)
sumo I'AI. GliN. FUND - OPl{R/\ llN(i
BUDGiniii) iNCR. It) (ji:n I UNI) Ri SI ;rvf :
10TA1. GENERAI. FUND
Updafc: I6-Aug-95Dolktr%1994 1995 1996 lncfv‘ase lucivaseActualHudeelBud^t (ntca'aac)(IX-crease)$48,450 t58j005 $56j625 ($1380)-238%181367 1802)57 185,715 4,758 2.63%
7378 435 6,665 63.30 14.32.18%
73,724 74310 76,160 1J850 2.49%
127385 135387 1472)30 12343 9.1W^»
98,777 862)64 92,080 5,116 5.88%
IDZ33 193326 163,490 (29J8.36)-15.43%
13,940 15375 15,760 .385 230%
1,135 M)7 IJM5,459 1342365 37,106 3.08%
182,783 186,479 197,465 10,986 5JJ9%
282,449 293A56 302,465 8v809 3.00%
2,786 1352 2j000 148 7.99%
12334 14,638 14,700 62 0.42%
202131 13,460 15,130 1370 12.41%
4562>92 472,279 482,960 10,681 226%
5033 1 50308 512370 1362 2.70%
72,137 76,160 76,155 (5)-0.01%.
55,380 28,741 41350 13,109 45.61%
16.931 57,150 78,670 21320 yih6%i>
84,900 84,900 97300 12,600 14S4%
$3,104,615 $3,130340 $3347,755 117315 3.64%
0 14,775 0 (14.775)-100.00%
$3,104,615 $3345,015 $3347.755 102,740 3.18%
M- SCnVOFORONO GENERAL FUND REVENUESTAXESGeneal Pio|iertyTaieiRiaalties A tatereston Delinquent taxes
TOTAL TAXES
UCENSES A PERMnS
TOTAL UCENSES A PltRMITS
INTERGOVERNMENFAI. REVliNUE
Federal (irant-EmetBency Piepaicdncss
Homestead A Agriculhiral Credit Akl (IL\CA)
R)lioe Town Aid
Police Training Reimbursement
Municipal State Aid-Streets
Aids/Grants fiom Slate (Election)
County Grant-Recycling Program
lOTAI, INIERCiOVi:RNMi:NrAI. RI-VENUIS
aiARGES FOR SERVKliS
Plan Qieck A Site Beam I'ees
Conditional Use—Variance A SuUJivision lees
On-Site Septic Program I'ees
G>ntraded I\>lice Services
Gun traded InqKdion Services
Q>ntraded Animal Conln>l
Qmtraded Public Works Services
Special Police Services
Administratitv Oiarges to Ollier I'unds
Recycling Program I'ees
Other Charges
lOTAI. CIIARGI-S I OR SIRVK'luS
HNES & FORI r:ris
Court l-'ines
Animal Impound Ixx's
lO l AL FINES & I EI lS
MISQUJANEOUS
Interest Inoomc
Other
TOTAL MISCEUANFOUS INCOME
GRAND lOFAL
I>)llar1994199519%Increase IncreaseActualBudeetBudeei(IX'crcase)(IXcrcase)$1,644,974 $1A472«0 Slj647,940 $0 oo%159 0 0 0 0.0%
1JM5.U2 Ij647,940 ljM7,940 0 0.0%
147^1.3.3jOOO 185,000 .52,000 .39 1%
147^88 1.3.3,000 I85,0(X)52,000 .39.1%
4,S(K)4j000 4,500 500 12-5%
260327 270,705 154,710 (15.995)-5.9%
81,791 76,000 80,(X)0 4,000 5.3%
5,911 5jL>00 6,000 I,(NX)20.0%
94,483 71330 84.000 12,170 16.9%
462 0 0 0 0.0%
47,145 14,400 1.3,420 (980)-6.8%
494.620 441,9.35 442,6.30 695 0.2%
55,634 54,(MM)80,000 26,(X)0 48.1%
.32,957 30.0CM).30,000 0 0.0%
,56,6tM).54,350 53300 (5.50)-10%
589359 598350 612,645 13,795 2-3%
9,36.3 12,(XK)10,(X)0 (2,(XX))-16.7%
1,48.3 .3,000 2,000 (1,000)-.33.3%
6,182 15,000 10,000 (5,(KX))-33J%
9,897 8,000 10,000 2,CX)0 25.0%
.37,088 .<6,080 .36.925 845 2-3%
44,889 61360 62,600 740 12%
7,812 7,000 7,500 500 7.1%
851,l/)4 880,140 915,470 .35,330 4.0%
57,007 65,000 60,000 (5,(XX))-7.7%
1,400 l,(NK)12<X)m 20.0%
58,407 66,000 61200 (43(K))-7.3%
49,065 41,000 .59285 18285 44.6%
.37,319 35,(K)0 .362.30 1Z30 .3.5%
86,384 76,000 95,515 19,515 15.7%
$3283,595 13245,015 13,.347,7.55 $102,740 .32%
CITYOFORONO TAX LEVIESACTUAL 1995 vs PROPOSED 1996TAX LEVIES
GENERAL
INFRASTRUCTURE (PIR)
SEWER & WATER BONDS
1982
1985
1989
1992
BUILDING BONDS-HRA
TOTALS
TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE INCREASE PERCENT19951996(DECREASE)CHANGE
$1,647,940 $1,647,940 $0 0 00%
0 40,000 40,000 0 00%
5,500 4,500 (1,000)-18.18%
42,945 46,000 3,055 7.11%
80,000 90,000 10,000 12.50%
18,000 24,000 6,000 33.33%
221,785 228,400 ____6,615 2.98%
$2,016,170 $2,080,840 $64,670 3.21%
THE TAX LEVIES ARE SHOWN AS REDUCED BY HACA AID FROM THE STATE BUT HAVE NOT BEEN REDUCED
BY FISCAL DISPARITIES CREDIT.
Tax Levy Net of HACA
State Paid HACA
Total Tax Levy IncI HACA
tax95v96
07/31/95
1995
$2,016,170
305,975
$2,322,N5
1996
$2,080,840
289,979
$2,370,819
INCREASE PERCENT
(DECREASE) CHANGE
$64,670
(15,99C)
$45,674
3.21%
-5.23%
2.10%
CITY OF ORONO
TAX CAPACITY. LOCAL LEVY AND TAX CAPACITY RATES
1996 OVER (UNDER) 1S95
ACTUAL
1S95
ESTIMATED
1996 Af.lOUNT PERCENT
TAX CAPACITY
Real Estate
Persona) Property
Deduct Tax Increments
Deduct Ccntrib Fiscal Disp
SI 2.730.145
194,020
U
(319.388)
S13.345.899
195.000
0
(324,685)
$1,065,754
980
0
(5.297)
8.34%
0.51%
0 00%
1.66%
Net Tax Capacity (to calc rate)$12,654,777 $13,716,214 SI.061,437 8.39%
LOCAL LEVY
Gross Levy S2.322.145 S2.370.819 $48,674 2.10%
Deduct HACA (305.975)(289.979)15.996 -5.23%
TOTAL LEVY NET OF HACA $2,016,170 $2,080,840 $64,670 3.21%
Deduct Fiscal Disoarities (48,933)(45.000)3,933 -8.04%
Net Local Levy SI,967,237 $2,035,340
mam w ^m mmm
S53.603
mam mm mm m^ mm
3.49%
=: S rs 2=: 3 = 5
TAX CAPACITY RATES
General Revenue
PIR Infrastructure
Dent Service
HRA Building Bonds
12.753%
0.000%
1.134%
1.717%
12.015%
0.292%
1.199%
1.565%
-0.738%
0.292%
0.065%
-0.052%
-5.79%
0.00%
5.76%
-3.02%
Total Local Tax Capacity Rate 15.604%14.843%-0.433%-2.78%
TAX CAPACITY — The real estate and personal croperT/ tax caoacT.' amounts
are ^educed dy any tax increments and the contribution amount to *he fiscal
disparities to arrr.re at the total va.'ue cf tax capacih/ used for calculating
the tax capacity rate.
LOCAL L"'/Y - The amount of cross tax is recuced by the state paid HACA
(Homes'ead and Agricultural Credit Aid) and by the Fiscal Disoanties
distributed through the county.
TAX CAPAC’^ RATE - The net local levy amount is dr.'ided by the tax
capacity to airive at a percentage or tax caoacity rate.
iaxhatss
07/31/9S
CITYOFORONO
EFFECT OF EUCXaET ON HOMES
1996
Est Market Value
Tax Capacity (Net)
Tax Capacity Rate
Net Tax
(Deaease) from 1395
(Decrease) % from 1995
$100,000
$1,280
14.843%
$189.99
($9.75)
-A.SP/o
$200,000
$3,280
14.843%
$486.84
($24.97)
-4.9%
$300,000
$5,280
14.843%
$783.69
($40.20)
-4.9%
Tax capacity (net) = 1 % of first S72.000 mkt value, plus 2 % of all^wlue _
TAXRATES
07/31/95
City of 0 r 0 n o
General Fund
Changes in Fund Balance
Revenues
Actual
Budget
Actual Revenues Over (Under)
Budgeted Revenues
Expenditures
Actual
Budget
Actual Expenditures Over (Under)
Budgeted Expenditures
Transfers To P I R Fund:
For Storm Water Managment Plan
For Storm Sewer Projects
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenue
Over Exenditures and Transfers Out
Fund Balance - Beginning of Year
Fund Balance - End of Year
Fund Balance Components
Reserved for Prepaid Items
Reserved for Advances to Other Funds
Designated for Vested Vacation
and Severance Benefits
Designated tor H A C A Reduction
Designated for Contract Revenue Reduction
Designated for Working Capital
Undesignated
Total Fund Balance
I23r34 genidbal
Actual Estimated Estimated
1994 1995 1996
$3,283,595 $3,245,015 $3,347,755
3.152.666 3.245,015 3.347,755
^$130,929_$0 $0
$3,102,595 $3,230,240 $3,347,755
3,152.666 3,245,015 3.347,755
(S50,0JJ)($14,775)$0
$0 $0 $50,000
0 0 50,000
$181,000 $14,775 ($100,000)
1,249 -8 1,430,558 1,445.333
Sl,430,558_Sj.i45xl3i $1,345,333
$34,502 $39,450 S39.450
10,043 0 0
137,421 140,000 143.500
50,000 50,000 100,000
0 0 100,000
850,000 850,000 925,000
348,592 365,883 37,383
SI.430.558 $1,445,333 $1,345,333
City of Orono
Parmanenl improvement Revolving Fund (FIR)
Changes in Fund Balance
Actual
1994
Estimated
1995
Estimated
1996
Revenues
Property taxes
Special assessments
Interest on investments
Miscellaneous
Total Revenue
$230
17.768
26,750
16,284
$0
13,380
27,985
0
$40,000
11,940
30.250
0
61,032 41,365 82,190
Expenditures
Professional services 3«,467 0 0
Total Expenditures 37.467 0 0
Transfers In From General Fund
For storm water managment plan
For infrastructure (storm drainage projects)
0
0
0
0
50.000
50.000
Excess (deficiency) of revenue
over expenditures $23,565 $41,365 $182,190
Fund Balance Beginning of Year 4C5.241 508.806 550,171
Fund Balance End of Year $508^06,$550,171 $732,361
Fund Balance Components
Designated for:
Infrastructure (road/bridge) projects $187,837
Infrastructure (storm drainage) projects 0
Storm water managment plan 0
Emergency contingencies
Total Fund Balance
320,969
$508,806
225.171
0
0
325^0^ (a)
$550,171
267.361
90.000
50.000
325.000 (a)
_S732J61
The City established the road/bridge account in 1987 with resolution #2210
The funds to establish this account came from interest earned on MSA
construction monies which were not then needed for MSA projects.
Expenditures from the account are restncted to road and bridge projects,
as approved by Council.
The City established the emergencv contingency account with resolution #941,
and amended with resolution #2669 in 1989. The account is restricted for
use in a catastrophic situation or for temporary funding in the form of
short-term loans to other accounts or funds and is to be repaid with interest
within 24 months The General Fund and/or the various operating funds of the
City are to provide funding of $30,000 annually unless other action is approved
by the Council. Each loan is to be approved in advance by resolution.
NOTE! It is assumed that the emergency contingency account will be considered
fully funded at the $325,000 level.
* >City of Oionu1996 General Government Capital OutlayDescriptionDepartmentl^epartnient
Recommended
Manager
Recomnrended
Amount
Adopted
Water Softener FOR Public Works Building Central Services 3,500 3,500 3,500
Scaffolding Central Services 600 600 600
Plain Paper Fax Machine (replacement)Central Services Z200 Z200 Z200
Hardware & Softwdic Central Services 1,200 1,200 1200
Copy Machine (replacement)Central Services 16,000 16,000 16,000
Total Central Services Capital Outlay 23,500 23,500 13,500
Personal Computer Planning «Sc Zoning 1,700 1,700 1,700
Laser Printer PLinning& Zoning 1,600 1 '>00 1,600
Cellular Telephone Planning Zoning 340 340 340
Desk Cliair - Gaffron (replacement)Planning Zoning 400 100 400
Soil Auger - Septic Inspections (replacement)Planning & Zoning 205 205 205
Total Planning & /.oning Capital Outlay 4.245 4,245 4.245
City of Orono1996 General Government Capital OutbyI3epartment Manager AmountDescriptionDepartmentIRecommendedRecommendedAdopted
1 — Full Featured Phone for Frcmt Ojunter Administratbn 400 400 400
Total Administration Capital Outlay 400 400 400
VI ton PkkupTruck (replacement)Public Woiks 12,000 UOOO UOOO
Sander forTruck #425 (replacement)Public Works 2,200 Z200 2200
Snow Plow for Truck #708 (replacement)Public Works 2,900 Z900 2900
Distance Measuring Wheel (replacement)Public Works 135 135 135
Total Public Works Capital Outlay 17,235 17,235 17,235
I ton DumpT*^uck(rcpliicemcnt)Parks 2Z00O 2Z000 2Z000
Total Parks Capital Outby 2Z000 22,000 2Z000
Total (ieneral C»ovt Capital Outlay (less police)67,380 67,380 67,380
>
12
City of Orono 1996 Police Capital OutlayDescription
1995 squad car replacement (#171)-Net of Sale
1995 squad car replacement (#172)~Net of Sale
1995 investigator car replacement (#I61)-Net of Sale
Switch over costs for three (3) squads
Two (2) command consoles
One (1) safety partit ion
Office Equipment
Other Equipment
Total Police Capital Outlay
Department DepartmentRecommended ManagerRecommended AmountAdopted
Police 15,500 15,500 15,500
Police 15,500 15,500 15,500
Police 7,000 7,000 7,000
Police 3,700 3,700 3,700
Police 800 800 800
Police 480 480 480
Police 3,315 3,315 3,315
Police 3,385 3,385 3,385
49,680 49,680 49,680
City of Or«K>1996 Enterprise FuiKb Capita] Outlay
Description Department
Department
Recommended
Manager
Recommended
Amoun*
Adopted
Retractable Line for Truck Hoist Sewer 2,000 2,000 2,000
Poison Gas Detector Sewer i,a5o 1,850 1,850
f AI Program Sewer 5,000 5,000 5,000
L.S. #6 Replacement Sewer 65,000 65,000 65,000
Total Sewer Capital Outby B,850 73,850 73,850
Greens Movwer (replacement)Golf 4,000 4,000 4,000
Tee Signs (replacement)Golf 5,400 5400 5400
Carpet for Oubhouse (replacement)Golf 3,000 3,000 3,000
Total Golf Capita] Outlay 12,400 U400 1Z400
.J?'City of O todo 1996 Canting Budget U|idalL'J 24-Aug-95199619%1)01 lz\R %
1994 1995 Y-r-i)Din.MANAtJIR 1996 INCRFASlt INCRIvVSE
!DFi‘ARiMi:Nrr Af'llJAL lUJIKil-n 6-.40-95 KLQyiJii R1 (O.MMI Nl) AIK)Pn<:i)(1 )i;< Ri ASi:) (1)1 x’Ri'Asm
lY COUNOL
Personal Services 16,449 16399 8,070 16270 16270 16270 (629)-3.12%
Supplies & Maintenance Repair 6.42 1,400 20 650 650 650 (650)-50.00%
Other Charges 41,469 49306 6210 .49,705 49,705 39,705 (101)-0.15%
lO 1/ L CriY (T)UNCll.48,450 58,005 14,400 .56,625
1t1156,625 . _ (Ir^SO)-2,48%
PKCX jRAM niiSCRllMION & ()HJi;CI IVl-S:
* To prooDtc the health, safety, and genera! wrlfarc ul the citizens and the City
through the fcrrmulation of policy and the passage of laws go\tming the City.
opi •: iL\ n N( i (X )s r A<’ll VI n 1 uS;
Printing ordinances and Icg^tl ntrtices.
* Auditing the prea'ding year's iinandal operations.
* City-wide orgiinimtional memberships.
I'XPI'NDin JRK (X)MMI N IS:
* None
15
City of Orono 1996 (iterating Budget UpiLiIcd 24 -Aug-95
DFPARI'MINT
ADMTNISTRAnON
1994
AC’IUAI.
1996 19% 1)01 IAR %1995 Y-T-D Dtri. MANAGIR 1996 IN('RIASI: INC'RIASI-
BUlXilii 6 -30 -95 Rl-QUl^r Rr.mMMHND ADOPTIT) (DIX RPASi:i (DIX^RIASM)
Fersonal &iviocs 166067 1674>26 79,812 172,615 172,615 172,615 4,989 2.98%
Supplies & Maintenance Repair 4,555 3,901 1,507 3,‘>00 3,900 3,900 (1)-0.03%
Other Cliarges 10,745 9,430 3,476 9200 9200 9,200 (2-30)-2.44%
TO'l’Al. ADMINIS niA nON 181^67 180,957 84,795 185,715 185,715 4,758 2.63%
PROGRAM l)l<SC:RIFnON & ORli:(niV12>:
* 'lb piovklc uwrall management direction for the ('ily through inlomiation and analysis to the C'ouneil, and res(X)nsc to citiA.'n inquires
* To evaluate and impnne the use ot the City’s resources tlmmgh tlic analysis of existing and planned programs and capital activities.
* To ONtrsee all Human Resource programs in a way tliat enables the City to attniet and reUiin well qualified personnel.
OPliRAIlNG COS r At'HVl 111{S:
* IVrsonnel and related ursts.
* City l\3licy meetings.
* Outside amsulting and compliance issues.
nxpi:Nt)rnjRi:cx)MMi:Nib:
* N«)ne
updated
DEPARTMF.NT
ASSESSING
1994
ACrUAl.
Personal Services
Supplies, Maintenace & Repairs
Other Charges
TOTAT. ASSESSING
0
0
7.1,724
7.1,724
1995
BUDGET
CityofOrono 1996 eventing Budget Updiited 24 -Aug-95Y-r-D
6-10-95
19%1)1 :rr.
REOURSr
19% DOLLAR %MANAGER 19% INCREASE INn^E/\SH
REXX)MMI ND AIMIElia) (DIX RI ASEI (DEC REASE)
0
100
74,210
5.16
0
44,121
74^0 44,659
0
0
76,160
0
0
76,160
0
0
76,160
0 0.00%
(100) -100,00%
1,950 0.00%
76,160 76,160 76,!^2.49%
PROGRAMDESCRIPnONAOlUlXMlVElS:
• To provide ucairale properly value assessnnnUt in nx-eting all gtrwrnnienl level guidelines.
OPERATING CX)ST ACm VI111S:
* City Assesrnr pcrs»inncl and related costs
FJCPENPnURE: mMMENriS:
* Nt>ne
nnpARTMnNT
HNANCR
1994
A(nrjAi.
1995
nuDGirr
I\:rsonal Services
Supplies & Maintcnce Repairs
Olhcr Charges
lUlAl, MNANCli
City of Orono 1996 Operating Budget UptliteJ 24-Aug-95
nOIIAR19»)6 1996
Y-r-1) i)i:i»r. managi -u i996 in (’riv \si*: incri -asii
6-30-95 Ri oiJiusr ri:( ommi :ni ) Ai)OPn:n (nix^RFASK)
122,5(X)
714
4,371
130397
1,050
4,140
61,197
333
913
142,080
1,450
4,400
142,080
1.450
4,4<W
142,080
1,450
4,400
11.683
4(X)
260
127,585 62,443 _____147,930 |47,930 ____147,930 ___12343
8.96%
38.10%
6.28%
9.10%
PROGRAM DnSCRIPTlONA OnJKCnVl-S
* To piovkle an effective system 6>r processing and nuintaining all financial trans;iction.s.
* To provide rinanciul reporting and analysis uliich meets all mquirenKntsof the Liw , and generally aaepted linancLil ptiiuiples.
* To administer cash management policies in accordance willi tlic City ’s imvstment policy, and oxersec all debt obligations and payment schedulers.
* To administer and oversee the C'ity ’s insurance and liability position, and henellt plan.
opi:RAnNG(X)s“rAcnvrni2>:_________
* Personnel and retited costs.
* Auditing the preceding year's hnaiicial operations.
liXPHNOriLiRl-: C()MM1:N IS:
• Other Cbnlnicl Scrxicc ( Training & Ikxelopment) increased lirr additional MIS training.
CityofOroao 1996 Openting Budget Updated 24 -Aug-95DEPARTMHTfr1994AClUAL1^6 19% DOIIAR %1995 Y-T-D DHPT. MANAGI-R 1996 INCRHASP, INCRFASE
nUDGhT 6-50-95 RP:OUEST Rl-aiMMliND AIK)l* n:i) miX'RPASH) miX'RUASI:)
LEGAL
Professional Service
Other Gintract Service
84,194
14,585
71,514
15.450
29,139
6,895
77,480
14,600
77,480
14,600
77.480
14,600
5,966
(850)
834%
-5-50%
ID lAL LEGAL 98,777 86%4 56,052 92.080 92tQ8(2 92,080 5.116 5.88%
pROGiu>iM nrscRimoN & ouji:cnvi is;
* To provide legal opinkin and services to all City operatkins.
OPERA nNGa)SIACnvrill-S:
* Ifgal retainer, piusecutions,and consulting.
* Qtyshaiuofarca jail charges.
EXPENDI IURE CDMMI N IS:
* None
20
City of Orono 1996 Operating Budget UtHlatcd 24-Aug-9519%19%DOI.IAR %1994 1995 Y-T-D DIPT.MANACiLR 19%INX 'Rl-ASH 1 NCR I ASI-
DKPARTMF.NT ACTUAL BUDCiiri 6-30-95 Ri:QurivT R1XX)MMI ND AIK)P n;i)(DIX RI ASI-) (DIXTUASi;)
CENTRAI, SrRVICliS
Personal Services (18)0 0 0 0 0 0 0.009?
Supplies & Maintenance Repair 38,855 37,786 24,534 42,100 42,100 42,100 4,314 11.42%
Data Processing 41,988 38,632 13,512 6,865 6,865 6,865 (31.767)-82.23%
insuianoe 45,510 53v894 53,%6 49,365 49,365 49365 (4,529)-8.40%
Capital Outlay 3,080 3J080 0 3,<J8(J 3,080 3,080 0 0.00%
Other Disbursements 40,818 59,934
22,938 62.080 62,080 62,080 2,146 3_58%
lO lAI, Cl ;N IRAK Sl'RVlCliS 179,2.V3 191326 114,950 163,490 16.3,4%163,490 . (2 ‘^«36)_-15.43%
PROGRAM DRSCRIPTION ft OIUI X nVI S:
• To enable efficientand effective ('ity t)|x;ralH)ns llitough the adminibtratiou ufcentiai gowmment acthilies.
OPFRAIING (X)S'f A(mVI nI S:__
* Supplies, avmmunications, and printing.
* Utilities
* (bntractual nuinlenancc on ('ity equipment and buildings.
* Data Piuccssing.
* Insurant
liXIM-NDI IUUI-COMMI N IS;
* 19% Bqx;nditua-s for ('ontractiial Nbinlenance & Repairs were increased to adjust for prU)r year expenditures.
* 1996 Uxpenditures for Data I'luccssing were leduccd U) acu»unt lor the decrea.sed inxohement with 1.0( US for some appliatlions.
21
CityofOroao 1996 Operating Budget Updated 24 -Aug-95
departmi -:nt
HUMAN SERVICES
Other Charges
1994
ACIUAI,
1995
BUDGET
13,940
Y-T-D
6-30-95
19% 19% DOI.I^VK %DEPT. M,\NA(JI:R 19% INnU'ASH INCREASE
Kl QUlLSn RIXXIMMI Nl) ADOP n i) (i)ECRI ASI l tPl-CRFASB
15375 7,%1 15,760 15,760 15,760 385 2.50%
lOTAl. HUMAN SIIRVIC'ES 13,940 15,760 15,760 ]5,?60 385 2.50%
PlUXiRAM DliSCRIP nON & OBJIXTIVI^S:
* To ensure equal opportunity in cmplo)’nicnt, housing, public scmces, and education.
* To advise C'ity Qjuncil on programs to improve aimmunity rebtions and services in the ('i^'
OPERAIlNOaisn ACIlVniliS:
* Human service urganhation umtribulions and nic-mlH;r!iliip$.
1v XP1:ND11URE:(X)MMEN1S:
• None
22
‘i .
DHPARIT^I-Rr
1994
AClliAl
1995 City of Orono 1996 Operating BudgetY-T-1)1996niiT.19%MANAGIR 19%
1)01.1AR
INnilASli Updated 24-Aug -95%
lN('Rli/VSK
HUDCil-rr 6-.40-95 RhOURVr R1XX)MM1{N1) Al)01» n:i) M)l ( R1ASI-) (DIX Rl ASl-)
POLICE
I\:rsonal Services 924,1%977,899 445,404 994,400
994,400 994,400 16,401 1.68%
Supplies, Miiinlenance & Repaiis 90,88.4 90,(X)0 51,974 97,400 97,400 97,400 7,4(K)8.22%
Data Processing 22,917 26,090 7,177 22,970 22.970 22,970 (.4.120)-11.%%
Insunmcc 27,444 28.460 15,617 29,845 29,845 29,845 1,475 4.84%
Other Charges 41,496 48,510 11,199 48,480 48,480 48380 (140)-0.27%
Capital OulLiy 4t).08 ■44,50)47,994 49,()80 49,680 49,680 15,180 44.(K)%
'iTyiALPOi.in-:1^05^59 579,262 12242^6^.^!^42A65_1342,565 ______47 4.08%
PROGRAM DESCRIFHON & ()HJ1XX1VI S:
* To mnintnin the puHic stloty within ()n»no and all conir.icl cities Uimugh pa-ventiw patrol, tr.illk cnlortvmcnt, and education,
* To conduct criminal inwsligaliutis and assist in the successful prosecution of oflenders.
OPERA'nNG COST ACnVIllIiS:
* lY’rsonncI and rekited costs.
* Officer uniforms and equipment.
* Automotive cquipnK'ntaiid nuintenancc.
* Communiuttion equipment.
* Insurance
EXPENDIIURE COM MEN IS;
* 19% Expenditures for Qrntractual Maintenance & Repairs were increased to adjust trr prior year e.xpenditurcs.
24
CityofOmao 1996 Operating Budget Updalcd 24 -Aug-95DEPARTMrisrr1994ACTUAL1995nuDom19% 19% DOMAR %Y-i-D Di;rr. nl\nagi ;r 1996 inc:riash incrfash^3Q-95 RI QUliST RH(X)MMHND Al>OPTI-n (PrCRI ASl-l (l)l ( RlASltl
HRE
Professional Service
1
182,783 186,479 99,243 197,465 197,465 197,465 10.986 5.89%
itn/j.i IRE 182,783 186,479 99,243_ _ _197,465 i97^4W 197,465 J0,?86 5.89%
PROGRAMDESCRIFHON& OR!l CTllVliS;
• To cnairc public safety through lie contractual lire servict agiecmcnls fium sunounding u>mmuniiics.
OPERATING CX3ST ACIl VIll liS:
* Contractual fire service agneiiients.
expendhure : commhn is:
* Does not include $20,000 for the lepIacetiKiit of fire vehicles. /\n operating transler in the amount of $20,000
is made from the a'ntingpncy account to the liquipnwnt Outlay I'und, for this purpose.
nFPARi>4i:isrr
1994
AC’IUAI
PIANNING & ZONING
Fenonal Seivioes
Supplies, MainkMiance & Repain
Other Qiaigcs
TOTAL PI ANNING A ZONING
City of Orotto 1996 eventing Budget Updated 24-Aug-951W6 iy^>f) UUUAR %1995 Y-T-I) nirr. MANAGI-U I9% INCRrASK INCRFASF,
BUIKiirr 6-30-95 R1 QUF.ST RL(l)NlMliNI> ADOP'n:i> (DI C RIASI-) mHCRIASn
27UK)1
4,707
6.741
281306
5,650
63K)
115,400
2,340
33)6
2903f«J
6,000
6,085
290,380
b.000
6,085
290380
6,000
6,085
8,574
350
(115)
3.04%
6.19%
-1.8.5%
282,449 ____ 293,6.56 131.446 .302,465 .302.465 302.465 8,809 3.00%
PROC jRAM UliSCRlFIlONA OlUIXMlVIiS:
* To manage all development and icdcvclopmcnt in acu)id.incL' with ('ity Council policies and guidelines.
* To provide code enforcement to maintain the health, s;ilety, and wvlfaie of the general public.
OPr.RAllNG a)ST AC’n VI n I ,S:
* IVrsonnel and rcLited costs.
* Ou tside atnsulting and compliance issues.
liXPliNI) HURL gJMMI-NIS:
* None
25
City of Orono 1996 Operating Budget Updated 24 -Aug-95
I)LP artmi :nt
EMERGENCY PREPARllDNl-SS__________
Supplies, Mainleiiaiioe & Repaira
Other Qiaiges
TOTAl. EMERGENCY PREI'ARIDNESS
1996 1996 DOIiAR %1994 1995 Y-I-D DEIM. MANAG1:R 1996 INCREASE INCREASE
ACIUAL BUDGET 6 -30 -95 R1 QUtyi' R1XX)MM1:N1) AIK)rn*;i) (DlCRlASi:! (DECREASED
2,551
235
1600
152
460
182
1,700
300
1,700
3(X)
1,700
300
2,786 1,852 642 2,(XX)2iXX)2,000
100
48
148
0.00%
19.05%
799%
PROGRAM DlSCRirnON & OlUlXmVluS:
• To piuleci and assist On>m) dtiA^ns during and after catastrophic cwnts,
OPItRAllNGCXiyi ACIIVi nivS:
* IVilice equipment ciiintenancc.
tiXPENDllURE COMMENIS:
* None
26
DRPARIMliNT
ANIMAI. CONTIKOL
1994
ACIUAI.
City of Orono 1996 Operating Budget Updated 24-Aug-95
DOIIAR
1995
nuDGirr
1996 19%
Y-r-D UliPT. NbXNAGHR 19% INC'RliASl- INCRl-ASH
6-30-95 Ri;OlJF ST RR( C)MM1-ND Ar^OPHil) IDlX^Rl-TVSHl IDIX RI ASB
Personal Setvkxs 10,515 11,688 4329 12350 12350 12350 .562 4M%
Supplies, Maintenance, Repair U586 2,950 291 2350 2350 2350 (NX))-2034%
Insuianoc 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Other Charges 33 0 117 100 100 100 100 0.00%
lOTAl, ANIMAl. CONIROL 12534 14^638 ____4,737 ___14,700 14,700 14,700 h2 0.42%
PROGRAM ni-:scRii»n()N& oHJix:nvR:s:
* To pinicet public and individual health and safety tlirough cniorccmcnt of animal control ordinances.
* To assist in all areas of the Rdicc IX'partmcnt to faciliuitc efficient operations.
OPl'RAllNGfXlST ACTlVrni-S;
* Personnel and related u)sLs.
* Animal bolding costs.
EXPr-NDlTURH COMMl ,N fS^
* None
City of Orooo 1996 Operating Budget Updated 24 -Aug-95nF-PARTMI-N^I’1994AClUAL 1995BuiXiirr Y-T-D6-30-95 19%di:pt.RHQUI^19% DOUAR %MANAGliK 19% 1NC:R1AS1£ INCRFASH RFmMMl-ND ADOPTI’D (DFCRFASH) (DFCRFASni
\ ENGINEERING
Professional Service 20^31 13,460 4,724 15,130 15,130 15,130 1,670 12.41%
ID T/M. ENGINEERING 20,831 13,460 4,724 15,130 15,1.30 11x130 1,670_____12 .41%
PROGRAM DF^RIPnON & ORJF.CTIVFi?:
• To provide engineering opinion and services to all City operations.
OPERATING COS'r ACnvrniiS;
* Outside engineering consulting.
EXPENDIIURE OOMMEN^ITs:
None
2K
■» #*• ♦»City of Orono 1996 Operating Budget Uptlilcd 24-Aug-95
DEPARTMENT
1994
ACIUAL
1995
RUDGET
Y-T-D
6-30-95
1996DliPT.
REQUluSl
19%MANAGER 1996 DOIIARIN('Rl-AS!i %INCRliASE
RIXXIMMI ND ADOm:n n)l-rUl ASi:i mECUEASEl
SIKEET MAINriENANCli
Personal Service
Supplies, Maintenance & Repair
Other Charges
22.1,414
201,113
32.465
lO TAI- SIREET MAIN 1 ENANCE____456J92
PROGRAM DESCRIFDON & ORJi:cnVl-2i:
* To maintain all dty sta'cls in a s;ifc and driwabic condition.
ope:ra UNO exm Acnvn ii2>:
* IVrsonncI and rcLilcd utsts.
* Slice 1 maintenance matcnals.
* Street lighting.
* Contractual slracl maintenance.
EXPENPrnJREXXlMMENIS:
* None
235,768
20l2i0<J
.34,711
KW.960
332»20
10,595
472279 149.075
29
241.850
206.850
.34260
241.850
2062150
.34260
241,850
206350
34260
6j082
5f)50
(451)
2.58%
2„50%
-L30%
482,9^____482 .960 10.681 226%
DKPARTMlihfT
PARKS & RECREATION
City of Orono 1996 Operating Budget Updated 24-Aug-951994
ACIUAI.
1995
BUDGEI
19% 19% l)()l.L/\U %
’S- T-D DI Pl. MANAGER 1996 INCREASE: INCREASE
6-30-95 RI QUEIST Ri:(X)MMENl) ADOP II-n (DIX REASEl rOECRFASEI
Personal Services 15^02 26378 17307 26,770 26,770 26,770 192 0.72%
Supplies, Maintenance & Repair 2U516 21,400 6327 21,800 21300 21,800 400 137%
Other Charges -3.61.3 23-30 1320 3300 3300 3300 770 30.43%
lo 1 ai. PARKS & re:c:rea noN .503.31 .50308 25354 51.870 51^70 51,870 _____________.2.70%
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION & OBJECnVES:
• To maintain the Gty’s park ’s to pn)motc s:ifc and quality tecrcatbnal activities to Orono citizens.
0P1:RAI1NG COSl ACIlVIIIliS:
* ItrsonncI and related o)sLs.
* Maintenana* on buildings and gtxiunds.
rJCFENDllURliCOMMlNIS:
* ■ None
.30
DF’PARl'Mi;Nr
RECYCLING
1994
AC'IIJAI.1995
nui:)r,iT
City of Orono 1996 eventing Budget Updated24-Aug-95Y-r-l)
6-30-95
19%
Rl-XJUIiSr
Penonal Services
Supplies, Maintenance & Repair
Other Chaiges
IXyi AI. RliCYH ING
1996 DOLIAR %MANACJER 19% INCREASE lNCRIv\SE
MiCl^iMENu Ai>opn{i> rnitnuvxsB rnECRl^Asi*)
2,068 1,690 1,840 1,6)85 1.685 1,685 (5)-0..30%
6,889 6,350 1,913 6,350 6,350 6.3 >0 0 0.00%
63,180 68,120 27,115 68,120 68,120 68,120 0 0.00%
72,137 76,160 30,868 76.155 76.155 76,155 (•51_-0.01%
PROGRAM DESCRlPllONA OHJlX'nVi:S:
• To pnividc the City with curbside rccyding services in the nn.st efficient niiinner.
OPERA'IING OOSr ACJII VllM^S:
* Contractual service u)sls.
* Spring, I'all, X-mas clean up.
nXPENI)HURi:(X)MMEN IS:
* None
31
DnPARiT^iisri
1994
AC^nJAl,
SPEQAL SERVICES - OONSUI.TINr, & POUCH
City of OroDO 1996 Operating Budget Updated24-Aug-9519% 19% DOUAR %1995 Y-T-i) ni;rr mana(JHr i 9% increase incre ^\se
Hyi>UEi 6-30-95 RlXHJESr RI-aiMMI NI) AHOP n:!) mix RIASHl miXTUASK)
Personal Services
Professional Services
11,123
44Z57
7,241
21,500
7,945
7,103
8^50
33,000
8.850
33,000
8,850
33,000
1,609
11,500
22.22%
53.49%
lOTAI. SPEC SERVIOiS .55380 28,741 415.50 41,850 41,WO JMOi 45 61%
PROGRAM DI^CRIPnON & OmiXmVUi:
• To provide (or Police special services to be leimhuised by bcncnilcd party.
* To provide for legal and engineering costs related to de\elopmcnt and rcdc\cli/pmcnt k> be reimbursed b>* applicant.
OPHRA'IING COS^r ACI1VI1115 (Rciml«rsed):
* l\)lioe perv>nncl and related costs.
* Legal and engineering u)nsulting.
IJCPENDIIURE CX7MM1:N IS:
* Costs related to Ptok:ssional Servicesare reimbursed by developers thru |x;rmtisand ic'cs billed.
32
City of Orono 1996 Operating Budget
DEPARTMENT
SPEOAL PROJECTS AND CXJMlNGEINniiS
1994
ACiTJAI,
1995
BUDCiin
Y-T-D
6-30-95
19%
DEPT.
19%
MANAGER 1996
1)01.1 ^\R
IN('RIL\SE
IJptLik'd 24-Aug-95
%
INCRliASE
RI-QUEST re (qmmi:nd Aix)p n-:n (dex riase :i fPEnu-Asni
I^rsonal Services
Other Charges
Chpital Outlay
Transfers
Other Disbarsements
0
6390
1615
84,900
8,726
4,000
0
1,650
84,900
51300
0
9,109
0
0
4.014
10,000
17600
0
97300
51670
10,000
17,(X)0
0
97300
51,670
10.000
17.000
U
97600
51,670
6600
17,000
(1,6.50)
12,600
170
150.00%
0.00%
-100.00%
14.84%
0.33%
lOlAl.SPI-CIAI. PROJIX'IS AND (t)bn. ^101831 142,050 176,170 ___! 76,170 __176,170 34,120 24.02%
PROGRAM DE2X'RiniON& OnJIiCnVI^S:
• To pnivklc for t^-dal projects and unferrseen cwnts.
OPERA iiNG cmr AcnvrniuS;
* Gssls related fo !f>edal projects and contingency items.
EXPliNDIlURE mMMI-N'IS:
• Costs related to Pi\)fessi«»nal Sersices include $12,(KM) to rccodily (’ily Ordinaiues, $4,(KK) lor Ma|iping.
Opciattng Iransleris fo tlie Iquipment Outlay lund for icpIacerrK-nt of capital equipment, and includes $20,(KK) for the fire truck repLiwmcnt lor Ijong lake.
TOTAL GEN. FUND - OPIilLMlNt i
inc 'ri -:asi :'I()gi-;n . fund i<iisi;RVE
TOTAL GENERAL MJND
____iy^<U4() 1,418,672 .L347.755______3347,755 3347.755
14.775
117 515 3.64%
________\L___________y ___________0___________0_______(14,775) -100,00%
^104,615 _ 3,245,015 1,418,672 3,347.755 3,347.755 3,347*755 _m740 3.17%
33
DEPARTMENT
SPEQAL REVENUE FUNDS_____________
PARK FUND
IMPROVEMENf EQUII’MliN 1 OUllAY
BUIIJJINO OtrilAY
lOTAL SPECLAL lUiVENUE FUNDS
1994 1995
ACTUAL BUIXliri
City of Orono Operating Budget Updated24-Aug-95
28.925
119,0.17
126.769
20.000
32Z ‘^0
llljOOO
274.7.11 175250
Y-T-D
6-.10-95
19% 1996 D01.IAR %Di:iT. ^!A^:AC^.R I996 INCREASE INCRliASE
RHQUFlSr Rl-giMMEND ADOm-D (DIX RFASEI fPECRFASEI
.135
11.800
16.847
217,000
67,180
1.15,100
217,000
67,180
1.15,100
217,000
67380
135300
51382 419380 4193^4i?i680
197,000
35,110
12,100
244,4.10
985.00%
108.91%
10.00%
1.19.48%
PROGRAM DF^SCRimON & OnJE(TlVF3:
• To provide for Tunding for major txpcndilurcs not included in the General Fund., bulncocssaiy forgcneral govemnienl ope rations.
* To leduce the impact on the gcncial fund due to uipital acquislions.
OPERATING COST ACTIVI111 uS:
* Engineering cxmsulting for Paiks.
* Capital outL'iy.
FJCPENDTIURF: CX)M MF:N I S:
* Rftrk I"und ['.xpendituies include (K'H Trail and Park Playground (Pliase II)
TarAL GBNERAL AND
SPECIAL REVliNUE ITJNDS J,379,346 3,420,265 L470,554...3,767,435 3,767,43_5_3,767.435 347,170___10.15%
SEPARlMKNT
DEBT SERVICE
PROGRAMDESCRIFIION & OHJE('l IVI-:S;
City of Orotto 1996 Operating Budget Updated 24-Aug-951994
ACIIIAI,
1995 Y-r-D
nUDCiET 6-30-95
DOIIAR19% 19%Dipr. managi ;r 19% incriase incriasi -
RLQUi-ST Ri g)MMi Ni) AixipiltD rDEfi^iASirt n)i:rmAsijj
1982 In^owemenl Bonds
1965 Improwmcnt Bonds
1991 Improwmern Bonds
1992 Improxcmcnt Bonds
1989 Water In^iiovcmcnt Bonds
1989 Sevuer Improvement Bonds
lOTAl.Dl BI SI RVin-
23^16 22,130 18329 20,686 20.686 20.686 (1.444)-65.3%99,900 952<30 17,696 91.1.50 91,1.50 91.150 (4,680)-4.88%.3%,191 398326 275.497 404315 404315 404315 6,189 135%
182359 184355 1.36348 185383 185.88.3 185,883 1328 0.8.3%
66301 60,014 .31.740 .5.3,445 53,44.5 53,445 (6369)-10.95%
64.7.35 58.625 31,(N)1 .50,911 .50.911 .50,911 (7.714)-1.3.16%
8.33,002 819.280 _ «)639()_ ^390 806390
---------1- 1. ■ ■ /_____
(12/)90)-1.55%
• To pnivklc tvr the payment o( principle and interest on all lx)nded debt obligatkms |iy the City.
OPERA iiN(j a)STAC ’nvrm-:s;
* Princi|-»Ic and inteivst payments.
EXPENDllURE CX)MM1 N IS:
* None
35
City of Oroao 1996 Openting Budget UpJakd24-Aug-9SDEPARIMHNTI1994ACIUAI.19% 1996 1)01.1 AR %1995 Y-T-I) DhPr. MANA(ii:R 1996 INC'RIASI: INC'RIvVSEBUlKiKr 6-30-95 Rl QL’luST RI (X)MM1 Nl) ADOPn-l) (Dl ( Rl-ASi:) fn i CXll ASHl
WATER OPERAllNG FUND
Personal Service 83,823 86317 28.061 93360 93360 93360 6,743 7.77%
Supplies, Maintenance Sc Repairsi 36349 48,640 8345 50,000 .50.000 50,000 1360 2.80%
Data PiDcessing 3JU62 3315 1367 910 910 910 (2.705)-74.83%
Insurance 9,074 10,476 7314 7,950 7,‘)50 7,950 (2326)-24.11%
Other Charges 97399 92,171 53,407 95310 95310 95310 3.139 .3.41%
TOTAl. WAll'R 0P1;RA UNO MINI)229,907 241,719 247.7.30 247,730 247,730 6,011 2.49%
PROGRAM DFi?CRTPTION & ORJECTIVES:
* To provide llic Oily with potibic ^^’jlcrancl lin; pn)k*ctk)n
* To maintain city-owned wuternuins, fire hydranbi, water metcr\aiKl the water lower.
OPERA IINCJ (X)ST A(.'ll VI llliS:
* Personnel and related utsts.
* Utility system supplies.
* Ulilites
* Maintenance on water mains and plant.
* Depreeiaton on plant and equipmen t.
EXPENDl'IURE a)MMi ;N IS:
• Professional Services adjusted for prior years cxjK iidilures.
.^6
City of Orooo 1996 Operating Budget UpUafird 24 -Aug-9519961996DOI.1AR %1904 1995 Y-T-D DEPT.man.\gi;r 1996 INCREASE lNCRli/\SE
DliPARl'MIKP AC’lUAI.HUl^Gin 6-.30-95 REOUESl RlXtlMMI ND ADOP'IIT)(DECRPASEl IDECREASEI
SEWER OPERA'IING FUND
Personal Services 140,5S8 143^6.5 58,137 149,345 149,345 149.345 5,482 3.81%
Supplies, Nfaintenance & Rqrain 29,798 •H107 8^77 48370 48370 48370 14,763 43J>8%
Data Piocessiog 6,807 6,757 2,884 1,795 1.705 1,795 (4.962)-7.3.43%
InsuianoB 9,951 11,562 10,032 10,770 10,770 10,770 (792)-635%
Other Charges 4.‘^8,8y0 .502357 248,605 501,315 .501,315 501,315 (1,542)-0J1%
lOIAI. SEWER 0PI:RA IING FUND 646.0.M 6W,146 ___327,935 712,095 712,095 712,095 12,949 1.85%
PROCiRAM I)l-2>CRlPnON & OIUI (’llVI S;
* Tu piuvidc Ilic Qty witli a ;anilary uillcction syslcin lo piomolc tlic health and salcty of the eitiA.-ns and environment
• To maintam city-owned sewer mains and lilt stations.
OPliRA'IlNG (X)S I AC'l IVl 11I.S:
* IVrsonncl and related arsis.
* Utilites
* Maintenance on .sewer nuias and lift stations.
* l>epreciation on sewer mains and lilt stations.
* Dispoal cha rges with the M W( (!.
lIXPliNDIIURli a)MMi;N IS;
* None
City o f Oioao 1996 Opersttiag Budget Updated24-Aug-95PEPARTMEN^r
GOLF OPERAllNG FUND
1994ACIIJAL 1996 1996 DOl.IAR %1995 Y-T-D DI:PT. MANAGER 1996 INCREASE INCREASEnuixiErr 6-30-95 Rixjui-sr ri:(X)mme:ni ) AiK)p n:i> (pix riase:) (ni:( riasi;i
Personal Service 73,120 77,077 31,357 79,460 79,460 79,460 2,383 3.09%
Supplies, Maintcnaiux & Repair 13„574 15,325 7,101 17,785 17,785 17,785 2,460 16 05%
Insurance 13,123 14,729 13,489 14,445 14,445 14,445 (284)-1.93%
Other Charges .39,416 27,550 1324.3 31,070 31.070 31,070 3,520 12.78%
TOTAL GOIP OPIiRA PNG FUND 1.39233 134,681 65,190 142,760 142,760 142,760 8,079 6.00%
PROGRAM PESc:RipnoN & ()iiJi:c:nvE:s:
* To provide a Qfy iccrcationul gulf facility.
OPERAPNG cosr ACnvrniuS:
* I\:rsonncl and related costs.
* Equipment for groundskeeping.
* Maintenance on buii<*:ngs and grounds.
* Depreciation on building;: and equipment.
EXPENUnURH g)MMEN IS:____________
* Contract Maint. & Repair ad justed for add ’l Ruilding& Grounds NLiint.
38