HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-04-1992 Public Hearing Stubbs Bay Sewer Project Packeti"'
i
r->'
-1' ■
fv# .
mi
&s;m
i-
Ka.,
It
...LMMMl
MINUTES OF THE STUBBS BAY ASSESSMENT HEARING
HELD BY THE ORONO COUNCIL ON
HELD MAY 4, 1992
ROLL
The Council met on the above date with f following members
present: Mayor Barbara Peterson, CouncI I memoirs Gabriel Jabbour,
Edward Callahan, J. DIann Goetten and Mary Butler. The following
represented the City staff: City Administrator Ron Moorse, Public
Works Director John Gerhardson, Finance Director Tom Kuehn,
Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, City
Attorney Tom Barrett, City engineer Glenn Cook, Assistant City
Engineer Harlan Olson and City Recorder Tei i Naab. Mayor Peterson
called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Peterson stated the purpose of the hearing was to receive
public comments on the proposed assessment for the Stubbs Bay Sewer
Project. The owners have been provided with a notice of proposed
assessment and a fact sheet regarding the project need and
assessment. She stated that the Counci 1 appointed citizens
advisory committee In lute 1990 to meet with area residents and
staff regarding the project and to provide the Council with updates
of residents’ concerns. The Committee felt that the residents
favored the Installation of the sewer but felt that the cost was
unaffordable to many of them. She said that In November of 1991,
the Council held a public hearing to listen to comments and
Questions regarding the project. Counci I decided after that
meeting to proceed with determining the scope of the project, and
the preparation and acceptance of bids for the project. She stated
the Council and staff has met many times to discuss the project and
has also held three open houses to allow citizens an opportunity
to express their conce’^ns. She noted after the hearing Counci I
would consider adoption of the project, after which there would be
a 30 day appeal period.
The Affidavit of Publication was noted.
Barrett announced that this hearing is part of a legal process
which allows the City to decide the assessment for each property.
He stated that if a property owner wishes to appeal they must first
submit to the City a signed statement of objection to the
assessment Including property address and property Identification
number. He explained that the appellant must initiate with
District Court an appeal of the assessment within 30 days of the
final order of the City adopting the assessment role.
MINUTES OF THE STUBBS BAY ASSESSMENT HEARING
HELD BY THE ORONO COUNCIL ON
HELD MAY 4, 1992
m
Gaffron explained that discussions on sewer installation tor the
area Initiated in 1974. The 1980 Comprehensive Plan identified
five areas withlr the City to be studied for possible sewer
Installation. Four of those five areas have been sewered and
Stubbs Bay Is the fifth area. He noted that in 1988 an Alternative
Waste Manaflement Study was done for the area, which did not include
Oxford Road, Cygnet Place and Leaf Street. Since that time the
project has been expanded to include those areas due to the
proximity to the creek or the lake, the smal I lot sizes and the
potential problem due to a lack of an alternative septic site. In
1989 the PCA updated their septic system regulations, including a
redefinition of what Is a non-conforming system, which definition
Includes systems that do not have a three foot vertical separation
above zones of sol I motti Ing or other indicators of a seasonal
V4ater table. The DNR has mandated that deles with significant
lakes an 1 s t reams adopt shore I and regulations which limit new
^ny^lopment near shoreiand and mandated the adoption of the PCA s
septic regulations. Gaffron reviewed that staff has analyzed a
number of factors of the area and estabiished a classification
system. He stated that 18 of 127 existing homes have failing or
non-conforming systems and 78 homes probably do not have an
alternate septic site. He noted that based on their data, nearly
ail alternative sites would require a mound-type septic system.
He stated that homes without an alternative site, wou'd have to
Install a holding tank If their system failed. Gaffron said that
municipal sewer will elImlnate existing septIc problems and provide
a cost-effective alternative to holding tanks.
Cook explained the project design. He stated that the project is
expected to take approximately four months to complete, and if they
do not encounter any problems with obtaining the required
easements, the entire project could be completed by September 1992.
Moorse explained that staff worked with a number of assessment
experts to determine benefits to the properties which are reflected
In the assessment cost. He noted that to keep the cost down,
formal individual appraisals were not done in the area. He
indicated that some factors that quantified benefits included:
1. Cost of sewer vs. holding tank. It was determined that over
a 15 year period, a holding tank would cost two to three times the
cost of the sewer assessment.
2. There are a number of properties
that are expected to have a short i
upgraded.
in the area that have systems
fe span and would need to be
rt'■ ! .f
■s
if.
K-Va'-
r
fc'<
%
MINUTES OF THE STUBBS BAY ASSESSMENT HEARING
HELD BY THE ORONO COUNCI I ON
HELD MAY 4, 1992
3, There are a number of properties that would benefit from the
reconstruction of the roadway in front of their property.
4. It was determined that this Is an accepted level of assessment
for the area. He explained a sheet on past assessments which
Included original project costs and current connection charges for
the area.
Moorse explained that some le«o quantifiable factors included the
number of septic problems in the area, the ability to expand the
home with sewer available, and sewer vs. septic for resale. He
stated the proposed assessment is based on a 15 year period at 8%
interest. Property owners could prepay the assessment interest
free.
Mayor Peterson called for public comments.
Michael Knight, representative of a number of people, which have
submitted a notice of objection to the assessment, which Include
the following: Stephen Whitman, David Ilse, Joseph DeMeo, Jeff
DennI son and JanneII Sheriff, Albert Nelson, Loren Klitzke, Gay
KeI ley, Melvin Peterson, Ernie Robins, Jeff Bartlet, Herbert Olson,
Thomas Ritter, Carl Rhame, Jerry Ha!I, Brian Ahalt, Michael
McLaughlin, Louise Belomy, Harlan Stockton, Pat Crane, Bill
Levering, Lee Blermus, Henry Fuchner, Catherine Anderson, John
McCoy, Harold Panuska, Joe Fisher, Donald Currier, Diane Ketke,
Paul Vltko, Gregory Ehalt, Margaret Reusing, Hakan Andersson,
Arthur Bloemendaal, Dennis Anderson, Calvin Presbyterian Church,
Ron Forman, Robert Provo, Eugene Deterling, Dean Moline, James
Lewis Brownlee, James St. Lawrence, and Michael Dale. He stated
the main grievance his clients have is that they were not a part
of the advisory committee to study the project. He proposed that
Council expand the committee to represent all owners affected by
the project. He suggested Council table the vote to allow
representatI on of al I residents on this project In meet and discuss
their concerns with the project and come forward with a workable
solution.
Don Gronb^ro. 65 North Willow Dr i ve . to _dlJCu.§.S-J3L!:PPSr tY.Al—115
Leaf Street, stated he would like to appeal his proposed assessment
of $18,880 as he felt It is not fair. He noted he has called the
PCA and Dave Gustophson of the U. of M. Extension Services to
obtaIn guidelines for benefits and was told that the benefit of the
project would be greater for properties that are sub-standard or
that have holding tanks.
3
n
Ipu.
¥
Pc
i
■5v*;
MINUTES OF THE STUBBS BAY ASSESSMENT HEARING
HELD BY THE ORONO COUNCIL ON
HELD MAY 4, 1992
mi la Paterson. 475 Oxford Baag^ stated they have recently built
thair home and have no problem with their septic system and
requested that they be eliminated from the project.
naM«o 400 Oxford Road, asked that the Council consider
p?oposa?of the group Iead~b; Knight. He stated that it would bo
more efficient and cost effective for his property to ®
to the trunk line along County Road 84. He noted he would like t
see the project proceed, but the additional expense ^or him to
connect through a line on Oxford Road has no economic benefit.
Andvschult?. 3409 East Iake StreeU advised that his home is valucu
at $00,000 and each house adJacuPt to him Is worth much more. e
stated he has very little road frontage and felt that homes should
be assessed per lateral footage.
Henry Furchner. 360 Leaf_Slree.lx asked why the project will
Leaf Street to 60’. He felt that Orono should remain rural and did
not want them to destroy vegetation in the area.
Mary Rassmuson. 3415 East lake Street^ advised their house was just
appraised by FHA at $29,700, and the proposed assessment tor their
lot is $8,800. She objected based on undue hardship.
MarvLou Lutz. 258 Cygnet I lace, objected to the assessment.
Vince Larson. 3500 Bavslde Road, stated he was very much in favor
of the project. He noted that the appraisals being quoted were
based on the property not having sewer. He stated that sewer will
Increase both the appraised value and the salability of a home.
He felt that City staff are the experts on this issue and felt it
was time to proceed with the project. He commended Council and the
engineering staff.
Candace Rowlette. 3775 Bavslde Ro&d,, explained she was on the
ftdvitory commlttss. She stated that Oxford Road, Cygnet Place and
Leaf Street were not originally included in the project, but these
people have known for many months that they were considered for
inclusion and should have tried to become a part of the process.
Pane Deterling. 240 Cygnet Place, stated that thev were informed
In November 1991 that they wore a part of the project, and at that
11 me he subm i 11 ed to Counc i l a pe t i l i on show i ng 10Oii oppos 111 on of
Inclusion Into the project. He asked the Council how they could
ignore that petition. He stated that residents of thtt area feel
like they are being dictated to.
4
• »ui^: .?[■r'-ii
;!>'
••.•if.-:r
t ‘' * ■’
Ifi'p:
■^- :■■>, ■:
■*T^' '
MINUTES OF THE STUBBS BAY ASSESSMENT HEARING
HELD BY THE ORONO COUNCIL ON
HELD MAY 4, 1992
Pat Crana. 285 Leaf Street, stated ha is in favor of the project
but opposes the method of assessment. He feit a property shouid
not be assessed more than what a mound system would cost.
Greo Ehait. 105 Cygnet Place, noted his property is proposed to
have a pumping station on it. He understood that he would only be
reimbursed for the Installation of the station and not for future
maintenance and felt that was unfair.
KnIQht declared that he was not inferring that the engineering
staff was Incapable. He felt the Issue could be worked out
productively with the input of all residents affected. He asked
what the harm would be In allowing a re'isonable time period to
solicit comments from all affected property owners.
Furchner noted they are proposing to take a 40’ easement along his
property which would destroy his whole garden and he stated he
wouId not allow it.
Charlie Balgaard. 3435 East ake Street, explained that it was not
the decision of the advisory committee to expand the proj*»ct. He
opposed the assessment as he is currently using a holding :ank,
which is working fine fo^ his small cabin.
Scott Anderson. 3415 East lake Street, felt that the assessment
shouid be based on taxable market of the property.
Alvin Balgaard. 3560 Bavside Road, submitted an appeal to the
assessment.
Carl Rhame. 3245 Watertown Road, opposed the additional 30’ of
rIght-of-way.
Cook noted that the driven portion of the roadway of Leaf Street
will not be wider than 32’, and it currently is 26’. He noted that
Cygnet Place and Oxford Road will remain the same width, and
Crestview, Tonka and Westlake Street may be a little wider after
the project.
DeMeo suggested they consider the addition of Foxbend property with
this project.
Mayor Peterson closed the pt'blic hearing at 8:05 p.m.
Jabbour explained that the Council does not want any hard feelings
to exist because of the project.
■•'FP». ST_-C • f .r ■'. *
'i:
’^,-
, ( ■■ V
♦\y-
■ **•».•
MINUTES OF THE STUBBS BAY ASSESSMENT HEARING
held by the orono council on
HELD MAY 4, 1992
An Oxford Road resident stated he tried to join the advisory
committee prior to November but was told Oxford Road would not be
Included with the project and could not Join the group.
Jabbour stated that all members of the ^rnote^a sewer project on either the receiving or giving end. He noted
the Council Is Interested in getting the sewer for the ieast
possl^ble cost and stated this is the first time the City
wTlIIng to pj-ticipate with the cost. He asked if it would be
possible to separate the project.
Cook explained that the bid was received in five i wl
a'^^rs'a' , o'^norb^^t^r ro Tnd^'st^ir^:
the bid without a special contract.
sa'abbour explained that the Council has built into the amount a
$100,000 contingency for litigation which will reduce the
assessment amount If not used. He reminded them that if the
project Is postponed, the interest rate could not be guaranteed.
Mayor Peterson noted that due to the number of residents ;nat have
retained legal counsel for possible litigation, she adjourned the
meeting to executive session at 8;12 p.m. to 8:35 p.m.
Mayor Petsrson announced the public hearing wouId be continued on
May 18, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. at the Orono High School cafeteria, which
will allow Mr. Knight’s group additional time. She stated that
those submitting an appeal that evening did not need to attend the
continued public hearing meeting.
Barrett explained that the appeal period will
decision date of the Counci I for 30 days.
run f rom the final
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Peterson adjourned the Stubbs Bay Assessment Hearing at 8:36
p.m., to reconvene on May 18, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. at the Orono High
School cafeteria.
/Ot
Barbara A. Peterson. Mayor
/
Hal I 1n, City Clerk
6
M
iiv
-S:--
■i"
I Y
. •
S-.,
i<
PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
CITY OF ORONO /-' |. ^ A-^<-(^f I ' \
MEETING
PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
NAME (please print)ADDRESS
NAME OR NUMBER
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
1. Hr)
2. f.D, -Skaw -i^
3.
40S Ckf-t<U)O0
■%
^ d *
\
C t^2\
1 1
N\g. -fijwi’l}-
i 6
___
.t/ * yf./
■V*
s'' /^r LL ol ^ D ^
IL lc-hF- Cp,
L
^c.ArJu%, -
ST
is^T^aa*^
JsC^^SryJ
Ls
i
19
30
4:-4,
■ I*
(AIaj^JL
3 ? 5 4 4
3^^ d V ^3/! s/o'/
JbiJJL__4
X OO df*^ J ^ f 00
'/t9
(> C-/
: L. . • <
Av--.
Jr u n Li 1 u /A - i. L. ^ ^ i r\ * A.. ^
CITY OF ORONO • * k H* 4md *- i*. • « k«/ /^* A.
PLEASE FILL OUT THE INTORMATION REQUESTED 3ELGW FOP OUP CITY RECORDS.
NAME (please print)ADDRESS
NAME OR NUMBER
PRESENT FOR (frorr agenda)
r > i ■
5 5 c:> f. (/ 4 I’aS^ ■
p&:mw
w
^fu.:
L ci> (Pg //■ /rc>'r^-'C
I )I •«
U
CVfejyA?__^
9 W-"HVVS Ot . JI O* '.—
io
sC--
-5-/, 3;^ C
12
iLZ
14.
’/V/W
tuu/W(f^
/^o C<^‘sr*
At':?
! <■'• D>
>y /j ,r\r¥ LA A AVt._______\ '^ 7 F0
rnJiY\
^-U'‘^.
&V
v'^ . .
r 5;-^
C:S'XS. T«U^ U UT-V
f-;a
S'
sdu.
-'.s ■.
/S
iD i^tsT i
m:20 .*...
m:.:
r,U - V T.Li.'. -m*
PUBLIC ATTCULANCE
CITY OF ORONO MEETING /Ax -t—t
PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
E
NAME (please print)
1.
V’
•• ■ ''Vv . f''ji'-"
:r^Ov ■-
If
f!;
OF:'
of
If'
lih:
O-iSF
ADDRESS
NVCIE OR NUMBER
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
2.\
3.
T
4.
i
5.
6.I
-------------------L---------------------------------------------------------------------------—
•
0 •
!1
^ ' ' '
i.----------------------------------i
9.i
[ ____ ___________—i
1
10.1
11.
i
i
!
12. I . _ ______^______________________---------------------------------------------------—-----------------------------------------------------]--------------------
13.
14.
i
1
15,}
14.
17.----------------------------—-----4-
18.
)
i
I:
r
h-p:
P: ;
'-i
crrvof onoNO
Nonncc OF HEARNQ ON PROPOSED
ASSESSMENT
TO WHOM rr MAY CONCERN:
NaMat N hafabv gNan ittai tha Diy
OaiMt «H maai at 7.-W pm on Monday. May
I
4. IMS, at tw Orana High Sehooi Caiaiana
TMOWCiyMNtarRoMfNahh 10 pau upon
RWW tor tna unttary
iMOral tmorovamani Tha
toSoMlna 14 tw araa pmpoaaa to ba auaaaad
I. Al jragarto in too NorTMraai quariar of
SaoSan i. T117 N. R. 23 W. Iy«f«i Southarty o<
I S. AS arapariy in tw Nortwan quartar ol
•aoton 9, T117N., R 2* W.. Ymg Southarty ot
StaUMlUnaTral.
M. Ptagartiaa in tha Eaai hail of tha
NDrSiaaMMaitaroiSacgonS.T 117N.. R.23
W. «Mii flEui Laaf Maai
IV. Al pngarto In tia IWaat halt of tw
NirftoMt fMnar of SaMton 4. T. 117 N. a am
V. Al prapatto In t»a Narti half of too
Maagral iiTN^aa
yoMolMaa.
raltoanfla
Mca
mani
Thapapoaaa
fto puMa Mipaoian
T^i Mi !!<.»• propoaas
to SiMtjMOM. WMtoii or oral a
M aMtotoiraa ai Pia fflaamg. No
ha MMa ao to Sia amoiM gl an aooaatmarH
atonai, attaon olMMton a Map aMh
pnar to i«a haam or proaaniaa to
natna m*rn at tw haartna. Tha
napiptt aueh laMfea eonalttor any
ahhNlan to Sw awaant of a prapoaad
InStoiSual aaaaoiwont at an aPiaumad
upaa auah hatoar nooea to tw
praparty oamara u it daanwaaa^•totoSh.
tana'
i
t it eantooiid or twra io
.1I. Tha cay ail praaont at <
artowtotoo «ha inay tooMli
Iratpy
hy nwranva
o*
tw
«W ha alloaraO to aak
proooPura anil ba
uni
iuaaaaaa. naa 1
ail tail atonaai
S. Ahar tw erty hat proaonwd it in
A tw ahiaewr rnM oil antfwtaaa or
auit toatmony aa tw obwcior
Tha taato proeaawa tor ouaaaonM
rX-^......
4. Mnntitoto nitoa al twoanoa not
a|Mly oppM; hawaaor. twy may ba
atotohi al of tjitoanet or tattmarty
t. At aw iooa «i
I aMKWr may
to wm oaunif
aatotnaa, tw ataatoiiiian 1
Mtototoamil
of
a hnal
an tw
•niiwitoa Nb noor aatOanoo may
fit ID
taaAni 4ttMl by tarwng natao of tw
MjtoMi jtoaa tw mayor or ierfe i tw c*",
wwwi Matoyt iwr tw ate peon <•: tw
ana Hn| tuth naooo •«ah tw
ptn^oratol
oawawal MiaatojriMr
sw igaM Btaaaamahi''i fwy
aai torit ai Ctor Joafwt
•tw or*
/aaatormoni o*
r^war tw
•yOOwt^CtorC^
Oir^M HMn
OtoCtoA
IMMtoStoThal
i
Affidavit of Publication
State of Minnesota. Countv ol Hennepin
Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath says that he is
an authorized agent and employee of the publisher
of the newspaper known as THE LAKER Mound. Min
nesota and has full knowledge of the facts which are
staled below
A ) The nev/spaper has complied with all the require
ments constituting qualifications as a qus'ified
newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute
331A02, 331A07, and other applicable laws, as
amended
which is attached was cut frcm the columns of said
new8pap>er. and was printed and published once each
week for________/___________successive weeks
It was first published Mornlay
.K A r ^ h''-j'the TL. day of ■ f L,
and was thereafter printed and published every
Monday to and including Monday.
the day of
■,T■ < ■
I
A
iV^:
r
:r.’‘
r;--
rm-
^•;y-
f.‘
r:.: /
a.
irtm^
.Vf, •.•;
■:;. 'V. -,v.-rr^
tf:
•,
■ t •■ •=■'
r-*:
-V:
i- ■' V'
■-r-:
■ .'-i'
i; -
ici-;
•'.ff-
■fv ' ’
iv
'W-
[’4-4:: -; I ,••/. -•
:i ■■
i:
i"I-
■1^
If'
K ■
iif
' ■
May 1. 1992
Mayor Barbara Peterson
City Council Members
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066
I have reviewed your assessment letter and do not understand how I could be
assessed the $14,990 amount indicated in the letter
The proposed assessment Is arbitrary and discriminatory against my property. For
example. In your March 12 letter you indicated that if the other oxfo. d road properties
are excluded my property would be assessed along with the other residents who are
serviced by the trunk line (a cost much lower than the Oxford road assessment).
However, If the other oxford road properties require sewer hook up then my property
would be assessed what the other oxford properties would be assessed; a cost
substantially higher with no increased benefit to my property, it would also be more
destructive to my property and require a longer trench for hook up rather than just using
the main trunk line. Again, It does not make economic sense for my property to be
connected to the sewer through the oxford road lateral; it is more costly without any
increased benefit to my property.
Finally, I wish to reiterate my position as being opposed completely to Inclusion in this
project as the value of my house will not increase or increase substantially less then the
assessment you are proposing. Also the cost to comply with my exisring septic system
is significantly less then the cost of the proposed assessment.
Please reconsider your position on the issues raised above and advise me. m wntmg
as soon as possible. Again, I should be allowed to hook up to the sewer system tn the
most cost effective manner available
r*
4 Y
cr-.j 1,
' “> r~ j '
L,'^ LL-. Ua J \y , §
400 Oxford Road
Long Lake, Mn. 55356
WAV ^ 2992
r-Vvrt^T; *^' ‘•■■■^Vj«
TOt
fROMt
m DATE:
if SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
May 1, 1992
Stubbs Bay Assessment Hearing
I havs attached information which addresses the major issues
anticipated at the assessment hearing.
isy-v ■:Ck
!r‘^^*1%,
mm.'
v-'
w^m - :
*t.
r.: . •■f->
-':A l
BENSFIT OF SBWER PROJECT
Staff has worked with a number of consultants to determine
whether the costs of this project can be justified based on the
benefits provided. The conclusion reached was that the project
costs do generally reflect the level of benefit provided by the
project. The level of benefit is related to the increased value
provided to the property. The increased value is related to a
number of items.
A. Eliminates the need for holding tanks. Currently
17 properties would be forced cnto holding tanks in the
absence of a sewer project. 78 of the 127 existing
residences would be forced onto holding tanks at the
time their current septic system failed.
B. Eliminates the need for future septic system
replacement.
f: - -
A:. ;v:«^
m’"
C. In addition to the increased value related to A i
Br the saleability of a home is significantly improved
with sewer versus a septic system.
D. Eliminates unplanned septic problems.
E. Eliminates septic capacity as a restriction on the
expansion of the number of bedrooms.
Although the project costs generally reflect the benefit to the
properties the proposed assessment amounts reflect a 30% cost
participation by the City. The City Council has made this
decision for several reasons.
1.
m.
.^•*4
The State Statute governing special assessments
can make it difficult to demonstrate the
relationship between cost and benefits.
2.The Ci'y as a whole does gain significant
environmental benefits from the replacement of
septic systems with sewer.
3.
? i '. y
F
: VA
The City Council chose to use City funds to reduce
the assessments to a more acceptable level rather
than using those same funds to pay the legal and
appraisal fees involved in responding to
assessment appeals.
y.i'0
W'-'
—-
■
C>i-- ,
»■ "Mt
r:v-'
“N::
f
Mlll-
^■msS;:-/.m
.t
^v-f
II
:SPv;
:■:£!'iXM'
AppraisalsIII order to hold down project costs, the City did not have formal appraisals done for the project properties. Because of the wide diversity of properties in terms of size, value and condition of
septic systems, property appraisals could have added over
$100,000 to the cost of the project. Again, the City chose to
participate in the funding of the project rather than adding
unnecessary costs to the project.
PROJECT ASSBSSMEN’/S
Comparison with Past Assessment Amounts
The attached chart shows the assessment amounts for sewer
projects undert«'3;en since 1980. The average assessment amount
was $10,516. Because these projects were completed at least
seven years ago, a more meaningful comparison involves the
current connection charges for those projects. The connection
charges are the initial assessment amounts inflated to today's
dollars based on annual increases in the Consumer Price Index.
The average connection charge is $15,000. All proposed Stubbs
Bay project assessments are below $15,000, most are substantially
below $15,000.
Assessments By Area Versus Total Project Assessments
The proposed assessments reflect a decision to assess the trunk
coat differently than the lateral cost. The cost of the trunk,
ifbich serves all properties, is being shared equally among all
properties. The cost of the laterals, which serve specific
properties, is being assessed to those properties specifically
served by the laterals. This has resulted in different
assessment amounts for different project areas. This is the most
fair and equitable method of assessment because none of the
Individual areas is subsidizing any of the other areas.
!•« .
'» *' ‘TOs
Frcmt
Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council
Ron Mooi.se, City Administrator
Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator
Oates May 1, 1992
Subject: Stubbs Bay Sewer - Vacant Lot Prior Buildability Analysis
S:*
5'-.
k
■
'■%
■
/>•
feli’
.-.r •
IS^/
fejS'""
I?L0'¥>
Eleven vacant lots are proposed to be assessed a sewer unit in
Stubbs Bay. Cf these, five exceed 2 acres in area and would be
assessed the reduced amount. The six which are less than 2 acres and
proposed to be assessed at a 100% rate, are listed on the attached
sheet with the anticipated variances required under current code.
To summarize the table:
1.
2.
6.
The Gage lot has steep slopes and likely would not have
drainfield sites, therefore is probably not buildable
without sewer.
The Sterner lot on Tonka Avenue might be buildable if a
second drainfield site could be located, however a low wet
area on the site makes this questionable.
The Talbert/Addison combination of four lots on Tonka Avenue
has at best one drainfield site, and therefore would not be
buildable without sewer.
The double lot at 3G0 Tonka Avenue has no sites available
for a conforming septic system, and if there was, this would
leave no reasonable location for the house.
Gronberg's lot on Leaf Street was probably buildable prior
to the Shoreland Regulations, since a house meeting the
front, side, and wetland setbacks could have constructed
without encroaching on the two mound sites. However, the
Shoreland Regulations reduced the buildable envelope to
almost nothing without sewer.
The Ehalt lot on Cygnet might have two good drainfield sites
near the front of the lot and more or less parallel to the
road. However, the Shoreland Regulations would make it hard
to place a house on the property without a shoreline setback
variance, because the drainfield sites would generally be on
top of the building envelope. As in Gronberg's case, the
new setback requirements with the Shoreland Regulations
severally limited the pc*-ential of building on this site
without sewer.
“ ■
PsA!'
■« fc ‘,
?:
■
»•Wife:?:
rWW^v ^
is V .;v^:-^«1 : .r, V .
■
■■ • ■! •.
f-#- ■-"aft-
I -
sm
tilfe"-
li:
- ? w:- ■
r.
s ■ '-_
'ife,
lifeJ--
W'--'
iir
i-ft?;;:'
; JWW ,-
"v -fe?’
^ferf-v.
-:WW>V
- -ft,;-
Hit:
■ rfe ■
. A- ?;•■? •
i 5
:*
|;|v.t'W
-T-;-'-P *1 1 1 kt 1
■X
i> >Z
1
1 :1
» 1
>.^ p .
'■' S!ft
1
. —..i 11 1
1
- ■!.--.JW-- :— i
.L o’ ,,-----^ - ,!-?■!
i
i
! 1
(
1
1
11 i i 1
1
1 lr» WK Sr "i'1 i 1
1
1
\
1
1
1
1 >
1
» j ? $\f ^
«■
1^
f *
Wf 2
I I
I ;
♦ » *
»
: .t:
p'ft,
(T
o
o*n
o
4^
t/*
t
X,
>
Vj
fw
f ^
$: ?n
Xj
? I
f
r
TN>c
?
>
9a §
?
5
r»
fO
}
. » ~ t1 I
£ %
®- VO
\ «>
f\»r»
1*%
-4
? ^ s u
}
»\
fl r*c
Jr
•X
o
X
VV"
c
^L
H
I \
X
2n
> S5 ^
^ M t» r* -0
ff
K ■
I,"
yf\
1 (
* 1 ; 1
^
1
1 i !f 111 1 (1 1
i 1
1*
\
!
i i
1i i! »
! 1 :: 1 1 :!! 1 1 .
XXX X
; i ixx
X-^x X
XX
•^Xi-v
! !
\j X i
•>j
•>> X
X
O9 0•0 .J
7* ^
> %
\
o
O ol/»
'>41
? f"’
f
i ^ \
«< j
0 ^
r If i-1
V I 3
1 —
\
j
A
X«4 -
^ < W 3
a" i
I r
s
X y
X
t <
v»
i
fl
• V1»
• 'J ll
X
I.|.
L'lP
|N f* hi
T. ►-?1 n
^ o
K 7^' *'i!ii
«? or>
$
r »•”»
‘m
I'"’h:^s
jj f
:i
A
llli’✓n'
1
1
i'.-
r:3' ^
I'-;
‘•i*.
•mlbi-V'< -
'■>
g{
|-kki
l'-'
..V.
w
1- I
WL e. ^
-----
1
m
j#'
i’i
Ttof"Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
e,
St;From:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning &
f Date:April 30, 1992
{■r
iV'--'-
Subject:3425 Eastlake Street - Sewer Unit?
:
-List of Exhibits
1^.S'r Exhibit A - Sketch
Exhibit B - Section 10.55, Subd. 76
i
i-
*1.
(*•
Although the property owner of 3425 Eastlake Street has been notified
of a one unit sewer assessment at $8,840.00, it has come to staff's
attention that the existing structure on that property has neither
sanitation facilities nor a foundation, and is merely a 12'x22' (264
s.f.) summer cabin.
In the Stubbs Bay area, sewer units were assigned to all developed
properties in single separate ownership, without regard to the lot
site or nature of existing structures. However, it could be argued
that this small cabin is nothing more than an accessory building
without a principal structure, and because of its lack of sanitation
facilities, has never been an established dwelling unit.
The question then becomes, does the City wish to assign a sewer unit,
which eventually forces the issue of naving to approve variances to
allow something substantial to be constructed on the property.
The lot is 50'xl02', or 0.12 acre in a 2 acre zone. .Mso:
1.The lot is entirely within a sheet flow flood plain area
requiring special considerations for construction.
2.It would be virtually impossible to construct a building on
the property without variances to front, rear, left and
right side, and lakeshore setback variances. (The 929.4
elevation contour extends up the creek from Stubbs Bay to
abut this property.)
3.It can be argued that the non-conforming use section of the
Flood Plain and Wetlands ordinance applies. Section 10.55,
Subd. 26 (B) states "B. No structural alteration or
addition to any non-conforming structure over the life of
the structure shall exceed 50% of its value at the time of
its becoming a non-conforming use, unless the structure is
permanently changed to a conforming use or unless the
alteration or addition would substantially reduce potential
flood damages for the entire structure." That ordinance was
adopted 1-11-79. The assessor's valuation at that time
indicated a structure value of $72*?. 00.
r> •r'/l.VV-:.Memo
April 30r
Page 2
1992
m
/
Staff Is aware that this property and the property to the immediate
east are both in the process of being sold. Staff has continued to
advise any inquirers that any expansion of properties on East lake
Street will require the approval of many variances, and is not a sure
thing by any means. The recent offer of a sewer unit for this
property may have given the current owner the impression that the City
will grant variances.
m
Council may wish to consider dropping the sewer unit on this property
based on one or more of the above factors. It could be argued that if
you assign a unit to this property, then you should also assign a unit
to the 70*xl25' Addison lot on the west side of Tonka Avenue, which is
also in single separate ownership and in many respects much more
buildable than 3425 Eastlake Street.
iir;
-Tv
- ■■Hz;-'
SiK
1
m
^r'
■r
,ii ',
K-;:
>firrm\
:v-^ i
1
'i
J
H
:>
v:
fcV
:>■ ■- *h'
"i
*
X-
i\
... _v
!1.-*' i*
•• ♦ ’
i
,;'f'
• >■iV;
'■ '1k'. ^
V-^1
\
t*
I
I
-V In(I
.. -
i*::
• I'iC'
ifn I
ii
■; ■' ■‘^ '*
I4i
'v»
.'^•1
m
{
m «.
f.
.&
S 10.55Subd. 26. Non-confocming Uses. A structure or the use
of A Structure or premises which was lawful before the passage or
amendment of this Section but which is not in conformity with the
provisions of this Section may be continued -subject to the
following conditions;
A. No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged
or altered in a way which Increases its non-conformity.
B. No structural alteration or addition to any non-
conforming structure over the life of the structure shall exceed 50
percent of its value at the time of its becoming a non-conforming
use, unless the structure is permanently changed to a conforming
use or unless the alteration or addition would substantially reduce
potential flood damages for the entire structure.
C. Any alteration or addition to any non-conforming
use which would result in substantially increasing its flood damage
potential shall be protected in accordance with Subdivision 14,
Subparagraph E of this Section.
D. If such use is discontinued for twelve
consecutive months, any future use of the building premises shall
conform to this Section. The assessor shall notify the Zoning
Administrator in writing of instances of non-conforming uses which
have been discontinued for a period of twelve months.
E If any non-conforming use icEtroyed by any
with the provisions of this Section. However, the Cicj may issue a
conditional use permit for reconstruction if the use is located
outside the floodway and, upon the reconstruction, is adequately
flood proofed, elt^vated or otherwise protecte<3 in conformity with
this Section.
F. Use? or adjuncts thereof which are or become
nuisances shall not be entitled to continue as non-conforming uses.
G. Except as provided in Subparagraph E above, any
use which has b*een permitted as a conditional use shall not be
considered as a non-conforming use.
H. Non-conforming uses located in the Floodway
District shall be eliminated or brought into conformity with the
standards contained in this Section within a reasonable period or
tine aa determined by the City, after a hearing for each such non
conforming use. The Council shall ma^e Its determination upon the
basis of^the normal useful life of any improvement
premises. In addition, the monetary value of any
advantage derl^'ed by the operation of such non-confotmIng use, oy
reason of the limitation on establishment of competing businesses
5 10.55
aa a result of this Section, shall be considered as a reduction of
losses resulting from the requirement of termination of the use
under this Section.
Subd. 27. d’T’^r^'T t r ' 1 1 n • s i <;n a * ’ non
»■ ■
4
■I-
,V% '
>
i
I »
,\
V.
i .
• *
♦
3415 Eabtlake Street
Linda Freewan
3425 E Atlake Street
son
Eastlake Street
- r )1 ^ lar d
^ •> f I 1 ak-,- St i '.“'t
I,u v», ; <• ran'} I 1
‘T.-<vP^'-‘,j
,r'r
^*;
R,->^
V‘'-'
m
if'
L;.;.
|F‘:€
w
&.-•
1^#f:fvlif-
TOt Mayor and City Council
m Ron Moorse, City Adminirtrator
DATS:April 30, 1992
SUBJECTX Upcoming Work Sessions
This is a reminder of the schedulincj and topics for upcoming work
sessions. A work session will be held on Tuesday, May 5th at
7i00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers for *^^he purpose of
reviewing proposals from the Architect and Construction Manager
concerning coat reductions for the city facility.
On May 13th at 3:00 p.m. a work bession will be held to address
the following items:
1.Review an alternative alignment for Highway 12
through downtown Long Lake.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Review the 1991 City Budget.
Review the 1992 City Budget year to date.
Review 1992 Budget capital items.
Review the 1991 Police service contract budget
information. ,
6. Review city facilities budget versus actual.
A series of meetings are scheduled for the evening of Monday, May
11th j
at r*:45 p.m. an HRA meeting will be held to award city
facilities bids.
at 6:00 p.m. the Board of Review will reconvene,
at 7:00 p.m. the regular Council meeting will be held.
i’"' ■■■
... ^ - -■
mm
■ ■V.W ^MW* -
'^X-
r"*
r »«
pt: -
b ’.i
B#i- 4 ?
tejis. ;
m& ■ !i.
W’.
te*
WM-
m ^ '.
-•
■
Ss-f":i|
-■%W-
ipH'f
WAiPa.-
* ■»
vbo ' ::^iaa
r^rnm ' ■'
a|^:-:>gsv
. .. ..-b
H#y>
Sim
Vrai-y,- ••
:-rii..
mi-mkA
#'
tfV:f
10
.- ^ ^ -fia
avSfA,;^
:.. -?'k; ' ■.:
•'»
evES;?a .If't'
.00'■'■Sir
#1-
rV'Saa-P-:.
kM'm
^ifA0 ^HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET
SET8ACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ^.TSP ^5-250' 250-S00' JOC-ICCQ'
Existing Hardcover in Zone
’ r» —
PA»»»0Sfd> '
A. H ouse
LENGTH
3. Garage
c. D rivev 'ay
D. '*1 DEWALK___
E. Patio/
I?ECK
F.Landscape
AREAS
underlain
BY
PLASTIC"
SHEETING
G. Other
X
X
X
_ X
X _
X
X
X
X
X
WIDTH
// :^o r r
j I r .
5.
S . F .
f* -
j * I
C p
o • I
^ P• r I
S . r
r
J . r
, F .
5 . F
. F .
.F.
*•■ rW • <
3 . F .
S.r.
S.F.
T ,, ^ (so-?5 ')Total Hardcover in iONE -/y S . r
Total Property Afca in Zone /X s. p.
/VSa 0 ioa X 100 y. 2?/ O
t1 > ,- - ^ : '-
tv i-K
'o"• t
t
&.
Si'
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET
SETBACK ZOrJE; (CIRCLE ome) 0-75' (^-25^lJ) /..0-500 50G
Existing Hardcover in Zone
(
M^O '~ ^ X./ \> U
i
ft
jr..::,.
i*.>r “.
I - lit..
ggSB^'^
185 Bederwood Dr
Orono, Long Lake,
MN55356.
APR ^ 0
laii 30th April 1992.
j>
D. M. Hallin,
City of Orono,
Post Office Box 66,
Crystal Bay,
MN 55323-0066.
Reference: Assessment for public mains sewage - Stubbs Bay.
The intent of this letter is to officially contest the proposed assessment against
the above property. Also to protest the method of assessment as being unfair
to the community at large because of the unreasonable costs involved. Your
method for calculating individual costs, make no allowance for properties
which have conforming systems, and an alternate replacement sight in case
of failure.
As an example, the eighteen (18) failing sights you quote in the document
"defining the needs" and the majority of the properties indicated, as not
"appearing to have an alternate replacement sight", are by and large, situated
within three (3) locations, these being:
Stubbs Bay N.E.
Stubbs Bay N.W.
Bayside East.
These locations, equate to eighty three (83) properties, or roughly sixty one
(61%) percent of the overall grand total (137) of homes impacteti. A unit cost
of $8,8^.00 per household is quoted as the individual contribution for these
three locations. However, the sum dollar total contribution is $733,720.00,
which only represents roughly half (» 50%) of the grand total required for the
complete proj^. Such an assessment policy is unjust, and unfair to property
owners such as myself, who have conforming systems, and also a
replacement sight, but are asked to pay $4000.00 more, or a sum roughly equal
to thirteen thousand dollars (- $13,000).
k
H.
A
'f v>i'
wm
;j,_
P, >-r;^ ' f
.1
|:
!•'
.-■■K
*fZ'b-m.m
cl* ■ .'•Vf-..
Vi
ft
r^
SS|:
Wi|ft/^
SK’
i^-
'il':
It is important to remember, the City of Orono have been aware of the
impending problem with these three quoted locations, for sometime. Had
you confronted this situation in the beginning, the remainder of Stubbs Bay
would not be forced to paying for this mistake now.
A major consideration with such a project, should be the ability of all the
impacted households to pay any proposed assessment. The cavalier approach
taken by the Orono City council, is a further e.xample, of how far out of touch
you seem to be, with the general economic well being within the country as a
whole, and not least of all the Stubbs Bay community.
Consider, the estimated median taxable property value in Stuobs Bay, is less
than one hundred thousand dollars (< $100,000). Which means, it is not a
wealthy community, and the average household does not have such
availabil’ty h funds, or the ability to raise such monies, as the Orono City
coi»»'^i prop'ise to assess. People simply do not have the ability to pay these
amounts. Why is this so difficult to understand in light of the economic
environment?
Although I make no pretense to speak for the community as a whole, before
we all land up knee deep in legal proceedings, which seems likely unless we
come to a fair and equitable solution, I would like to propose the following
plan as being fair, equitable and more in keeping with the communities
financial standing.
Proposed Alternate Assessment Plan,
1. A base trunk cost per household unit of ------------------$2,000.
(payable, in installments by 12/31/92).
2. A lateral cost per household unit of .......-..........-.........$2 000.
(payable, in installments by 12/31/93).
3. A special assessment for failing systems ot --------------$1,000.
(payable, in installments by 12/31/93).
4. A special assessment for no alternate sight —........... $1,000
(payable, in installments by 12/31/93).
5. A special increase in property tax per household unit = 10%
(payable from 1/1/93).
This plan has been distributed to the general population of Stubbs Bay, prior
to your public meeting. Therefore, please include this on the official agenda
for discussion. Under this plan, the households (137) in tl e Stubbs Bay
community would contribute, by 12/31/93, a sum roughly equal to seven
w*: •
f'Mr:,
®SR.
Ih
- -I --nv-y-x '
>y'^-
' ^ ;*
hundred and fourteen thousand (» $714,000) dollars, or roughly forty nine
percent (» 49%) of the projects costs. This sum however, does include the
$100,000 which Orono City council sighted as an "extra protection
contingency ”. With this sum subtracted, ($100,000), the community would
contribute roughly fifty two percent (“ 52%) to the project.
Now be aware of conjecture, dependant on the amount of the "original
contingency" added to the "actual construction cost" (which Orono City
council do not supply), but is likely to be at least an additional seven to eight
percent (7-8%) or roughly a further one hundred thoi\sand (= $100,000)
dollars. The cash contribution by the community, could be roughly equal to
fifty six percent (- 56%).
In respect to an increase in property taxation. If this is applied as a percent of
the taxable value for each unit, the result would normalize the individual
house size/price difference, proportionately. It would be up to the Orono City
council to project the time span of this special increase, although my rough
calculations indicate between 10-15 years.
no
Ultimately, there will be some form of compromise by all parties involved,
a function of the economic realities, and personally I trust we can find this
common ground. The communication which you sent each household
however, is intimidating to say the least, as you seem to infer, we have r
other option but to do your bidding. Nevertheless, you should be aware,
although the majority of us can not afford to have individual legal
representation at this point in time, we could collectively in the future if this
proves necessary, which I sincerely hope will not be the case.
Youas faithfully,
John Souter
& ■■
K--.
W~-
ffe,:. WW
»S,.
mm.
i!?/(;.;l=*h’7
liiv...j'
r
. %:
%;■
MS:
:#t
v'l^ •:--^-i>
t .;:»
'i.--
:yk-
tu
P V'-
w>
iilfff'KB
1'
......... .
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
APPEAL OF ASSESSMENT
I the undersigned property owner located at 110 Leaf Street,
Orono, Minnesota, legally described as Tract B, Registered
Land Survey No. 744 appeal to the one hundred percent (100%)
project cost assessment in the amount of Eighteen Thousand
Eight Hundred Eighty and No/1^0 Dollars ($18,880.00) for
sever assessment on PID No. 04-117-23 22 0005.
Dated: April 29, 1992
I
^29
*Jf.*
^1 i'"If!%■:•■■■; ,
April 27, 1992
APR 2 8 189^
Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk
City of Orono
P. O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066
RE! Sewer ar.d Sewer Assessment
„ j AA4
IP
1*.
f
P
tplfi:? ^'v
b'"'
►lip;,
w-
Dear Ms. riallin:
This 1.9 notlflc.tlon to the city o( Orono thet I do not agree
that my property requires a municipal eewer o.. a
assessment reflects the added economic benefit of such a
««r ecoLdinq to the City of Orono-a own .tudy, my pre.er.t
eyetem has a conformity claaelftcation of 1 and an RA factor
of 5001 plus, which should exempt my property from any
assessment.
I appreciate the problem, of some "high denaity" areas tn our
community, but have no deaire to participate financially in
the eolation. My property meets all
-low density and I respectfully request the City reconsider
the decision to add sewer benefits to my property. In
addition, if necessary, this will become a
in the courts if the city management does not feel
every justification to reconsider their position. I would
welcLe an amicable solution, but the city management
unilateral position to date does not hold out much hope,
not like taking such a strong position, but ieel the posi lo
taken by the city is grossly unfair.
A written response is requested.
Respectfully,
s-'
H. Terry Olson
Resident
3640 Bayside Rd.
Orono, MN
fci-
■'c.
>:■
Hit'Ns**
f:i»
ts.>*- •- ■
:i V '
:; ■ -:r
V'
W-
ii'
Hi
m
«:
ISife'
mm.
r40it‘^
'•=h
. • •)
, j>ii
I
wm'
WM'em
m
0
■■'.jm:
■"
:^k-
y.
s V*
#Wi
5
Ip
Mrs. Dorothv Hallin 4/.9/92
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay# Mn. 55323
Dear Mrs. Hallin,
I have information that indicates the 1992 valuation of
properties # 17 117 23 31 0021 and # 17 117 23 31 0020
may be incorrect due to resale problems.
I have discussed this tax evaluation problem with Mr. Dave
Wild, Orono tax appraiser and insist on re-evaluation of
properties.
Please inform me as to the date and time of this assessment.
Incerely
George Norling
3800 Dickson Extension
Orono, Mn. 55384
— «
■ / _ _ '
. L= u o ..2
471-7967
APR 3 0
I
'9, ,
!V ’■
M - -
r
r‘
I
> r- -
► '^-
fe
.■n;-v
m
%
t
fe'
ifk .1^m-.km..
rt>L
:-;l k^ky- ‘im.i
p'-' .Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Comtjrtlsslon443 OAK STREET • EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331r« (6'l2r 474 55391April 29, 1992
'M ■'b|ii. ^5 0
fs A4
m'
lit-
ipptt.
i. '
m ^
%P
te- .-
lift. tesiJ^
Pfvim,
p’,#'
r ■ '
S;;-
» . . Wr
■mf-- ' ■tevm-
mB-
Mayor Barbara Peterson
City Council Members
City of Orono
Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members:
I'm very happy to report that a
rtxnnetonka Cable Coir.munica taons
outstanding success.
j o X n t e r r j r t
o m m 13 3 X j R
you a:d
:'rJ.3 0 X --’Jfi
ne LaKe
in an
I wet personally with Congressman Gerry xikcis^.x ana oiscusseci nii»
committed vote for action that will -eturn some iDcai autnority r*j
the Cable Commission (Tha.s will be caolecast on
week of May 1992).
,n-annex J tne r X r s t
Congreesoan Sikorslci mentioned at tne very outset ot our
'■onvereation, that he had received t.ne resolutions and ne«rd trom t.ne
people, and his commitment would be consistent wxtn tni-- oirecticn.
I believe that this is significant oecause cur Acminxst. a tor Jim
Daniels mentione-* that some city council memoera -«re a littxe
Skeptical when he first started to explain tnis grassrxots support
effort.
-1In addition, my discussion witi Congressman SiKorsxi tourr
other important items he is working on in Congress. it -»«3
informative thirty minutes and you may wisn to wetcn it
Channel 21.
jjf you have any questions, you can ca.kl Jifi Daniels at tn«
Coasission office (474-5539) and I'm .sure ne will help you.
C SI u i ^
Pr ■-f vrf ;,,vr.
Sincerely,
A ?
E^rbara Brancel, Chair
illW-
Minnetonka Cable Coo.municat xona
fyy-m
I BB/oi
1ommission
i-=-
pj'S ■
rsf.:
k-'..
|:fl
iw # «>Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission443 OAK STREET • EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331 *(612)474 5539
April 29, 1992
■ >’
Mayor Barbara Peterson
City Council Members
City of Orono
Box G€
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members:
Enclosed you wxll find a copy of the txnal "revised"^ Ducae*- r -:
Each year the Lake Minnetonlca Cable Commun xcations Commi:x3xon creates
and subnxts a budget for tne upcoming year, using protectee income
figures calculated from a Triax Cabievxsicn report. When tne actual
Check is finally received, an appointed com.mittee or
Coaaisssion prepares this "revised" and final budget.
tne Caoie
As the original budget was approved last fall (190i;, t.nis latest
cospilation of actual dollars received, will not require any furtner
City Council action. You may, however, notice tnat tne Caoie
COBSission has taken special effort to invest the additional coxiars
in permanent items that will improve the effectiveness of our ;ffxce.
The Cable Commission has recently enjoyed some very positive results
lP9g4iX*ding local programming. the enforcement or tranchise
Stipulations in the best interest of suoscribers, ana organising
to influence cable related action in Congress.
Vour City Council resolut-w. ..egarding legislation in Congress. is a
clear demonstration of success. Congressman Gerry SikorsK-. has
visited our office/studio, to personally meet with us ana commit to
upcoming Isgislation regarding cable subscribers in our fourteen city
eros.
four input ia always appreciated. and we acknowledge vour
continued excellent representation on the Lake Minnetonka
Communications Commisaion.
city's
<'aoie
Sinomrely
iarbsra Branca
Lake Minnetoi.ka Cable Communications Commission
BB/cl
s,:r
-4 tfifairilfriitfii
- -.r -
.' jir' W
%;
i# .sS;i, '
te%
i .i-^. t
.►■-
■■■•' t
': r ''-!?3( ■ '.,■
\ •
i. ■. M
F ’ “’ ■
' ■ ' i
'•' ■:•-4^ . _
sWIft""
ff
■vi^e
■ ? ti
ill Hi « #
5
V. '■'-;5 • « * *
# # # # #
F;
»-■*'.
W)Fy...-.
;
;>■'
?^.;-
'-1^^
* #
# * «
# HI * 4»
# • * « *
../•.’-•jm -A
'S»
V
1; ;^ '/f V'
■b.
* >
'rtiSi
•*H •1992 REVISED FINAL BUDGET (APPROVED 4/21/92)
HI
H^ #
g£E<;.iA.i« FyMs
1992 CHANGE IN 1992
APPROVED BUDGET REVISED
BUDGET (♦ or - )BUDGET
INCOME
Franchise Fees 102040.00 ♦ 10009,00 112849.00
Interest 5000.00 0.0 0 5000.00
Carryover 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other 0 0.00 0.00
eemmmm «m» mm mm mm mm mm sssssssss
TOTALS 107040.00 * 10809.00 117849.00
OPERATING EXPENSES
Administrator 35000.00 0.00 35000.00
Access Staff 28200.00 0.00 28200.00
Secretarial Services 550.50 0.00 558.50
Payroll Taxes 7560.00 0.00 75b0.00
Employee Travel Expense 997.50 * 502.50 1500.00
Health Insurance 3024.00 * 776.00 3300.00
Legal Fees 2000.00 0.0 0 . 00
Insurance/Bonds 4300.00 0.00 4300.00
LMCCC Audit 950.00 0.00 950.00
Conference Schools 6300.00 0.00 6300.00
Office Supplies 2100.00 0 . uO 2 i. '.'0.00
Membership Dues 1000.00 0 . ()0 1000.00
Telephone 1750.00 . . 00 i 7 5'J . '50
Postage 12C0.00 0,00 1200.00
Miscellaneous 450.00 ♦ 450.00 90'5.00
Advertising/Promo 7 50.00 0.00 75'. . 00
Office Equipment 11/ A N/A N/A
Office Space 7500.00 0.00 7500.00
Eqp Maintenance/Repair 1000 . »)0 0.00 lOOu.00
mm M ^ mm a^mm mm mt mm mm asi mm mm ^ mm mm mm mm mm eis« me «e* * mm mwi mil s=sr2srss
TOTALS 104P40.00 ♦ 1‘’2^.50 10 6 3 b S.50
Capital Funds 0.00 ♦i . 47 1.47
Tape Stock 0.00 e 1236.70 1236.70
Technical Audit 5u0.00 u . 00 500.00
Finanacial Audit-Triax S'iO . 00 0.00 500.00
Studio Equipment luO.OU 0 . O'J i'jO . 00
Legal Fund 100.00 0.00 100.00
Office Equipment 1000.00 ♦4000.00 5000.00
Access Equipment 100.00 0.00 100.00
Access Development 100.00 e 1880.50 1980.50
Contingency 0.00
3SSS2223S
e 1901.03
SZSS322SS
l9ol.83
srsss3ssa
TOTALS 2400.00 •a 9080.50 11480.50
BUDGET TOTAL 107040.00 10009.00 117849.00
Hor« Visibility in Comaunity and City Councils
Cofliaiaaxon Approved Change for Insurance Coverage
Copy Machine Replacement and Fax Machine
New Sfudio Back-drops. Set Changes and Newsletter
Moving Office and Studio in
•J
V. ^- -Xili,Jk.^...u.
r 4-^‘f-; ■• • U>^ At.•<•-rf . -14 « A t k s...'V*,ir »'ik .V . **,iit i'^--
s r r* r *. - - • i. > • ■ r' - v . —;
v^-' —jt'. .-••
4.i^ , j' : s*. .
44.V ••
fcjf-:'. . ■>•
^ r *■ » .a-L ^ w. a. ^- — - ■ A ^ .' a _ w ‘ ■ A _•• - . •
U^O^jfeXAprll 27,
'-V-,*'* *
TO I
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
A ■•■
1992
• • 4|
-A -4--«■■,! K.
' ' -M. .
i- •■•.I'.'*' ,^',V ■'
5:
/ •• a*r..
.^’fin V^)'V /,-n •. ■ ''r ;
■ vvt. ..,.
. . .,
-p -9 ■ -
• ■• > ’
LMCD Member Cities, Participating Agencies,
LMCD Board Member Participants
FROM:
“SUBJECT:
Environment Committee Chair JoEilen Hurr *.
•>tt,Organizational Meeting of Cities, Agencies
Involved and Lake Minnetonka's Environment
• •» “iiV -At-
The Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka Identifies a number
of objectives relating to environmental concerns. The
various policies and objectives are detailed in the
environmental Protection and Management chapter starting on
page 45.
All agencies have now been provided copies of the Management
Plan, although not all individuals within an agency. We ask
^|lQ09 individuals who do not have a Management Plan in their
possession to secure a copy from the department which has it.
Our office can assist in identifying those departments.
fe-The enclosed agenda outlines the forecast and
responsibilities detailed for the years ahead to January,
1994. While that seems quite distant, preparing the data
called for entails early preparation.
Please plan to be represented by a person you or your
ogency/city would designate if you will not be the person to
participate. Your telephoned advice as to that person is
requested by telephone to Joan Mansk, LMCD, 473~7033, by
Friday, Hay 6.
Ei':;
Thank you for reserving this date.
.4 • •
... .
^ y\'' -i • ^
r ft A
V«v
x:
Ml •*
^■Ti
-mm Sf.
~ s^,7
- • ‘-•i
f .<m
^ %
j- W.1 H-4«»e .>i4>a
‘St
a
. .
» «». ,t ■
*. -4r.:m
t. •■
APR
■j& ■ i' ;d£i •iqp‘-r. y^-
2 3 1332
■* .':<r
*•4 •■>C-
■%: • j*
5sr»^-
4-
r- r.jJS
k
T! •
L
fc
r
IS
r-.
rte -
1^' ■■'
M:.
|i
ft''-:
f!*3^''i»"'
; ; S-T;
■
m,-
cVH :■
m^'-r.
Wii
•*'i.-T- /
m'-^ '
•F‘> .
S'■■
•:
m : ! ’■ .■
m^:
'""v‘
V..'
X.
W^-■i*
t'-: -u
r ■’■'C
'V;¥
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
d.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Environment Committee
AGENDA
8:30 am, Tuesday, May 12, 1992
City of Wayzata Council Chambers
600 Rice St., (1 bl. so. of Wayzata Blvd. at Broadway)
Vfelcome and introductions, Committee Chair joEllen Hurr
Review of LMCD Management Plan objectives, considering
implementation target dates through Janua -
Objective;
* Expand city programs for managing
existing on-site septic systems.
* Program for placement, servicing of
trash containers at public accesses.
* Establish benchmark water quality
assessment criteria & standards for
surface waters tributary to the lake.
* Complete independent evaluation of
LMCD's Eurasian water milfoil
harvesting i control program.
* Reduce or tie up phosphorus in
sediments of lake areas where needed
to prevent reuse in aquatic vegeta
tive growth cycle.
* Complete comprehensive survey of all
wetlands in shoreland zones.
* Agencies that own or control land in
shoreland zones are to establish
criteria to manage runoff consistent
with 509 plan & DNR standards.
* Complete, adopt local water management
plans consistent with MCWD's 509 Plan
Progress report on MN DNR Shoreland ordinance adoption
BQiong 14 meifib#r Lake Minnetonka cities.
Litter control, expanding controls over exposed styrofoam
floating docks, other litter concerns.
Assessment of chemicals, including ethylene glycol,
being dispo'^ed of in lake waters.
Review of working sub-committees to address
implementation objectives and current environment issues.
Additional business.
Meeting schedule, next meeting date, adjournment.
Lead Target
Acency:Date:
Cities Ongoing
1992
Cities Nov 92
MCWD
LMCD Jan 93
LMCD Jan 93
MCWD Ongoing
after
Jan 93
MCWD Nov 93
DNR,
HCD, i
MCWD
Jan 94
Cities,
MCWD
Jan 94
LMCO(MVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
V
l-R
Jfoill«n L. Hurr
930 Partenwood Rd
Long Uke MN 55356
"i'r.
y ' •„ j....
Ooug Babcock
4400 Vast Arm Rd #230
Spring Park MN 55384
:'/i'
Scoct Carlaon
4605 Marrywood Lane
Excalaior MN 55331
jriiaa Grathwol
216 Water St
Ixcelalor MN 55331
I Gaorga Owen
900 Smithtown Ter
Bxcelaior MN 55331
i;'1'
Tom Penn
4270 Circle Rd
tonka Bay MN 55331
Robert Raecop
^4560 Enchanted Point
Mound MN 55364
!*'
O* -
l^vld Cochran
4640 Llnwood Circle
Excalaior MN 55331
tlugene R. Strowmen
L.M.C.D.
900 E Wayrata Blvd #160
Wayrata MN 55391
i 4-26-92
Joel Settles
Henn. Conservation Dlst.
12450 Wayzata Blvd #205
Minnetonka MN 55343
14 LMCD Municipalities
Dan Kane, Manager
Carver Soil.Wtr Cons DisL
219 E Frontage Rd
Waconia MN 55387
Frank Kelly
351 Second St
Excelsior MN 55331
Doug Bryant, Supt
Hennepin Parks
12615 Co Rd 9
Plymouth MN 55441-1248
Ron Quanbeck
M.C.W.D.
P 0 Box 387
Wayzata MN 55391
Tim Scherkenbacher, Dlv.Dlr.
MN P.C.A.
520 Lafayette Rd
St Paul MN 55155
Ron Harnack, Ex Dir
Bd Water & Soil Resources
155 S Wabasha St f7l04
St Paul MN 55107
John Line Stine
DNR Regional Hydrologist
1200 Warner Rd
St Paul MN 55106
Dr. Richard S. Hanson
Gray Freshwater Bio.Inst.
P 0 Box 100
Navarre, MN 55392
James Uttley, Sr.Planner
Metro Council
230 E Fifth St
St Paul MN 55101
Dick Osgood
Freshwater Foundation
725 County Road 6
Wayzata MN 55391
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE '^60 • WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 • TELEHONE 61Z'473T033
EUGENE R. STROMMEN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
April 28, 1992
u
'T
Ci .
i;
Sit;'
it T
David H. Coctwan. Chair
Qraamraod
Tom flaaaa. Vica Chair
Mound
Oouglaa E. Babcock. Sacretary
Spring Park
J. P. BoawinMI. Traasuror
Mkwtatonka Beach
SoonCarlaon
MinnatrWa
AfeOft (Bart)Fo*ter
Dacphavar.
Jamas N. Oraihwoi
Excelsior
JoElen L. Hurr
Orono
VWMam A. Johnstone
Minnelonka
OuanaMarfcus
Wayzata
Qaorga C. Owm
Victoria
Tom Penn
Tonka Bay
RobeitRaacop
Shorewood
Robert E. Slocum
Woodland1^'' ■
ItV'-
■••'.rrT •J'u/' •
*1 ’
.:A'-m:.
■X- t‘
# p ' • a >
i'V--^wV7
f t ' ■"
Lr:ilW#
Mr. Steven A. Banker
IN Bass Tournaments of MN
RR 2 Box 100
Rockford, MN 55373
Dear Mr. Banker:
The LMCD has approved the Special Event application
for the IN Bass Tournaments of MN. Bass Fishing
Tournament on June 28, 1992. with ease-off and weigh-
in at the North Shore Drive Marina on Maxwell Bay.
The Special Event License is granted subject to the
following stipulations:
1 .Permit requirements of the Sheriff s Water Patrol,
the City of Orono, Hennepin Parks and the DNR
Fisheries must be raet .
2. Use of starting guns or bull horns is not
permitted.
3. Participants must be notified that*.
> A • V tt *prior to launching in Lake Minnetonka,
watercraft that have been in waters known to be
infested with zebra mussel, which includes the
Mississippi. St. Croix, and St. Louis Rivers,
and St. Louis Bay of Lake Superior must have
been thoroughly dried or washed-down with hot
water at least 140 degrees, inside and out.
when leaving Lake Minnetonka, all lake
weeds must be cleaned from watercraft,
including wet wells and internal areas,
bait/tackle containers, and external areas
including trailers.
4 .Participants must be notified that they are
required to comply with applicable LMCD boating
ordinances, copy enclosed. Of particular
importance re regulations limiting watercraft
speed to 4 . and noise to 82 dbA.
5.All temporary signs for the event visible from the
lake must be removed within 24 hours after the
event. All signs must comply with city
ordinances.
<c. .A. ...I Jr..
k-. •I V
■feK's;iri •
Ip’vW ■■mrmm,v
•fe.
tt.
W
0k
W -to#-
<.‘kptiiv
Ilf'-0&
M--:
H#
k^mkk<
■
B^i:
. •: . rf ' •,, 4^1^
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
In Bass Tournaments of MN. 4/28/92, Pige 2
6 .Deposit refund is subject to:
a. Compliance with the above stipulations.
b. The completed LMCD Special Event Report, form
provided, being submitted by July 13, 1992.
c. A copy of the DNR tournament fishing
report being submitted by July 13, 1992.
d. A copy of the DNR permit being submitted
prior to the event.
In support of recently adop .. State legislation
prohibiting the launching ot watercraft with Eurasian
water milfoil and other water-transmitted harmful
exotic species identified by the Commissioner of
Natural Resources, the LMCD requires the stipulation
described under item 3. Because the stipulations
described under item 3 are not included in your 1992
tournament rules, we are enclosing a sample form to
use in notifying all participants of the extra
precautions required to ensure that transport of
exotics into and out of Lake Minnetonka does not
occur.
This form must be sent to all participants to sign and
return to tournament directors prior to the time the
boat is put into the water as verification chat they
are aware of these requirements. Without this
verification, the application should be considered
incomplete. Prior to the event, please submit
evidence that all participants have returned this
form.
Your cooperation in our "Save the Lake" program is
appreciated. Best wishes for a successful ev^^nt.
Sincerely,
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Administrative Technician
end: application. Event Report, summer rules, LMCD
Special Requirements form
c/enc: Sheriff's Water^atrol
City of Orono*'^
DNR Fisheries
IN Bass Tournaments. Plattsmouth.
J. Hurr; B. Foster. Lake L'se Chair
NE
^ •
t y.-
>5 ‘1 '
M.MAR 2 61992
It ‘ LM.C.O.k •
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
LMCD Fee f ^'/ 7_ _ _ _ _
OPEN WATER FISHING
SPECIAL EVENT
(for LMCD use)
Because this form is I
to be copied, please !
use black ink or type.!
1$.'
IP"
‘S' ■
pte*-
te A.
fo!7.
>iSi.'’ '
- - J
!f ;' .
0m-:
^ ■*
■
" ■
f'S'-.
i
mf-
pj-
m->0r: \i
P-
^0"
fm
'ii ■
!>■;..
i^v:'
>-v
■y^
OPEN WATER
PISHING CONTEST/TOURNAMENT
APPLICATION: SPECIAL EVENT LICENSE
In Bass Tournaments of MN
(Name of applicant)
_____2502 Murray Road, Beaver Lake Plattsmouth NE_(iRQ.4E
(Address)
ifti?) 477-4R21
(Phone number)
Steven A, Banker
(Responsible party, if different from applicant)
RR 2 Box 100 Rockford MN 55373
62B-5726
(Phone number)
If no answer, call
(Address)
1. Describe event
Take Area(s) All areas accessible by LMCD Number(s) (see map)
------------ boat
All
2. Point of access (note on enclosed map) Public &_Private—L^unghgs
3. Event data - attach additional sheets if necessary:
a) Date(s) June 28, 1992 ___________________________—----------------
b) Time of dav 6:00 am to 3:00 pm
c) Participant's entry fee: $ 150.00
weiah-in to follow
d) Total prizes to be awarded $ 100% of entry fees
e) Location: Fa.a>Qff North Shore Driv e Marina------
Weigh-In North Shore Drive Marina
f) Estimated number of watercraft 100 estimate
g) Estimated number of participants (persons)-----200 estima_^
h) What parking provisions are arranged on land through the affected city?
Private parking 3t North Shore Driv e Marina*
1) Hou are event .uperylsnrs identXfted.. - In .Bass staff will hflve shirts
and hats to identify them
- r**'
Pt0‘-
j) If event Is for a touriyincut or contest, rules must be attached.
ine (V )•Check so indicating
"■' Sr ■>S ■ >*’
«•
1'ri
-
1^.
h:'
my:
^■^v
Di .
m
S*i
Ei®.
W^':
mm:,m.iw-
/•x'lfeV;
«:■
ii - -
‘-:l-
ft; 4^iSr
fl ■life
m-mm:%
#■
ii^b^r3^-
-yy
life'
It®’
if:® lim,
*?5.4^5K'-
wm
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Open Water Fishing Contest
Special Event License Application
Page 2 ----
In Bass Tournament
(Event)
4. Will temporary buoys be used to (a) delineate your area of operation, and/or
(b) determine points of Lake access?_no If so, enclose a site plan with
buoy locations indicated. Removal of markers is mandatory immediately upon
event conclusion.
5. Describe effect on Lake water quality None
6. Describe litter control our staff will ensure weigh-in area is cleanec
7. Will any portion of this event be conducted on shore? _ _ _ _ _yes_ _ _ _ If go,
describe weigh-in at North Shore Marina
8. Are any additional Lake~orlented activities planned in conjunction with this
event?If so, please specify
9. Describe any safety or navigational hazard; None
10.Describe other safety provisions that are being arranged: Qur Safety/Check
Boat will patrol waters during Tournament
11* Will oivent require Water Patrol, city, or other enforcement supervision? nn
If so, describe:
12. Will event create additional noise on the Lake? y^ct If so, describe
more boats earlier in a.m. Bullhorn used at weigh-in site in
afternoon.
13. Will event restrict general public use beyc .d special event area? no If so.
describe:
14. Is event open to the pttblic? No - must be pre-reqis tered_________
15. Describe how time or place of event will affect Intensity of Lake use:
Weigh-in site may be congested, but we will do our utmost to keep
traffic flow smooth and safe.
16. Public liability Insurance: Coverage $ 1,000,000.00
Company Scottsdale Itisu t .incc Co.'npany
■ -■' ■ ■ ,^‘^x ■•■_= ' •■SiJ»:
.7.' •■ '■I/- *
4 » »
itt
rS''
■ i.-t'^
fr:« . 'J:,;:WJ - Mfe7V':i?
.i -im-^\-iP'. -
«
7!;;
* »'• '..p. ..IK-S,
K&
fy -iUy.
;,v^
vl-'' •,<>.
Vv
10
'} > 7h|v..'
^i|'« ;':fl0. .:■
r^f-c ■■ .
m-r- vvr
PSl -
1;-' >
tK
'5«s: -4i:
S ' :■'<.?'
7V.;
ffiii
m.
. -'v:-
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Open Water Fishing Contest
Special Event License Application _ _
Page 3
In Bass Tournament
(Event )
17.
18.
19.
20.
All watercraft must have current Minnesota registrations, or appropriate
out-of-state licenses as required.
Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol requires your application. A copy is
enclosed. jo(
Other agencies m^y also require your applications and their approvals, such as
MN DNR (772-7950), city/cities, and Hennepin Fark.® (Guest Services, 559-6720).
FEES. Please note; this fee is for processing of the application and does not
entitle the applicant to a licen*- or refund.
/ ;
BASE FEE, includes events up to 4 days. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ \1 0 Oy
_ _ _ _ days over 4 (? SlO/day. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sub Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^- - - - - -
LATE PENALTY, applies to NEW events submitted less than 60 days
prior to the event, and applies to RENEWALS submitted less
than 90 days prior to the event. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^ ® ®
PLUS
LICENSE DEPOSIT, refundable, depending upon full compliance with the
LMCD Code and extent of administrative, inspection and legal ,\
j -j ......’(*(100.'service required. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —^
TOTAL FEE ATTACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^ 2QQ .
I certify that the information provided herein and the atcacl.ments hereco are true
and correct. t understand that any license granted may be revoked by the District
for violation of the LMCD Code. I agree to reimburse the District for any
advertising-sign removal, legal, inspection, maintenance or other expenses Incurred
by the District in excess of the amount of deposit. I consent to permitting o icers
and agents of the District at all reasonable times to investigate and to determine
whether or not the Code of the District is being complied with.
Authorized signature
Date 3/23/92 Title MN Director. In-Bass Tournamen
Please return this application
and attachments to: —L-.-.Xake Minnetonka Conservation District
900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Suite IbO -
Wavzata, Minnesota 5539(
I 4 1 ' LT ■
liT"'Phone: (612) ^73'/OJ3
' 12/91
»y is
uch as
6720),
does not
(l 0 0
10 0
'X
( 10 0 J
200
are true
District
for any
incurred
officers
determine
rournamen
’.1*1 5^'
r DEPARTMENT OF (MMOESOTT^NATURAL RESOURCES
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Complete all information requested below and sign.
2. Submit a copy of the Tournament Rules with this application.
3. The Number of Toumvuncnt Boats shall not exceed jne boat for each ten acres of water.
lournaaent Naae Countylies)
J CAAJtA
Nas« of Peroitteo (PRINT or TYPE)Tclfipfione Mutaber (include Area Code)
Address of Persittse (Ho. 6 Street. RFD, 9o* N<^ City. State, Zip Code)
^ 3oy /oo /h,U sy373
Naas of Sponsor (Organization, Firs or Individual)
Hast of Tournaatnt Maters and acres:
lAkt \^iboac^is
list Public Accesses to be used:
fyl/AitBLi ACC£Sf^
Fish Species Eligible: ^
3 SmALi- /:>aSS
Will Tournament include catch and release provisions?
list Heigh-in Stations:
*yf Yes □ No
1st. Ho. of Entrants I TOURNAMENT OATES (Oav-Honth-Tear DAILY FISHING HOURS COMPETITION
/<?£> 'ftuMS FROM:
!5vfJK N f^KUtjLA/:
Signatu^^of Permittee
m
>
iI'
■o';
Jr
;v.^
#
I
■T^‘ '■
(Ir':
pv O .'
■
II’
#■!.V^
‘i-;
fe,
‘•k
U’-’
sJ’-:
ll
?/
1*1-?
::h ■
P
hi
rh-': .I
•
l.y-
s.’
S'"’
h
I
rii < \ X w
s'. ^ |D
ORDINANCE NO.
an o *;dinance relating to the
STORAGE OF LAKE M/UNTENANCE
EQUIPMENT ON LAKE mNNETONKA,
AMENDING LMCD CODE
SECTION 2.03, SUBDIVISION 8
The Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Ordains
that the LMCD Code of Ordinances, Section 2.03, Subd. 8, be amended as follows;
Subd. 8. Specification of Boat Storage Units.
a) Specification of Boat Storage Units. At the time of the issuance of a
license pursuant to tliis section, all authorized Boat Stoirag'e Units at the licensed
facility will be specified by number on a copy of the dock or mooring area plan for
the facility.
b) Storage Rule . No watercraft may be kept , stored, tied or moored except
at the location of a Boat Storage Unit designated as such on a current license issued
pursuant to this section, and no facilities requiring a license under this Section may
be used to keep, store, tie or moor a greater number of v.'atercraft than the total
number of designated Boat Storage Units for that facility.
c) Special Rule for Transient Facilities. At tne time of the issuance of a
license pursuant to this Section for transient use facilities or portions of facilities
designated for transient use, the Buard shall specify the extent to which such
faciliti s or portions of facilities are subject to the requirements of subparagraph c)
above. If the Board does not so specify, the following rule chall apply to transient
facilities or portions of facilities designated for transient use : No watercraft may be
kept, stored, tied or moored except at the location of a Boat Storage Unit designated
as such on a current license issued pursuant to this section; however, more than one
watercreift may be tied or docked at a Boat Storage Unit, on a transient basis only,
provided such use of the facilities do not represent a hazard to navigation or to the
safety of the public or persons using such facilities.
d) Special Rule for Storage of Lake Maintenance Equrpment. Maintenance
equipment such as “barges , weed harvesting machines, lake dredging machines, and
the like, may temporarily be moored or stored in unlicensed locations. in the vicinity
of the work site for the equipment, subject to the following limitations;
1) Equipment may not be located at any one site, as defined in
Section 1.02, for more than two business days before and two business days
after work is done in the vicinity of that
2)^ Equipment MAY be stored v4thjn-a-doe^k uoo arofiH A&-def-H>e4
ir^ Soexk-a-l-iOg-r-aad may only ' bo stored ^vith the permission of ♦^he owner of
the ADJACENT cites.
^ If, at any time, the storage of such equipment Is deemed by the
Sheriff to be a hazard to navi^^.t^on ji threat to tho pu b lic safety, the
a.L286?f
LXllO-4
HPK Ito ' :<c, i4 v >.-rH,t.H
i-
f'
|p^-'
r ■ ■"
IpI' .
Si?--'
■
jii-'
fefev ■
iilr.'Fv
tel
fcW'-IIE:-' ^0a
If?
tern* ■
mx ■ ' i«.hi-
Sheriff may order the owner thereof to movo the equipment to an approTJviate
location. Failure to comply with any such order ig a misdemeanor.
This ordinance is in effect the day following its publication .
Adopted by the LMCD Board of Directors this day of
1992.
David Cochran, Chairman
ATTEST:
Douglas E. Babcock, Secretary
te-pt.wm:
m •Ip?
I as?'.;
If.a;
pi.."
iwMm. -P-.f:
ill..
p' ■
..'V?Iflvf-I .ii'-.'01X38676
uato-4
s X33tlJLS
■iiii <:
2SSPep^‘
T '
V ; "-:::'S
■ ■ ■: :.>