Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01-22-1990 Council Packet
AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 1990, 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Discussion will be held upon request. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet which may be obtained upon request from the Recorder. COOJICIL MEETING 1.CONSENT AGENDA*JAN 2 2 1990 APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. Regular Meeting of January 8, 1990 OiTV ()y LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT - JoEllen Hurr Rep. 3.L.M.C.D. Comprehensive Plan Drafts PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ••APPLICANTS**Immediately after the Council has reviewed your application please sign the three (3) original resolutions at the Recorder's desk. Applicants need not execute resolutions for subdivisions and vacations. * * 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. #1452 Walter Pemberton, 1720 Shadywood Road - Variance #1468 George Pillsbury, 1300 Bracketts Point Road - Variances/Conditional Use Permit #1469 City of Orono, Intersection of North Arm Lane and County Road 151 - Conditional Use Permit #1479 Doug Wi11iams/Lecy Construction, 1020 Tonkawa Road - Variance - Resolution #1484 Roxanne Stasik, 4470 Forest Lake Landing - Variance - Resolution Zoning Ordinance Amendment “ Highway 12 Special Requirements ENGINEER'S REPORT 10.Sewer Interceptor Feasibility Study MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 11.Navarre Area City Facilities New State Well Drilling Regulations Highway 12 Frontage Roads City Recorder City LOGO Highway 12 Corridor Selection Study Stubbs Bay Sewer Meeting 1990 Legislative Policies Senior Citizen Deferment - Reapplication From 80-1 Project Resolutions Employment Full Time and Part Time Police Officers Seasonal Weight Limits - Resolution 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. s AGENDA FOR CODNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 1990, 7:00 P.M. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Continued * 23. Administrator's Information Section 125 Highway 12 Well/Water Service Progress 1972 Shadywood Road Recycling Program Publicity K-9 Name Contest Financial Health Profile CITY ATTORNEY'S REPOR*r LICENSES (24*) BILLS (25*) ADJOURNMENT UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 01/22 01/30 02/12 02/19 02/20 02/26 02/27 Council Meeting Stubbs Bay Sewer Area Meeting Council Holiday - President's Day Planning Commission Meeting Council Precinct Caucus Day 7:30 p.m. . PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO Cil^lClL M / MEETING DATE /'aa/Qb I PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) ,->V 2.A J^j^/i^/O //aPjr 1 i '• 2 c ' TTvsW u "?f < .. 4. ^ ^ 1 '/ U V,'tv. 5 . DiCVl(hI'v\ l: II If n^iuiUn'il* T 6. 7. 8. 9. .0. .1. ,2. • 3. 4. • .5. 6 • 7. • 8. 9. 0. ll 11690.3 COUNCIL MEETING TO: Mayor and City Council PROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: January 12, 1990 SUBJECT: Public/Private Roads JA!t22 iS90 CITY OF j Attachment; A. pjTurn Back Memo Dated 12/16/86 dIkI Right-of-way Memo c. City Administrator's Information Dated 5/13/88 Excerpt Public/Private Roads ^ ^10/16/89 Private Road Dated E. Excerpts/Comprehensive Plan F« Ordinance Excerpts G. Criteria for Driveways Roadways (Public/PrivateiH. Private Street Inventory uoxic/t-rivate) convtrVioV o^l,fsTl"n|‘ Jr fvVtJr^roals INTRODUCTION - The City Comprehensive Plan as noi-ori • J“ra^r"ads“f„= DISCUSSION - The concern regarding the orivat-p mpria only in the context of the public/priJatrLpa h,^SeK-li months: include the following over the last six Wayzata Country Club extension Fox Bend — Design Wear Lane/Will extension A. Carlson - Indian Creek Deborah Drive/Speed bumps befo‘rV“the “^tnlhted to solving problems adopted oetore the current ordinances however, even the cur^^^.n^ in JSnf?fct"a.°t°^'’'h'’t"f‘''® noted in Attachment F, a?Jin conflict as to what level there are supposed to be orivate is «^S=r'n ri/h“each°st,ld?viJ’i‘‘JnV" J h 1 i . ik a. ) The width of the paved roads depending on the number served, which can be more easily dealt with as public streets. b. ) The governance of right-of-ways. c. ) Public and private roads right-of-ways as noted on Attachment G. d. ) Maintenance of those roads and the means to enforce maintenance and upkeep. e. ) The speed limits and the ability to enforce traffic regulations. f. ) Ability of city personnel to enter upon those private roads, etc. g. ) The need at subdivision for creation of homeowners associations, the filing of those covenants and other necessary documents there to. h. ) Different homeowner associations on connecting private roads as to maintenance. i. ) The feeling of homeowners that they should be able to do as they please on "their private roads." Attachment B gives a rough indication of some of the problems and places were there are multiple driveways off a common artery but without any street designation. Attachment H represents an inventory of the current number of private roads. CONVERSION TO PUBLIC STREETS - The costs entailed in a conversion are three fold. Capital costs to meet city street standards Ongoing snowplowing maintenance Ongoing street maintenance for patching & sealcoating It is suggested that because of the variation and caliber of the streets being built to standards that varied or did not exist in the past, that a condition for any conversion be that the street be brought up to city street standards and that the cost of analysing that together with the actual cost of fix up and inspections would be borne by the homeowners or their association. Street Plowing and Maintenance - The ongoing street plowing if all the private roads were converted to public streets would entail the addition of one person plus an additonal vehicle for the plowing fleet. This is estimated to have an annual cost of approximately $35,000. It is expected that this additional person would probably not need to be added to staff for a year or two. After 5 or 10 years there would be additional new streets in new subdivisions coming on that may require the addition of a second person. It is estimated that the City's cost of taking over these streets and being able to maintain them would be substantially less than the current individual efforts of the homeowners without calculating in their organizational costs. Seal Coatinq/Patchinq Maintenance - In addition it is estimated that if all the current private streets were taken over publicly that it would be approximately $10,000 in materials per year to maintain them in good condition once they are brought up to city standards. (In fact, those that are brought up will not need such maintenance for 5 to 10 years.) Continuation of Private Streets/Roads — Any conversion program should not require conversion from private to public should the homeowners association desire to maintain it privately themselves should the City choose to allow converstion. Petitioning for Conversion - It is suggested that it require a majority of the homeowner association to have it converted. Where that does not exist, it would require the unamlnous consent of all the property owners abutting that property. Both petitions would require meeting City standards before the City would accept them. Level Of Development - In the case of certain public streets such as Dickey Lake Road a certain number of lots needed to be built prior to the City accepting it. This however, requires the street to have a homeowners association and provide maintenance until that level is achieved. Acceptance after construction of the road would eliminate that need. Financing Of Upgrades - The last question is whether the City is willing to participate in the financing of these upgrades. At the present time it is unknown what impact this would havt and how much would be involved in each upgrade and whether the City would be willing to assess those projects on a pooled basis. The City could establish a revolving fund for such based on bond monies to be approved and assessed back to the property owners. This could entail substantial administrative work but if desired could be undertaken. The City could bond for such projects based on an estimated need and special assessment. Timing of Conversion - Staff would recommend the system where by application for conversions need to be submitted by 1 April of each year to allow an October 1 turnover of that year in advance of the snowplowing season. This would allow time for an analysis and construction of any improvements. Financing of Additiona1 General Fund Costs - The City should within its budget have enough "freedom" to undertake the additional $45,000 per year, particularly in two years when the levy limitations are supposed to be removed. This would translate into an increase of approximately .4% of a persons tax bill to undertake this. Comprehensive Plan Direction - If there is a policy change to allow conversion of private streets to public and that any new subdivisions would have the option of either being public or private when constructed (or the City could require all new subdivision streets to be public) that it would be appropriate that the Comprehensive Plan be amended together with any appropriate amendments to implement that in the zoning and subdivision chapters. This amendment could be done as part of the City review of its Comprehensive Plan amendment in relationship to the transportation and sewer chapters sent out by Metropolitan Council. ALTERNATIVES 1. Further explore the conversion. 2. Table for further discussion. 3. Take no action. 4. Choose not to undertake. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the City undertake a proposal for conversion of private streets to public streets and that staff bring back a proposal based on any further discussion the Council may have. Once a general outline of the plan has been considered this would be submitted as part of the Comp'” chensi ve Plan amendment to the Planning Commission to initiate the necessary amendment. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by _, that the Council direct staff to do further woFk for the proposal of conversion of private streets to public streets. Ayes , Nays . cc; All Department Heads If there is a tha't'any*newii£32^r|%tree'ts to ®He* „g public orgave the option.of could requite re the conversion, ther discussion. wvto City undertake a rr/roloUl ba«\ on any4«‘ ,, plan has amendment to tne cy amendmen . Council , viv » seconded of conversion of3ved by proposal oarther for tne ^ ,ublic streets. aY^ — rtment Heads TO:FROMDATE Mayor and City Council Planning CommissionMark Bernhardson, City AdministratorDecember 16, 1986^JECT; A.B.Private Roads/County Turn Back City Attorney Opinion Dated 12/30/86ISSUE - Presentation of information relative additions to City owned road system.to potential 12J.2CJJSSION - The City has for a number of years, as noted in its Comprehensive Plan, limited the City expenses by utilization of a series of private roads to service new developments. Additionally for a number of years the County has maintained a fairly extensive road system in the City of Orono in relation to the amount of City streets. The following information is provided to give you the scope of possibly upcoming issue over the next three to five years. The present breakdown as follows: - state Highways 3.16 - County Roads 30.09 - City Streets 47.35 MSA - 10.91 Other - 36.44 - Private Roads 8.9 (This could grow by another 8-10 miles at full development under current zoning standards) Private Roads Background Oc>:asiona 1 ly there has been discussion of the City taking over various private roads, however except for certain circumstances suoh as "through roads" (i.e. Countryside (when completed) or Dickey Lake Drive) this has not been done. Public street plowing and maintenance is the one service ail residents receive direct and demonstrable benefit from their taxes on a regular basis - not only from transportation movement and safety but also from the aesthetic appearances of the neighborhood. The City has, in recent years, been upgrading the standards by which private roads are developed together with having some control over activities on these roads. It is anticipated tha*- as persons from higher serviced, more urbanized nommuniti''o tand even areas in Orono) move into the rural areas, there will be an increased demand for service in exchange for their "high taxes". While the overall Orono taxes would increase, it is probably a considerable cost savings to these residents to have the City do this. (For privacy purposes some may continue to desire the private road at the additional cost.) i 'T’he cost of snowplowing will be relatively higher as there are cul de sacs which are difficult and time consuming to plow. If brought up to standards before turnover, the other maintenance due to low traffic volume should be relatively lower than other local thru streets. The total could increase City mileage by 17- and could possibly require 1-2 additional people at a ninimun. County Roads As you may also be aware there also has been a study done at the State level, starting about three or four years ago, regarding the turn back of certain roads to other levels of government. The State has numerous roads that they do not feel fit the criteria for being State Roads and should be appropriately turned back to Counties. The Counties in turn feel that there are roads that either should be given to the State (such as the Crosstown 62 and County 18) and others that really serve only local community needs. Based on a study done in 1976, Hennepin County has designated the following as ones that they feel should be turned back to Orono. Tonkawa Road - 135 North Arm Drive - 151 Bayside-Fox - 84 South Brown Road - 146 1.76 2.78 4.oa 2.00 In addition it is anticipated that North Shore Drive (County 51) between 15 and 19 may also be turned back to Orono (North Shore Drive - 51 2.5), with possibly the County taking McCully and possibly Old Crystal Bay or Willow. The total mileage of these add up to about 13 miles, which would increase the City's maintenance responsibilities by at least 20%. It is anticipated that this would necessitate the hiring of at least one additional nerson in the Street Department together with the addition of another vehicle for plowing or contract with an outside firm. The current issue is the amount of funding that will come as part of the turnbacks together with the standards to which streets would have co meet prior to turn back. It is anticipated during 1987 some of these issues will be addressed and that action on these may be taken in the '88 Legislature. However, the City apart from being a member of municipal lobbying organizations or having contact with legislators, may have little to say about it. (The City may be able to more efficiently maintain the roads than the County.) RECOMMENDATION: While the impetus for City takeover of these is not “gFe¥t, it is recommended that the City begin discussion of how to address such issues should the demand become demonstrably greater. It is suggested that a more complete analysis of takeover costs be analyzed should this issue be raised together with requiring any turnback to meet standards and the appropriate level of funding for County turnbacks. PI H - J J )L ’PROPOSED MOTION - MO'"?d by seconded by_, to accept staff’s infocnation regarding upcoming road issues and to direct staff to worl; to develop more accurate cost estimates at the point requests for turnbacks are made. Ayes _> Nays _. JI 12 /rrrtQ fffttcpr f TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator,' December 17, 1987 SUBJECT: Private Access Over Public Right-bf-Way Attachment A. Wendy Weihe Letter Dated 12/3/87 B. Or j.io Letter Dated 1/7/88 C. Baldur Park Road Memo Dated 5/19/36 D. Baldur Park Road Memo Dated 8/4/86 E. Graphics of Selected Streets F. Map of Public/Private Streets ISSUE A. Provision of information to Council regarding selected community situations related to access and public streets. B. Determining City policy;, regarding handling of these matters. INTRODUCTI^ON A. Public Right of Way - Parts_Maintained Privately - As noted in the Vttached fet’ters~the situation on Baldur”park has over the years caused problems for the property owners. The situation has been reviewed several times, including a development proposal review in the I970 ’s; a request that the City undertake rip rapping to protect its sewer line in 1987 and this most recent request. The Baldur Park situation of private access on or near public right-of-way however, is not entirely unique. As noted on the maps it applies to the following locations: 7 j - Baldur Park Road - S 1/2 Sec. 8 - Oak Street - S 1/2 Sec. 6 - Lyman Avenue - N 1/2 Sec. 2 - Dakota Avenue - S 1/2 Sec. 26 - Woodhill Road - S 1/2 Sec 2 - Bracketts Point Road - S 1/2 Sec. 11 - Wildnurst Trail - Highview Lane - N 1/2 Sec. 7 B. ■ Public Streets - No Public Right of Way - The reverse of the previous"s’tuation is where "the City maintains the street but has no right-oJ-way or public easement. - Crystal Bay Road - Selected areas on Casco Point Circle and Road - vine Place - Long Lake Boulevard - Elmwood - Grandview - Tonkaview I K.- <!-• !-•>• 'nd City Councilrnhardson, city Administratorlf^' • 17, 1987Access Over Public Right-of-Wayndy weihe Letter Dated 12/3/87 o>o Letter Dated 1/7/88 Idur Park Road Memo Dated 5/la/afi Idur Park Road Memo Dated 8/4/86 sphics of Selected Streets ? of Public/Private Streets^^^•Orrnstiion to Cotinci^i rf r% ^ ^ ^ms .elated to a==eL°“a"„'d puMfr^tc^et”'"""" ty policy, tegardinp handling o£ these matters. ■9£_??hy "_Parts Maintained Privately - As noted over the : Its sewer line innr parjf ei’t...,,.- -L987 and this most recentur park situation of private ‘•>='-«=ut ^r^?■£ol^%„7n^^-iL^^ns-‘-^ *ark Road - s 1/2 Sec. 8 “ S 1/2 Sec. 6 enue - n 1/2 Sec. 2 venue - s 1/2 Sec. 26 Road - S 1/2 Sec 2 s Point Road - s 1/2 Sec. 11 t Trail - Highview Lane - n 1/2 Sec. 7 ;i_N2_Piiblic_Ri2ht of Way - The reverse oF tho P^hriV'ea^s^e^e^ni!^ ”""^^^ Jay Road areas on Casco Point Circle and Road p V? J Boulevard t ^ t W - Birch Lane- Ivy Place- Chippewa- BayviewC. Private to Public - The City does have right-of-way under the niore “f"e<rentIy platted private streets , for road and utility easements. In selected cases it has been indicated by the City at the time of subdivision that when it becomes a connecting street the City will take over the private street as a public one and maintain publically. These include:Countryside Drive Devon-Kelly Woodhaven Drive (together with numerous others). The City did take over Dickey Lake Drive under a similar arrangement this past summer when they completed the required work based on a 1984 approval. D. Private — Ho Assoc iation — In addition the City has private street^”vTPfeTe no~homeowners association exists or the entire roadway is not under the associations control as they were platted/developed in advance of current private road regulations. - Jamestown Road - woodhill Road/Edgewood - "Pence Lane" - Hollander - Walters Port E* Ea£i!!!i!li£ " areas where private easements are serving more than two properties but which have no names or formal association. - "Lydiard" Lane (the road off North Fer.ndale where the City has no right-of-way. In this situation the City Council has directed staff to work on correcting it) - "Pink Palace" easement off Shoreline serving 2050 to 2080 Shoreline - The "Homestead" off North Brown - Extension off Fox to the west - Extension east off Spring Hill serving 745 to 765 Spring Hill - 2 Extensions off North Ferndale serving 625 to 763 North Ferndale - Extension off Fox between Willow and Old Crystal Bay Bay serving 2620 to 2650 Fox Street This whole discussion does tie into the City's ongoing concern regarding its streets and transpor.ition program (strategic goal #7) . II ..................Ml >■ I« n r I _ I DISCUSSION - The initial alternatives regarding Baldut Park Road ari“outTined in the letter sent to Ms. Weihe. It is expected that a voluntary association, given the tenor of the neighborhood, will not accomplish the desired objective ’s. It is ..ossible that the City would not even receive a 133% petition. I'he City currently is reviewing its requirement to provide access to certain properties where it has right-of-way. (This becomes a variation on the Slaughter case as to the mandate to provide "legal access" when a building permit has been issued.) ALTERNATIVE - Policy Alternatives - These are outlined in the letter to Ms. WeThe, iTul: in light of the other situations other alternatives may come to light. MEETING ACTION - I. Acceptance of staff information and directing staff to discuss at a future date. 2. Establishment of City direction on the matter based on this information. 3. Table entire matter until future meeting. RECOMMENDATION- It is recommended that the Council initially dTscus‘s'"the i~r concerns related to this item and based on that staff will bring it back for discussion at the February 8, 1988 Council meeting. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council FTavTng discussed the matter table the issue until its February 8, 1988 meeting at which time Council will give staff general direction in relationship to these issues. Ayes _, Nays _. /TrtCtUlleur C.Raldur park Road1 alternatives it is expected.'tter.sent to Ms.^weih^-^ ^ssociation, ^f?psired objectives. .^. accomplish the desired 3 petition.r would not even 5®=®^ provide accessevieuing Its .'f-uay. (This bee®"®?.!.here it h«“'3^'r?he mandate to ptovide ighter case been issued.)building permit has oee : o\tV; a?-a^i-s‘irt\Vna\'’ives „££ information and directing staff to Mon on the matter based on this City direction on C until future meeting. . is recommended that \\«^=°nTba ’sed"‘on that 'p"a^=/nr/uc'u “sa'r- at'the fehruary 8. 1888 d by . seconded by . tbs': m*'ebtu°a'ty 8, Tatted t-ble the issue untU rts^-^ ^^„ral jatip'‘trtSe%‘‘e"'is'sues. Ayes Hays _• I. u ^ number of residents from the Hollander Road area have been "inquiring about the possibility of conversion of their private road to a public street. Staff has indicated that presently the City's direction has been to keep the private streets private, however, that should they desire to convert the street to public that perhaps they should get into contact with the other homeowner associations of private streets to approach the City Council as a group, rather than as individual streets. They have inquired as to whether the fact their street is not a cul-de-sac but more of a circle route, would have any impact on their being differentiated from the others and have a greater possibility of a conversion to a public street. Our indication to them has been at this point is that this would not be a significant factor in any staff recommendation regarding this matter. It was also indicated to them that based on previous discussions by Council in this matter, that should the Council ever consider conversion of private streets to public streets that the private streets would have to brought up to City standards. A preliminary review on the Hollander Road case would indicate that they would have to spend approximately $20,000- 25,000 to meet those standards. “eaTTavl been'^ " * "“"iber of -e „oUa„.„ther homeowner they <3esire to P^^vate‘llty Of a'"'"“«ed “ould ha,e a?®‘. "°t a^cant factor in Point % Vh Our ina,^/®®^®*^’*• " A‘pran„?'«°"3 °wo^/d’'Va*, ««eta"Srp'o^‘'?* =°unc°i“f' »^aVf baVi\r -^»or,a^„'d°e-£ ip° -'If-‘"oae standards! ^PPro,/„,Jff, «« „oul‘d^$20,200^r .-if-v*»k MI'irrA'3J /Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato^V^^October 16» 1989'Subject: Extension of Private or Public RoadAttadnent - , , , «A - Public/Private Roads Memo dated 8/21/89 B - Map of AreaIssue -In relation to an upcoming subdivision determine the level of Council interest to utilize City powers to extend a private road to serve a plat further north. Introduction - Attachment A was transmitted to Council at a time when a subdivision was being reviewed at the Planning Commission and expected to go to the Council. There was no discussion on the matter at the time. The person doing the subdividing has now acquired additional property from the original owner and will be submitting a modified subdivision to the November 20, Planning Commission meeting. Access to this property can either be by an east/west corridor-driveway or a private road outlet to the south. Efforts have been made to limit curb cuts on Old Crystal Bay Road. Directing traffic down to Watertown Road via a street to the rear would be the preferable approach. Discussion - Currently Wear Lane to the south of this property is a cul- de-sac private road over which the City has a road and utility easement. Last year the subdivider approached the original developer of these lots and was quoted a price of $20,000 per lot for access over ‘the private road* (Subsequent to that 3 of the 6 lots on the property have been sold to other parties. They may be more willing to agree to the extension in order to have more people share the coat of maintenance.) As noted in tne attorney's opinion of Attachment A, the City does have some alternatives to be exercised in relation to this extension if that is the direction it desires to go. Alternatives - 1. Direct the subdivider to work with the members of the Homeowners' Association to see if an extension is agreeable. 2. Allow a person to extend the private road onto their from the existing cul-de-sac and allow passage overproperty f: it through the following: s Orono council n. Bornharason, City Bdministratof,r 16, 1989'ion of private or Public Road'Private Roads Memo dated 9/21/89 Area„ to an upcoming subdivision determine tb.^level•rest to utilize city p 'plat further north. n R was transmitted "llaniinf C^mSirsion'SnS „ being \\ere was no di3-=«*i°"^°2 to thi*s P°oP«*^a'“t®ot ‘’tS fforts have *»«®“aim to Watertown Road ’ttr wt”ld be’ th?preferabl. approach. Y Wear Lane to the las* abroad' a^nd “nilihP ||t'7eartle“ soldiV ider approach.^ I^the Vrivrte P«tiM- ’ 'f°|*/o ‘lg«''e*M ?he’«tension in il "the « Her\\%*sri*n leVatfo-n ^^t^is extension if JiScSLnt desires to go. ; ff-tL iugh the following: Extension of Private or Public Road October 16p 1989 Page 2 of 2A) Amendment of the City's street ordinance as suggested in the attorney's opinion,B) Exercise of its road and utility easement to allow such passage without taking it over. In undertaking this route the City would not be involved in the cost for extending the road, removal of the cul-de-sac or on-going maintenance. The issue of who maintains it in this situation, would be the Homeowners' Association of Wear Lane up to at least the cul-de-sac and the property owner to the north maintaining the balance.C) This would make it a public street at least to the cul- de-sac, clarify the City's interest and as noted in the City Attorney's opinion, this would not require the City to compensate the property owner or developer or abutting property owners in any manner for making it public. This however may set a precedent for other private roads in the City. As an alternative, the City may make it a public road that is privately maintained and assessed. 4. Table pending consideration of uhe 5. Indicate that the City is not Interested in any type of extension but its willingness to accept an alternate east/west corridor to serve this property on an on-going basis . Recommendation - It is recommended that the Council would prefer that the owner work with the Homeowners' Association to determine if it can be extended. Failing that it is recommended the City declare it a public street (north/south leg only) and that it be privately maintained with the Homeowners' Association maintaining up to the present cul-de-sac and the new subdivider from there to conclusion of his new cul-de-sac. The cost of the extension being borne by the subdivider plus potential cost of removing the existing cul-de-sac when deemed appropraite for removal. Proposed Motion Moved by seconded by that the Council direct the subdivider to work with the Homeowners' Association to determine if satisfactory arrangements can be made. As an alternative, the City would entertain at making it a public street at no cost to the City for either extension, construction, or on-going maintenance. Ayes ___, nays ___. cc: John Gerhardson, Public Works Director Robert Will ! . 1 8178'. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE:August 21, 1989 SUBJECT: Public/Private Roads Attachment:A. Attorney's Opinion on Public/Private Roads Dated 7/21/89 ISSUE - 1. Presentation to the Council regarding the City's ability to take over private roads. a. By ordinance. b. By specific easement grant. 2. Presentation of information regarding City's ability to extend private roads to serve others without taking them over. 3. Presentation of information regarding the City's ability to enforce on private roads. INTRODUCTION - As a result of a recent issue regarding the City's right to mandate the extension of a private road the attorney developed Attachment A as a means to address the issue. DISCUSSION — As noted in the memos the City has the following abilities should it choose to undertake them in relationship to private roads. 1. Ability to take over private roads as public roads it desires either by: a.) statutory authority or b.) easement. 2. The City can extend a private road into another private property without making it public. 3. The City does have the authority to enforce all traffic laws on private roads. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Discuss as desired. 3. Table for further action. RECOMMENDATION — It is recommended that Council accept the information. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , chat the Council accept the information on tHe public/privaEe roads. Ayes __, Nays i J MEMORANDUM TO:Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator City of Orono FROM: RE: Thomas J. Barrett, city Attorney City of Orono - LF 3643-091 Regulation of the Use of Private Property DATE:July 21, 1989 ISSUE May the City of Orono compel private owners to allow public passage on a private road without making the road public? CONCLUSION The City of Orono probably may compel private owners of a road to open the road for use by the general public under appropriate easements. Further, the City can likely compel such access under M.S.A. S 412.221, subd. 2 as it was interpreted by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Borchert North Oaks, 254 Minn. 32, 117 N.W.2d“396 I X j • DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS May the city of Orono compel private owners to allow * private road without making the roadpublic? A.The City of Orono may compel private owners to allow public passage on a private road by asserting iti- - rights to the platted easement. ^ Under the terms of easements granted it, the City of Orono that it has a right to open the private roads to all homeowners who live on the private road or to all people who could be reasonably expected to use the roads. The. exercising of the easement rights by the City of Orono is consistent with both the Comprehensive Management Plan (hereinafter ’CMP") and the Transportation Plan of the City. The CMP provides that the purpose of the easements is to "ensure legal access of the public to the properties served by the private road." CMP 7-12. The Transportation Plan provides that. [tjhe arrangement of streets shall provide for the continuation of streets between adjacent properties when such continuation is necessary for convenient movement of traffic, effective fire protection, for efficient provision of utilities and where such continuation is in accordance with the City Compre hensive Municipal Plan. City of Orono Municipal Code, S 11.32, subd. iH)(l). Pursuant to the CMP and the Municipal Code, the easements may be utilized by the City to ensure legal access of properties served by the private road. In making its decision to exercise its easement rights, the City may decide that the opening of private roads for use by homeowners in new subdivisions is necessary for the convenient movement of traffic. B.The City of Orono may compel private owners to allow public passage on a private road by exercising its general welfare powers. The Minnesota state Legislature has provided specific powers for city councils. Among its enumerated powers. The Council shall have power to provide for the government and good order of the city, the suppression of vice and immorality, the prevention of crime, the protection of public and private property, the benefit of residents, trade and commerce, and the promotion of health, safety and order, convenience, and the general welfare by such ordinances not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or of this state as it shall deem expedient. M.S.A. S 412.221, Subd. 32 (emphasis added). The welfare powers which are outlined in M.S.A. S 412.221 are to be interpreted broadly so as to sustain municipal activities reasonably related to the needs of the city. Sverkerson v. City of Minneapolis, 204 Minn. 388, 283 N.W. 555, 556 (1939). The Supreme Court of Minnesota has held that the general powers contained in M.S.A. S 412.221 are broad enough to allow a village to regulate traffic and to expend funds to enforce such regulations upon privately-owned roads. Borchert v. Village of -2- . .1 t • North Oaks, 264 Minn. 32, 117 N.W.2d 396 (1962). The court reasoned. This court has heretofore held that a municipal corporation has the power under [M.S.A. S 412.221, subd. 321 to regulate the use of private as well as public property.... [Wjhatever the extent of police power over ordinary private roads which are not freely used by the public, that power must be held to extend to such private roads where they comprise the whole road system of a village...."[The scope of the police power] covers a wide range of subjects, and, while it is especially occupied with whatever affects the peace, security, health, morals and general welfare of the community, it is not limited thereto, but extends to dealing with conditions which exist so as to bring out of them the greatest welfare of the people by promoting public convenience or general prosperity and to everything expedient for the preservation and comfort of the inhabitants of the corporation.... That which may at one time be regarded as not within such power, may, at another time, by reason of changed conditions, be recognized as a legitimate subject for the exercise of the power.' Id. at 400. (citing 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations, S 128). The road system in the Village of North Oaks is somewhat analogous to the road system in the City of Orono. Both cities are unique in that many of the roads contained in the cities are pcivate. The cities only differ in the respect that the underlying easement reverts back to the homeowners in North Oaks but reverts back to the City in Orono. The City of Orono may rely on the reasoning in Borchert to amend its ordinances so that all private roads must be open to homeowners and their invitees who need to use the private roads to get to their property. The City of Orono can then protect the general welfare of the City of Orono's citizens by promoting order and convenience as is it is empowered to do under M.S.A. S 412.221, subd. 32. An opinion of the Attorney General, citing Borchert, held that a city council acting under M.S.A. S 417.221, subd. 32, was empowered to provide snow removal upon a privately-owned street open for use to the general public at the expense of __ abutting homeowners. Op. Atty. Gen. 377a-ll, Sept. 13, 1978. The Attorney General reached this conclusion by resolving the case "upon its own facts, with due regard for the public interest to be served by the city providing the service directly.,* Id. -3- ! • t The City of Orono has already changed the definition of a private road contained in its municipal code. Section 6.01 of the Orono Municipal Code originally read. Subd. 2. "Private Road" means any street or roadway which has not been dedicated to public use or which is not maintained by public funds, but which is open to travel pursuant to an easement between persons or between persons and the City. Private roads are private property except as regulated in this Chapter. City of Orono Municipal Code, S 6.01, subd. 2. ■ On July 25, 1988, the Orono City Council amended the definition of the terra "private road". The new definition is similar to the old definition in all respects, except that the underlined language in the above quoted passage has been deleted. The Orono City Council could again amend S 6.01, subd. 2 to include an addendum sentence which reads, "All private roads must be open to all people who own homes on that road and their invitees and to all people and their invitees who could reasonably be expected to use that road to get to their private residences." ZSRP718 -4- I MEMORANDOM TO:Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator City of Orono FROM: RE: Thomas J. Barrett, City Attorney City of Orono - LF 3643-091 Regulation of the Ose of Private Property DATS:July 21, 1989 ISSUE If a private road is made public, does the City of Orono have the obligation to pay for the road as improved? CONCLUSION There are no Minnesota cases which specifically address this issue. The City of Orono probably will not be required to compensate the private owners if the_road is opened to the general public because no taking or property has occurred. DISCUSSION AN! ANALYSIS If a private road is made public, does the City of Orono have the obligation to pay for the road as improved? No Minnesota cases specifically address the issue of whether or not the city must compensate the owner of a private road if the city opens the road to use by the general public. It may be argued that no compensation is due to the owner of a private road since no taking has occurred. The City of Orono, by opening the private road to the general public, . exercising its power to regulate all roads in its jurisdiction, and acting pursuant to the easement it has been granted. The courts in the State of Minnesota have not addressed this specific issue. There are two cases in Minnesota which provide a clue as to how the courts in the State of Minnesota would lik.ely rule upon this issue. The first case is Borcher_t V. Villaqe of North Oaks, 264 Minn. 32, 117 N.VP.2d 396 in Borchert, the village of North Oaks prescribed maximum speeds a of vehicles dri 'en in the village on any private road. The Supreme Court of Minnesota held that the Village or North Oaks could regulate traffic on private roads in the Village by virtue of the power granted to it under the general welfare clause found in M.S.A S 412.221/ subd. 32. Even though the usurpation of regulation of private roads may be viewed as a taking/ the Supreme Court of Minnesota never addressed this issue in the Borchert case. The second Minnesota case which indicates how the Minnesota courts would likely rule on this issue is Shinneman v. Arago Township/ 288 N.W.2d 239 (Minn. 1980). The Court in Shinneman was*interpreting M.S.A. S 160.06/ subd. 1 which provides; When any road or portion of a road has been u^’Pd and kept in repair and worked for at least six years continuously as a public highway by a road authority/ it shall be deemed dedicated to the public to the width of actual use and be and ren.a’ until lawfully vacated/ a public highway/ whethe:: has ever been established as a highway or not. -.1 M.S.A. S 160.05/ subd. 1. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that in the case in which a city took over a road by utilizing this statute/ the award of damages was not warranted. Section 160.06/ subd. 1 provides no method by which government can take property. The statute/ rather provides a substitute for the common-law creation of highways by prescription or adverse use. Shinneman at 243. The City of Orono/ if challenged on this point, would have to argue that*private land owners should not be compensated for reasonable regulation of their properties.[1] It appears that m "There are not any constitutional objections to imposing the cost of reconstruction as well as original construction upon abutting or adjacent property owners....the grant of power to a municipal corporation to 'pave' its streets and levy assess ments against the benefited property/ unless restricted/ is a continuing authority. The exercise of the power in paving a street does not exhaust, but the same streets may be subsequently repaved at the cost of the specially benefited property under this power." McQuillan/ Municipal Corporations S 38.16. -2- the Minnesota courts would construe the term "reasonable regulation' to include the assertion of a public easement even if this incidentally includes the enjoyment of improvements which were previously made at the expense of private owners. Most easements enforced by a city impinge upon the rights of proper y owners'. However/ not all inconveniences are comper .able/ particularly where the existence of the easement outs ' e property owner on notice that the "private improvements may one day become part of the "public" easement. ZSHP719 -3- -• •.r. •• 1'?^/•• • #• I • ;.^7^:•rv •• % f 1 k‘§ SJ/2 SE/,■B I -ziiAnRix- ' I oo 9 BURLINGTOtf i Oo xh ! cSP *2/0 c*' I 4240 c:3ii^ i i 5000 c —- ■■ -.Jl-.- '*', ■ i■ J; n •^-4-.— "-TJ.:.' i //- 1219 7 6*^ 1229 cSSS’'\..." •mm •*WITC»'TMWN ' /^b;«7«VsS. ilp) 6:s .. f-^ SiiltO:! L.**____■•••_____ To;Froa:Date:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator BernhardsonJeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator July 21, 1989Subject: Criteria/Standards for Driveways^ Roadways (Public & Private)Intent of Meno -At the July 10, 1989 meeting of the Council, staff was asked to review the current policies and ordinances employed by the staff in the process of classifying driveways, private roads and public roads. In addition, staff was asked to review the standards that govern the various levels of improvements for driveways and roadways.Conprehensive Management Plan -Please review Exhibits A, Pages 1 through 7, pertinent sections of the Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) and Section 11.03 (C) of the subdivision chapter that sets forth the written framework of the Transportation Plan of the City. In general, the policy limits the creation of new publically maintained roads in the rural areas, but yet supports the expansion of public roads to serve development in the urban areas of the City. All new developments served by sewer and water sh^ll also be served by public streets. Exceptions to this url policy would be Planned Residential Developments, commerci developments or sensitive lakeshore areas. Because of the topographies and the low densities of Rural development, roads to serve new development are encouraged to be short, dead-end roads connecting to existing City street systems. Joint use of private roads will be perferred over direct access onto public roadways. The CMP defines local streets as public roads, 50 to 60 feet in width and may or may not be dead-ended/with cul-de-sac. A private road is defined as functioning as a local access street, but is limited to serving 10 residential properties. The right- of-way width is limited to 30 to 50 feet and may dead-end. A private driveway is defined as serving 1 or 2 residences with a maximum of 3 residences per driveway in rural areas only. More users would require a private road. „„ council Members “CnT°" ^aministreborxy 21’<S.Lnne •aaras ior oriveweyB’ “iteria/S«a“'»a''^ ivate)va\ic #staff*** 0 1989 meeting priv^a^^^2;‘.*nffi isir. *.”|,a“toSawMs. „ ' 1 *”“'l!Syr»na®‘s\cbion e review Exhibit J,*^enb V,\" icbbb bhe «^Tl, '^a: ?he Transportatxo expaasio*" o^E P . b“rr.b «et{°‘ Tsoi^nft f«ve^envelopment ab^^hiV ur* S°iilopm°ents « ?'::rei4!7|arefo^prnt^, 'ortbVWt^.pb-/,'^ SS .Tra" -HfeVeaa^^^-a« -^wtu IP. Pi Criteria/Standards for Driveways, Roadways (Public & Private)Page 2 of 4Subdivision Regulations -Please review Exhibit B, Pages 1 through 7, sections of the subdivision chapter that governs driveways and roadways, both public and private. Per Section B (2), private roads are reguired at the level of 3 residences. This is in conflict with the Comprehensive Management Plan section that states "in rural areas up to a 3 user level, a private driveway may still be approved". Review Section 11.32, Subdivision 2 (B) - "Permanent cul-de-sac design roads are to be discouraged", another conflict with CMP. The subdivision regulations ask that roadways extend to the boundary lines of the property for the purpose of coordinating future subdivisions with adjacent^ properties. Permanent cul-de-sac roads would only be allowed if there were certain physical conditions preventing a through road or if in the opinion of the City, the extension was not necessary per future road grid system. Review Section 11.32r Subdivision 1 (H) on Page B-6 of your attached exhibits. This section would support the previous section in regard to through road configurations being preferred. A through road may be actually constructed or approved with a temporary cul-de-sac with a road outlet permitted to the edge of the property for future connection. Please review the suggested standards in the subdivision regulations for road construction, both private and public (Exhibit B-7). Per the table in the subdivision regulations, a private road may serve over 7 units. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that any road that serves 10 or more units is at a level requiring public maintenance. Right-of-way widths are shown at 50 feet. The Comprehensive Plan has specified 30 to 50 feet for private roads. Under public streets, the right-of-way width is shown at 50 feet. The Comprehensive Plan refers to 50 to 60 feet widths. Cul-de-sacs are specifically limited to 1,000 feet for public roadways with a maximum number of 10 units.- Corrent Practice/Policy of City - In the past 10 years, the only streets accepted as public roads and for maintenance have been Dickey Lake Drive, a 13-lot rural residential subdivision and the extensions of Livingston and Lyric Avenues in Navarre (Navarro plat). Countryside Drive, a rural subdivision, is also a dedicated roadway and will be maintained by the City as soon as it is a connecting through road with Old Crystal^ Bay Road. Based on current code sections and A. CMP policies. Holly Acres wbuld qualify as public road with a through road configurati^i—and with an excess of 10 units. Based on the directives of the CMP, Planned Residential Developments with more than 10 units such as Hunt Farm, French Creek, Painters Woods, and Sugar Woods may qualify for a private or public road classification. The recent 13 lot Meyer's Dairy (Hilbelink/Vogt) plat provided for a future through road (undeveloped outlets) connection to Woodhaven Drive and to Golden View Drive to the south but the road retained a private road classification. % /Standards for Driveways, Roadways (Public & Private)ion Regulations -ase review Exhibit B, Pages 1 through 7, sections of thep%”iVar/“VaV,^ residences. This is in conflict with rehensiye Management Plan section that states "in rural to a 3 user level, a private driveway may still be . Review Section 11.32, Subdivision 2 (B) - -Permanent^® <5iscouraged", another conflict . The subdivision regulations ask that roadways extend 50undary lines of the property for the purpose of ting future subdivisions with adjacent properties.would only be allowed if there were physical conditions preventing a through road or if in City, the extension was not necessary per >ad grid system. Review Section 11.32, Subdivision 1 (H) B-6 of your attached exhibits. This section would regard to through road tions being preferred. A through road may be actually f temporary cul-de-sac with a road >ermitted to the edge of the property for future ise review the suggested standards in the subdivision Dns for road construction, both private and public ” '• table in the subdivision regulations, a road may serve over 7 units. The Comprehensive Plan Is that any road that serves 10 or more units is at a |uirinq public maintenance. Right-of-way widths are 50 feet. The Comprehensive Plan has specified 30 to 50 streets, the right-of-way ^*'® Comprehensive Plan refers to 50 ®* Cul-de-sacs are specifically limited to 1,000 public roadways with a maximum number of 10 units.- i.ractice/Policy of City - le past 10 years, the only streets accepted as public for maintenance have been Dickey Lake Drive, a 13-lot also a dedicated roadway and will be soon as it is a connecting through road current code sections and qualify as public road with a excess of 10 units. Based of the CMP, Planned Residential Developments than 10 units such as Hunt Farm, French Creek, Painters ‘qualify for a private or public road ^*^® 13 lot Meyer's Dairy (HiIbelink/Vogt) , ^“^“*^®/^**^ough road (undeveloped outlets) i to Woodhaven Drive and to Golden View Drive to the bhe road retained a private road classification. Criteria/Standards for Driveways# Roadways (Public S Private) July 21# 1989 Page 4 of 4 3. 20' flat area for stopping purposes at entrance to public roadway; 4. Sighting distance based on speed limit; 5. Check for drainage/size of culvert if culvert is required. Standards for Private Road Installation - In the past 2 years# a developer has been offered 2 options for the installation of roadways, either the urban section which requires a 28' paved width measured from the inside edge of the curb with bituminous or concrete curbing# or a rural section providing a 24' minimum paved width with 3-6' shoulders. The Sugar Woods and French Creek plats were developed under the urban standards once again at the developers choice. Countryside Drive# Hunt Farm Road# and Luce Line Ridge were developed under the rural standards. Public Road Standards - In recent years, where a public road is to be extended or improved# similar or slightly improved standards have been used. The majority of public roadways in the City do not meet the standards currently set forth in the subdivision regulations at a 28-32' minimum paved width. Public roads in the urban areas of the City are recommended to be constructed per standards for an urban section requiring curb and gutter. Lr 1 I •^QANSPQRTATTQN JUNE, 1980 6.THE CITY WILL PURSUE ADDITIONAL PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE-HIKE TRAIL FACILITIES. The completion of an interconnected bike-hike trail system is important to the further ance of alternative transportation incentives. The City will encourage Hennepin County to speedily Implement the planned bike-hike trail system along several county roads. The separation of bicycle and pedestrian traffic from vehicular traffic is of the utmost importance in accident prevention. 7.THE CITY WILL PROMOTE IMPROVED MASS TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS. Orono has established a Park and Ride Transit System. Orono encourages improved bus scheduling and improved service, especially at off-peak hours. Orono strongly supports the •‘Tonkamobile” program and encourages expansion to provide improved Excelsior-Wayzata service via Orono's North Shore neighborhoods. RURAL TRANSPORTATION POI TCTF!^ PUBLIC STREETS IN THE RURAL AREA WILL BE PRIMARILY LIMITED TO THE EXISTING COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL GRID SYSTEM. The low rural land use density does not require nor can it economically support an extensive public street system. Rural lot arrangements have always been served by the existing grid streets and are capable of subdivision to the planned rural density without requiring additional public street investments. THE RING ROUTE CONCEPT UTILIZES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE THE EXISTING RURAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM. The principal corridor for traffic from Minnetrista and points west utilizes Hennepin County Roads No. 6 and 19 and State Highway 12. The City of Orono has constructed a key link between County Roads 6 and 19. Additional ring route traffic uses the existing north-south collector roads to travel away from the Lake toward these principal travel routes. 3.THE CITY OF ORONO WILL ENCOURAGE ALL NECESSARY ROAD SURFACE AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE AND TO FACILITATE THROUGH TRAFFIC ON THE RING ROUTE. This will include cooperation with the City of Long Lake in accommodating traffic on Highway 12. CMP 7-11 u ■y fi- transportation JUNE, 1 0 0 rs,sss;%» 33S”t“S^ "■“” «e best preserved by short deed-end roads runnin, off the existing street system. The low number of S“lJJl!9ror..Ih road, the dead-end configuration and the scattered road locations make public roadway maintenance excessively costly compared to any public benefit. Therefore, most new rural lots will be directly served by privately owned and maintained roadways. New public streets will be a "through" configuration provides a general public benefit and/or where the number of residences justifies public maintenance expense. vehicle usage. The length of dead-end roads will be limited for public safety purposes. THE CITY WILL GUARANTEE REASONABLE MAINTENANCE LEVELS AND PUB ACCESS ON ALL PRIVATE ROADS. In the process of approving rural subdivisions, the City will acquire underlying public ingress, egress, and access easements over all private roads. These easemen .s will ensure legal access of the public to all properties served by the private road. Development contracts backed by acceptable forms of financial responsibility will assure that all private roads are designed and constructed according to City- approved standards and specifications. The City will further guarantee that all private roads are maintained to reasonable standards at all times through required maintenance agreements and/or homeowner's associations, and that failure of the private group to so maintain their private road will be cause for the City to accomplish needed maintenance and to assess the benefitted properties for the direct cost of such maintenance. CMP 7-12 jxmE, 1)gpr)RTATlQ!i tjotva TE road feeders«UPM. pbsidenti ^ , ,,sh.pr=f rur.1 r.»ia.nPi.l lot.Of rural land use. "® dead-end roads runningare best system. The low »"»®^®^off the existing street sysre configurationd“l!ings on each ro®^'mahe public roadwayand the scattered ^ly compared to anymaintenance ®^®®®®?;^®^Lre m^st new rural lots willpublic benefit. ^^® ® ^.„ately owned and maintaine be directly ®®^^'®f.^J streets will be accepted wher roadways. New provides a general public justifies public ma CONSTRUCTED TO RURAL DESIGN STANDA3 f private rural private road design The City «i^^.^®^“i^t®l^protection and adequate all to ensure ®"^^'°®"'®"rprSperties. The type:rrr.: ro:n»”e*,iL:o Sill v.r, with t- S^.Ioence. to P* “/r.S/tS^^ Sr.d-.n. ro... -iU-rsitir .ai.lv PUtP»»P- „ 1 the city will °'^“hf'™o«.. ot J ™cEis OW »LL "a^itS approving *^“=® J . . egress, and access underlying *te rLds. These easements easements over all P^^^^® public to all will ensure legal private road. Development properties acceptable forms of financialcontracts backed b> accep^ private roads responsibility w _p-pcted according to Ci y are designed Specifications. The City approved standards that all private roads are S?1 further ^tandarL at all times maintained to '®®®®"®^i® „ce agreements and/or through "ops , and that failure of the homeowner's ®®®®®^®^i°ip;ain their private road private group to ®° ®®J.^ to accomplish n®®^®*^^. ^ Sill be cause ^Ssess the benefitted properties “.SfShSTiSert crst^of such maintenance. CMP 7-12 3 HtransportationJUNE, 19808.DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS AND RURAL STREET OR PRIVATE ROAD INTERSECTIONSWILL BE LIMITED FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY. Rural trafficspeed is generally faster than that in urbanneighborhoods requiring greater sight distancesand a lesser number of intersection conflicts forthe same degree of traffic safety. Joint use ofC£^jpefulXy locatied privato roads will genarally opreferred over direct access onto public highwaysfrom separate properties.RURAL TRAILS ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE TOTAL ALTERNATE TRANSFORATION SYSTEM. Rural trails offer access to the Hennepin County Park Reserve Lands from all areas of the City.Rural trails offer horseback riding as well as walking and bicycle opportunities. The City will encourage completion of the planned bike-hike trail system and the private development of rural trails connecting t e public trail system with individual rural properties. The City will continue to restrict ractorized use of trails within Orono as inappropriate to the trail's basic purpose and as incompatible with adjacent residential properties. THE CITY WILL NOT PROMOTE MASS TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR RURAL ORONO. The planned rural land use density cannot economically support public transit services. Existing bus routes pass through the rural area enroute between Long Lake. Wayzata and urban Orono. These routea are sufficient to serve Orono's rural needs and will in fact provide additional rural service as the need for additional urban service increases. No new route locations are necessary as rural residents desiring to use transit services will use the established park and ride locations in Navarre and Wayzata. CMP 7-13 hJUNE, 1980 .snic P«’'''®y/s^int^piurairapplied*by^Orono to those"njeciali? scenic slowThe scenic parkway ^ ^reas and special vrstas,vides access to ffio and commercial traffic S. High volume | these users do not benefit,n scenic nlture of the roadway is notand because the Because of environmentalthrough traffic i^rhigh.r capacityparkways cannot i„ affeoting the naturalarterials without property rights ofquality of topography of the area.Because of the and local access 3 provide some of the ocal and collector streets. COUNTY OR CITY DTH: 50-66 FEET ,i streets etc,p-^-,/,rl'rtr.:»^«rr-fric^ri’tii'n : u:r««rtrLr:^rt'rori:r:y stopping th. locai street CITY '°rE°™D by PUBbIC SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS ;TH will be limited BY .stained • a nrivately owned and privately mainSrruUrfrerorSithin^a^piann.h^-elop.^^^^^ ; U tnrrairtrined to "c^esrU^U f rnte'SU'for Joint anO seueral owner. J ted property owners. ClTt-" HOHEOWhkRS kSSOCIATlOH WITH | y T wrxoHKh«o»s OIH WILl BE LIMITED BY POBLIC SAFE CMP 7-16 *% £ -iMSPORTATION JUNE, 1980 rVATE DRIVEWAY\ A driveway is a privately owned and privately maintained ^a?cT^7*tir^e?weeri the street and private property. Private driveways all be subject to access permits according to the classification of the itting street. Private driveways will not be subject to any public :ement or access right, but do require recorded private easements where :.veways cross an intervening private lot between the residence served d the street. JURISDICTION; PROPERTY OWNER .MAXIMUM SERVICE:1 RESIDENCE TYPICAL; JOINT DRIVEWAYS ALj^OWED WITH MA'^TMOm" three RESIDENTS PER DRIVEWAY IN RURAL -\REAS M^E USERS REQUIRE PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS DRIVEWAY WIDTH:WILL 3E REGULATED WHERE MORE THAN ONE USER IS INVOLVED OR FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES WHERE THERE IS EXCESSIVE LENGTH BETWEEN THE RESIDENCE AND THE PUBLIC ROAD •JTING ROADWAY MAINTENANCE JURISDICTIONS ARE REASONABLE AS THEY RELATE THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN. The State of Minnesota has appropriate isdiction over the only Intermediate Arterial in the City. ”«nnepin County Department of Transportation has jurisdiction over y Minor Arterial designated in the Plan. It is anticipated that in County will assume jurisdiction in the future over the City- '.t ring route link between County Road 19 and County Road 6. *.epin County has jurisdiction over most of the designated Scenic tways which is ap ropriate in that these roads serve as access to * Minnetonka and to County maintained landings for many County .dents who do not reside in Orono. The City has jurisdiction over :e Scenic Parkways that are away from the immediate lakeshore, uding the access road to the Orono Golf Course. City has appropriate jurisdiction of most of the Collector and all •le local streets which serve all Orono residents. Certain key street ^nts have been designated for Municipal state Aid construction •tance, including: LD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD from County Road 6 to Fox Street, County Road 84 ILLOW DRIVE from County Road 6 to State Highway 12 and from the Long Lake border to Fox Street OX STREET from Willow Drive to County Road 146 McCulley Road Ring Route link) between County Road 6 and County Road 19 ly, individual property owners have appropriate private jurisdiction ose Private Roads serving only their individual properties. CMP 7-17 H L • i. t• r t » ! , JUNE, 1980iveway is s privately owned and privately maintained e street and private property. private driveways ess permits according to the classification of the te driveways will not be subject to any public t, but do require recorded private easements where rvening private lot between the residence servedERTY OWNERRESIDENCE TYPICMji_jg^jiT_DRIVEWAYS_^AIJ(OWED_J*^HgPSTnEMTS PER DRIVEWAY IN RURAL AREAS ORE USERS REQUIRE PRIVATE RO^ S^^ANDARPS^ LL BE REGULATED WHERE MORE THAN ONE USER IS INVOLVED FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES WHERE THERE IS EXCESSIVE NGTH BETWEEN THE RESIDENCE AND THE PUBLIC ROAD NANCE JURISDICTIONS ARE REASONABLE AS THEY RELATE LAN. The State of Minnesota has appropriate nly Intermediate Arterial in the City. artment of Transportation has jurisdiction over designated in the Plan. It is anticipated that sume jurisdiction in the future over the City- tween County Road 19 and County Road 6. isdiction over most of the designated Scenic priate in that these roads serve as access to County maintained landings for many County side in Orono. The City has jurisdiction over hat are away from the immediate lakeshore, ad to the Orono Golf Course. e jurisdiction of most of the Collector and all ich serve all Orono residents. Certain key street gnated for Municipal State Aid construction D from County Roed 6 to Fox Street, County Road 84 ounty Road 6 to State Highway 12 and from the ake border to Fox Street low Drive to County Road 146 McCulley Road etween County Road 6 and County Road 19 perty owners have appropriate private jurisdiction s serving only their individual properties. CMP 7-17 ICO iki.transportation JUNE, 1980URBAN TRANI^PfiRTATIQN POLICIES 2. 3. prope^iies!'°^ity ^eSJ^Libility^Lr proper maintenance levels will ensure passable, all-weather streets available at all times for emergency vehicles and for general public ingress and egress. ALL URBAN PROPERTIES SHOULD BE DIRECTLY SERVED BY THE PUBLIC STREET SYSTEM. urban density development is not appropriate on narrow or poorly maintained private roads. Significant exceptions to this rule are in the case of a planned residential or commercia development having private maintenance personne , or on sensitive lakeshore lots where two homes could be served by one common private driveway o reduce hardcover and topographical problems. URBAN STREETS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS. All urban streets will be paved and of sufficient width to accommodate the number of properties being served. intersections and driveway aprons will be designed and regulated according to commonly accepted engineering safety standards. Street drainage will be designed to utilize existing drainage systems and to avoid direct runoff into the Lake. CURB CUTS AND DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS WILL BE DIMITp FOR TRAFFIC SAT All new curb cuts and driveway locations will subject to performance standards relating to sig distance, lot width and proximity to intersections or other driveways. All properties will be allowed access, but the number of access points and the -V of allowable access will be limited for public traffic safety purposes. ON- STREET PARKING WILL BE STRICTLY LIMITED. No parking will be permitted on narrow streets or a Lvrardous locations. All urban development must provide adequate on-site parking facilities. CMP 7-10 mm i t 4 S 11.03 the entire City as well as a specialized plan showing specific areas or specific types of land uses, such as residential, commercial, industrial, public or serai-public uses or any combination of such uses. ✓t:^ c. "Transportation Plan" which means a compilation of policy statements, goals, standards, maps and action progrars for guiding the future development of the various modes of transportation of the City and its environs such as streets and highways, public transit, railroads, air transportation, trucking and water transportation, and Includes a major thoroughfare plan. d. "Community Facilities Plan" which means a compilation of policy statements, goals, standards, maps^ and action programs for guiding the future development of the public or semi public facilities of the City such as recreational, educational and cultural facilities. e. "Capital Improvement Program" which means an itemized program setting forth the schedule and details of specific contemplated public improvements by fiscal year, together with their estimated cost, the justification for each improvement, the imoact that such improvements will have on the current operating expense of the City, and such other information on capital improvements as may be pertinent. f. "Official Map" means a map adopted in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.359 which may show existing and proDOsed future streets, roads, and highways of the City and County,* the area needed for widening of existing streets, roads, and highways of the City and County, and existing and future County State aid highways and State trunk highway rights-of-way. An official map may also show the location of existing and future public land and facilities within the City. In counties in the metropolitan area as defined in Minnesota Statutes 473.121, official maps may for a period of up to five years designate the boundaries of areas reserved for purposes of soil conservation, water supply construction, flood control and surface water drainage and removal including appropriate regulations protecting such areas against encroachment by buildings, other physical structures or facilities. g. "Surface Water Management Plan" which means a compilation of policy statements, goals, standards, maps and action programs for guiding the future hydrological and hydraulic development of the watersheds and sub-watersheds, water storage areas, drainageways, floodways and filtration systems of tv» t>.ty to control surface water runoff, flood hazards, general water quality within the City and its environ.* including lakes, streams, wetlands, marshes, natural water .r-.^urses an s o sewer systems or facilities. ORONO CC 417 (4-1-84) / I f S 11.03 a. "Principal Arterial" - A roadway intended to connect urban subregions with one another, connect urban and rural service areas with volume corridors. "Minor Arterial" - A roadway intended to connect adjacent subregions and activity centers within subregions. d. "Collector" - A roadway intended to connect neighborhoods within and between subregions. ^^ e "Local" - A roadway intended to connect blocks within neighborhoods and specific activities within homogeneous land ^^e^areas^^^^^^^ _ ^ intended to provide low speed and low volume vehicular or bicycle access to or through recreational areas, parks, and lakeshore. g. "Roadway-Deadend" - A roadway with only one vehicular-traffic outlet. , _ i. .• v' h. "Roadj^^j^^^^v^te” - A roadway for which the City or other political subdivision snail not oe responsible for its maintenance and operation. . „ . , __i. "Roadway- Public" - Any roadway for which the City or other political sutJcTNML^on is or expects to be responsible for its maintenance and operation. 52. "Roadway Right-of-Way Width" - The distance between property '.ines measured at right angles to the center line of the roadway. 53 "Sale or Lease" - Any immediate or future transfer of ownership, or any possessory interest in land, including contract of slle, lease, an Interest in a tract of land or part o? oth«and bounds, deed, contract, plat, map, judicial decree cr otner written instrument. Lease of land for agricultural purposes, '^^ic ?Ind does not include the use of or future construction of a building is excluded. 54. "Single Ownership" - Ow^.ership by the same person, corporation, firm, entity, partnership, or association; or ownership by different corporations, ^ partnerships, entities or unincorporated familv^owns stockholder, partner, or associate, or a ^ ent/tv oran interest in each corporation, firm, partnership, e y unincorporated association. 55. "Setback" - The shortest distance between a structure and a natural feature, property line or right-of-way line nearest thereto. ORONO CC 422 (4-1-84) J S 11.03a "Principal Arterial" - A roadway intendedconnect urban subregions with one a,1 service areas with Arterial ’ - A roadwayd, "Collector" - A roadway intended to connect hborhoods within and ^between subreg^^^^^ intended to connect :hs within neiliborhood^s and specifL activities within .geneous land - A roadway intended to provide speed and low volume vVhicuLr or bicycle access to or through :eational areas, parks, and lakeshore. g. "Roadway-Deadend" - A roadway with only one vehicular-traffic o'^tlet^^^^^ Private" - A roadway for which City or other politi^ar sSbiivisi’Sn Shall not be responsible its maintenance and - Anv roadway for which City or other VoUt^lr^s'ubJivV^on is^' or expects to be lonsible for its maintenance and operation. "Roadway Right-of-Way Width" - The distance een property* ’.ines measured at right angles to the cen er ne he roadway. "Sale or Lease" - Any immediate or f>Jture ater of lwnersh^%^' or any Vces^ ading contract of sale, lease, ^®^ ® thereof whether by metes nterest in a tract of land or part tjeceot, ^wnecn^^ bounds, deed, ^'r\cultural purposes, which ‘?oe‘s"^™nauVe “t%e°'uU""ol°'or*Vu\'u“Ja “construction of a ding is excluded. 54 "Single Ownership" - Ownership ated on, corporate, fir~. kholdet, partner, or associate, or a member or nxs ^ nterest in each corporation, firm, partnersmp, sorporated association. "Setback" - The shortest distance ^®^ween a iture and Tiatural figure, property line or right-of-way line »st thereto. ONO CC 422 (4-1-84) 7-S 11.10A. Improvements. All public and/or private improvements required by the City to be completed by the subdivider prior to Final Plat approval, shall be fully completed and shall have had a certificate of satisfactory completion issued by the City Engineer prior to endorsement of the Final Plat by the City. All public and/or private improvements requirea by the City to be completed by the subdivider after Final Plat ?oproval shall be fully set forth in a subdivider's agreement to b- executed prior to Final Subdivision approval. All local stre ■tj in subdivisions where sewer and water are not available shall be private unless otherwise approved by the City at preliminary subdivision approval. The City reserves the right to determine whether a road is to be public or private in all areas of the City. Public streets and roads will be required to be pTattedTconstru^ed and dedicated to the City •/'en required by the Council consistent with the recommendations o e Planning Commission and the City staff and the established .y practices and design standards. Public roads shall be completed and issued a certificate of satisfactory completion by the City Engineer prior to Final Plat approval or, when specifically authorized by the Council, shall be subject to the conditions of a subdivider's agreement to be executed prior to Final Plat approval. When the Preliminary Plat has been approved^^?nTI?"Tasisof^^private access road providing the only access to three or more lots, the private road shall be identified on the Final Plat as a separate outlot. The private road shall be identified by name if the road serves four or more lots. Whenever a private road outlot is proposed, the subdivider shall be required to provide for a permanent homeowner|s association or road maintenance agreement acceptable to the City in order to insure ownership and maintenance of the road outlot. D. Road and Utilities Easemerits. The Council may, upon recommendaticn of the Planning Commission and/or City staff, require the subdividcr to convey to the City certain road and utilities easements permitting public ingress, egress ano access over private roads as a condition of Final Subdivision approval. 1. Whenever a private access road is authorized, the required outlot shall be included on and conveyed in a road and utilities easement in the standard City form. 2. Whenever areas of the plat are to be set aside for public or private utility construction and use, said areas shall be described and dedicated for public use on the plat. This shall include areas shown on record plat drawings as "drainage and utilities easements". 3. Whenever a road and utilities easement is required, the easement shall be fully executed prior to Final Plat approval using the legal descriptions of the Final Plat and shall thereafter be filed in the chain of title of the property concurrent with the filing of the Final Plat. ORONO CC •i42 (4-1-84J |_V r«ra«Bci«] r«ii«*]r«r=J«H* r«iiifi« riTiTl /' l•l^•VX::4ll •IVil* [t):WCW I' s 11.32 safety and welfare of no^t bV adve^^^ in thi future will be P7V= %naStarcaused by the subdivision, by the increased use of the ^ nriot to final subdivision This improvement shall be and^tL subdivider provides a IS?tIb?e o2rf«manle boL to complete the Improvements rn the subdivider's agreement. ^ B. Access to ?r'to^«!U"l Private "*’“A''wfv'in order to*^ pain access to the Public an existing P“"‘?,'°®'^"/J^.a'"av shall be suitably Improved as ;?m«'he\'efn ?^o ‘;e*Vor'^u\^TcMad«ays. Subd. 2. On-Site Roadways. A. Grading and graded and improved to ’'approved to design and specifi- and specifications and shall ‘^®. °prdance with the construction rianrreg^ri'd* fo b'e ^iHttVd prio%='t°o final subdivision approval. B. Topography and Arrangement. 1 Roadways shall be related appropriately to the topography. Roadways ‘^®;^ii^roadwayVsh^ arranged avoid conformity of lot ®PP®®“ ^^le \f the building sites at, or so as to obtain as Grades of streets shall conform above, the grades of the street. , t-onoaraohy. A combination S°riosely Is “/^^3u'"be"’ivlil^ standards IL Vo*l?ai« Is“s7gl s'tandards of this Chapter . - 2. ''ll "*/\XouVf"aVeV lllLa'ted Vight-le-tat '’aVTstabllshed in the Comprehensi« Municipal Plan. 3. All thoroughfares shall^be^properly^^^^^ to specific traffic generato^r^s |jjch centers? to population den“lti«; .“^“o tte pattern of existing and proposed land uses. 4. Roadways shall ‘^®,use much as possible to ^he topogr^^^^ utility systems, ®nd to re“g “«' t'h°e^m’i:\mu‘'m“J.'uXr of riadways necessary to provrd. convenient and safe access to proper y. . ^ 5. The gridiron or e^^ou'rrgerShlr'e'S^ls-e will result in a more desirable layout. ORONO CC 457 (4-1-84) S 11.32Id welfare of the citizens presently using the roadway andtu^e will be protected and will not be fiture wixx oe ^ roadway caused by the subdivision.Sr}performance bond to complete the improvements in the ir's agreement.KV..? r'.raSrMS S'“”sSherein above for public roadways. ^ Subd. 2. On-Site Roadways. A Grading and Improvement Plan. Roadways shall be Id improved to conform to the City's ®g®2cifi^Ifications and shall be approved as to design and spec if i K« i-ho ritv Enaineer, in accordance with the construction juired to be submitted prior to final subdivision approval. B. Topography and Arrangement. 1. Roadways shall be related appropriately to hf g?aSas%rt"h"e %Me°eT‘’"G%a°des‘''o'i " trU? f a£=°n'£or m ained in the design standards of this Chapter. 2 All streets shall be properly integrated Avistina and proposed system of thoroughfares and ,d right-lf-wat Vs %stabliahed In the Comptehensij^ 1 Plan. 3 All thoroughfares shall be properly related ^fle traffic qenerators such as industries# business School!! churches, and shopping centers; to population i; and to the patte existing and proposed land uses. 4. Roadways shall be laid out to conform as tA mlnlmnm number of roadways necessary to prouiae nt and safe access to property. • 5 The gridiron roadway pattern need not -LdVay1V^.'A edfale-beVeVIA^^^^eVuMt IS lesirable layout. 457 \i 'S 11.326. Cul-de-sacs shall be discouraged; proposed roadways shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be subdivided, unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions, or unless in the opinion of the City such extension is not necessary or desirable for the coordination of the layout of the subdivision with the existing layout or the most advantageous future development of adjacent tracts.7. In business and industrial developments, the roadways and other accessways shall be planned in connection with the grouping of buildings, location of rail facilities, and the provisions of alleys, truck loading and maneuvering areas, and walks and parking areas so as to minimize conflict of movement between the various types of traffic, including pedestrian. C. Blocks. 1. Blocks shall have sufficient width to provide for two (2) tiers of lots of appropriate depths. Exceptions to this prescribed block width shall be permitted in blocks adjacent to arterial roadways, railroads, or waterways. 2. The lengths, widths, and shapes of blocks shall be such as are appropriate for the locality and the type of development contemplated, but block lengths in residential areas shall not exceed one thousand rive hundred (1,500) feet or twelve (12) tiroes the minimum lot width required in the zoning district, nor be less than four hundred’ ''.C.0) feet in length from centerline to centerline of adjacent streets. Wherever practicable, blocks along arterials collector roadways shall be not less than one thousand (1,000) feet in length. 3. In all blocks the City shall require the reservation of an easement through the block to accommodate utili ties, drainage facilities, or pedestrian traffic. Pedestrianways or crosswalks, not less than ten (10) feet wide, may be required by the City through the center of blocks more than eignt hundred (800) feet long where deemed essential to provide circulation of access to schools, playgrounds, shopping centers, transportation, or other community facilities. Blocks designed for industrial uses shall be of such length and width as may be determined suitable by the City for prospective use. D. Access to Primary Arterials. Where a subdivision borders on or contains an existing or proposed arterial, the City may require that access to such roadways be limited by one of the following means: 1. The subdivision of lots so as to back onto the arterials and front onto a parallel local or collector roadway; no access shall be provided from the arterial, and screening shall be provided in a strip of land along the rear property line of such lots. ORONO CC 458 (4-1-84) 1 L 6 S 11.32 2. A series of cul-de-sacs, U-shaped streets, or short loops entered from and designed generally at right angles to such a parallel street, with the rear lines of their terminal lots backing onto the arterial. . 3, A marginal access or service road separated from the arterial by a planting or grass strip and having access thereto at suitable points. E. Road Names and Street Addresses. The sketch plan as submitted shall not indicate any names upon proposed streets. The City shall name all roads at the time of preliminary shall be sufficiently different in sound and in spelling from other road names in the arec so as not to v .use confusion. A road which is or is planned as a continuation of an exis>.ing road shall bear the same name. F. Road Regulatory Signs. The subdivider shall deposit with the City at the time of final subdivision approval the sum of money as determined by the City for each road sign and the installation cost thereof. The City shall install all road signs before issuance of certificates of occupancy for any residence on a^^%loVer“^xp"er3ra^"•3ll"i^te^«"=t!c^ the subdivision, the type and location of which to be approved by the City. G. Reserve Strips. The creation of reserve strips shall not be permitted adjacent to a proposed street in such a manner as to deny access from adjacent property to such street. H. Construction of Roads and Dead-End Roads. 1. Construction of Roads. The arrangement of Ts sT.HTj. hr. aeVa-ena street temporarily, the right-of-way shall be extended to the property line. The City may limit the ^ streets in accordance with the design standards of this Chapter, 2. Dead-End Roads (Permanent). Where a road does not extend to the boundary of the subdivision and its ORONO CC 459 (4-1-84) I i io S 11.32‘t loops entered U-shaped streets•a parallel street? with ^i^ht angledeking onto the arterial. their termini!® ^^terial by a planUn?^o?g|||s°|tri?^^ d ®®P®^atedat suitable points. ^ ^ strip and having accesssubmitted ^shii?dt indicat?^ Addresses. The sketch The City shall name all roads a?the?im^ upon proposed sion approval and assign street^ 155/ Preliminaryer shall be consulted by the Zonina localsufficiently different in sound and in *'®"®®es in the arec so as not to u<?a”™p spelling from otherplanned as a continuation of'an evT/Mn^®"' f -ith thrcity°« thr«me°of shall oney as determined by the Citv for approval the :ion cost thereof. The Cit? ih/i 4^? ®^9n and the tsuance of certificate! oi install all road signs i^ets approved. The City sha?r^ni!r . s expense at all interseefcinne signs at on, the type and location of which'^ t?b! ? abutting thewnicn to be approved by the be permitteY'dddecent* to"^? vroo^^°’i reserve strips to deny access tron. adjacent pfopl^rty to'sL'h‘street'!'’’ " H. Construction o£ Roads and Dead-End Roads. tall proei’de £«'Vh'’e'‘contiLa?11'„‘ J-‘'«,«ttngement o( properties when such continuation '• ®*'''®®ts between : movement of traffic effl^Mtl 5" necessary for provision of utilities a!d who- ^1^® Protection, for ; with the City CoiVr’ehenai^rS,«■ operty is undeveloped and the cipal Plan. if the •Porarily, the rig?t-offwl?shai7®V® ‘^ead-end ne. The City may limit the^i« P® ®*tended to the accordance with the design et"lardl of'^fir^LlKr:"'* ixtend to the"boundarv*'tff . Where a road h is not required b?the Cit!^ for®^ts Its terminus shall normallv noJ adjoining an fifty (50) feet. H^^Jever^ tl?r? "®®‘^®^ Of an appropriate easewent to%ccoLod'ate'&a9l 459 (4-1-84) S 11.33 KD. Intersections shall be designed with a flat stopping area of at least thirty (30) feet in a residential area and sixty (60) feet in a commercial or industrial area. The stopping area shall be designed to provide a maximum grade of two(2) percent.E. Where any street intersection will involve earth banks or existing vegetation inside any lot corner that would c?mI. I t?a££ic hasird by limiting visibility, the subdivider shall cut such ground and/or vegetation (including trees) in connection with the grading of the •^^^ht-of-way to the exten deemed necessary by the City to provide an adequate sight cistance.F. The crown of all streets, including intersections, shall be three percent (3%) or less. Subd. 4. Typical Section. The typical section indicated herein is as determined for a Clay Subgrade (A-6 Soil Classifica tion) and may be subject to change. Soil borings may be required to be determined by the City. Private Street - Residential Units 3-6 Over 7 R.O.W.* 50' M.P.W.** 24' Section 8" Class 5 100% crushed 3" 2341 Bituminous Surface 8" Class 5 100% crushed 3" 2341 Bituminous Surface Public Street - Residential Units 3-10 Over 10 R.O.W.* 50' 50* M.P.W.** 28' 32' Section 8" Class 5 100% crushed 3" 2341 Bituminous Surface 8" Class 5 100% crushed 2" 2341 Bituminous Surface Maximum cul-de-sac length - 1,000’ Maximum number of units on cul-de-sac - 10 Public Street - Commercial or Industrial Units 1+ R.O.W.* 70' M.P.W.** 32' Section fl** OlaQcs A 8" Class 5 100% crushed 4" 2341 Bituminous surface / * Right-of-way Width ** Minimum Paved Width ORONO CC t m 11 462 (4-1-84) i ^ f h COUNCIL MEETING 1 JAM 22'990 HINUTBS OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JANUARY 8, 1990 f;ITV OF ATn IDANCB 7:00 P.K. The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Grabek, CounciImembers Goetten, Nettles, Peterson and Callahan. The following represented the City staff; City Administrator Bernhardson, Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Public Works Director Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, City Engineer Cook, Police Chief Kilbo, City Attorney Barrett, and City Recorder Scheffler. CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT/FINANCIAL REPORTING Mayor Grabek announced that the City of Orono had been awarded the GFOA's Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting for the year 1988. Bernhardson indicated that Finance Director Kuehn would be present when the engraved plaque was received for presentation. The certificate is from the Government Finance Officer Association as Orono has met the standards for the second year in a row for financial reporting. Congratulations were extended, not only to Tom Kuehn and the Finance Department, but to ti ? City organization as a whole, including the City Council. VIRGINIA SNEATT RECOGNITION Mayor Grabek asked Ms. Sweatt to step forward and he informed the audience she would be resigning from the Park Commission after 10 years of service. Mayor Grabek accepted her resignation with great appreciation for all of the time she volunteered. Mayor Grabek presented Ms. Sweatt with a letter of appreciation. CONSENT AGENDA* CounciImember Peterson requested that item #18 be removed from the Consent Agenda. CounciImember Goetten said, "because of my concern about this ordinance, item #24, Public Use of Private Roads, since that is an amendment, I feel that we need to be looking at an overall ordinance, as I have said in the past. I cannot approve that, although on the whole, I will be happy to approve the consent agenda". It was moved by CounciImember Nettles, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Item #18, which was removed and discussed in the order it appears on the agenda, and with CounclImember Goetten's comments relative to Item #24 duly noted. Motion, Ayes*»5, Nays^O, Motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES* It was moved by CounciImember Nettles, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the December 11, 1989 Regular Council Meeting. 1 COOSCIL MEETINGJAM 22'990„«rrBS OF ® nnV OF7s00 v.v. ^ with the following membersMa^or^raLk? Counci Imembers^Go^^^^ cfty "s?af f"tSr Ber\hard^°on\"%u?iain9 > MJnni'n” anir„t.Uc®«o"^Director oe^ Chief hVto”nerB«««?'.nd «ty Becorder Scheffler. [E OF ACBIBFEllBirr/FINMKIJD F^««“ been “ announced that the^^city^^o^^ Fin.ncral the GFOA's Certificai-e for the year 1988. hardson indicated Finance^ Dir^^^^^ on as Orono "aa "'%|'"«Jiations »ere a^anded, not financial «P". -inance Department, but to he City rn rrv,?o”?er'’i*nc\Xrthe'’city Council. oT^”b'S°T'/heTMs. \-rb\%«iVn?n/rrorthfCh on ’^alter W® yearfof Trvlce. «»Vor Gratek^accepted ^er k “t.?yof G%%U^^presint ‘e7"h/. Sueatt with a letter of tion. .Se'mber Peterson requested that item .18 be removed » Consent Agenda. -Kont ancilmember Goetten said, 'because of m^y« fnance. *V' n"t w^ need to be lookin, at an overall mendment, I in the past. I cannot J ;rin"thl ToV. " w\"ll'’be'’happy to approve the consent , was moved by Dounci Imembe^r I'^^VnVAqend^wfth the iot^of ^ttm®#18?*>'hich was rejmved^an^ t\“fria”lve“ «%“tem I24 duly noted. Motion, Ayes- , , Motion passed. iroember Peterson, to approve egular Council Meeting. MINUTES OP ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 1990PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS:PARK DEDICATION FEE REVIEWMr. Phil Bradley, Chairman of the Park Commission, said "Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, you have the report of the Park Commission recommending change in formula and an increase in the Park Dedication fee schedule. The Park Commission has worked on this for over a year. They have studied other communities' methods of assessing this fee and we have come to the conclusion that the Orono formula ought to be changed so that we have an indexing system for inflation and a system that will generate funds. We are beginning to see the need for park improvements, park programs and development forthcoming". Mr. Bradley introduced Dick Flint, the author of the report, and Mr. Jim Gilbert who drafted the language of the amendment. CounciImember Goetten said, "I certainly appreciate the efforts of the Park Commission in this direction. We have needed something like this for a long time". Goetten had questions concerning the multi-resxdential figures. Bernhardson replied, "The current ordinance has a ratio of unit per 5 acres, which is the .20. The new formula uses a per building basis". Counci Imember Goetten asked if the Park Commission would give the Council some direction or improvement plan for parks and bike/hike trails with the money generated from the Park Fees? Mr. Flint replied, "There is no plan today, it needs a comprehensive, ovtrall plan. There is not enough money in the City of Orono to put the whole bike/hike trail that you have seen in the conceptual stages. Our plan would be to come up with a specific proposal and do it step by step. We definitely will do that, and couldn't, if we wanted to, go ahead without Council approval". CounciImember Goetten said her only other concern is that she believes the 10% figure is a little high. Goetten asked about phasing in the increase over ^ period of years. Mr. Flint replied, "We don't have a projection as to how many dollars the 10% would raise. That (the 10% figure) came from looking at other ordinances in different cities. It was clear from an early evaluation that we were woefully inadequate, compared to what other cities are doing. We looked at what the norm was and it runs from 7% to 10%. We picked the high side which seemed to be the most common among the cities that we looked at; 5% would be a vast step forward from where we are now and it would be possible to phase it in at 5% the first year, 6% the second year, etc. We are less hung up with the specific 10%, than we were with the need to change and to have a higher fee than we have now". FT MINUTES OP ORCHO COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 1990 I • i i I PARK DEDICATION FEES CONTINUED CounciImember Callahan questioned whether using the fair market value was the most satisfactory way to proceed? Mr. Flint said, "Obviously the taxes that we assess every year are based on fair market value. Frankly, the staff favored the existing system where you just pull a number off based on the number of units and the size of the lots. There were two reasons for going with the percentage approach. One was that seemed to be the most common approach that was used by the other cities, and the second was that it automatically adjusts for inflation. I think that it is more difficult to administer because fair market values are in the eye of the beholder. However, we do assess our taxes. City-wide, based on fair market value every year. Callahan said, "I wasn't thinking of it in that sense. The tax assessment, we don't do; some professional does it and it is set. It does open up, the way that it is now proposed, a fight about the fair market value every time someone wants to subdivide. I was wondering whether the Park Commission felt it would come out just as well if it were, say, 10% of the taxed value or some other method". used. Mr. Flint reiterated that fair market value is most commonly Callahan asked whether it would be the fair market value before or after development occurred? Mr. Flint replied, "It is basically before the development because of the costs that go into development, such as streets, sewer, etc. However, it is taking the development into account. In other words, that 10 acres in a back lot out behind someone's farm is worth less than 10 acres that are centrally located and has a higher value for potential development". Mr. Alan Carlson, 3125 Fox Street, said that he is a resident of Orono and a person involved in the subdivision process. Mr. Carlson said that he had some comments from both perspectives. He thanked the Park Commission for the time they put into drafting this and he thanked City staff for their efforts. Mr. Carlson said, "I a^ree with the recommendation that the fee (Park fee) should be increased, the fees are probably too low and Orono certainly should have a good park system. However, 1 don't think that from this material that we know, or that the Council knows what the right fee is. I would like to suggest that the matter be tabled for some specific fact finding on that right fee. As Diann said, we can't say that 10% is the right fee. I would like to suggest 3 things in connection with that: One, from my review of the materials, I believe that the fee schedule will develop much more money than is projected in the materials submitted by the Park Commission. Also, I do not think i MINUTES OP OROHO COUNCIL MEETING OP JANUARY 8« 1990 ii:**»PARK DEDICATION PEES CONTINl- that we have any finding showing how much is needed. As far as the money that would be a developers concern, what somebody did was to analyze wnat the fee would be under our present system and what it would be under the 10% system. As Mr. Flint indicated, 10% is apparently 10% of the value at the time of preliminary plat application, taking into account its value at subdivision. So, its an amorphous position, ifs not the prior tax value, and it’s not what it will be after the roads go in, ifs what it is taking into account the fact that ifs about to be turned into something like a 17-lot subdivision. It s going to cause a bit of a problem with the Council having to come up with that value. It seems that some other cities have taken care J procedure. So assuming we can get by that, the issue j-s *"“ch money will that generate. What the Park Commission did is look at the old value and then looked at 4 recent subdivisions. I would suggest, from being involved with the last transactions in the City, involving large parcels these values that were placed on these 4 p j. low. They are low by a factor of 3 or 4. As they (the P Commission) note here, in one case, the old fee would have been $1,000.00 and would go to 518,000.00. In another case it g from $1,000 to $8,000, from $2,000 to $11,000, and from 51,200 to $5,000.00. I suggest from my knowledge of the values of these properties, that if the Park Commission would have had a chance to talk to a few people involved in this, you will find tha these values are far in excess of what they thought they You are going to generate perhaps 3 or 4 times more you thought you were. For example, there was one pr p ^ ,j Orono, Foxbend, that recently paid their f®®' J $3,400.00. I would suggest that under the 10% fee, they ''°cl have paid about $100,000.00. This is a •^“9®,^*'®^®®®®' ®J think that you should take into account the ^J probably going to develop a lot more money than Jh® Park commission thought it would develop. I'm ®ure that we that kind of money. I would like to see some kind ®f on how we are going to use this kind of money and how much is needed before I would want to see us take that kind of money from the residents. s;/Sfi‘“£" moved back down to the property owner. It gets "'®^®<^. ^jV® in Orono who owns that Pr®P®^'^yhe i^fellow who owns it is going to subdivide it himself going to sell it to a developer. The developer i® to take I look at what the public is going to pay for t*'®. ®"f decides what his risks are, how much he has to ,^^® for in order to come out right. So, once again, property owner who is going to pay that fee. I sugge is the property owners in fact that own the 2-acre or 5-acre H I MINUTES OP OROHO COONCIL HEETIMG OP JANUARY 8* 1990 PARK DRDICATIOH PBBS CONTINDBD r t 4-h<nlr Lned properties that are really going to pay for this. that it is only fair that there be a public hearing on this issue Lastly, because I am presently involved in the subdivision orocess, I wouJd like to ask the Park Commission to look at Shether there should be some provision for the already involved in the application process. I think should be dealt fairly with because they made They bought the property based upon the assumption of what the fmel would be at that time. I think we ought to take them into account before we prescribed a different fee to them. To summarize, I would like to recommend that t^®""® ® to take a look at the amount that the fee whether it's 10% or something else and how that ^® dealt with for the person who has already made an applicatio . Mayor Grabek thanked Mr. Carlson for his observations. Mr. Flint agreed with the three points made He aqreed that the 10% could raise more revenues than indicated in ?h”rmei.o. Mr. Flint agreed that a public hearing should be In reaard to providing for those persons already involved ^n the deielopment'^proccss, Mr. Flint believed it would be difficult to determine a cut-off point. Mr. Flint commented, "that whenever you raise the fee, there will always be h>>°ee who aot in under the wire, versus those who are coming up. I think ?fis a dll/i^lt iJsue and I think if we try to address how far in the process, there is always going to be a line. Mr Flint thought CounciImember Goetten's suggestion to phase this increase in would allow enough notice to developers. Mayor Grabek thought that we need address this as quickly and equitably as possible. Mayor Grabek suggested tabling the item until some time in February. CounciImember Goetten asked Mayor Grabek about scheduling a public hearing. Mavnr Grabek replied that he would like to properly publicize this matter and leave room for discussion during a r09ular Council meeting for this topic. CounciImember Nettles questioned whether ®”y .^^® cities that do this wait until there is an actual sale of property before determining the park fee. Bernhardson thought that when there Is a sale, '^at may be the process, but there are many times there is no sale property prior to subdivision. Mayor Grabek reiterated that we ought to move quickly and T *rLMACIBIlr2PA .■ MINUTBS OF ORONO COUNCIL ^ I TING OP JANUARY 8, 1990 PARK DEDICATION FEES CONTINI get this out to persons in a public forum so we can address tb topic with the citizens and then set a date so we can accompli' the increase in fees. Bernhardson suggested bringing responses to the questions raised tonight back in one month and following that, set up a meeting date. Councllmember Callahan suggested designating a specific date as to when the fees are expected to increase to provide adequate notice to developers that this will occur. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Counc^linember Goetten, to table this item with direction to staff to address this in a timely fashion and also to publicize that an increase will occur. Motion, Ayes»5, Na.i=0, Motion pctssed. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS There was no Planning Commission Representative designated for this meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: #1452 flALTER PEMBERTON 1720 SHADYNOOD ROAD VARIANCE Mr. and Mrs. Pemberton were present for this matter Bernhardson provided a brief review of this application for the Council and Mayor Grabek. Bernhardson said that the applicants are now proposing to reduce hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone to 19.9%. The Pembertons also propose to reduce hardcover in the 75-250' zone to 45.9%. Mayor Grabek said, "this is a very tough situation. In my mind, it brings me back to a person with a deck that was 9" beyond the setback line and we had difficujicy with that one". Mayor Grabek asked the Council for their comments. Councllmember Nettles said, "I think this shows a lot of good faith on their part to bring it (the hardcover) down. It is a tough situation to grant in order to be totally consistent, but one of our goals is met to the extent that we do reduce hardcover in the areas we would like it reduced. Presumably, if we don't go along with it, we won't get this good result. Councllmember Goetten said that the hardcover on the property far exceeds what is allowed. Goetten felt that she could not approve this request and asked that the City take a comprehensive look at building over decks. Goetten said, "We are ! li f I MINUTES OP ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 1990 •JHIZONING FILE #1452-PEMBBRTON CONTINl going to have to stand up and be counted on something like this. Are we going to allcv ->eople to build over a deck in the 0-75?" Goetten further said to Mr. and Mrs. Pembertons, "You buy property, and you have these existing situations and sometimes you are just not able to do the kinds of things that you might like to do with a substandard pioce of property. This is substandard; this is lakeshore". Mayor Grabek said that he :ould not disagree with Goetten and that the concern of covering over decks is often relayed to an applicant when approval for a deck is given. Grabek said "My only concern with this one, as with the other one, is that it is not someone wanting to add on the entire deck, it's sguaring off a room". Grabek said that he has trouble with these when the applicants work with the City in alleviating hardcover concerns. Bernhardson posed a hypothetical question of whether the Council would allow this application if the deck did not exist. The general consensus was no. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to allow the variance for the 95 s.f., provided that all of the hardcover proposed to be removed, is removed and so verified by staff. Nettles said that he had previously voted against this and had been prepared to vote no again. He ♦‘elt, however, the applicants had made significant changes in terms of accomplishing what he considered to be the more important of two goals. Mayor Grabek asked that there be strong language included in the resolution prohibiting any additional building in the 0- 75' setback area and an explanation of the pre-existing deck. CounciImember Petersen asked whether or not the Pembertons would still consider removing the deck? Mr. Pemberton replied that he would prefer not to. Motion, Ayes—2, Goetten, Petersen and Callahan, Nay, Motion failed. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to conceptually deny this application and direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the January 22, 1990 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-3, Grabek, Nettles, Nay, Motion passed. #1468 GEORGE PILLSBURY 1300 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD VARIANCES/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. and Mrs. Pillsbury were present for this applici were Mr. Herb Baldwin, Landscape Architect, Mr. Thoma Architect and Mr. Bob Mitchell, Attorney. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this application involved the approval of variances to construct a greenhouse and a conditional use permit to do minor grading o the lakeshore bank. Bernhardson said, "Since this matter was as er. ,>'ht iiHiiIO<C«l •Itti •1IH« •lafcT* •IIYCX* L*ii P c* H o H ^ [•17M o M I L*iipr« MINUTES OP OROWi COUNCIL MEETING OP JANUARY 8, 1990ZONING PILE #1468-PILLSBURT CONTINUEDNettles, to approve the hardcover, setback, and average lakeshore setback variances and the conditional use permit for the 1 Isburys. CounciImember Goetten indicated that she would support the conditional use portion of this application. Goetten said that she had to be cons: stent, howevct, and has never approved any new hardcover within the 0-7*5' setback rone. Goetten said that she could see no real hardship for the greenhouse and questioned if it could be located elsewhere. Goetten said that she tries to be fair, but feel^ this would be precedent setting if approved. CounciImember Callahan said that the characteristics of the lot a^'e such that a hardship is not difficult to find. Callahan said that he too, however, must be consistent and could nr»? vote favorably for new structure within 0-75' of the lake. Motion, Ayes-2, Goetten, Peterson, Callahan, Nay, Motion failed.Mr. Mitchell said that there is no other location for the greenhouse that would remove it entirely from the 0-75' zone because of the location of the house. Mayor Grabek sa’i* that thi Council cannot tell the Pillsburys where to locate the greei.."cmsc other than a location out of the 0-75' setback area. Mr. Baldwin said that one of the problems with locating the greenhouse elsewhere is that the plant material the Pillsburys wish to culture requires exposure provided in the location proposed. Mr. Baldwin said that the best exposure would occur if the greenhouse were located more to the east. However, in that location, there would be further encroachment into the 0-75' setback zone. It was m^ved by Counci lme»’ CounciImembe:' vjoetten, to direct of denial of the structure additi« of the retaining wall work. Mot. Nay, Motion passed. Ca ’ han, seconded by to ^lepare a resolution e incorporating approval rtyes-3, Grabek, Nettles, #1480 ED TOTH 725 OLD CRYSTAL BAT ROAD SOOTH VACATION/VARIANCBS RESOLUTION OF DENIAL *2744* It was moved by CounciImember Nettles, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2744, denying a 0.9' side setback variance for a proposed deck addition at 2811 Farview Lane. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. ENGINEER'S STSFORT: HIGHWAY 12 SEWER AND WATER PAYMENT* It was moved by CounciImember Nettles, seconded by Council.nember Peterson, to approve payment request #2 for Albrecht Excavating, Inc., in the amount of $59,418.59. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. r*W:l«liX«]Mr=)ij«j■ iHi tl*lIJ imWmI*j rsnvciB*] MINUTES OP OROHO COUNCIL MEETING OP JANUARY 8, 1990/COUNCIL REPORT:APPOINTMENTS - RESOLUTION #2745It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember .es» to appoint CounciImember Callahan to serve as Acting for the year 1990. CounciImember Peterson indicated that would like to see this position rotated annually, iImember Goetten concurred with Peterson and said that she foing to nominate CounciImember Peterson for that position, en said that Counci Imember Peterson has given over a dozen of service to this City and that she has developed into an Llent CounciIperson. Peterson thanked Goetten. Motion/ 3/ Goetten/ Peterson/ Nay/ Motion passed. Bernhardson informed the Council and Mayor Grabek that Tim i has indicated he no longer wishes to serve on the Lake ttonka Cable Communication Commission. Mayor Grabek agreed » an alternate. CounciImember Nettles indicated that he 1 serve as a representative rather than an alternate. It was moved by Mayor Grabek/ seconded by CounciImember son, to appoint Barbara Peterson and Alan Nettles to serve le Lake Minnetonka Cable Communication Commission with Mayor >k as an alternate. Motion/ Ayes~5, Nays-0/ Motion passed. Councilmember Peterson questioned what we are going to do ; the medical firm? Bernhardson said that the City will no longer designate a :al firm. Councilmember Callahan noted that we are in the process of lating the Engineering Firm. Bernhardson said that appointment could be delayed if the :il preferred. Callahan said that he would prefer to have the appointment as soon as possible. It was moved by CoxinciImember NettleS/ seconded by Mayor sk/ to adopt Resolution #2’’45/ setting forth the appointments 1990* Councilmember Callahan suggested that direction to E to have the Engineering Firm review completed in February ncluded in the Motion. Nettles amended his motion to that ct/ seconded by Mayor Grabek/ Motion/ Ayes“5/ Nays“0/ Motion ed. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: NB PROGRAM Bernhardson presented information to the Council and Mayor ek which addressed their previous questions and concerns. MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 8/ 1990IIHICANINE PROGRAM CONTIN1Councilmember Peterson indicated that she would approve this because most police departments lacked positive public relations. Peterson thought that this program would be helpful in that regard. Peterson said that she is concerned that the 3-year coounitment may not be long enough. Peterson asked Chief Kilbo how the 3-year period was determined?Kilbo replied it was more or less pulled out of the air. Kilbo believed that to be a reasonable period of time and suggested that if Officer Fischenich commits for 3 years/ he may commit longer.Councilmember Goetten said that she has still not sC''en a real need demonstrated for this program. Goetten hoped that/ if approved/ there would regular progress reports on this program. Goetten also noted that she believed there were other programs and concerns that take priority over the canine program that have not been addressed as <^"rr>editiously. Councilmember Nettles asked Chief Kilbc if there is an increase in efficiency and/or safety when using a canine unit? Chief Kilbo replied/ "very definitely. Animals have senses much more developed than humans. They are also a little bit cheaper than human life they are a definite asset in searching a building or looking for suspects". Kilbo added that a canine unit provides the ability to search for lost people. A dog can cover the area equivalent of two or three officers and will enhance the patrol officer's instincts. It was moved by Mayor Grabek/ seconded by Councilmember Peterson/ to accept the proposal of the canine program for Orono. Motion/ Ayes-4/ Goetten/ Nay, Motion passed. Councilmember Peterson asked Kilbo when the dog received its name? Kilbo said that normally the officer and/or the trainer name the dog. Peterson suggested having a contest among the school children to name the dog if it was not already named. Mayor Grabek and the Council approved of that idea. EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION PROGRAM/CITY LOGO Bernhardson said that he wanted to see if the Council was interested in developing a new City logo? The Council and Mayor Grabek agreed that the City needed a new logo and suggested a competition. Bernhardson suggested a City-wide competition including the schools. I MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 1990 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION PROGRAM/CITY LOGO CONTINUED CounciImember Nettles asked what prize would be awarded for the winner? Bernhardson said that staff would work out the details involved with the competition, including the judges and award. This being an informational item, there was no motion. SENSATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM Bernhardson said that he is presenting the Council with a preliminary layout of some of the concepts of a compensation program and asked for conceptual ideas for an incentive program. Mayor Grabek thought there should be some kind of compensation program. Mayor Grabek said that a time frame for discussing a program should be established if the Council agrees such a program is needed. The Council agreed to establish June 1, 1990 to have some form of commitment and vote regarding a compensation program. LIEUTENANT SELECTION Bernhardson informed the Council and Mayor Grabek that he is recommending Mark Fritzler for the position of third Lieutenant. CounciImember Peterson asked whether the second Lieutenant had undergone a psychological exam as is being proposed for Fritzler? She felt it only fair that if the first Lieutenant had a psychological exam that all of the Lieutenants have the exam. Chief Kilbo said that he would like to ask the City Attorney to see if we can do that under the curr#*t rules. Kilbo said that there had been a change in State Lav. nich now required an employer to offer a job to a perspective employee before asking him/her to undergo specific exams. Peterson recollected that after some discussion, it was agreed that the second Lieutenant would have the testing done. Bernhardson said that the psychological exam was not part of the process set up when the second Lieutenant was hired. Mayor Grabek expressed his concerns about offending the person that has been performing well in their new position. Grabek said he is not opposed to having second Lieutenant take the exam if he agrees to do it. If he declines to do it, then we have a problem. CounciImember Nettles said, "the Chief's point is well taken. It seems to me that we might be adding another qualification to employment that we wouldn’t have had when he first came through the portal and I don't know if we can do that. I would like the City Attorney's opinion on that, because if it (the test) did come back... and we had to let him go because he I i I r I MINUTES OP ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP JANUARY 8, 1990 LIEUTENANT SELECTION CONTINUEDdid not pass the evaluation, then I would suppose we would have a problem with him saying that this was not a qualification at the time and we are imposing it retroactively.City Attorney Barrett said "my first impression is that you have such broad discretion, generally, in these probationary periods that your decision to impose another hurdle might well be reasonable. In other words, you can, on a discretionary basis decide not to employ them without a hearing, without good cause and all the other business because they are not yet vested in their position. I don't want to be held to that until I have anopinion".Mayor Grabek suggested leaving this decision up to the Chief and City Administrator. CounciImember Peterson asked whether it was standard to have an applicant take a psychological test? Kilbo replied that from an initial hiring standpoint, under POST rules, you must have a psychological examination. Kilbo said that it is not required for promotions. Peterson said that at the time the second Lieutenant was to be hired, there was discussion about having him take a psychological exam and she wanted to know if it had been done. Bernhardson replied that there was discussion about making the exam part of the process. However, due to the fact that psychological testing had just previously been done on all the candidates, a decision was made not to include it. Bernhardson said that almost another year has lapsed since those exams were done which is why we are including it for the third Lieutenant position. Bernhardson said that no consideration was given to going back and asking the second Lieutenant to take the exam, but it can be considered if that is the Council's preference. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to appoint Mark Fritzler to the third Lieutenant position effective February 1, 1990. CounciImember Goetten asked that there be a review in 6 months, before the end of the probationary period. Peterson asked if there was going to be a problem due to the positions recently vacated and Officer Fritzler's promotion? Kilbo said that the detective training program is definitely off due to t’^s resignations, not the third Lieutenant position. Bernhardson said that interviewing will begin tomorrow for the vacant positions. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. TELEPHONE SYSTEM ACQUISITION ^ u .. k i ^City Administrator Bernhardson explained that he is presenting the proposal for a new phone system. Bernhardson said that the recommendation is not for the company with the lowest I NINOTBS OF ORONO COUNCIL TING OF JANUARY 8, 1990 TBLEPhONB SYSTEM CONTINUED offer. The recommendation is for the Premier System through Telephone Specialists because their price is lower overall when considering an eventual move of the equipment to a new facility. Bernhardson also noted that the Premier System is more sophisticated than the least expensive system. CounciImember Goetten commented that a new phone system is needed. Mayor Grabek pointed out that a system should be selected to meet our expansion needs and suggested looking at performance* not just dollars. Bernhardson commented that those factors were considered and the system being recommended is more flexible than the others. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten* seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to approve the new telephone system acquisition* per staff recommendation. Motion* Ayes-5, Nays-0* Motion passed. LONGEVITY PAY STEP - OFFICER JAMBS CORNICK* It was moved by CounciImember Nettles* seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to increase Officer James Coinick's salary from $16.24 per hour to $16,727 per hour based on the 1989 labor contract* effective January 2* 1990. Motion* Ayes-5* Nays- 0, Motion passed. TAX FORFEIT PROPERTIES* RESOLUTION t2746 - PUBLIC SALE RESOLUTION *2747 - PUBLIC USB It was moved by CounciImember Nettles* seconded by Councilmember Peterson* to adopt Resolution #2746, releasing tax forfeit parcel for public sale and Resolution #2747* requesting conveyance of parcel for public use by the City of Orono. Motion* Ayes-5* Nays-0* Motion passed. POLICE CAR ACQUISITION Councilmember Peterson asked whether the new squad cars would be equipped with the "tilt steering" feature? Chief Kilbo replied that tilt steering is a standard feature. Bernhardson noted that the City is considering changing the color of the police vehicles to white. Bernhardson said the change is necessary because it is difficult to match the blue color* if it is available at all. Ki .’O added that there are only 5 standard colors: White* black . ad* and two tones of brown. Any other color is an extra charge. The blue color now offered by Ford is $57.00 per car extra and two-tone is $187.00 extra. Kilbo showed an example of the markings that will be on the cars. MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 1990 POLICE CAR ACQUISITION CONTINUED j ^ said that he wanted to see the words, "Police"and Orono as large as possible. budgeted. Bid award under Hennepin County Contract 1139A9-232 is to Farmington Ford-Mercury with a total purchase price not to $11,500 estimated trade-in. Budgeted figure of $30,800 includes change over of squads. COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT AND PINAL PAY-OFFICER SCHAUSS* It was moved by CounciImember Nettles, seconded bv salary rate), effective October 26, 1989. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed RESIGNATION - SCOTT KUYPBR AMD CHARLES SCHAUSS* It was moved by CounclImember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Petersen, to accept the resignation of Charles Schauss and authorize staff to seek a replacement with staff to Nlys?o!’"Hctlo„* paTsed” ''>'*=-5' It was moved by Councilmember Fettles, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept the resignation of Scott Kuyper and authorize staff to seek a replacement with staff to bring back the nominee for approval to employ. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. » a«jro u. WELL LICENSBS/PERMITS* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded bv Councilmember Peterson, to accept the information provided in pgard to the elimination of well permitting authority. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. ADJUSTMENTS TO 1989 BUDGET* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve as presented the adjustments to the 1989 eral Fund department budget and from use of fund increase in the total 1989 budget of $2,401,890, bi. ging the toal to $5,122,550. Further to approve adjustments for the Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund and the Building Outlay Fund as presented with the increases to be financed by use of available revenues of fund balances as required. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. END OF YEAR TRANSFERS AND LOAM PAyMEMTS* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded bv Councilmember Peterson, that the interfund operating transfers, loan payments and special assessments payments on City property \ fU ■ i "1 I MINUTES OF OROHO COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 1990 PUBLIC USE OF PRIVATE ROADS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 77, SECOND SERIES* It was moved by CounciImerober Nettles, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to adopt Ordinance #77, Second Series regarding the public use of private roads as presented. Motion, Ayes-4, Goetten, Nay, due to her reasons previously stated and noted in the approval of the Consent Agenda. Motion passed. 1988 FINANCIAL HEALTH PROFILE* It was moved by CounciImember Nettles, seconded by Councimember Peterson, to accept the information pertaining to the Financial Health Profile for the City of Orono, years ended December 31, 1984 through 1988. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. REQUEST TO RE-ISSUE CERTIFICATE FOR 1985 G.O. BOND ISSUE RESOLUTION *2748* It was moved by CounciImember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2748, Authorizing the Issuance of a Duplicate Certificate and Payment of Interest on for Bond Numbered R-113 of the City's General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1985. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. STUBBS BAY SEWER AREA MEETING DATE* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to reschedule the Stubb's Bay Sewer meeting for January 30, 1990, at 7:00 P.M. at the High School Theater. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. ADMINISTRATOR'S INFORMATION It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept the City Administrator's Information regarding: Art Center; 1950 Shoreline Drive; 1972 Shadywood Road; Lake Minnetonka Park Lawsuit; 3536 Lyric Avenue; DARE Program; October/November Receipts & Disbursements; Wire Transfers; and Goals and Objectives. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: City Attorney Barrett had no report. LICENSES* It was moved by Councilmember Mettles, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the following licenses: Residential Kennel: Alan Cornelius 370 Leaf Street D. Brian & Cathy Fulmer 3505 Wayzata Blvd. Motion, Ayes»5, Nays«0, Motion passed . f ] 1 ; I i f • • m HI NOTES OP OROHO COUNCIL MEETING OP JANUARY 8, 1990 BILLS* It was moved by CounciImember Nettles# seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to approve payment of the All Funds Accounts. Motion, Ayes“5, Nays»0, Motion passed. EXECUTIVE SESSION - 8:57 P.H. Mayor Grabek requested that the Council go into an executive session at 8:57 p.m. ADJOURNMENT 9:11 P.M. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Counci Ittiewuer Peterson to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 9:11 p.m. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays^O, Motion passed. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor i f^OIJHCIl. MESTIHG TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson/ City Administratoi^ DATE: January 19, 1990 SOBJBCT: Parten Letter 22 1930 • n'TV n? ?oaa/rnrSis ““AVelSi„%indicated a desire to address the Council and it has been Indicatea he could do so during public comments. This letter has been prepared in advance of his appearan^e. His application was reconunended for approval with the road by the Planning Conunission at its 1/16/90 meeting and is expected will Council for their consideration at itsmeerxiig. Li Daniel C. Parten 1015 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 ^[j©igw[i JW|oMo January 19, i990 Orono City Council Crystal Bay, Minnesota Re: Private Road and Driveway Standards This past August my wife and I purchased property on Bayside Road with the intention of building our personal residence and of one or two lots. We were especially attracted by tho many mature trees on the site and the long graceful driveway that together give a feeling of peacefulness and privacy. However, in working with staff we learned that current city standards would reguire that we build a 24 foot wide asphalt driveway into this area to serve just four sites. In addition, we learned that the pity's standards are in conflict with each other. (See attached copy of memo from Mike Gaffron to the Planning Commission.) While we have been able to modify our plans to avoid the negative environmental conseguences of constructing a 24 foot wide paved road into this special area, we feel that a review of the city's reguirement., for driveways and private roads in tho rural areas would be of benefit. Perhaps factors other than number of residences served could be con sidered such as lo*' size, length of driveway, and potential for additional future access, to develop standards for width of roadway, materials of construction, and alternative surface materia ? . The rural areas of the city are an attractive compliment to the more suburban sections of our community, but wide asphalt driveways do not add to the character of this unigue area. Thank you for considering this reguest and for your service to our c T-nunity. cc; Planning and Zoning Administrator Chairman KelleyCity A<inl„istlatorl«iS;r^|S^*”Michael P. oaffron. Asst Planning . AdministratorJanuary 11, 1990Ssllawlr*'®""''* C°"fli=ts Needing Puturei°t_aetween .S„hdi.ision as an allowable’an one user or »here1SUV\\“sjI'’standards “^rt‘stat^fol"!^?? |ode) provides private y width of 50' i«, ™T,r J ^ to 6 residential uT^its J e Subdivision Code required a^^ outl"i""?" ‘9 3 or more lots fSection 11 ® private ere is a conflict between thest twl“doJme«“ "" *'=’'• a_Between Zoning Code s ............---------------------- fe the^^deteio^^^^^^ ®"‘^pJomprehensive Plan provide for L lubpf i^*4ura\“‘’^ra''n^^^^^^ (C); ®Comp^eJfe^slve ?ltn '^®^P^eted its Zoning Code 9 of definitions, all now?v ' ®*=®ting that, by street, therefore new must front s» require a variance (see ‘a *nont SJ for lot standards seem ° 3/6/86). The 'Clear intent thltd!!^.^, need of revision. l? ^o do so should not requirr“riaiicL!'^''®‘® is V TO:122089.6Mayor and City CouncilMark E. Bernhardson, City Administrl^’ii^FROM:DATE: January 17, 1990SUBJECT: LMCD's Draft ReviewsAttachment. A. Lake Minnetonka Funding PlanBe Draft Outline COOiSCIt MEETINGJAl'l 22 i990CiTv OhISSUE -1. Update C2. Presentat-,) review of the plan drafts by JoEllen Hurr. the draft of the LMCD Funding Plan.INTRODUCTION - At the Council's November 27, 1989 meeting duringthe discussion of the LMCD's Comprehensive Plan drafts it was requested that the City's LMCD representative, JoEllen Hurr, prepare reviews of the drafts. DISCUSSION - Issue #1 - Review - The idea raised by Orono's Council had merit for all the LMCD communities so a draft review for each of the representatives to use in their communities is being prepared so they can discuss the drafts with their Councils. It was hoped that these would be ready for this meeting but they will be ready for the next meeting. JoEllen will be in attendance at the February 12 meeting with the review and her comments. Given the substantial feedback Orono has given on the plans this review will attempt to additionally address some of those issues. This review will be helpful in *-’ia cjpcoming hearings regarding these/■•atters as will the comments from the December 2, 1989 LMCD meeting and the City's previous reviews of these drafts. (Cable TV has announced a schedule for televising the 12/2/89 meeting for those interested.) In a meeting on ^'nuary 18, 1990 with JoEllen and myself the consultant, Dav i.ndorfer, gave us Attachment B as che draft outline for the full document. *s you will note he has taken several of the suggestions Orono has given in the format tor the reports next draft. It is expected this draft will be ready for public review in April From this further hearings will be held. Additionally several of the issues related to LMCD/City jurisdiction, Marinas, land use, contract enforcement and lake management and lundlng v,ere discussed which will aid as background in further discussions of the draft. Issue 12 - Funding Dratr ^ As for the funding piit . they are seeking several forms of funding including: a. ) Have taxing authority to benefit properties as a substitute for the current LMCD dues paid by the Cities. b. ) Establish authority to tax County wide ject to limitation. L'j ■I c.) Use of Metro Parks and Open Space monies for capital projects. d.) Establishment of a metropolitan boating license with funds going to lake management agencies. e.) Further use of users fees. From the Cities standpoint the separate taxing authority instead of dues may lessen at least the appearance of control by the member communities. It would not necessarily raise greater monies but do so on a different basis. The County wide levy may have a bearing as to the composition of the LMCD Board that is eventually approved. A metropolitan boat license serves to represent a feasible way to get at the long supported Orono position of an LMCD boat sticker and the expansion of users fees is also philosophically in line. A portion of this could include having a cost of service fee at the public accesses. Following the next meeting staff will be working with its LMCD representative to delineate the specific major policy issues for lobbying during the upcoming LMCD review. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the information 2. Discuss and accept. 3. Table until February 12, 1990 meeting. ^COMMENDATION- It is recommended that the Council, after any discussions, accept the information and table discussion until its 2/12/90 meeting. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , that the Council after discussing the information table to ft's 2/12/90 meeting. Ayes _, Nays_. cc: JoEllen Hurr, Orono LMCD Representative Gene Strommen, LMCD Executive Director % i LAKE MINNETONKJ FUNDING PLAN Prepared For LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT ARNDORFER ASSOCIATES, INC r *♦lake minnetomk / funding plan January 13, 1989rrftCHWiveM'T' LAKE Prepared For MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT TABLE OF CONTENTSSectionINTRODUCTIONPurposeAUTHORITYLake Minnetonka Conservation District Lake Improvement Districts ComparisonFUNDING ISSUES Perspective Funding Objectives Page ARNOORFER associates , INC. January 13, 1939table of contents November 27, 1989INTRODUCTIONIDUCTIONPurposeRITYcomparison ”G ISSUES erspective ending Objectives Page PURPOSEThe purpose of the Funding Plan Paper is to present a mechanism for funding the operations of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) and other managing agencies active on Lake Minnetonka while Implementing the Long-Term Management Program for Lake Minnetonka. The existing levels and sources of funding are archaic and insufficient, even for optimum operations to meet present-day demands.In the late 1970s, regional and state agencies shifted their priorities to place more emphasis on public access to the lake. That change in priorities, without concomitant modification of Intergovernmental relations, institutional arrangements and funding contributed to a decline in communication, cooperation and understanding between managing entities. Locally-oriented organizations also contributed to the decline in relationships by falling to perceive the significance of the regional and state policy changes. The Metropolitan Council Task Force on Lake Minnetonka final report stressed the importance of changes in funding for the LMCD. Specifically, it called for making the LMCD funding completely independent of the local municipality budget process. Under the 1967 legislation, funding is limited to 1 mill based on the assessed valuation of property in the 14 lakeshore communities, subject to the further provision that the contribution from the City of Minnetonka is limited to 20 percent of the total contribution. Presently, this generates approximately $300,000.00 of potential annual revenues. The Draft Long-Term Management Program calls for significantly greater involvement, expansion of existing programs and implementation of new programs by various managing entities active on the lake. That expansion of activity requires additional sources of income above that presently allowed under statute. This Funding Plan, therefore, provides a guide for generating additional revenues that is consistent with the Minnesota Lake Improvement Act. The remainder of this Preliminary Plan is divided into two sections. The first examines the authority granted to the LMCD and to other lake Improvement districts under Minnesota statutes. The final section presents means of raising additional funds for Lake Minnetonka management and regulatory programs. November 27, 1989 January 13, 1989INTRODUCTIONFUNDING ISSUESChe Fu„dln, FUn F.P« Isth« Uke Minnetonka Conservat i„ple»entlng the Lons-Tera.Ss active on Uk. levels and soutces o£Sc^nd^tSumrirnreve^^oF optl.t« opetatlons to neatsmands. < < to970s regional and state »8encies^shifwd^their^prSrant ™d5«cUi:rorirtet80-^:l;n^dlnB contributed to organU,ni„g !>•«"" “utlonshlps by FalUng to perceive ‘riTe re'glonal and state policy changes. c „cll Task Force on Uke Minnetonka «y!“t‘raUed for ‘rof Changes '“"^‘''f„^p,^den^o£' tho'’local nunlclpallty budget rtCD funding completely inoepe a 1 «m based on the assessed 67 legislation, funding is subject to the further of potential annual revenues. ong-Term Management Program "mutation of^new programs "Expansion of pro^ms and im^^^ 3 , Uy ianaging entities ff^'^ve that presently allowed under ditional sources of income 3 guide for generating MS :"c'-ltrth: M^osota lak. inprovanont Act. revenues that is con:>i. first ier of this preliminary ^^^^/^n^to SerTake""improvement ,e authority granted to the section presents means of Sfun'irf^drfMUr.'Hlnn.tonka nanagonont and r.gulatory m PERSPECTIVEChanges in priorities by state and regional agencies in the late 1970s, coupled with the failure of local managing organizations to adjust to the demands for greater regional access to the lake created a period of decline in Intergovernmental relations among managing entities on the lake. Managing entities on Lake Minnetonka face increasing demands for access to the lake in the next 25 years. The demands imposed by providing greater public access, development of the remaining open spaces in Minnetrista and Mound, redevelopment pressures on the remainder of the shoreline, militate for greater expenditure of public funds for management programs.Without a change in both the level and source of funding, environmental protection, shoreland management, and use management objectives cannot be met. Growth of boating cannot be permitted without a higher level of ordinance enforcement. Existing funding of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol may be sufficient to meet today's use levels, but expanded patrols will be needed if this Management Program is to be implemented. Further, changes in state and regional priorities for access to Lake Minnetonka have strained Intergovernmental Relations between managing entities. That stress cannot be relieved without fundamental changes in both the level and source of funding for management activities. Those changes will have to be made by the State Legislature. The LMCD enabling legislation seems to have been the basis of establishing^ the county lake improvement districts. However, the legislature did not use the same mechanism for funding district activities. Instead, a much broader tax base was provided to the later districts. It is appropriate to implement a similar funding mechanism for Lake Minnetonka. The lake is truly a regional recreation resource that serves a regional population in the context used by the Metropolitan Council, the seven metropolitan counties, and Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District for their regional park and open space programs. Lake Minnetonka attracts boaters from the seven county metropolitan area. Just like the regional parks in the seven county metropolitan area, most users come from the immediately adjacent cities and counties. The Lake Access Plan provides the following data on visitor origin to Lake Minnetonka (Table 1). These data indicate that more than nintty-one percent of the users come from Hennepin County, based on the best available data on visitor origin. At the same time, approximately 61.3 percent of the users during the s’ommer come from the 14 lakeshore communities. Thus, approximately 40 percent of the summer users of Lake Minnetonka reside outside of the tax base for the LMCD. Since most programs of the LMCD are geared to protect the recreational resource and to keep it available to "all citizens of the state" (LMCD Code, p. 1), it seems reasonable to expand the tax base to better reflect the population served by the lake. January 13, 1989 establishing the*t!i^le^ district shall use a two tiered process for The tiers shall be composed of the following: ^ne ‘=o"“'^nlties with a maximum of this component of 2^ lu i* existing limitations. ^ ^ •n, ” Hennepin County subject to an appropriate limitation Thus, the levy would be composed of one part that is leviari nn aii ' Hennepin County. Property in the 14 lakethL! ^ levied on all property in •n .ddltunal Lvy. nSt .L«duj »• “ This two tiered approach reflects the desire of municipalities to retain 14 beSeJirfrom so^ro?^^i"wJrprogramr"“'" °«ne« directly s"“ Improvements owned and operated by that agency. ® agencies for I *1 agencies active on Lake Minnetonka shall cooperate to !■ •In boat to be operated on selected, more popular lakes in the seven county metropolitan area. The license could be in the form a of • ticker that Is required to he affixed to eU craft using JSes” l^Jes ^ system of service fees shall be imposed on the lake that distribute the cost of regulatory programs direct^ to Z !sers |ps:‘E Si“ conditions. These service fees could Include: ° 1) inspection of permits to construct in a waterway ’ »%";e “:urd:Jks".o"t„““‘““"’ parking fees at ramps and parks, and temporary dock Inspections. 3) 4) 4) These fees could be distributed, using a formula, to the managing agencies. I Pre-review Draft TTACiiUtewr LAKE MINNETONKA 10NG-TERN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OUTLINE I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose B. Historical Background C. Planning Context D. Plan Formulation E. Authority II. REGIONAL SETTING A. Access and Circulation B. Physical Features 1.Geology 2.Geomorphology 3.Soils 4.Climate 5.Wildlife 6.Vegetation III. IV, V. VI. VII. C. Socioeconomic Profile 1. Population 2. Land Use ir^ MANAGING RECREATION A. Lake Access B. Use Management C. Public Safety PROTECTING SHORELANDS • Shoreland .Management ?. On-Shore Facilities PROTECTING THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT A. WAter Quality Management B. Wetlands Management C. Fisheries Management ENHANCING THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE A. Intergovernmental Relations B. Institutional Arrangements C. Funding Alternatives IMPLEMENTATION A. Program Implementation B. Long-Term Monitoring VIII. REFERENCES IX. APPENDICES A. AUTHORITY B. SHORELAND STANDARDS AJ!D CRITERIA C. FUNDING D. IMPLEMENTATION BUDGET Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission DATEl JANUARY 9, 1990 MEDIA CONTACT: JENNIFER WATTS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE The Lake Minnetonka Conservation Diatrict iLMCD) ia featuring a aeries of video programs on the local public access cable channel dealing with the Comprehensive Management Plan. The series features various points of the plan as they were pre sented and addressed at the seminar held December 2 at the Lafayette Club in Minnetonka Beach with LMCD board members and local government representatives present. The programs consist of five separate shows dealing with one or more of the issues of the plan addressed at the seminar. Each show begins with a brief introduction by LMCD Board Chair Dave Cochran and an overview of the plan by Bob Rascop, followed by the feature issue presentation. The series began its cablecast schedule January 2 and will continue through March 26 with each show receiving a minimum of four cable showings. The shows cablecast Mondays at 10 AM and Tuesdays at 7 PM. The LMCD program, a regular feature on Triax Channel 20, was developed to help keep the lake area communities informed of LMCD activities and )?rograms. For more information on this program or to find out how to become involved in the production of the progam, call the Excelsior Community TV Studio at 474-5539 or the LMCD at 473-7033. -30- LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT January M • •• • .• TO: •. A^^nCD Board of Directors C)t£- ' FROn: ^Gene Strommen irectors \SUBJE Cable Cast of flanagement Plan Presentation December 2 to City and Agency Officials The Excelsior Cable Commission, which video taped the December 2 llanagement Plan meeting at the LaFayette Club, has completed editing of the all day presentation. Chair Cochran and the executive director edited the video tape and arrived at a conclusion to divide the program into five presenta tions- Each will be approximately 20 minutes long. Cochran introduces each piece so the viewing audience knows what is coming. Rascop gives an overview of the Ranagement Plan as he presented December 2- The balance of each segment features the presenter and some questions/answers. Many of the (3 a A's were difficult to include due to their length and in some cases poor audio- The schedule which is now in place starting • eiarch is as follows on Excelsior Cable Channel 20^ 10 Af1 Mondays, 7 Pt1 Tuesdays. Jan 2 Shore land llanagement Feb S/ b Plar 12/13 ft a/ T On Shore Facilities/Lake Use " 12/13 " 11/20 It IS/lb Lake Access " 11/20 " 2b/27 ft 22/23 Public Safety " 2b/27 ft 21/30 Uetlands/Fisheries/Uater fluality Plar 5/ b lile encourage you'* viewing of these cable casts as you are able to do so- This might even encourage your subscribing if you are in the areai wish to reserve a time to review it- Thanks again for your continued attention to this study INFO COPY TO: Jennifer Uatts EXCELSIOR CABLE COHniSSION ^^3 Oak St Excelsior PIN SS331 r LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LAKE USE COMMITTEE AGENDA NOTE CHANGE OF TIME, PLEASE: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 4:00 p.m., Monday, January 22, 1990 LMCD Office, Wayzata H.„n.pt„ county Lok. !j::ur:r;u ‘:uei, .utt„. tn. =utte„t low water period H€r£-T=i \ B. C. :rn5o"pr-srti:roo.t, ao,„ot„s a.,oxutto„ iXi" ;-tr,r"c:u otu.r tho„, .u„uip,i a:^:irr;°yP^“l'‘p«sol::i'riLatton D.VU. (PFD) Roqulto Typo I ^^outlurorareruhere PFD'a ate stored S:!ff:r'’o;««ot c“p«atlou lo proper use of public address syate« for announcements, playing uatchine wakes while traveling empty toCall for operator cooperation in watching waKes wnn port of call D. E. F. G • H. , « . (PWC) follow-up to public hearing report, and additional fr» 'S: pd re,ardlus decibel report of 9/29/»9 P«C test Charter boat applications for °"i’'L^;'!“dtrj“La«ln«‘’'*' S; S:“e:at'dlrtrr'b::rd“:inc:te. mth U,uor. .in. and beer, dohn Unbln. and new partner Franco Loris pdd%riddu!it:n'd?dd ‘3;rdduddt'rdv^t “urhla:rru;”.:5uions for watercraft/operators Special Event applications for eJ^ire seawn! reSoLending this to be left in the water, ?;“^taking place by LMCD and/or 9.A!""s?i«Tf"cLd5drte!'*frorwJicrJSi JoSoree will be selected for February 15 Recognition Dinner personal watercraft legislation rahr::e"ft:lut;L“"'.:"nh:n .ud oth.r paraphemaiu IZiilZll :":in:”dt,/bu.ln.ss - dat. m .U«..r open house (to avoid conn let with LMCD Lake tour) B. C. D. Es 10.Addltlowt. bu,ln.sa reco-ended by the co-ltte. o (r I- Q O H- < q: LU CO oo < o LiJ 2 jJ s:: J ll I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING LMCD CODE SECTION 3.09, SUED. 5 RELATING TO LATE APPLICATION CHARGES FOR OPEN WATER FISHING CONTESTS The Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ordains that LMCD Code Section 3.09, Subdivision 5 is amended to read as follows: Subd. 5. Special Requirements for Open Water Fishing Contests. The following special requirements shall apply to open water fishing contests. (•;, A Special Event Permit for open water fishing contests is required only for contests in which (1) there are 19 or more participating boats; or (2) there is an entry fee of more than $10; or (3) there is more than $2,000 in prizes. (b) Renewal applications submitted [after December 1 of the preceding year] later than 90 days before the scheduled event shall be accompanied by a late fee as prescribed by R^olution of the Board. (c) The District may require additional information or stipulate further conditions in uccordance with the Fishing Contest Policy Guidelines adopted by Resolution of the Board. This enactment is in effect from and after its passage and publication in accordance with the enabling act of the District. It is enacted by a majority vote of all the members of the Board and has the effect of an ordinance. 1990. Adopted by the LMCD Board of Directors this day of David H. Cochran, Chairman ATTEST: Eigene R. Strommen, Executive Director i ;2.1 .1 len. Executive Oirector EXCERPT: LMCD Resolution No. 62ORDINANCE NO.ES for open water fishing contestsJits 3°.tnStXVyt opt"Event permit for or%«^^^^ w Faster DGComber 1 of the preceding Shell be ecoompenied b, e Ute Resolution of the Board, ard. ,nt is in otf“' ^%^Ynltl'"tt\?etSbTt ,r'tS“lnd^t%be"S. of en ordlnenoe. he LMCD Board of Directors this------day of David H. Cochran, chairman , f .a For special events licenses, the fee required pursuant to Code Section 3.09, Subd. 2, shall be $50 for each event or $100 for a single application for multiple events of the same type, and the deposit shall be $100. Applications for open water fishing contests submitted after December 1 of the year preceding the event and other applications submitted less than 60 days prior to the scheduled date of the special event shall be accompanied by a fee of $100 for each event or $200 in the case of a single application for multiple events of the same type plus a deposit of $100.For registration of watercraft for hire, the fee required pusuant to Code Section 3.07, Subd. >v2j^shall be $50. Renewal applications submitted afterof the license year must be accompanied by an additional late fee of $50. Adopted by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors this day of _ _ _ _f 1988. Amended 1-25-89. Chairman Robert Rascop ATTEST: Executive Director Frank Mtxa i Minnesota Pollution .Control Agency r 520 Lafayette Road, Saint PauInMinnesota 55155 44 Teleph.one.(612_) 296-6300 t: j ,*C,; {-^£1 ^ * MtNMSOIA 1««0 • % • '• •«. «!• November 27, 1989 Sergeant Pill Chandler Hennepin County Water Patrol Post Office Box 187 Spring Park, Minnesota 55384 Dear Sergeant Chandler: I appreciate the opportunity to have participated In the personal watercraft noise testing on September 29, 1989, at Lake Minnetonka. It's hard to believe that only 8 weeks ago I was tempted to roll my pants up and wade In the water to cool off! Attached Is a copy of your test results to which I added ray results. Since my microphone was set up at the corner of the dock platform, the open-throttle pass-bys may not have been at exactly 50 feet. Also, I was not looking for a maximum level during the 50 foot Idle pass-by, but rather a minimum range. The following numbers are the result of logarithmically averaging the data on both types of watercraft: (log) average maxlmums: 050', 0100', 0300', 0400', 0500' modIfled: 87 85 stock: 80 77 Modified - vehicle 1,2,3. Stock - 5 didn't fit In either category so 62 71 68 64 61 vehicle 4,6,7,3,9,10. Vehicle I left It out. Two vehicles of each type were monitored at “play" for a few minutes. t was curious to see how close to shore they could operate and be within the State's ambl.!nt noise standards for residents on shore. Two stock vehicles, assuming they stayed in the same area for an hour, would appear to be within limits at distances beyond 200 feet. Two modified vehicles, under the same conditions, would need to be beyond 500 feet. Regional Ollices: Duluth • Brainerd • Deiiort Lakes • Marshall • Rochester Equal Opportunity Empteyer P'lnlad on Recycled Paper ; I I 1 li [ • Sergeant Bill Chandler November 27, 1989 Page Ttfo The data collected and analyzed herein waa for Informational purposes only and not Intended to replace or circumvent manufacturer's testing procedures. If you have any questions please call me at (612) 296-7898. Sincerely, •\ r * r^\ 'L Rebecca Nledzielskl Program Development - Noise Specialist Division of Air Quality RAN/lmb2.45 ‘ y Enclosure cOp- • i R£Ct!Vh*' DEC dl989 L.M.C.D. LJZea. 'fn/fo 1 Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission DATE: JANUARY 9, 1990 MEDIA CONTACT: JENNIFER WATTS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District iLMCD) is featuring a series of video programs on the local public access cable channel dealing with the Comprehensive Management Plan. The series features various points of the plan as they were pre sented and addressed at the seminar held December 2 at the Lafayette Club in Minnetonka Beach with LMCD board members and local government representatives present. The programs consist of five separate shows dealing with one or more of the issues of the plan addressed at the seminar. Each show begins with a brief introduction by LMCD Board Chair Dave Cochran and an overview of the plan by Bob Rascop, followed by the feature issue presentation. The series began its cablecast schedule January 2 and will continue through March 26 with each show receiving a minimum of four cable showings. The shows cablecast Mondays at 10 AM and Tuesdays at 7 PM. The LMCD program, a regular feature on Triax Ct'«4.'inel 20, was developed to help keep the lake area communities informed of LMCD activities and )srograms. For more information on this program or to find out how to become involved in the production of the progam, call the Excelsior Community TV Studio at 474-5539 or the LMCD at 473-7033. -30- LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT January Mi mO • TOs . 't^nCD Board of Directorsgjfc-. I FROM: ^Gene Strommen :cors Cable Cast of Management Plan Presentation December S to City and Agency Officials The Excelsior Cable Commissioni which video taped the December 2 Management Plan meeting at the LaFayette Clubi has completed editing of the all day presentation. Chair Cochran and the executive director edited the video tape and arrived at a conclusion to divide the program into five presenta- tions* Each will be approximately 20 minutes long. Cochran introduces each piece so the viewing audience knows what is coming. Rascop gives an overview of the Management Plan as he presented December 2. The balance of each segment features the presenter and some questions/ansuers. Many of the (3 a A's were difficult to include due to their length and in some cases poor audio. y % The schedule which is now in place starting January and running through March is as follows on Excelsior Cable Channel 20* 10 AM Mondaysi 7 PM Tuesdays? Jan 2 Shoreland Management Feb 5/ b Mar 12/13 n a/ R On Shore Facilities/Lake Use " 12/13 " 1R/2D ft 15/lb Lake Access " IR/ED " 2b/27 rf 22/23 Public Safety " 2L/27 n 2R/3D le’ct lands/F i sher i es/Ua ter tJua 1 i ty Mar 5/ b Oe encourage your vi‘3wl<tg of (“heie cable casts as you are able to do so This might even encourage your subscribing if you are in the areal LMCD will be receiving a duplicate of the program on 1/2 VMS video tape which we will make available when we receive it. Call our office if you wish to reserve a time to review it. Thanks again for your continued attention to this study INFO COPY TO? Jennifer Uatts EXCELSIOR CABLE COMMISSION MM3 Oak St Excelsior MN 55331 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICTLAKE USE COMMITTEEAGENDA NOTE CHANGE OF TIME, PLEASE* 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 4:00 p.m., Monday, January 22, 1990 LMCD Office, Wayzata Hennepin County Lake Improvement Division presentation: Denis Bailey A. Buoy placement review for 1990 Slow zones, low water hazard buoys B. Projected channel dredging and status of channels during the current 925.5' low water period Code amendment to correspond with Resolution 59 Relating to Late Application Charges for Open Water Fishing Contests, changing renewal date late deadline from December 1 to 90 days prior to start of the event B. C. Charter Boat Subcommittee report recommending: A. Fee increase from $50 to $100 per charter boat, amending Resolution 62 Require city approval for passenger pick-up at municipal docks Require letter of permission from other ports of call other than a municipal dock authorized by the city Require Type I Personal Flotation Device (PFD) Require Type I toilet. Indicating capacity in gallons Require posting location of PFD's on outside of area where PFD's are stored Call for operator cooperation In proper use of public address systems for announcements, playing music Call for operator cooperation in watching wakes while traveling empty to port of call D. E. F. G. H. Personal Watercraft (PWC) follow-up to public hearing report, and additional response from the PCA regarding decibel report of 9/29/89 PWC test Charter boat applications for (information only, investigations underway): A. New charter boat certificate with wine and beer: David J. Lawrance B. Renewal charter boat certificate, with liquor, wine and beer: John Lambln, and new partner Franco Loris New Special Event application, Scott Dvorak, private fishing contest and chili lunch, Saturday, 1/27/90, Big Island/Veterans Bay; recommending approval I i Policy consideration for granting of Special Event Licenses for events scheduled prior to Installation of buoys during low water level with hazardous conditions for watercraft/operators Special Event applications for water skiing slalom courses requesting buoys to be left in the water, submerged, for the entire season; recommending this not be permitted with increased weed harvesting now taking place by LMCD and/or private operators, and to further encourage rotation of slalom ski areas Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol report: A. Slate of candidates from which the honoree will be selected for February 15 Recognition Dinner Update on meeting with MN DNR on personal watercraft legislation Winter Lake use statistics - sunken cars and other paraphernalia New deputy appointment Additional announcements/business - date of summer open house (to avoid conflict with LMCD Lake tour) B. C. D. E. 10. Additional business recommended by the committee i CO>%«•✓-S CO •HC^l T3 01-H rjiH§01 ^ Ou^ JC CM 43ofj OJ X COUCO 00 -Cc^ n CO u OJ u CO JS 0) T) (0 01 00uu CO c -H COU x-s 3 01 3 01 3 f-H w CO o cr I— CO Q 2o < cr QJ CO ou < o H-u 2 2 < >% 3 • 00 CO u M 09 >S CO 01 CO I 43 (0 0Q COa u c 01 in (0 o N (0 01 CO u O CO ^ CO Z 3 O CJ C7> O CM cn 00 00 I ^.ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING LMCD CODE SECTION 3.09, SUBD. 5 RELATING TO LATE APPLICATION CHARGES FOR OPEN WATER FISHING CONTESTS =2, The Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ordains that LMCD Code Section 3.09, Subdivision 5 is amended to read as follows: Subd. 5. Special Requirements for Open Water Fishing Contests. The following special requirements shall apply to open water fishing contests. (a) A Special Event Permit for open water fishing contests is required only for contests in which (1) there are 19 or more participating boats; or (2) there is an entry fee of more than $10; or (3) there is more than $2,000 in prizes. (b) Renewal applications submitted [after December 1 of the preceding year] later than 90 days before the scheduled event shall be accompanied by a late fee as prescribed by Ri^olution of the Board. (c) The District may require additional information or stipulate further conditions in accordance with the Fishing Contest Policy Guidelines adopted by Resolution of the Board. This enactment is in effect from and after its passage and publication in accordance with the enabling act of the District. It is enacted by a majority vote of all the members of the Board and has the effect of an ordinance. 1990. Adopted by the LMCD Board of Directors this day of David H. Cochran, Chairman .\TTEST: Eqgene R. Strommen, Executive Director EXCERPT: LMCD Resolution No. 62 5.For special events licenses, the fee required pursuant to Code Section 3.09, Subd. 2, shall be $50 for ®3ch event or $100 for a single application for multiple events of the same type, and the deposit shall be 5100. Applications for open water fishing contests submitted after December 1 of the year preceding the event and other applications submitted less than 60 days prior to the scheduled date of the special event shall be ac companied by a fee of $100 for each event or $200 in the case of a single application for multiple events of the same type plus a deposit of $100. For registration of watercraft for hire, the fee re quired pusuant to Code Section 3.07, Subd.^v2jShall be $50^ Renewal applications submitted ^fter of the license year must be accompanied by an additional late fee of $50. Adopted by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors this day of 1988. Amended 1-25-89. Chairman Robert Rascop Executive Director Frank Mixa Q _ „ L Minnesota Pollution Control Agency r 520 Lafayette Road, Saint PauI,^Minnesota 55155 !! Telepfp.OAe ,(612) 296-6300 • L ^ ,'C,; {•[’£! N • MLNSUQIA mo * ♦ ................. November 27, 1989 Sergeant Bill Chandler Hennepin County Water Patrol Post Office Box 187 Spring Park, Minnesota 55384 Dear Sergeant Chandler: I appreciate the opportunity to have participated in the personal watercraft noise testing on September 29, 1989, at Lake Minnetonka. It's hard to believe that only 8 weeks ago I was tempted to roll my pants up and wade in the water to cool off! Attached is a copy of your test results to which I added my results. Since my microphone was set up at the corner of the dock platform, the open-throttle pass-bys may not have been at exactly 50 feet. Also, I was not looking for a maximum level during the 50 foot idle pass-by, but rather a minimum range. The following numbers are the result of logarithmically averaging the data on both types of watercraft: (log) average maxlmums: @50', @100', @300', @400', @500' modified: 87 85 71 68 67 stock: 80 77 64 61 62 Modified - vehicle 1,2,3. Stock » vehicle 4,6,7,8,9,10. Vehicle 5 didn't fit in either category so I left it out. Two vehicles of each type were monitored at "play” for a few minutes. I was curious to see how close to shore they could operate and be within the State's ambl.tnt noise standards for residents on shore. Two stock vehicles, assuming they stayed in the same area for an hour, woulo appear to be within limits at distances beyond 200 feet. Two modified vehicles, under the same conditions, would need to be beyond 500 feet. Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester Equal Opportunity Employer Prirtled on Recycled Paper •I Sergeant Bill Chandler November 27, 1989 Page Two manufacturer'a testing procedures. If you have any questions please call me at (612) 296 7898. Sincerely» Rebecca Niedzielski Program Development ~ Noise Specialist Division of Air Quality RAN/lmb2.45 Enclosure ioe' ' So/3 R£Ct1Vh* DEC dl989 L.M.C.D. i^ctc. 'ln/9o ne ! ■I I 1 ‘ ^ J ^1 r- .. f ■ \y PERSONAL NATEROUiFT TESTING Listed Loudest to Quietest —— Fa$T '(‘f^pt^y^eclbels Kni I Knf ^ ^ i>r\ I ypfe gf Personal W/c 1) Modified 440 t Ski with cing pipe and side Khaust ^ s^a.Afe;vv(v 2) Modified Jet Ski ith after market uiet pipe and side Khaust 3) Modified 650 SX Ski with side 4) Stock 650 Jet ci with (side^exhaust 5) Stock ^ Sport II t Jet with Rear Dcnaust^^. r viwsHiJcy. 6) Stock Sport II et Jet with rear xhaust 7) Stock Kawasaki 50 TS with rear xhaust 8) Stock Yamaha ^0 ave Runner with rear xhaust 9) Stock Yamaha ^0^ ave ‘Runner with rear xhaust . __VtftvvAVtWsj 10) Stock Sea-Doo ombardier 580 xttf 11) Two Modified ersonal W/C operat- ng together 12) Two Stock ersonal W/c operat- ng together 13) Sheriff’s Patrol oat with 260 I/O -WC-T.WTR t ? I \uft\s\ dQf\ nTo:Obmil MESJI^q 22 1990 I Ptob: Date: Subject CiCouncil Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning a Zonlnf January 16, 1990 #1452 Walter Pemberton, 1720 Shadywood Road - Variance - Request for Tabling " s^tui!lly ■?e""/7he'pi»bfrto^%V"?i„,™ 3-2 tohTrr/oVe%“^a/l\\^ee\'’* ' «thaoh anaresolution fon a.."!?'- -irrected staff to draft aresolution for denial. Thraonllonn^/***** *° « final action on their aonHrequested tabling of of their options. tion pending further consideration #l°V2°Valter''and‘’MaHTyn°p™b^^^^^^^ iT^o' ShL‘"‘’a® “PP^^tlo" request of the applicants. ™yer^, nfjs '^°°^ ** *"* I To: Proa: Date: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson JA!i22 i93Q Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning S Zoning Administrator January 16, 1990 Subject: #1468 George & Sally Pillsbury, 1300 Bracketts Point Road Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Request for Tabling At your January 8, 1990 meeting. Council voted 3 in favor, 2 against, for conceptually denial of variances for the proposed greenhouse addition. Additionally, Council directed staff to draft a resolution for such denial, while incorporating language for approval of the conditional use permit and variance for grading and retaining walls in the 0-75' zone. It is anticipated that this work will ultimately be necessary to preserve the lakeshore bank, whether or not the greenhouse is constructed. The applicants have requested that this application be tabled in order that they may further consider their options. Moved by _ _, Seconded by _ _, to table application #1468 George & Sally Pillsbury, 1300 Bracketts Point Road, at the applicants' request. Ayes , nays cuii^icn. fviErjiNGTo;Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson !A!I{>2 i990 pjTv Hi- Prom: Date: Jeanne A. Mabusthr Building & Zoning Administrator January 8, 1990 Subject:#1469 City of Orono, North Arm Drive & County Road 151 Intersection - Conditional Use Permit - Continuation of Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit C D E F G H Application Kilbo's Memo Siren Plan for City of Orono Elevations/Detail for Siren Updated Property Owners List Survey Lynch Report Plat Map Locating Siren Pertinent Code Section - Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (D) - As amended February 23, 1987 [specific LR-IB section - Section 10.24, Subdivision 3 (A) ] Review of Revised Application - Per Planning Commission's directive the Police Chief has presented a plan relocating the siren tower to the intersection of North Arm Drive and County Road 151. As of this writing, staff has received no comments from the neighbors notified within the 350* radius. The Public Works Director has asked that the siren be set back 100' from the center line of the intersections of the roadways and placed to the back slope of the right-of-way of North Arm Drive. In addition, the Director has asked that an access drive of a minimum 12' width be installed for easy access to the siren. In reviewing the comments of the Planning Commission at the earlier review, members questioned the type of pole to be installed. The anodized aluminlmum pole is similar to the type installed at the water treatment plant in Navarre, this type was approved by the City because of longevity and minimal maintenance characteristics. Planning Commission members noted that the galvanized steel is aesthetically i. acceptable. Pertinent staff members will continue to recomn. the anodized aluminlmum pole, not only because of its longevity and ease of maintenance but that as the pole weathers, the color blends with the natural surrounding environment. The galvanized steel pole will be more noticable. The zoning staff will advise Council of both preferences. The Planning Commission may wish to expand upon the their reasons for recommending the galvanized steel pole. La i ! f I f Zoning File #1469 January 9, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Once again, the siren is necessary for public safety, in the event of a tornado or other catastrophic event. It is needed in this specific area to provide coverage as set forth in the siren plan for the City. This site location will satisfy the height requirement so that the 4,500' radius of coverage is met. approved, the Planning Commission should note the following conditions: 1. Controls for siren to be attached to the pole in water tight enclosure 10' off the ground. 2. Poles should be installed at a minimum 100' from center line of intersection of North Arm Drive and County Road 151. In addition, the pole should be placed in the back slope of the right-of-way with an access drive of 12' minimum width. 3. If Planning Commission wishes to request the galvanized steel pole, please list reasons why. Additional CoMsents and Planning Commission Recoamendation - The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the staff recommendation noted above and added that they would approve of an anodized aluminimum pole for the siren structure. As the siren is to be located in the right-of-way of a roadway, the customary resolution for the conditional use permit cannot be filed against the chain of title. Council members may review and consider the proposed recommendation for action. Proposed Notion - Moved by _ _, seconded by _ _, to approve a conditional use permit for the installation of a 55' high siren tower finding the tower is necessary for public safety purposes and is needed to provide coverage as proposed in the siren plan for the City. The specific location will satisfy the height requirement so that the 4,500' radius of coverage is met. Approval of this conditional use permit is based on the following conditions: 1. Controls for siren to be attached to the pole in a water-tight enclosure 10' off the ground. 2. Poles should be installed at a minimum 100' from center line of Intersection of North Arm Drive and County Road 151. In addition, the poles should be placed in the back slope of the right-of-way with an access drive of 12' minimum width. 3. The poles are to be of anodized aluminimum. Vote: Ayes _ _, nays _ _. CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ■y c , Ox-2. Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) __________________ Please check one - Property // abstract or // /f"* torrens? (for Conditional Use Applications only) Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name Phone (home ) A'tii Address _____ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name A- ^ _Phone (work) ‘4'/'-^- 7^g-7_ _ _ _ _ # fCity Zip 53~ Phone (home) Address Phone City Zip Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee ouble Current Application FeeAfter-•the-Fact Fee $100.00 a) /$150.00 b) $150.00 c) $250.00 d) $200.00 f)Land Alteration Grading and filling ~ designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining wails within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS _ _ _ _ $150.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $250.00 Vacation $150.00 Easement Vacation $ 50.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $250.00 Rezoning $100.00 Appeals Other - see fee schedule - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION ION dhia9cyf^^>yL>^7>uL4^cnJZ.ification Number (P.I.D.)ne - Property /V14' abstract or // /h torrens? Ltional Use Applications only)legal description to application if not included rvey.Phone (home )Phone (work)-7S^-7J .City 6a.i.L Zip ^32 5 srent than applicant)Phone (home) vS A-Wv ^Phone City Zip irty Acquired (month/vear ) ) not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. )NAL USE PERMITS - se - 1/2 Current Fee “louble Current Application Fee•Fact Fee 10.00 a) 10.00 b)Oo•oc) lO.OO d) 0.00 f) 0.00 d) Commercial/Industrial Use Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grad.-ng, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore ONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) Vacation Easement Vacation Easement Vacation With Subdivision Rezoning Appeals Br - see fee schedule PRESENT USE OP PROPERTYPresent Zoning District Z / QPresent Use of Property Residential_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify)DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST j.Describe request in detail:REQUIRED SUBMITTALS1. Completed Application Form.2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271)3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address.4. Certificate of survey. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 6. Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). 7. Plat Map. 8. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Land Use Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge . //•Applicant's signature Date *?/'?. OWNERS SIGNATURE ^ u The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change -prior to the meeting. KRpropertyd«tall*s::£~S!u;j=r--‘s^^i^-.TSS'22^^ .........wrv«y. . ^4-a and proposed c®®*® „. i* .PPUC-.X. ^ u.t of ------------”••,1.9 BOSWt»o.t two - - - gnatttr# --------- ---------- Zm «ido »XX tnforoo^Xon d/or l^PP y iJ.t(.i££*?/? «««b«rsr «Jd at.ification o£ thl* r«qu _________ _ Dat« ,, ^MS b®£off® bb® rr»Srtw^};“e2itMtVw^jg* f*»rt>o?«l^““‘^^i.Vo.ns sjssr« • **-“?i'*L2SMI rtOMO OOlCO “““rTfS?.* » *0»i “9 “^lo. i«4 ««vi»0 tl». B.ll«i»« •,*^iJ? rs-'istis? k'i PI ■-;:;a Intaro-rfice MamoData: Saptambar 26. 1989Jaanna Nahuatb, Zoninq AdminiatratorFromi Mai Kilbo. Chia-f o+ PoUcaConditional Uaa Parmit - Eniarqancv Praparadnaaa Si ranThis is a raouast ^or a conditional usa par sit -for tna installation o+ an Eaargancy Praparadnass siran at NSP pola #40 in tha right a* way at S35 Windjammar Lana in tha city o* Orono. This raquast iror conditional (.*.sa parsit is ci'.rsL.ant to Zoning Cooa daction 10.20. Subdivision o iD/ wnich raouires ^ conditional usa parsit and approval tor public sarvica structuras. Tha City proposas to install a waacbar airan at tha Watar Plant. Tha poia is a standard "talaprona poia” with siran at a haipht ot 55 abova tha qrov.nc. Tha siran anciosura at the top o-f tha poia is about e x 2 :< 4 ano can ba any color spaciriad. The systam will ba within tha fancad araa of tha Watar Plant. Use ot tha sirar will ba for waathar or civil asargancv only, and is NOT a tira airan. This sirsn will ba taatao monthly (1st Wacnasdav aach month. 1 p»m.>. Tha araa ot covaraga is ratad at a radius ot 4.500' (sss tha City s siran plan attachad). Tha siren has capabilitv to ba usao directionally as & voice ioudspaaKer in tna event ot tha need tor an evacuation. Please note that over tha past 11 years. I have had reouaets •for such a siren from a number ot residents. ft-:. I t Property Owners List for City of Orono application !tl469. Revised 1/8/90 .1 : OftlAX ■UM^. 07-117-23 11 0008 Margaret Blazk 835 Windjammer Lane Mound, MN 5536407-117-23 12 0028 Gerald Helgren 865 Windjammer Lane Mound, MN 5536407-117-23 12 0030 Mary J. Vogel 875 Windjammer Lane Mound, MN 5536407-117-23 12 0029 Ronald & Judith Davisson 860 North Arm Drive Mound, MN 55364 07-117-23 12 0008 Fischer Development Co -I 6801 W 150th Street Apple Valley, MN 55124 07-117-23 12 0007 D J Farley & E C Farley 890 Forest Arms Lane Mound, MN 55364 07-117-23 12 0006 Royetta Marcotte 860 Forest Arms Lane Mound, MN 55364 07-117-23 12 0005 T K & A Samuel 830 Forest Arms Lane Mound, MN 55364 06-117-23 32 0002 Lakeview Golf of Mtka Inc 855 Red Oak Lane Mound, MN 55364 06-117-23 44 0001 Vincent H Larson 790 North Arm Dr Mound, MN 55364 06-117-23 44 0016 Richard Franzel 800 North Arm Drive Mound, MN 55364 [ \\\^^ III —~ ',.nu.*>^ ' TTf^i —» .•^VvnJO " NCV7‘4; i^' ■:;: —?—■.:-<jL:^r^.y-^rr^cf/#^rf'>'-'"’’'^'" r -■ ■‘"V ' \ l^J« r ^ pi/'// Siro'<•J«47 >» Iij:««• V* I r>- \K lunf I» XC ^>:.3 67^‘^ ri>' /^■? Co \ '< ^/£Co >/ ^y;* t. / /' :/A /V 7^ A' ?'^v. O V ^ ^. C-*' '?■» ^ /•». >/ .•y' '^•/ I vO.% V / ^v / LDR.P ./ '3T?r < -Y.V \ / XX ->/^ - -X» * X »^ / !!« C/ 4n :‘'<5/Us** / •A-. ^ /* /¥.»—’^r »/,>•' iiik‘;t \— t :•• l-*‘» w« t-'' \ i IjvlW£fe- V >T —-J r V A / ^%v «* s \: 5. /, .z' tr. o. i. •i^- V v.-^ />/./,'V f' i.i “t'-8•♦ w^V JL 5:5 § jQi) dJi} CO r Cr.o G Bcoeirroo PE Rooca W Roxf'ie. PE Jcsrpn C Afxjeftik PE oradfCftJ A LeriOcfig PE P<njfO E *urrtf. PE jjfT^i C Osoo PE G«nn R CooA. PE T>omjj E No>rv PE Pcc<*rt G Scrufiic^'t PEVjrwrfi L Sorva^ PE f^trt -A GofOon PE R<r»a/d W Po«r ’ PE OonaO C fUiffjann PE j-^»y A Boutxyi PE Var« A Hanux' PE Vj < E<*(1 PE Mx.Kl^t T Raut^jrn PE ?o£<^ R P*rf*»-' ? PE 3j.'x3 O LO!kcra PE T^Gm4t W Pprrvon P£M<na^ C Lyfyf^ PE Jjmn R MaUnd PE •fprifWi P Aryjenon PE •f^ A Bact'mann PE \ta»A R Roitv PE 9o«>en C Ruiiftt. AIA Thoftrai E Angui PE MowvanJ A SanflonJ PE Dark»i j EdgpfTon PE Martt A Scto PE P»>Ao J Catw«4 PE Mart O \Hd0tv PE Thomas R Arxlffson. AIA Gary r R><arvJer. PE Charles A Er<kSOn Leo M Pawve«sky Hartar M Orson Susan M Ecerw> C PABones tr 00 Rosene Anderlik &AssociatesEngineers & Architects ________________October 10, 1989City of Orono pp-p , iBox 66 'Crystal Bay, MN 55323Attn; Ms. Jeanne MabusthRe; File No. 139-1469Orono Police Dept. SirenDear Jeanne, We have reviewed the request for placement of an Emergency Preparedness Siren in the vicinity of NSP pole #40 within the Windjammer Lane right-of-way. 1. We recommend that the siren be placed atop an anodized aluminum pole which is the same type of pole used for the siren at the water treatment plant. An anodized aluminum pole would be a long lasting pole and would require little maintenance. . ii 2. 3. 4. Controls for the siren must be attached to the pole in watertight enclo sure 10 feet off the ground. An antenna is situated at the controls for activation of controls by radio signal. The siren rotates 359* and then reverses direction back to its original position. The siren is activated for 3 minutes when tested on the first Wednesday of each month at 1;00 P.M. A 125 decibel siren will register 125 decibels at 100 feet and 70 decibels at 4500 to 5000 feet. There is currently 1 siren located in Navarre and 2 in Long Lake. An additional siren is needed in the Windjammer Lane area as it is a popu lated area currently without a warning device. The siren is necessary for public safety in the event of a tornado or other catastorphic events. Placement on high ground is preferred so that the 4500 feet radius of coverage is met. The concrete feet deep. footing for the pole is anticiapted to be 24* in diameter 6 If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONES'- :0, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Michael C. Lynch MCL;li 1 u 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 GOUr-IRIL WEETiNG TO:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Proa: Date: Subject: JA!i22 i990 p;tv Hi’ Michael P. Gaffronr Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator January 17, 1990 #1479 Doug Williams/Lecy Construction, Inc., 1020 Tonkawa Road - Variance - Resolution Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for lot width variance to construct a new residence. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Proposed Resolution Exhibit B - Memo & Exhibits of 1/10/90 Discussion - Applicants are requesting a lot width variance in order to construct a new residence on this 1.8 acre property. There is an existing house on the property, which was constructed after being granted a lot width variance in 1976. Existing lot width is 100', the standard for the LR-IB zone is 140*. Neighboring lots to the north and south all are similar to this lot, being about 100* in width. The applicants originally also requested a variance for average lakeshore setback. Due to the northerly neighboring residence being relatively far back from the shoreline, applicants were proposing to line up their new residence with the house to the immediate south and the second house to the north. Planning Commission took into account the expressed concerns of the neighbor to the immediate north about possible view reductions, hence applicants have revised their proposal to meet the average setback as we would normally define it. At their January 16th meeting. Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot width variance, finding that no additional land is available, that the property contains an existing residence which will be removed and the new residence will be further back on the property, and that the majority of the adjacent and nearby lots are similarly 100' in width. Staff Recoamendation - Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution for approval is attached. I A RBSOLOTION GRAHTIHG A VARIAMCB TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) PILE #1479 WHEREAS, Douglas Williams (hereinafter "the applicant”) has an Interest in the property located at 1020 Tonkawa Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Tract B, Registered Land Survey #617, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a new single family residence on the property which is 100' in width where a 140' lot width is normally required. HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Oroiio, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1479 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshoz * Residential Zoning District requiring 140' in lot width foT- construction of a new residence. The property is 100' in width. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 16, 1990, and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: A) The majority of the adjacent and nearby lots are similarly 100' in width. B) The lot already contains a single family residence which will be removed and replaced with the proposed new residence located further back from the lakeshore, meeting all other Orono Zoning Code requirements. C) A lot width variance was granted for this lot in 1976 in order to allow construction of the currently existing residence. Page 1 of 5 I I I •■I i j 1A RESOLOTIOH GRAMTIlW A VARIANCE TO mmiCIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B)PILE #1479NBBRRAS, DOU,la. Wi 1 02’o‘‘'ToSkaiiTo\d,terest in tha -Citv") and legallyhe City of Orono (hereinafter city ) ««« ^as follows; B, Registered Land Survey #617, Hennepin County, lesota (hereinafter 'the property ): and WBBRBAS, the applicant has applied to 5 ;rptlt‘y ’'thTc''h“lri%%‘?in “ii*d?rw?^"rfa' I'.r ilt”wldth is required. NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of innesota: FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #1479. The property is located in the ^R-IB Single ^oVnttru‘ctiyt"f"a%^^^Ve^s?dercl“^ ^^^perty is I' in width. The Orono Planning Contmission oY^th^1 1 QQO. 2ind r©con\in©nd©d approva. ./o^sed variance based upon the following findings: A) The majority of the adjacent and nearby lots are similarly 100' in width. B) The lot already contains ® t^^^ nSi^'residencV 1^0%”^^^^^^ from the lakeshore, meeting all other Orono Zoning Code requirements. C) A lot width variance was 1976 in order to allow construction of the currently existing residence. Page 1 of 5 D) No other land is available for purchase to make this lot conform to the current standards.E) The lot was created prior to the adoption of the current 1 acre/140' lot wicith zoning requirement.4. The City Council has considered this application Including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community.5. The City Council finds that the conditions e , .ing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply lerally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance 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 right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a new single family residence on a lot of 100' in width where a 140' lot width is normally required, subject to the following conditions: l ! 4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hersby 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.Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of January, 1990.ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) Property Owner(s) STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowlr ,ged before me on this 22nd day of January, 1990, by James R. Grabek & 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 My Commission Expires Page 3 of 4 i! The undersigned applicant has read, understood and aby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of property.Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, ta at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of January, M. Hallin, City Clerx James R. GrabeK, Mayor r Owner(s) f Owner(s) ? MINNESOTA ) ) ss. 3F HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowlf .ged before me on nd day of January, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. » Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota al corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf City. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 3 of 4 To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator BernhardsonFrom:Date Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator January 10, 1990Subject: #1479 Doug Williams/Lecy Construction, Inc.,1020 Tonkawa Road - Variance - Continuation of Public HearingZoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, seweredApplication - The applicant has revised his proposal so that all portions of the proposed house and deck meet the average lakeshore setback. The lot width variance is still required for construction of this new residence. List of Exhibits Exhxbit A - Revised Survey with New Proposed House Location Exhibit B - House Elevation Views Exhibit C - Notice of Planning Commission Action 11/22/89 Exhibit D - Memo & Selected Exhibits of 11/13/89 Pertinent Facts - 1. The lot is 100' in width. Adjacent and nearby lots in the neighborhoo<^also 100* in width. 2. A lot width variance was granted in 1976 to allow the current house to be constructed. The existing house replaced a previous cabin on the same property. 3. The proposed residence meets all required setbacks. Proposed hardcover in the 75-250' zone will be approximately 18.5%, and in the 250-500' zone will be 19.3%, meeting all hardcover requirements. 4. Applicants will be requested as part of the building permit review process to provide a more detailed grading plan along the south side of the proposed house, to protect the neighboring Gasch house, which is only 2' from the lot line. Discussion - Except for lot width, which the applicant has no ability to rectify, the proposed residence meets all other pertinent zoning code requirements. Staff RecooBendation - Staff recommends approval of the lot width variance, based on the findings that no additional land is available, that a house has existed on this lot previously, that most other lots in the immediate neighborhood are similar in width, and that all other zoning requirements are being met. (Note: this application is scheduled for review by the Council at their January 22nd meeting.) nSTiIflVT^ itrsirr^iHfi rvi........ •K'li r* H O f (• !• [•14IIM.AV*IKRI TTtTrr^i TO: From: Date: Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Conunission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator November 13, 1989 Subject: #1479 Doug Williams/Lecy Construction, Inc., 1020 Tonkawa Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for average setback new residence on the prop'^***-" width variance is required. ,\ji. avei.a^cs sc:<.uaui^ Variance to construct a new residence on the property. Also, technically a lot List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Exhibit K - Exhibit L - Exhibit M - Exhibit N - Exhibit O - Exhibit P - Application & Revised Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey, Proposed House Location Proposed House Plans Staff's Sketch Submitted Hardcover Calculations Staff Hardcover Review Air Photo Topography Location of Pre-1976 Cabin South Side Elevation Plan, Existing Residence Documentation, 1976 Variance & Related Setback Issues 1975 Average Setback Ordinance (34.201) Current Average Setback Ordinance (10.22, Subd 1) Survey Compilation, Average Setback Pertinent Facts - 1. Existing lot width is 100*. Lot width required in the LR-IB zone is 140'. A lot width setback variance was granted in 1976 under the current zoning code for construction of the house that currently exists on the property. 2. 3. Applicants are requesting to remove the existing 13 year old residence and construct a new house approximately in the area that is now driveway apron (see Exhibit F). The new residence will encroach approximately 32' past the defined average lakeshore setback line, with a proposed deck encroaching approximately 42' past the average setback line. The applicant's surveyor has shown the average setback line using the second house to the north. Staff has indicated the correctly defined average setback line based on the two adjacent residences in Exhibit F. ning Commission Chairman o Planning Commission Members Administrator Bernhardson,el P. Gaffron, Asst Plannin, a Zoning Administrator nber 13p 1989( Doug Willia»"s/^J°y^°"!^Public”Hearing Tonkawa Road - Variancect - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residentialp 1 eredLance is required. >its A - B “ C - D - E - F - G - H - I - . J - ; K - : L - : M - t N t 0 t P - Application & Revised Application Plat MapProperty Owners List Surveyp Proposed House Locati Proposed House Plans chaff's Sketchlubmitted Hardcover calculations Staff Hardcover Review Air Photo Topography , „ i_, Location of Pre-1976 Cabin .- Residence rcSiS/ntltirS-ZairaAcftleiLeasetnact 1975®Lerage Setback Ordinance (34.201) . current Average Setback Ordinance ^“i^^'comfilUion, Average Gettact io't width is 100-. Lot requl«^d^in the^ 4°;he'^cu«\« -‘'nfn“'’«de construction of the t currently exists on the property. , are requesting to *p*roxiJlIte\ri" “he . and construct a ne Exhibit P). Th® ”®'^ ^ w\\r"ncroVcra^^^^^^^ a'^froposed^'d^k appioximaUly*42 • past the average setback line. ------- canfs surveyor has shown the “f^hlicatel second house to Tine based on the two :tly defined residences in Exhibit F. i>. Zoning File #1479 November 13p 1989 Page 2 of 34.The proposed house location on paper would appear to increase the "fields of view" enjoyed by neighboring residences. Howeverp it is likely that the view from the Hoffman residence at 1000 Tonkawa Road might be effectively diminished due to the proposed height of the residence to be constructed. Currently, Hoffman enjoys a panoramic view of the lake over the top of the applicant's existing house. The average setback line is the only protection Hoffman would have from further encroachment on his existing panoramic lake view. Although a full set of house elevation views has not been provided, it appears^ from the grading plan and elevation submitted that the defined height of the proposed house will meet the 30' limit, with the highest peak about 30* above the existing driveway apron.5.Applicant had submitted a preliminary proposal which had the proposed house located further back on the lot but still requiring an average setback encroachment. Applicant revised that proposal apparently to attempt to save 3 large maple trees which would have been removed. Staff would question whether the center 18" maple can be preserved given the proposed garage and driveway locations. 6.Prior to 1976, a cabin existed on this property in the location shown on Exhibit K. The easterly wall of that cabin was in approximately the same location as that of the currently proposed house. No average setback variance was requested or reviewed in 1976. Documentation from Council discussions responding to complaints by then and current neighbor. Marge Gasch, at 1031 Tonkawa Road indicated that the Council and staff felt that the intent of the average setback ordinance had been met by the house constructed in 1976 (see Exhibit M, especially Resolution #780, Finding #13). Discussion - The applicants propose to replace the existing 2-level residence with a 3-level residence (walk-out level plus 2 stories). While they are reducing the degree of encroachment past the defined average setback line, they are also building upward which may have a significant effect on views enjoyed by the Hoffmans. The average setback ordinance does not address views of the lake over the top of another residence, but merely is concerned with relative setbacks from the shoreline. Because of that, the applicants could construct a house meeting the required average setback but extending as high as the defined 30' height as customarily measured, and the Hoffmans would have no recourse through City ordinances. r 1iJ Zoning File #1479 November 13f 1989 Page 3 of 3 Applicants have drawn their version of »e^bac^ line between residences at 980 and 1030 Tonkawa Road, indicating they feel the Hoffman residence at 1000 Tonkawa Road is an anomaly in the neighborhood. In fact. Exhibit?, a compilation of neig^hborhood surveys, indicates that the 5®®J:gi"hbor-setbacK •arther from the lake than other houses in the neighbor hood. Staff Rac t—endation - Staff would recommend approval of the required variance of 40', findin, that most other lot. in the neighborho^ are 100' in width, and further that a lo^width ^or?onstructiJn of the existing residence was granted in 1976. Staff does not offer a strong recommendation regarding the average setback variance. The view impact on neighboring property owners as a result of the location, would appear to be beneficial when looking at p view on paper, but relative house elevations and ®®P®^®^?;°2 distances^further impact the perception of what is an acceptabl house location. Any recommendation for ^4uch denial, should state carefully the reasons for such recommendation. d \4 CITY OP OROMO - VRRIAHCE APPLICATION /T J ’ Initial Application Fee $150.00 .| **■ .J -'j ^ • ($50.00 per each additional variance)"—“ w __ Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 /vl (no change from original application) ‘■- •q.v- - ‘.-: After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ..v.jtf M • . » . * . V* PROPERTY LOCATION ‘ * X ^ ... . « j • . • i ^ Site Address IQ*2j O T (0KJ\^A.\A/^ LokIC^ 1 A»V^&. ^^kJ. .•.••' Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Oft —In-"^3 OOlA Please checJc one - Property _ _ abstract or V torrens? «»• (oE.(d343^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT pc>0^* WluUib.MS >.»^P Phone (home) — Name r^yjgT: H4g-._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (wor)c) ~ - - - Address; VlKiKi/^ 1:>R.*ICSCity! ECEU __ OHNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) \ — Name .^^(J VLCag vi g i ^n^l/___________ Phone (wor)c)^-H-gSQCs ------ Address: lr.7r> PP. City; Lr?kU» L^Vg-g,___Zip; Vi, Date Property Acquired ________________ (nionth/year) I (do) (fSo no^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District _ _ _^^ ^ ^_ _ _ _ _ _ __ Present Use of Property ^(kJGiL-£- _ _ _ __ Residential _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 2.~7^^QQO Describe request in detail ^ — Oht Pi pptgyprt iT~ Li Wig A^lJ gp A<i»F ir ________ VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area _ _ _ Lot Width _ _ _ Hardcover Setbac)c Variances (_ _ _ Front _ _ _ Side _ _ _ Rear) Other AjJgg^^e. 5Er^AO=: \/AR4A.Ua£________________ ii'"' ,lOHO - VARIANCE APPLICATIOH ff j i . J\ I®y*7^ 4’ -,plication Fee $150.00 .5 ij w/per each additional variance: Jiriance Fee $75.00 ....ige from original application) r- -..i-Fact Fees (Double application fee) __________ .- -f--' ri-’v[.OCATION - rr7 ‘- r _... \r.7a RD. SS^Sfe •.:■Identification Nujiber (P.I.D.) CPl~in~^3— ecb one - Property ____ abstract or _iL_ torrens? • feZ,«.54A:9al description to application if not included onsurvey. __________________________________________________Phone rhr.m«») — POO£» WlUUiS.MS AMP . ri^UST. IMC^_____________ (worloq^4-qH3g------ vna.UA t>B>SCity:.F5CSHff>iBife ■dlifi^nrihirlpplicant) Phone (home) gSO«Q- (worH.4n^-6&0^_ ■ess: IP7P PX>._ City = ipa<, U»t:^_ziP = . - (month/year) ! Property Acquired —--------------—------------------ lo) /f3o notD also own the adjacent 3SE OP PROPERTY sent Zoning District - - -]=^-^ ~~ -—- - - - - - - sent use of Property .l.eir., C. Pf^MlL.S>- - - - Residential Other (specify) _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ IOh”op”rEQoSt Estimated Construction Cost $^"7^^000 request in detail \ IS RBQOIRED T r.1- Width Hardcover__ Lot Area ______ wiarn -------- ;back Variances (______ Front -------- Side . ler ,^r/«=p V/A^A^MCB HARDSHIP , . ^Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strictenforcement of zoning regulations; |4*^ •^g. uy<rsOi _b p.g: TD__ _ _ _ _X ___________________________________________________________________________________________DESCRIPTION OP ONOSDAL PROPERTY CONDITIONSDescribe unusual property conditions preventiM compliance with ZoningCode Requirements ; g>kA TBAf TUi -T?n Q-mg^ _______________LTITZ'__________ZREQUIRED SUBMITTALS1. Completed Application Form ,2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center348-3271). ^3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list).4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required.5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changesin existing grade are proposed.6. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list).7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application.8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if bhe above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ __ _ _ _ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fe®s and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the informati^supplie^ i^true and c^rect to the best of his/her )cnowledge. /O Applicant's Signature _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ Date - - - - - --- - - - OWNERS SIGNATURE , . , . The owner hereby aclcowledges and agrees to this application and turtner authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date - -iQ . 2T:_I3- - - - ~ ^ M M M ^ ^ mmm ^ ^ ^ mm mm mm mm * mm ^ w mm ^ -m ^ mm mm ^ mm ^ ^ mm mm ^ ^ ^ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please malce arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your p’ace and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson coorjcii. meeting p JA.'i 2 21990 CiTV n? ns>m: Proa: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator January 8, 1990 11484 Roxanne Stasik^ 4470 Forest Lake Landing *■ Variance - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.22» Subdivision 1 - Applicant seeks to replace existing foundation located in front of the average lakeshore setback line. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Approval of the foundation located within the 75-250' setback area technically requires approval of a hardcover variance. Original approved in application #1432 * 31.7% Proposed #1482 » 31.7% List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Application Property Owners List Plat Map Resolution #2694 Foundation Plan Site Plan Application #1432 & #1484 Hardcover Fact Sheet #1484 Elevations Review of Current Application - In the process of constructing the rear addition to the existing structure, it was determined by the Orono Building staff that the existing foundation would have to be replaced. The previous applicant and owner had been advised by a structural engineer that the existing foundation was adequate. Unfortunately, the unplanned, excessive cofts has forced Ms. Whitney to sell the property. The current applicant proposes no changes from the plans originally approved in Application #1432. The application involves merely the replacement of the existing foundation under the existing structure located in front of the average lakeshore setback line. The previous elevations submitted for Application #1432 are applicable for this review (Exhibit H). MEE'nsG ^JA!i22i990rss&^rsrffbe« ^ citv n??!?; AimlnistJator BernhardsonJeanne A. Mabueth, Building s Zoning Administrator January 8, 1990#1484 Roxanne Stasik, 4470 Forest Lake Landing - Variance - Public HearingOrdinance -Xg°£ounaatfo;" l^aie'd Yn'’Vr-t ishore setback line.snore ------- i:d^\°th“n t\“e^5-«0^°"se •oval of a hardcover variance. original approved in application #1432 - 31.7% Proposed #1482 — 31.7% E Exhibits libit A libit B libit C dibit D dibit E hibit F hibit G hibit H Application Property Owners List Plat MapResolution #2694 Foundation PlanSite Plan Application #1432 Hardcover Fact Sheet #1484 Elevations & #1484 if Current Application - the process of °°"®^g^^ined^by^the^ Orono^^Building staff structure, it «as determined ^y replaced. The i existing foundation w advised by a structural s appli=anV"Vx “iVting ‘’ fo^dfrion" w"as aaeguate. L'telyf tb/^nplanned, "excessive costs has forced Ms. to sell the property current applicant ® ^114 32^^® Th^e^°application Lly approved in Application foundation under , m^erely the of the average lakeahore lin"e ®“The‘prevlous ‘^Levatio«s submitted for Applicatron e wlicSbll loJ this review (Exhibit H). Zoning File #1484 January 8, 1990 Page 2 of 2Staff Recoonendation -Staff would strongly recommend the approval of the and average lakeshore setback variance to permit the rc£. of the failing foundation under the existing structure.conditions of resolution #2694 remain applicable for this review.Additional Coxsents and Planning Coimnission Recommendation -Additional Exhibits -Exhibit I - Staff’s Sketch of Existing House Behind AverageLakeshore Setback LineThe Planning Commissiiori questioned the ability to relocate the present structure behind the average setback line. It was noted by the applicant th .'t it would appear to be unreasonable to place the existing house behind the average setback line as both structures on adjacent properties do not meet the required street setback. The house on the western property is located approximately 8' off the street setback line. The house on the property to the east is located approximately 22' off the street setback line. Please review the staff sketch (Exhibit I), the house has been relocated at the 35' required street setback line but note that the portions of the house still encroach the average lakeshore setback line. In addition, moving the house towards the street lot line may impair the existing traffic flow for the shared drive surface between the subject property and the property to the west. It would appear that access could still be provided to the existing garage on the east side of the relocated residence. The attached resolution approving the average lakeshore setback variance is presented for Council's review and action. ^ v<* Le #1484 19902■■endation -‘li-9 foundation undc “ th? e °ii’tf"'^‘ ‘.. IT iuiT x:nis re®te and Planning Co™l»sion Beco«ndatlon - Exhibits -LakoihorfI^Sack Sf*"’ «oWnd Average approximately approximately 22’ off the street%etba"k ‘': i‘°e ‘''•® review th^ «9-ra^ar ____ . . ^ -- -v.w*aav.A. j.ine. :ed arthe 35"?equ!«d°et‘'"''’*'^^' ‘>'o »°oae has ‘*'o house sti ®l enV ‘’®°’l^^"® *>“* "Ote >tback line, in encroach the averaoe >t line may impair the house towards e w/al!-i-br3 3e’c:^ - He existing garage o‘’„'’ the t%\ lakeshorencix s review and action. i*i\ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 PILE #1484WHEREAS, Roxanne Stasik (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 4470 Forest Lake Landing within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as Tract B, Registered Land Survey #1472, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); andWHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 to permit the construction of a new foundation under the existing portion of the principa] residence on the subject property. The existing structure is located approximately 40-45' in front of the average lakeshore setback line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1484. 2. The property is located in the LR-lB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application or. January 16, 1990, and recommended unanimous approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: A) The average lakeshore setback for the property has been established by the location of the existing residences on the adjacent properties. Such residences are located within substandard street setback areas; the west lot at 8' and east lot at 22'. B) On September 11, 1989 the City Council approved an average lakeshore setback variance r an addition to the rear of the existing structu ’ nding no visual impact upon the adjacent residence C) None of the affected property owners has submitted any objection to the proposed average lakeshore setback variance. > I Page 1 of 6 A RESOLDTION GRAMTING A VARIANCB TOmunicipal zoning codeSECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 FILE #1484WHEREAS, Roxanne Stasiko"roir?herefnaker "City") andwithxn the city o Registered Land Survey #1472, Co\'n\y?Minresc“^ "the property"); andWHEREAS, the applicant fPP\o^22l'°Subd\vis\o^^to Municipal Zon^jg code fecti^ ^22^^ existing ot the principal 4O-4I' In front of, Structure is located approximately ‘iu age lakeshore setback line. HOH, therefore , EE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of innesota; FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1484. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family :eshore^Residential Zoning District. The orono r|prova“o? A;r"o"p"Li var ”nc'e bated upon the following frndrn,s = A) The average ^/^®®^°^we®®i^ocation^ o^f ^the°^existing been established by the such residences rrt't«a«l".Jttit"ttt«an"da?d str^ setback areas, the west lot at 8* and east lot at 22 . B) On September 11, ‘tarfain^^ addition to ttrtfar't^'Srexrsttn, structu nding no visual impact upon the adjacent residence tty Ob jtcti^n « Vhl'ttttoltnfetate'tttetttrr variance. Page 1 of 6 j D) The relocation of the present structure behind the average lakeshore setback line would create a major impact on the property to the west and the ab,<Llity of the owner to reach the garage at the rear of the property.4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community.5. 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 fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; wouId 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 right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 to permit the total replacement of the foundation under the existing residence, subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions of resolution #2694 that granted approval of the variances to the average setback line and excessive hardcover within the 75-250' setback area for the addition to the rear of the existing residence remain in effect for this current variance review and they are as follows: A) Hardcover on the property shall be allowed as follows: 0-75' Zone = 0 s.f. 75-250' Zone (area « 14,801 s.f.): House + Addition Garage Dog Run Deck/Stairs/Stoops/ Landscaping/Etc. Driveway TOTAL Page 2 of 6 1,059 s.f. 550 s.f. 230 s.f. 622 s.f. 2,238 s.f. 4,699 s.f.or 31.7% *-u- ■_ rt--.’>.-_l J B) The property owner is advised that any future proposals to increase hardcover on the property will not be approved, howe\ar any future proposals to increase hardcover on the property might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of existing hardcover, resuli!’>a in no net increase in hardcover percentage on the property. C' Applicants shall adhere to tne site plan attached to this resolution as Page 6 (also referred to as Exhibit A attached to Resolution #2694). 2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variT.-.ce will expire on that date (January 22, 1991). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a /iolation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdeuieanor. 4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agreet to the terms of this resolution and cn behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted Minnesota at a reg 1990. •j C Council of the City of Orono, acting held on the 22nd day of January, ATTEST; Dorothy M. Hallin, City Cler)c Edward J. Calxahan, Jr., Acting Mayor Property Owner(s) Applicant(s) Page 3 of 6 stln, haJicove, " “"^*' ““"'“rren^t approvedpercentage'or?heV,;V,”^-;P °dAliplicants shall t.-juSVrE4f'S “‘-- -.-re-ert^t*ion of or non ^code?il,a?,'^^“°""“h“n “o^su^j; ‘e^s and »dersigned a„., • re as a msde^eanor. " 3°ne‘l-;s Ms“e/or«„ra^*d “‘°°^ --- OP (d ec iorrng h‘^Td"=Vtn°/,fnd d“‘'op ”5an°nX" City Clerk Edward J. Canih ----— Acting Mayor Page 3 of 6 ».r>V^ STATE OF MINNESOTA )) ss.COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of January, 1990, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Acting Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires STATE OF MINNESOTA )•v- ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, p^...,t,.»ally 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. NOTARY PUBLIC MV r»r^MMTCCmM T?VDTPPQ V # STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) 3S. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in a^id whc executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day 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 Scune as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 5 of 6 / ^ « . t i -if. 4^ riwiiiK7 niiMm^•!•» If •) •! *1 LtKMiT;»lKafIiT> BC8G2 ., ,=? •in100• O to HI ^ M s a lAJ at Z Ml <n > i/i S3 IM 2 52H oe UJht at at a. UJ i M a W 2 Ui X 9«>m V H V o u K << O tnoo X u i s K M UI UJ c::? iM § M «j CM O UI S M UJ UJ ^ I- « S M aj2>i-^S I S UJ ^ K O -j O </) H U. K •! UJ _7 iSSiO U. o in o e Q h* Ml ^ « < «c ^ m O K K a o Z UJ < > N X _ O ^ X g 6 >- CM O o M i sM CM tn CM UI > tlg3 ^ U. X7 1K O Ml O o ^ < m o X ss 35 > ^ Ml UI ►- •J C/l X UI __ISEu.e ill Q X S X UI UIS UI UIiiiS_ M CM ^ X X O UJ UI UI . O X M H «i _ X. _ UI < »o W> 4/) X X -J Ml CM UJ U. U. Ml S «• o ^ PM UI H U U w ^ e SsIMli K o o « to H o o o UI o o Xu e fO M M H > > W « H < X H Kl O O O H I !•' L) CITY OF ORONO City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2694 _________ A RESOLUnOH GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1*2 FILE #1432 WHEREAS, Julia K. Whitney (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 4470 Forest La)ce Landing within the City of o'rono (hereinafter "City") and legally described ar follows: Tract £■ • Registered Land Survey No. 1472, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section ^10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to permit the construction of an addition to the existing residence, requiring a variance to allow encroachment past the average lalceshore setbac)c line where no encrcpachment is normally allowed, and a variance to allow hardcover in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed in the 75—250' lalceshore setbacic zone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1432. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family LaJceshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 21, 1989, and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A) The entire existing house encroaches past the average laJceshore setback line. The proposed addition is at the opposite end of the house from the lake, and will not extend the house closer to the lake than what currently exists. No sicfnificent Xeke views enjoyed by neighboring property owners will be encroached upon by the proposed addition to the residence. Page 1 of 5 1 /> • CITY OF ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 26ii B, Existing zone is 0%. 33 r% As a result of thelakeshore setback zone is 33.^8^%^^ reconstruction, proposed 250' zone will decrease to 31.7%, ahardcover in the 75-250 ^ decrease m decrease of 30 9 benefit to the property andhardcover is considered ® well as being to the neighborhood in ^ ^ ^ topography beneficial to Late Hi ncr%-h the JriVe^^^^^^ 4. The City Council has the^Plann^^^ including the CiJy JtaffT^comments by the applicant tL p/oposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. . . ^ ^ Je 4-hA*" th0 c .^nditions 6Xistiin55. The C-i^y Ccua'.cil ftha. the generally this property are dis'-rict; that granting the to other property in ..his ^ traffic conditions, variances would not ®‘3'^®5?®^yht;ard'' or other danger to light, air nor pose a merely serve as a neighboring property; w^o necessa’T to alleviate Code and Comprehensive Plan Oi. -.le -ity. CONCLOSIOHS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the funicipt! Orono City Council hereby 9f»"“ 1 and 2 to permit the Zoning Code Section 10.22, ®i\ting residence, granting aconstruction of an addition to, the existing^^^^^^^^^ setback line variance for encroachment, past ^e a end granting a where no encroachment is normally 75-250' tone where onlyvariance to allow 31.7% hardcover in the 75 250 ton 25% hardcover is normally allowed, subject to tne conditions ; Page 2 of 5 CITYOFORONO •TST^ 5T® r**«Y^* d of OROIVO^solution of the c/TV '''0-COUNCILHardcover on the or0-75. property shely be all^ zone « nr. », ® allowed as fr.iihardcover75—250 • .»zone:Garage on “®ogr run »oSscfp‘“n%«' ::l:Driveway = ®idewaIJcs, etc. - r„^ 0^2 s.fi" 75-250. tone ’’rri ,rpparty ----------- " ^l-7«^f059 s.f*II?230 s.f. orities c- r ■ ‘Ws «arcl\\f run „i*n , 'e year of ^PP^ication ? ® Permissive oii^ =^P" Of or no 'Saptembe? this Of this va-iI°°'’P-‘fance „ith *' f. aaolution In the ch';it“f^ onain of title of Page 3 * * ' .*> ».CITYOFORONO City of OROIXOresolution of the city councilNO. 2694Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of September^1989.ATT| ST: /uorothy~Mij Hallxnr City Cle:Jaoi» R. Grabek,.. ..Qlia Vu^\pv.Q0 ( ’operty Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of September, 1989, by James R. Grabek & 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. Hnkxj.kJli, Notary Public 1 My Commission JEK.SCHEFRER ! lonwi Wiut - MIHHESOtA r^c i HthWEPIM COUNTYMy commUwon «gyr?g^-^ Page 4 of 5 .i dty of ORONOOf THE C.TY COUNCILresolutionNO.2694-1 of the City ||pt»S>er»by tb. City a.y of s.pt M or misnesota ) , „e on „ OF BESNEfT® > acbnoMleaged b«^or ,rr riipt^oEHFt- crnr5,“"bt:ar"t^-j ana saU ^ns. m * Coromissio^ r 244' ' v\ SI\ \ vSr ■±~± 1 page 4 of 5 - r- vk* f : i ; HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75*250' Existing H ardcover in Zone 250-500' 500-lQQQ A. H ouse LENGTH 3. Garage . c. D riveway _ X _ X . X . X _ X . X X X X X . X X 6. Other X X X WIDTH Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone B S.P. . S.P. . S.P. . S.P. . S.P. _ S.P. S.P. _ __ S.P. & . _ _ _ _ S.P. _ _ _ _ S.P. _ _ _ _ _ _ _S.P. _ _ _ _ S.P. J_ _ _ _ _ S.P. _ _ _ _ S.P. S.P. S.P. S.P. ^4 9 ■ S.P. I ^ S.P. _B; » •. X 100 •% n I.. 1-300' 500-1000'rO‘s°)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 • lf> • S.F. S.F. ?'2c>S.F. iU9<=^S.F. S.F.T 0 = •1- % ■M \ y % JHE KIM WMITWE/AT -^^TOliO^Sr CAKE LAMDlUa'6888is^ t^/\S£-: 1 COKICETTUL/TLAN ! 6 <* JOFXjceP.-lAJEfll 4 i — T ^ \JN o f f Si • ■•'"i ^ «S4 •m —4 To: Proa: '-‘Oo:;vu. fViIf "(;S(g ''»'i 23 !53D CiTV or r pnksr, Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson ► •. Date:January 5, 1990 Subject A. Zoning Amendment Section 10.52, Subdivision 3 - Sanitary Sewer Availability During Council's review of the Rebers and Otten improvement projects within the Highway 12 Corridor, the Council determined the need to include the availabilxty of municipal water service as a special requirement for rezoning within the Highway 12 Corridor. The proposed ordinance amendment is presented for the Planning Commission's consideration and action and will be presented for Council's formal action at their January 22nd meeting. Additional Coeaents and Planning Conmission Reconmendation - The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendment finding municipal water service a necessity if any of the approved higher use and density zoning districts are to be considered. The enclosed ordinance has been '’-.rafted for your review and action. 9 % • 1 I ORDINMiCB i , SBCOMD SERIES AM ORDIMAMCB AMBHDIM6 SECTION 10.52, SOBDIVISIOM 3 ENTITLED "SAMITART SEWER AVAILABILITY" (SPECIAL REQOIREMENTS FOR RES0NIM6 OF THE HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY AREA) City Council of Orono ordains as follows: SECTION 1. Section 10.52, Subdivision 3 is hereby amended to read: Sanitary Sewer and Municipal Hater Availability. The available sanitary sewer and municipal water capacity to serve the development of this corridor is currently very limited. Therefore, any plans to develop within this area must either demonstrate that it can occur utilizing current sewer and water allocations or they must include improvements to Increase the capacity of the systems serving this area. If sanitary sewer or niunicigal water system improvements are proposed as part* of the application, then the feasibility of providing this service will also be scrutinized along with an improvement financing plan to ensure that the costs associated with providing this additional capacity will be paid for by the development." SECTION 2. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be effective from and after its passage and publication on January 29, 1990. Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this 22nd day of January, 1990 by a vote of _ _ ayes and _ _ nays. ! ATTEST:Rdward .7. Caljahan, .Tr. , Anting Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Published in the Laker and Pioneer Newspapers on the 29th day of January, 1990. L 122089.7 fO TO; FBOH: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistrato'^^’A o'Ai; ?/> |5S0 P'hV fi-* January 19, 1990 SUBJECT: Highway 12 Sewer and Water System Attachment:A. Trunk Highway 12 Feasibility Report Project 89~1 Excerpt Dated 4/10/89 B. Glenn Cook Letter Dated 1/2/90 ISSUE - 1. Determine whether the City desires to authorize undertaking a feasibility study for the Highway 12 sewer link to be routed to the Orono sewer plant rather than running the new interceptor to the Orono Orchard pump station connection with the Metro Waste Control Commission. 2 If that is desirable as a route, initiation of the necessary comprehensive Plan amendment to determine if Metro council would approve such. INTRODUCTION - As noted before, staff has explored a different link for the^Highway 12 area to the Orono sewer plant as opposed to the Orono Orchard station. The City does have the necessary lease from Burlington Northern to run the line to the 0^0"° Orchard sewer pump station, but this would be capacity that parallels existing capacity in the Orono/Long Lake/Medina Line. Routing the line to the Orono plant would provide this capacity in a new area plus additional capacity for Orono through two pump stations (although the Orono-Wayzata Interceptor would provide a restriction) without causing any need for assessment or allowing for any hookup. No properties between the Highway 12 authorized MUSA area and the Orono plant would either be to hookup. Anticipated cost of this prior to a feasibility study is approxim^.v"’/ $550,000. Which is approximately 7% more than the $518,000 tj..i!fei>te of a separate line going to the Orchard station, h<3V“vor, it would provide the City wit substantially more optvin the future. V ‘ Because of the nature of the area any feasibility study is recommended to include the necessary soil borings along the route to insure accurate cost. The cost of soil borings is approximately $1,500 and it is recommended that 15 test borings be taken. The overall cost of the feasibility study is expected to be $6,000. i Staff has preliminarily discussed the issue of a linkage between Highway 12 and the Orono pump station with Metro Waste Control. They have indicated that this would be a more preferable direction for them and see no reason why it would not be approved but feel that the necessary process has to be undertaken in order to authorize it. They havew indicated that it would be considered a minor amendment and that it would have a very limited review. It should be noted that given the City’s existing capacity in the line going east together with this capacity to the south the City would be able to provide itself with more flexibility going in either direction. If this were to be initiated at this point, the Comprehensive Plan amendment would be pl-^ced on the Planning Commission agenda for their review and comment and could be acted on by the Council after that. ALTERNATIVES - Issue tl - Feasibility Study a. Authorize a feasibility study be undertaken. b. Await necessary processing of Comprehensive Plan amendment. c. Table for further discussion. d. Direct the utilization of the Metro Waste pumping station located near Orono Orchard Road. Issue #2 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment a. Initiate f 11690.2 TO; FROH: DATE: SOBJBCT; Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate^ ' January 12, 1990 Navarre - Master Planning // JA!i22 i953 Attachment:A. Navarre Memo Dated 11/21/89 B. Navarre Memo Dated 6/21/89 C. Navarre Memo Dated 10/18/89 ISSUE - Determination by the Council as to what direction they would like to take as it relates to the Navarre area. INTRODUCTION - The Council held a meeting in June to review the analysis work done by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban together with holding a public meeting on November 18, 1989, at which property owners, business owners and residents in the area were invited at the Freshwater Biological Institute. Attachment A was prepared as a follow up to that meeting. DISCUSSION - In Attachment A there are three issues outlined which are as follows: Issue #1. Does the City Choose to do anything further at this point in the area regarding: a. Aesthetic look of the area b. Land use It was indicated at the November 18, 1989 meeting that the Council would review this issue in the January — February timeframe. If the Council desires to do anything further with this matter staff would notify, as was indicated at the meeting, the residents in attendance that this item would be on the agenda for its second meeting in February. Issue #2. If the City does choose to do something, at what level do they want to approach it? a. Master plan of land use b. Comprehensive Plan amendment c. Any applicable rezonings The sense of informal discussion following the November 18th meeting was that the City should go through a process to Identify what it would like in the future, but that it would not take any active role in it. As such, it would be appropriate to go through a process • «for master planning in the land use and if possible submission of a comprehensive plan amendment. It would probably not be appropriate at this time to undertake any attendant rezonings until there was an interest in redevelopment of the property by the private owner.In October the Council did authorize an extension of the contract as noted on Attachment C Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban has been asked to estimate the cost of completing the master planning process. This will be presented to Council at its next meeting. (The staff is also reviewing the need for an update to its comprehensive plan in light of the recent Metro Council requirements. It is not anticipated at this time that the staff will not be having much need for outside help.)Issue #3. If the City has gone forward on II and #2 does it desire to undertake any active steps to assist in making the changes happen. a. Market to private businesses b. Assemble land c. Undertake public financing There did not seem to be any interest in having governmental participation active in implementing any of the desired changes. Perhaps the only level of participation in improvement is the beautification plan and perhaps local assistance for that. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Indicate level of interest in undertaking master planning. 2. Establishment of further consideration at the February 26, 1990 Council meeting. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Indicate no desire to go any further. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council table the matter”until its February 12, 1990 meeting if it is interested in undertaking the master planning process. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by _that the Council having indicated its desire Tn further exploring master planning table the issue until February 12, 1990, to review the cost. Ayes_, Nays _. cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director John Shardlow/Ed Hassek, Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban 112189.3ise and if possible amendment. It would s time to undertake e was an interest in > private owner.ision of the contract )w and Uban has been ^he master planning at its next meeting, r an update to its ent Metro Council time that the staff?•)1 #1 and #2 does it ssist in making the nterest in having 1 implementing any of ation in improvement aps local assistance master planning, at the February 26, Council table the it is interested in , that the Council >FIng master planning to review the cost. ninistrator ar filow & Uban s i Mayor and City CouncilMark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate November 21, 1989SUBJECT: Nawarre Redevelopment MeetingISSUE - Providing a brief summary of the issues discussed at the public information meeting held November 18, 1989, at theFreshwater Biological Institute.INTRODUCTION - Written notice was sent to all property owners within the Navarre area. Approximately 40 people attended the meeting. This represented a cross section of residents in the area, business owners, business property owners and whowere both business operators and private residential property owners . DISCUSSION - The following represents a list of issues that need to be decided in the future regarding the Navarre area: Issue #1. Does the City choose to do anything further at this point in the area regarding: a. Aesthetic look of the area b. Land use Issue #2. If the City does choose to do something at what level do they want to approach it? a. Master plan of land use b. Comprehensive Plan amendment c. Any appliccible rezonings Issue #3. If the City has gone forward on #1 and #2 does it desire to undertake any active steps to assist in making the changes happen. a. Market to private businesses b. Assemble land c. Undertake public financing It was indicated to those in attendance that the first issue regarding whether to go ahead or not would be broached w^h the council in the January/February timeframe and that those in attendance would be notified. Additionally, should the City go ahead it would be that the meetings be held at the Freshwater Biological Institute. i f•1 f. ALTERNATIVES - A. Accept the information. B. Comment. C. Table. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the ifsue at this time be tabled £or fuTther consideration at the second meeting in January or the first Council meeting in February. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , i table consideration of this item until the second meeting m January or its first meeting in February 1990. Ayes Nays _. cc:Chic Remien, Executive Director Westonka Chamber Jeanne A. Mabui:th, Building & Zoning Administrator John Shardlow, L'ahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, Inc. Ed Hasek, Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, Inc. b 62189.2 /d TO: FROH: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato June 21, 1989 SUBJECT: Navarre Redevelopment ATTACHMENTS: A. Handouts From June 1, 1989 Meeting ISSUE Determine what direction that the Council desires to take on this issue. INTRODUCTION - At the meeting that was held regarding the Navarre redevelopment a presentation was made as to problems Jind possibilities together with discussing the range of alternatives the City could undertake and a range of alternatives for potential master planning or redevelopment. On behalf of the staff I would like to apologize for the breakdown in communications with the Planning Commission and others who were not fully informed of the meeting time and place. As you may be aware interested property owners were in attendance at that meeting indicating some of their needs and desires regarding the area. In addition City staff has been approached by a private development firm who has an interest in possible redevelopment on the south side of County 15. DISCUSSION - As noted there is a growing interest in this area, not only from the City, but also from people currently in the area and others from outside the area. As discussed on the 1st the range of alternatives include: A. Beautification - "Spruce up" the area in an effort to promote the attractiveness of the area and therefore the business. The level of involvement in helping implement the Westonka Beautification Plan maybe an appropriate avenue at this level of involvement. B. Master Planning/Comprehensive Plan amendment - The current comprehensive plan aticT" zoning for the area reflects what was in place at the time it was created. As noted in the attachments this is a hedge podge of zoning uses and that longterm there may be a more desireable land utilization in the area. One of the alternatives would be to undertake a master planning of the area to designate what the City would like to see in that area as land uses and as changes come along that they would need to fit into that plan. C. Participation and Redevelopment - A third alternative would be to actually participate in redevelopment either on a case by case basis or in relation to achieving any master plan arrangements the City would desire. There does not seem to be substantial interest at this point in assisting any redevelopment, in part because of the experiences of a neighboring community. The issue regarding redevelopment may well be one of the extent of public participation needed in order to make the project work together with the security guarentee given for the public participation by the developer. (Presently the party interested in redevelopment is working on general estimates to determine the extent of assistance needed in order to undertake redevelopment of the south side.) ACTION - 1. Make available an opportunity for those not present on the June 1st meeting to hear the presentation. 2. Undertake a discussion on the next steps. 3. Take no action. 4. Table. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the opportunity be made available for the presentation for those interested. It could possibly be as part of a joint Planning Commission/Council meeting tentatively scheduled for Saturday, July 29. In addition that meeting could include discussion of further steps. Further topics could include financial and other related Information on the facilities study. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by __, that the Council direct staff to set anotlier presentation of the Navarre redevelopment information together with setting a time for further discussions with Planning Commission on the direction for Navarre. Ayes __, Nays __. cc: Planning Commission Members Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Planning & Zoning Asst. Administrator John Shardlow, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban • • »/IrnVM^'r- h NAVARRE AREA WORKSHOP MEETING A joint meeting to discuss the future of the Navarre commercial area. li i o 4 O !ro > 5=» •ti >gio fi5 i1,1 ii /ii Is • • • • ■t p J a» o s « s I ‘i i^i Mill 111 h ll I If in if ll » --- llAV liPa pIP iO I'il^' ^ ' * I EEP Qprg ■ * ^ 4 2*^' !l ll !lfH l! It! 1i i li' a I if 1^1 a* 5 |« 1 !J I ft I |f t huinlII il r n < |iiHi li «: Is 111 I Q Ul -i 11 ll §<*0^ I ^0 • • • • CITY OF ORONO NAVARRE AREA STUDY ANALYSIS SUMMARY 4 County Roa** ^9 Area Inadequately and unsaeened parking, loading and storage result in clutter Redundant and poorly placed curb cuts result in aocess/drculation conflicts Aging and deterio<’iting buildings and parking result in an image of decline Excessive and competitive signage add clutter and confusion Lack of safe pedestrian crossings isolate and divide this area Small parcels limit e:q)ansion and redevelopment flexibility and have resulted in crowded, out of scale development, parking and setback problems Existing development ediibits lack of unity or positive character and little sense of community Significant wooded areas buffer the existing land use transitions and require sensitive development rawi Point Road Area Inadequately screened and unscreened parking, loading and storage result in visual clutter Redundant and poorly placed curb cuts result in access and circulation conflicts Aging and low quality commercial/industrial uses counteract the positive influence of better development Mixing of incompatible uses contributes to conflicts and disorder Small parcels limit expansion and redevelopment flexibility and result in crowded and out of scale development, and parking/setback problems Turning conflicts occur at all major intersections Lack of safe pedestrian crossings isolate and divide this area Inadequate screening and buffering of new development/redevelopment perpetuates harsh edges and transitions I • • • • PnnwoodT Avenge Area Inadeq^tdy screened and unscreened parking, storage and operations result in dutter and objectionable views Poorly placed curb cuts result in drculation/tuming conflicts near Dunwoody Isolated industrial/commercial uses discourage adjacent development and contribute to image problems Substand ard structures, poor signage and a lack of maintenance counteract positive affects of better devdopments Wetland areas require preservation and sensitive adjacent devdopment Lack of safe pedestrian crossings isolate and divide this area CITY OF ORONO NAVARRE AREA STUDY PRELIMINARY LAND USE ALTERNATIVE ArnnntT Road 19 AreaExpand and concentrate commercialDevelop multiple residential to support commercialPlace commercial with buildings set back to maxunize developable areaRevise street system to increase developable area, and reduce access and land use conflictsPreserve woodland and wetland buffers Develop open ^ace corridorsDevelop and implement performance standards to reduce visual and operational conflicts f!a<m Pnint Road Area Expand and concentrate office Revise street system to enlarge office area and reduce access and land use conflicts Develop and implement performance standards to reduce visual and operational conflicts Dunwoodv Avenue Area Develop single family around wedand Develop new park as part of wedand and open space system Develop office use at Dunwoody to buffer the county maintenance facility Combine dty and county maintenance operations Develop and implement performance standards to reduce visual and operational conflicts 1 % • *• • • • •• CriY OF ORONO NAVARRE AREA STUDY PREUMINARy LAND USE ALTERNATIVE B rnnntv Road 19 Area Expand and concentrate commercial Place commercial toward the front of the lot to maximize village image Develop loop road to serve commercial hrom the rear Develop multiple rmidendal and office to stq>poit the commercial High quality multiple residential to capture lake and open ^ace views Revise the street system to reduce access and land use conflicts Preserve woodland and wedand buffers Develop open space corridors Develop and implement strict development standards to reduce visual and operational problems C»scn Point Road Area Expand and concentrate office Develop multiple residential adjacent to Co. Rd. 15 Maintain Casco Point Road/Blaine Avenue intersection for possible signalization Develop and implement strict development standards to reduce visual and operational problems Dunwoodv Avenue Area Relocate combined county and dty maintenance fadlities Preserve woodland buffer Revise access road and restore wetlands Redevelop county site to single family Concentrate at Dunwoody and improve intersection Develop and implement strict development standards to reduce visual and operational problems • •CITY OF ORONO NAVARRE AREA STUDY PREUMINARY LAND USE ALTERNATIVE C Rn«d 19 Area E:q)and and concentrate commercial at Co. Rd. 19 Place commercial toward the street fronttge to manmize visibfllty and the smaU town image Design the street ^em to control access and land use conflicts Develop multiple residential and o£Sc' to support commercial uses fTigh quality multiple residential to w .. e lake/open ^ace vies Develop and implement strict development standards to reduce NTSual and operational problems Development should enhance the areas image Preserve woodland and wetland buffers, develop open ^ace systems Point Road Ar^ Expand and concentrate office at Casco Point Road Design street system to enlarge office area and reduce access and land use conflicts Develop and implement stria development standards to reduce visual and operational problems Dunwoodv Avenue Area Relocate county and city maintenance facilities Develop multiple residential adjacent to County Road in and around the wetland Restore wetland and incorporate it into the open space system Develop single family on county property abutting existing single family Develop a system of streets to concentrate access at Dunwoody and control land use/traJSic conflicts Improve the Dunwoody intersection Develop and implement stria development standards to reduce visual and operational problems I 101889.5 TO: FRCm: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistrato DATS:October 18, 1989 SUBJECT: Navarre Redevelopment - Stage II Contract Attachment: A. Navarre Redevelopraent/Consultant Agreement Dated 6/12/88 B. Proposed Addendum Stage II ISSUE - Authorization to adopt the addendum as part of the contract. INTRODUCTION - The initial estimate for the work for Stage I was approximately $15,000. Because of the protracted nature of the proceedings on the matter together with the request for development of options to help illustrate parts of Stage I, the work done by the consultant has begun to actually lapse into Part 1 Stage II. DISCUSSION - It is requested that the Council authorizean addendum for Stage II up to an amount not to exceed $5,000. This would bring the total authorized to date up to $20,000. A total of $30,000 has been budgeted between 1988 and 1989. After the meeting on November 18th an estimate for the balance will be prepared depending on the scope of work decided upon at or following that meeting. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the addendum. 2. Stop the contract at the proposal. 3. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the addendum be adopted as presentee^. This authorization is up to $5,000 for Stage 11 Phase 1 Step 1. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by _, Orono City Council authorizes amending the agreement with Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban regarding Navarre Redevelopment to include an additional $5,000 for beginning Stage II work. Ayes __, Nays __. cc:John Shardlow Ed Hasik Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator * ^ ^ ^ i! 1 * ] t / • ‘ 1 i » I » ^ ♦ 'j > t ; ' i \ . .A I . t * 1 . , » T^iM&iMnwii \\j '•i-’'* - 6 :'=33 W INC0H»O**T(0 CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE ;io MINNEAPOLIS. MN S540I 612 539 3300 3 JUNE 1988 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Orono 1335 Brown Road South Orono. MN 55323 Attention: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES AGREEMENT entered into touay bv and between CITY OF ORONO. hereinafter sometimes called CITY, and DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW. AND UBAN, INC, hereinafter sometimes called CONSUL TANT, relating to the employment of the CONSULTANT as follows: OBjEcrryT: of services The objective of the CONSULTANTS services will be to prepare a master plan to guide the redevelopment of the Navarre area in the City of Cromo. In close awperation with the Planning Commission and City Council, the CONSULTANT will develop a plan with effectuating ordinances, documents, guidelines, and implementing strategies. The CONSULTANT will work in close liaison with CITY -taff CITY cor.rultants, and affected property c'.vnerc :hrcuj;hr,ut the ppcess and prepare a report summarizing the research and recommendations resulting from the planning study. SCOPE OF SERVICES To achieve the above stated objectives, the CONSULTANT proposes to perform work iit two stages. STAGE I would be a pilot study consisting of two phases, designed to update City base information, anal>ze existing development factors, identify problems and opportunities and summarke preliminary land use recommendations for the study area. STAGE I will also establish goals and objectives for the completion of the redevelopment process. 9 LL ■• I Navarre Redevelopment Plan Page 2 STAGE II will be divided into three phases and will build on the findings of STAGE I. This stage is intended to be a more detailed study, identifying specific land uses, potential building scale and locations, and will result in a Redeveloprr.ent Master Plan. This stage will also outline specific implementation strategies including; comprehensive plan and zoning amendments, design standards, and development incentives such as Tax Increment Financing. The following work program is proposed for your consideration: STAGE I PHASE I: RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 1. Conduct meetings with City Administrator, Consulting Engineer, and other staff to gather background data and current information, and to identify key issues involved in the planning study. 2. Secure information pertinent to the development of base maps, to include the following items: section maps, aerial photography, soils information, existing topographic information, vegetation, land use, zoning. This will also include locations of utilities and easements as may tie available. 3. Prepare base maps of the study area at a scale of 1":100 ’ for use in analysis and conceptual planning. 4. Inventory and analyze such development factors as slopes, drainage, vegetation, and other environmental issues. 5. Inventory and analyze such development factors as land use, circulation, traffic, parking, access points, and current tax base. PHASE II; SUMMATION OF FINDINGS / DEVELOPMENT OF GOALS & OBJECTIVES 1. Review findings fro.m Pha.se ! with CITY' staff. 2. Prepare a memorandum summarizing the research and analysis done as outlined above, and present the information to a joint Planning Commission and City Council workshop. ^ Based on input from City council and Planning Commission prepare a draft set of goals and ~ objatives to guide the work to be conducted in Stage II. Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban« Inc. if i i Navarre Redevelopment Plan Pages STAGE II PHASE I: PL-iNNING _~,I. Develop preliminary concept plans and alternatives to illustrate potential future land uses. circulation, open space, major utilities, and potential building scale and location.f i jjj 2. Prepare a summary of the pertinent data and development statistics for the properties under consideration, including size and nature o^ development activity, existing and future land and building values, and fis^ ircplications. , ^ 3. Prepare a memorandum summarizing in vrinen and graphic form the aucrrative concepts and pertinent information described above, and present it to the City Council and Planning Com mission. This memorandum will include traffic generation analysis reflecting the potential impact of proposed land use changes on surrounding streets. f o ly 4. Prepare exhibits and data suitable for public presentation of the the key issues and concepts involved, and prepare a presentation of these and other important information for the workshop with the City Council and Planning Commission. ^ J PHASE II: IMPLEMENTATION 1. Prepare amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, with finding as appropriate, which reflert the concepts adopted in the previous phase, for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council with the adopted res. ':s prepared for submission to the Metropolitan Council. 2. In consultation with City administrator. City Attorney, and other staff, prepare amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the concepts adopted in the previous phase, including application of new Zoning Districts to the properties in the study area, changes to the Official Zoning Map, and enhanced performance standards to protect the integrity of existing surround ing land uses and to guide future developments. 3. At the City’s direction and working closely with the CITY Fiscal Consultant and CITY staff, the CONSULTANT will prepare a preliminary Tax Increment Financing Feasibility Study. phase III: FINAL REPORT (Optional) 1. Edit, prepare and have printed a fmal report documenting the research, analysis, goals, plans, implementation tools, and promotion strategies outlined in all phases above. The report be include two color printing of graphics, and high quality materi^ and design. Dihlgren. Shard low, and Uban, Inc. ^ • • - • • Navarre Redevelopment Plan Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PRESENTATIONS It is anticipated that five (5) presentations before the Planning Commission and City Council may be required in the pursuit of final approval of the planning study. It is also anticipated that at least two public hearings may be required. All additional meetings and revisions will be charged for on a time plus materials basis. PRODUCT TO BE PROVIDED The CONSULTANT shall provide the CITY with written and graphic materbls in memorandum form as may be required during the review of this project. Board mounted, color rendered exhibits and slid^ will be prepared for purposes of public presentations. At the CITY’S option the CONSULTANT will publish a final report printed on high quality paper with two color graphics and bound in one volume. INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED BY THE CITY The CITY shall be responsible for providing legal, engineering, surveying, and municipal fiscal con sulting services as may be required. The CONSULTANT shall work in close liaison with these experts throughout the course of the project. None of these services will be requested without prior consent from the CITY. The CITY shall be responsible for providing updated information, including legal descriptions, aerial photos, section maps, fiscal data, topography (if available), and City infrastructure and utility informa tion. COMPLETION TIME The work outlined above will begin immediately upon receipt of the executed contract and will be completed as expeditiously as possible with work for STAGE I being completed within 60 da3rs of commencement, unless delayed by reason of unexpected emergencies, forces beyond the control of the parties, or b'* request of a partv acquiesced in waiting by the other party. If so delayed for more than ninety (180)'days at the request of the CITY, the CONSULTANT reserves the right to renegotiate the contract to account for rising costs before resuming work. Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban. Inc. . • • •Page 4 Navarre Redevelopment Plan Page 5uc-ARlNr.^ AND PRESENTATIONSCT TO BE PROVIDEDNSULTAKT shall provide the CITY »ith wrhten andsfrS^oS the review of this projeot. ^NSULTANT will^re a JVUTION TO BE FURNISHED BY THE CITY [TY shaU be responsible for Uaison with hou"te »”S ^ thTp"o';e of these services will be requested wtthout prtor consen a COST OF SERVICESThe work will be performed on a time plus materials basis, with an estimate. We will undertake only that work which we feel is essential to complete the study and we will not undertake work which is not authorized by this AGREEMENT, without the prior consent of the City Council. Since the costs associated with Stage II will be dependent on decisions made by the City with respect to the findings of the previous Stage, a detailed estimate of those costs will be provided at the conclusion of Stage I. The estimated cost of our services for Stage I is summarized by phase below:STAGE IPHASE I: RESEARCH AND ANALYSISResearch, analysis, base map preparation Time: 30 days PHASE II: FINDINGS AND OBJECTIVES Consultation, writing design, analysis Time: 30 days TOTAL SERVICES STAGE I $1^006 The work performed will be charged for on a time plus materials basis according to the above costs. All work and meetings will be computed in accordance with the attached Standard Rate Schedule, which shall be paid as hereinafter provided. All costs incurred will be payable to the CONSULTAiTT upon receipt of an invoice showing the work completed and the cost of said work. To each invoice not paid within thirty (30) days shall be added a service charge of one and one-half percent (1.5 percent) per month for each month delinquent. ihlgren. Sh»rflow. and Uban. Inc. Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc. i STANDARD RATE SCHEDULE DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN, INC. StaffLMember Principal Senior Planner Planner Landscape Architect Urban Designer Market/Research Analyst Graphic Designer Draftsman Secretary Outside Consultants Supplies Mileage Expert Testimony Past Due Accounts Rate $80.00 to $120.00 $40.00 to $50.00 $40.00 to $50.00 $30.00 to $50.00 $25.00 to $50.00 $25.00 to $50.00 $25.00 to $40.00 $25.00 to $40.00 $25.00 to $35.00 Per Job Plus 15% Cost Plus 15% $0.30 Per MUe Two Times Hourly Rate (One-half Day Minimum) 1.5% Per Month ;.1 1 11690.4 COUr^Ull, MEfTfNG 4 TO: PBO Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate JA!.‘ 22 1990 OITV f):- rmm i DATE: January 19, 1990 SmUBCT: City Facilities Request tabling of this item until the 2/12/90 meeing. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , the Council tables this item until its 2/12/90 meeting. Ayes , Nays . GOO'^Cii, fylEfiNGJA'j 2 2 |993 i 'J To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson ' • V f »■ • '1 ; Prom Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date January 16r 1990 Subject: New State Well Code Regulations Please review the attached memo of Ji-v ary 1, 1990r which was on your consent agenda at the last meetin CounciImember Peterson has asked that this be discussed, and staff will be prepared to delve into how the new regulations affect the City and what our possible options are. J I ^2\TO: Mayor GrabeJ: & Crono Council Members City Administrator Eernhardson FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: January 2, 1990 SOBJ: Elimination of Local Well Permitting Authority List of Exhibits - Exbibit A - Memo from Minnesota Dept, of Health-11/30/89 Exhibit B - Staff response-12/21/89 Exhibit C - Orono Municipal Code Section 12.50: Water Well Construction and Abandonment Exhibit D - Excerpts from Minnesota Statute Chapter 1C3(I). "Wells» Borings and Underground Uses (New)". The Minnesota Department of Health in its infinite wisdom convinced the 1989 Legislature to enact groundwater protection legislation to give the State authority to regulate wellSr but also prohibiting local units of government from issuing water well construction or abandonment permits. The legislation further prohibits cities from requiring that well drillers notify the City of wells being constructed or abandoned. I am advised by Health Department staff that the majority of out-State counties and cities do not have a well permitting or inspection program, and that even in Hennepin County, Orono is one of the few outer-ring cities with a relatively high degree of control over wells. Please review the letter of December 21st to Raymond W. Thron, Director of the Minnesota Division of Environmental Health. As noted in that letter, staff perceives this legislation as a severe reduction of our ability to control rural development in Orono. While the City of Orono has historically worked closely with well drillers to avoid potential ground water contamination problems due to incorrect well siting, our ability to continue such activity will be eliminated if we don't have a well permit or notification system in place. The new regulations allow for permitting/inspection delegation agreements between the State and local Boards of Health. The City of Orono does not have a local Board of Health. Only a few cities within Hennepin County have one. I am advised by Roger Carlson of the Hennepin County Environmental Health Department that while he is attempting to convince the County Commissioners to fund a County permitting/inspection program, he is getting nowhere. He also informs me that the County does not intend to allow the creation of new local Boards of Health. At the same time this authority is taken away from us, neither the County nor the State have a functional program in place to permit or inspect wells. The State has only a handful • _t zoninc? AdHiinistrstor P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning3, 1990ion of toeal wall Pern,i«ing Authority 1 Memo from ': r/o^l -nrc?;r/j^a/s«tlon^UWater Well Construct c*-atute Chapter 1C3(D*■ BoTngf anrSnaer,round Uses (Wow)". ,sota Department of Health “rot^^^^^^ o'|lleThi%t«l authority to reflate- ?na local units of government f-om^i legislation etlon or aOanaomnent^ per drillers notify ;\\s 'be'ing constructed or ahandoned. 4. that the majority o sed by Health Department staff permitting or :°ties and cities ^“^'eoin County, Orono is ,“|S?e ”;4rn^ a“ieVtith"a''?ela?ively high degree of review the 1®““ ^’’p^Tsion^ f'Env tor of the staff perceives this noted in that 1®^^®^' ahtlitv to control rural ,s a severe City^ Orono has terLn Orono. t^Ivoid potential ground v.atery with well drillers to avoia p . ^ our ability ;Vohlems due “^anco^^ectJ.1 1^ ;e?ii"or notification system in place. , Pegu 1 ations a 1 1c« for Permi11W 1"s^pe=t ^\%%*T5r%n\*reVno\\ave a local^^B^rd oj •ities within Hennepin “^““"‘^/Environmental Health rlsln of the Hennepin convince the county /aS^thi creatiln oS^^newnoVairards of Health. same time this authority 3^", option aerogram in rSro^^n%e ’c*■t^Vl^“. The State has only a handful 4 Memo-MPG Elimination of Well Permitting Authority January 3, 1990 Page 2of inspectors and is hiring 20 more, but their goal, as expressed by Jim Nye, head of their Groundwater Quality Control Unit, even at full manpower is to inspect only l/4th of the new well Installations. It is unreasonable to expect that the State will do any pre-drilling site inspections, nor can we expect them to stop in the City office for every well that gets drilled in Orono to verify where the well can and can't be safely located on a given lot in a given subdivision.Minimui Heeds for Adequate Control -Staff feels that the following procedures must continue in one form or another if the City is to maintain adequate controls over rural residential development in the City; 1. Require that all well drillers call for a site inspection or appear at the office for a site plan verification to insure that wells get drilled in appropriate locations. 2. Well drillers should be required to continue to provide a copy of the State Water Well Record for each well drilled and abandoned (sealed) in the City. The City has maintained permanent records of all wells drilled and abandoned in the City since 1978. Well information is often requested by realtors, homeowners, and well drillers and if they have to go to the State for this information, it is doubtful they will be given the same degree of service provided by Orono. Proposed Interim Controls - Until such time that the State or County have a functional inspection program in effect, which may be a period of years, staff is recommending the following interim well control requirements: 1. Although State Statutes appear to expressly prohibit it, require that well drillers call for a site inspection or at a minimum stop in the City office to review on paper the appropriate well locations based on nearby septic system/sewer line locations. Without this authority, the few "problem well drillers whom we normally watch will not have to notify us they are drilling. 2. If a site inspection is needed, we would charge the normal "site inspection" fee of $30.00. 3. Require that well drillers submit a copy of the State Well Record to us for all wells drilled in the City, and all wells abandoned in the City. We propose to withhold Occupancy for new houses until a copy of the State Well Record has been received. l«lMul«J ins^ r*w«] r«i i (§J minnesota department of health 717sAdeia«af*at p.a box 9441 minnoopelto 55440 «i»msooo ^ ^yo /4.-/2.-d7 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Local Government Officials and Other Interested Parties Raymond H. Thron, Ph.D., P.E., Director Division of Environmental Health DATE: SUBJECT: November 30, 1989 Effect of Article 3 of the 1989 Groundwater Protection Legislation on Local Government Enclosed for your information is a sunnary of new requirements in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 1031, Wells and Borings, which will have an impact on local regulation of wells and borings. If you would like more information on these requirements or have questions about them, please call 612/623-5338. RHT:JAB:mr Enclosure an equal opportunity employer MINNES01Amo (S12) 8235000 ‘department of healthp.o.boK944t n,lnn.apo,ta554<0^ 1^ 42.3- T-I—1memorandumDATE: November 30, 1989 SUBJECT: Effect of Article 7 on Local Govermwot *’®’ Sroondwater Protection Lejislation bln'oy^ coiree^ocs or dare ,.3C,„3 fJJABtmr closure jual opportunity employer .* .-EFFECT OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE GROUNDWATER PROTECTION ACT MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 1031 ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTWELLS AND BORINGSREGULATION OF WELLS AND BORINGSI• No local wen oroorams without deleoation agreement.A local unit of government may not regulate the permitting, construction, repair, or sealing of wells or elevator shafts unless there is a delegation agreement with the Commissioner of Health. This includes monitoring, water, dewatering, remedial, and irrigation wells. 2. Delegation Local Boards of Health may enter into an agreement with the Commissioner of Health to take over all or part of the inspection, reporting, and enforcement duties related to permitting, construction, repair, and sealing of wells. Environmental Bore Holes Only licensed well contractors or monitoring well contractors may construct, repair or seal environmental bore holes. These are defined as: . . . a hole or excavation in the ground that enters or goes through a waterbearing layer and is used to monitor or measure physical, chemical, radiological, or biological parameters without extracting water. An environmental bore hole also includes bore holes constructed for vapor recovery or venting systems. An environmental bore hole does not include a well, elevator shaft, exploratory boring, or monitoring well. EFFECT «r adttpi p 3 of the groundwater PROTECTION ACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTHELLS AND BORINGSOF WELLS AND BORINGS ..^11 .'-nnrams remeiUl, and irri,.tioA «lls. cards of Hoaltl. m '"'"’"J? ?l!c‘^t^"t'or,‘^55r4n” Jj""''' rt°dSt^« conJtrodtiod, r.p..r, and I of wells, rnwntal BoT’e Holes. . hole or excavation in the 9^°“"^.^!l*!r*TOl£urrph?Iical7*'^^ Waterbearing Jay«^ f‘^oJ%“oiJgi?aT ’paraineters Sj^'^^AnlSlirSSwnial bore ^ole eivironment ^ftWucfed for vapory exploratory,re holedoes not inckdeawen. >ring, or monitoring wen. 4. Variance FeesA $150 fee is required for a variance request not related to construction of a »»en or boring. Variances from minirauro isolation distances between wells and contamination sources, hazards, surface water and property lines are •'eluded in this category. Construction-related variances require a >j0 fee for:A) Wells with a pump capacity less than 50 gallons per minute.B) Monitoring wells.C) Dewatering wells.Construction-related variances require a $100 fee for wells with a pump capacity of 50 gallons per minute or more. All variance fees are nonrefundable.5. Isolation DistancesActual or potential sources of contamination may not be placed any closer to a well than the isolation distances prescribed by the Commissioner in rule unless a variance has been requested and approved. 6. Construction Permits and Notifications Fffegtive January 1- IQ90- the State will require permits or notifications for all well construction. Unless a local Health Board has a delegation agreement with the Commissioner of Health, the State permit and notification preempt any local permit or notification (Minnesota Statutes, Section 1031.205, Subdivision 1(c). A) Water Wells Prior to construction of a water well, the property owner must notify the Minnesota Department of Health in writing and pay a $50 fee for wells with a pump capacity of less than 50 gallons per minute, or a $100 fee for wells with a pump capacity of greater than or equal to 50 gallons per minute. B) Monitorino Wells and Dewatering Wells Monitoring Well-A $50 fee must be paid for each monitoring well constructed except for monitoring wells at motor fuel outlets or bulk storage site, where the fee is $50 per site. Dewatering Hell—A $50 fee must be paid for each dewatering well except that dewatering projects with more than 10 wells require a $500 permit fee. 4 not related to construction solation distances between ace water and property tion-related varianceslions per minute.fee for wells with a pump 1 variance fees areay not be placed any closer bed by the Commissioner in approved. ire permits or ss a local Health Board has f Health, the State permit otification (Minnesota property owner must notify ing and pay a $50 fee for gallons per minute, or a greater than or equal to each monitoring well motor fuel outlets or bulk • each dewatering well han 10 wells require a EFFECT OF j GROUNDWATER PROTECTION ACTON LOCAL GOVERNMENTWELLS AND BORINGSREGULATION OF WELLS AND BORINGS1. No local well oroorams without deleoation j^greement.A local unit of government may not regulate the permitting, construction repair, or sealing of wells or elevator shafts unless there is a deleption agreement with the Coninissioner of Health. This includes monitoring, water, dewatering, remedial, and irrigation wells. 2. Delegation 0^ Health may enter into an agreement with the Commissioner of Health to take over all or part of the inspection, reporting, and enforcement duties related to permitting, construction, repair, and sealing of wells. 3. Environmental Bore Only licensed well contractors or monitoring well contractors may construct, repair or seal environmental bore holes. These are defined dS • . . . a hole or excavation in the ground that enters or goes through a waterbearing layer and is used to monitor or measure physical, chemical, radiological, or biological parameters without extracting water. An environmental bore hole also includes bore holes constructed for vapor recovery or venting systems. An environmental bore hole does not include a well, elevator shaft, exploratory boring, or monitoring well. kof Well*; nn Dp,\at Tfijginnfng Jy]y i iggn .. ™ P^^pprtv Tr^nyfpre Commiss7oner of Health/^ '■ecordep. The certiffcate^fs fonlarderto[grcemenp Along with th« ______pi'oper ‘ty owner s aiiu• ' -------- •» oil■“'es relaU?”fo“’' *500 for violatfons of the law or) Improper well locatfoo witp respect to ■ , • ) '"proper copstrect.on teCni^es or mtZT" ; Improper sealing. '"proper ,rooting materials and methods. ' ‘^‘’""’■'P'oner may le,y fj„.s „ against contractors who fai] Obtain reduired plan review approval. Ol% ^ A ?S«t?oct?J™" P proper notification before well Oecal and r?Ji's'trJtim’nS!i,l?’'’ ^ '’p" 'o display a state Properly disinfect wells. the ComnissfS?’’“^^’°" sealing reports and water samples to w _ 'onwissioner may levy ffn«c eom "Pclose infor^tin. ________ *"« ^p" t»:liscino. • ,c ------s-uisi persons who fail to- " “ ‘^P Of property transfer Crmindwater Thermal Exchange Devices and Vertical Heat Exchangers Require a $50 permit fee.After July 1, 1990, A $50 permit fee is required for an excavation for an elevator shaft.7. Maintenance PermitsAnnual maintenance permits are required for all inoperable wells that are not sealed. A $50 annual fee is required.Annual maintenance permits are required for monitoring wells constructed after January 1, 1990. If a monitoring well is not sealed within fourteen months after construction, a maintenance permit is required andAnnual maintenance pr- its are required for d^atering wells constructed after January 1, 1990. If a dewatering well is , 14 months after construction, a maintenance permit is required and a $25 fee must be paid. For dewatering well projects of more than 10 wells, the permit fee is $250 per site. I nrAL GOVERNMENT IS EXEMPT FROM ALL PERMIT, NOTIFICATION, AND VARIANCE FEES BUT MUST COMPLY WITH THE PERMIT AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. Hell Sealing A well owner is responsible for having an unused well sealed by a licensed contractor. If a well poses a public health hazard, the Commissioner may o'*der the well to be sealed. Failure of an owner to seal a ^11 may result in the Commissioner having the well sealed and assessing the cost to t e property owner. Counties may declare a well a public health nuisance and have it sealed and assess the cost to the property owner. A cost-share program with limited funds, administered by the Board of 9. County Well Certificate Counties must issue sealed well certificates prescribed by the Coninissioner of Health for all wells that are sealed. 3 10. Disclosure of Wells on Property at Time of Property Transfer Beginning July 1, 1990, at the time of property sale or transfer, all wells on the property must be disclosed to the buyer, and a certificate must be filed with the county recorder. The certificate is forwarded to the Commissioner of Health. 11. Enforcement A) County sheriffs may impound the equipment of a well contractor working without a license or registration after a Commissioner of Health's order has been issued. B) Along with the current enforcement authorities of license or registration revocation and criminal prosecution as a gross misdemeanor through the county court system, the law allows the Commissioner of Health to levy fines against both property owners ami persons licensed or registered. The Commissioner may levy fines of $500 for violations of the law or rules relating to: 1) Improper well location with respect to isolation distances. 2) Improper construction techniques or materials. 3) Improper sealing. 4) Improper grouting materials and methods. The Commissioner may levy fines of $250 against contractors who fail to: 1) Obtain required plan review approval. 2) Obtain a permit or file a proper notification before well construction. 3) Register a drilling rig or pump rig, or fail to display a State decal and registration number. 4) Properly disinfect wells. 5) Submit well construction or sealing reports and water samples to the Commissioner. The Commissioner may levy fines of $250 against persons who fail to: 1) Disclose information about wells at the time of property transfer or sale. C) Groundwater Thertnal Exchange Devices and Vertical Heat Exchangers Require a $50 permit fee. 0) After July 1, 1990, A $50 permit fee is required for an excavation for an elevator shaft.. u 7. Maintenance Permits Annual maintenance permits are required for all inoperable wells that are not sealed. A $50 annual fee is required. Annual maintenance permits are required for monitoring wells constructed after January 1, 1990. If a monitoring well is not sealed within fourteen months after construction, a maintenance permit is required and a $50 fee must be paid. For monitoring wells at motor fuel retail outlets and petroleum oulk storage sites, the permit fee is $50 per site. Annual maintenance per its are required for dewatering wells constructed after January 1, 1990. If a dewatering well is not sealed within 14 months after construction, a maintenance permit is required and a $25 fee must be paid. For dewatering well projects of more than 10 wells, the permit fee is $250 per site. LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS EXEMPT FROM ALL PERMIT, NOTIFICATION, AND VARIANCE FEES BUT MUST COMPLY WITH THE PERMIT AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. 8. Well Sealing A well owner is responsible for having an unused well sealed by a licensed contractor. If a well poses a public health hazard, the Commissioner may order the well to be sealed. Failure of an owner to seal a well may result in the Commissioner having the well sealed and assessing the cost to the property owner. Counties may declare a well a public health nuisance and have it sealed and assess the cost to the property owner. A cost-share program with limited funds, administered by the Board of Water and Soil Resources, provides funds for selected counties to pay up to 75% of the cost of sealing a well not to exceed $2,000. 9. County Well Certificate Counties must issue sealed well certificates prescribed by the Commissioner of Health for all wells that are sealed. ' » i 2) 3) 4) Provide accurate and correct information on the well certificate. File prooer notifications. Have a well properly sealed. 12. Wellhead Protection The law requires the development of rules concerning the protection of surface and subsurface areas supplying water to public water wells. Protective measures will involve State, County and other local governments. Ijroncinn A) License categories A licensed well contractor may construct, repair, and seal any well including monitoring wells, unconventional wells, excavations for elevator shafts and environmental bore holes. A licensed limited well contractor may 1) install, repair, or seal any unconventional well such as a dewatering well, dug well, or drive-point well; 2) repair the well casing or screen on any well; 3) seal any well; or 4) install a well pump or pumping equipment in any well. A registered monitoring well contractor may construct, repair, or seal monitoring wells and environmental bore holes. A licensed elevator shaft contractor or a licensed well contractor may construct, repair, or seal excavations for elevator shafts. An exploratory borer may construct and seal exploratory borings. B)Local units of government mav not license or registered well contractors, limited well contractors, monitoring well contractors, elevator shaft contractors, or exploratory borers. Licensing and registration is a State reouirement. A State license or registration bond is required for well contractors, limited well contractors, monitoring well contractors, and elevator shaft contractors. The bond preempts local license bonds (Minnesota Laws, Chapter 1031). 0) Effective July 1, 1990, four categories of limited well contractor licenses are required for; MllfH* •HIM II illllf ^.TiTiV* t ^ . ? 2) Provide accurate and correct information on the well certificate. 3) File proper notifications. 4) Have a well properly sealed. 12. Wellhead Protection The law requires the development of rules concerning the protection of surface and subsurface areas supplying water to public water wells. Protective measures will involve State, County and other local governments. 13. Licensing A) License categories A licensed well contractor may construct, repair, and seal any well including monitoring wells, unconventional wells, excavations for elevator shafts and environmental bore holes. A licensed limited well contractor may 1) install, repair, or seal any unconventional well such as a dewatering well, dug well, or drive-point well; 2) repair the well casing or screen on any well; 3) seal any well; or 4) install a well pump or pumping equipment in any well. A registered monitoring well contractor may construct, repair, or seal monitoring wells and environmental bore holes. A licensed elevator shaft contractor or a licensed well contractor may construct, repair, or seal excavations for elevator shafts. An exploratory borer may construct and seal exploratory borings. 8) Local units of government mav not license or registered well contractors, limited well contractors, monitoring well contractors, elevator shaft contractors, or exploratory borers. Licensing and registration is a State reouirement. C) A State license or registration bond is required for 11 contractors, limited well contractors, monitoring well contractors, and elevator shaft contractors, thp preempts local license bonds (Minnesota Laws, Chapter 1031). 0) Effective July 1, 1990, four categories of limited well contractor licenses are required for; 5 r CL CITY of ORONO CITY Post Oftice 66 • Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices OF ORONO On the North Shor*> of Lake Minnetonka December , 1989 Raymond W. Thron Director. Divirinn Environmental Health Minnesota Depamnent of Health 717 Delaware Street Southeast P.O. Box 9441 Minneapolis, MM 55440 Re: Article 3, 1989 Ground Water Protection Legislation Dear Mr. Thron: Having received your iremorandum regarding local regulation of wells and borings, I am greatly concerned that after January 1, 1990 the City of Orono will have a drastically reduced authority to control and monitor well drilling activity. We view this as a potential threat to effective land use managemt..'t in the Citv. Currently, the City of Orono requires permits for water well construction and abandonment. Permits are issued only to state licensed well drillers. The City requires a predrilling site ’■ nsc^ction to verify with the c ler that isolation distances art -aet, and more critic th* 'ells will be located so as to not affect developmer. 'jat . t vacant lots by conflicting with approved sewage t ;t system sites. The City requires ^r*llers to call in for a test pump inspection, although actual test pump inspections are often waived if the inspector is not available within the time frame requested. The City has required since 1978 t''^t the driller submit a copy of the State Water Well Record the City upon completion of each well. Approximately 80 wells per year are drilled within the City of Orono, virtually all being private residential wells. The rural areas within the City of Orono are developing at a i acre minimum lot size density with wells and r^otic systems. It is critical that in order for such a developme olan to work effectively, well and septic system location and nstruction must be closely monitored. BIUDING & ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING A(iMINISTR.MION 4 finance - 473-735* FAX - 4734)510 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 i Raymond W. Thron/ Director Division of Environmental Health Re; .-.rticle 3, 1989 Ground Water Protection Legislation December 21, 1969 Page 2 of 3 Until a delegation agreement between the City of Orono and the Health Department can be effectuated, I have serious doubts about the ability of the Health Department's very minimal inspection staff to provide the level of well location regulation historically provided to the residents of Orono by City^ sta.^^. Eliminating our permitting authority will greatly diminish our ability to require that well drillers verify with ;:he City the appropriateness of a specific well location. I would also make the following comments and raise the following issues regarding the new requirements; 1. If a local government may not regulate wells, can the local government still require more strict isolation distances than required by State Code? 2, Regarding the new perniit process, the wording in your memo item 6a suggests that it is the property owner's responsibility to "notify" the Health Department prior to construction of a well. Item 11 then goes on to provide the ability to levy fines against contractors who don't follow the proper notification, what is the new process for obtaining well permits? Who is responsible for obtaining a permit, the property owner or the well driller? 3, Since after January 1st the City can no longer issue permits for wells, does the City still have the ability to require well drillers to obtain City approval for a specific well location? If not, it i'* highly likely that some wells will be placed in inappropriate locations. In a worst case scenario, if a well is placed on Lot A i.. - location where the isolation radius encroaches into the only feasible sewage treatment system sites on Lot B, Lot B could become unbuildabie. Two acre rolling wooded lots in Orono are currently selling in the range of Slu0,000 to $200,000 per let. In many cases, these lots have a limited area usable for sewage treatment systems, and elimination of the ability to use those areas would have serious financial conseauences. Such nightmares are most easily avoidable when ^ocal government regulates wnere wells are being drilled. Can the City at least continue to regulate well 1 ocations, if not construction, under the new requirements? i I Raymond W. Thron, Director Division of Environmental Health Re: i^rticle 3, 1989 Ground Water Protection Legislation December 21, 1989 Page 3 of 3 If the possibility exists that the City of Orono can enter into a delegation agreement with the Health Department, please advise immediately. For the City of Orono, loss of well regulation ability may have serious consequences. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffrorf, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrate: cc?^^Gary L. Englund, Chief, Section of Water Supply 6 Eng., MN n«nt of Health . Jeunes Nye, Ground Water Quality Control Unit, MN Depw of Health Roger Carlson, Hennepin County Environmental Health Services Ll. S 12.50 SEC. 12.50. WATER WELL CONSTROCTION; WELL ABANDONMENT. Subd. 1. Water Well Construction Code Adopted. The Water Well Construction Code, 7 MCAR, Sec. 1.217-1.230, adopted by the Minnesota Department of Health is hereby adopted by reference as though set forth verbatim herein. One copy of said Code shall be marked CITY OF ORONO - OFFICIAL COPY and kept on file in the office of the Building Official and open to inspection and use by the public. It is unlawful to construct any private water well except in accordance with said Code. Subd. 2. Well Abandonment. When a replacement well is constructed or when a building is connected to the City water system, any existing well, the use of which is not intended to continue, shall be properly abandoned in accordance with the requirements of the Water Well Construction Code. It is unlawful to abandon a well without first obtaining a separate permit for each well abandonment. The abandonment shall be performed by a licensed water well contractor. Source; City Code Effective Date; 4-1-84 (Sections 12.51 through 12.98, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 506 (4-1-84) iiiilijiJlij i£ .|l|s3 VAl5\mum. i i I f\ii lil l4 I Z m • j II .=6 = 2 w- 5 ^ od' an «o VO ^ ^ ;<5?;K335«'»*- - Swuwwv^^wwvU; a“lliiKs|iii |i:i:;:;s;; j •g - ^ — — — — — — ® *u C *o * — • b V k. 5 3*2 b > _- a ■ S 3 H =-= « .2 ^ c w 5 ® ^ c -*f3^ -sc ^ • *s Al M E^3 J*2 I ^*5 ^ -E =• ® 2 2 w 5| Jir,o M c ;iS b • « w « S i-2^ 2 = - I in ¥r .5 S £ S 1^* » SJI * ns -S «4 ^ • A 9 M•* Si-H s iSSjtl •s • •'•: 5 •■S-S • I 111 ■ "i \ hi .m4 j‘5-5 5 5 • ? l4«] sHl 1*1^ iHi a. » ^ 2L fi-3 e -fl « •T % 1 Hi id*i El S ! I •5 2 £ o i2 < ^ C Ji 5 w s s 8 2 » Tf fi • 6 _ ^ » ^ y c S« 5i5r-=irjIs 3 l|-8 ns 18.53 |2l £ tKi ^ II 7 K ;i=2 c|4f I ^]|s|n||p gS I1||» fs I |iil-s2 ifji if 3 luni jffi HIiiu |i I I flfiM S S i\U5 =il! - 2 j i z8 I i li:i|| II if *J^^lf! .3 is a -6 Jt^ » II »| l -h' s J-if -J - ** S « •» ^ 5 ^1 --I £| |iJll l|ijJ «i l!lH3, •»i| jf it ••!3S 1 f £l ““Ul^.f2 rlri r l|^hlin si * hilts [ i^ii^ Ls j s 11690.5 TO; FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratof January 16, 1990 N ^miNG SUBJECT: Highway 12 Frontage Roads 1930 'n:: PC Attachment: A. Bonestroo Letter Dated 1/3/90 ISSUE - Presentation to the Council of its financial information related to possible frontage roads in the Highway 12 area. INTRODUCTION - As part of the corridor study three frontage roads between Old Crystal Bay Road and Willow together with Willow and Brown were outlined. The actual layout for those was going to be subject to development. As part of the proposed Minnesota Department of constructed in 1993) it which MnDOT could pay outlines the shares of responsible (either MSA, 1992 safety improvement being done by the Transportation (which will probably be has been indicated there is a program by for a portion of those. Attachment A each of the roads for which the City is General or special assessments.) This frontage road construction would be in exchange for closing off all access of those properties abutting Highway 12 together with obtaining the necessary additional right-of-way that they would need to construct the project. These are somewhat costly items that MnDOT would be willing to trade off and help pay for the frontage roads. The City would need to mediate and to obtain this from the property owners. Proposal in each of the three sections is as follows; Old Crystal Bay Road/Wi1low — South Side — As noted in the capital budget the City had set aside approximately $250,000 for this project. It is currently estimated at $352,000 with the City share being approximately $150,000. The expectation in order to buy the acce&s particularily to VanDale and WSI would be construction either prior to or in conjunction with the 1992 safety improvement. Except for granting/or paying for the necessary right-of-ways it is not anticipated that the owners should pay for anything additional for this project. Additionally because this would sever storage areas from their main plant these should be granted variances for the separation because it was lost by a City project. Half of this project would lie in the City of Long Lake. They may have indicated an interest in the alignment but i Mayor and City Council 11690-5iW\T/Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator January 16, 1990 :T: Highway 12 Frontage Roads N■xh.mriHQ'Xi 2,3 !39o/'MTV fti'hment: A. Bonestroo Letter Dated 1/3/90- Presentation to the Council of its financial information ed to possible frontage roads in the Highway 12 area. DUCTION - As part of the corridor study three frontage roads en Old Crystal Bay Road and Willow together with Willow and were outlined. The actual layout for those was going to be ct to development. rt of the proposed sota Department of ructed in 1993) it MnDOT could pay ,nes the shares of nsible (either MSA, 1992 safety improvement being done by the Transportation (which will probably be has been indicated there is a program by for a portion of those. Attachment A each of the roads for which the City is General or special assessments.) frontage road construction would be in exchange for closing 11 access of those properties abutting Highway 12 together obtaining the necessary additional right-of-way that they need to construct the project. These are somewhat costly that MnDOT would be willing to trade off and help pay for rontage roads. The City would need to mediate and to obtain from the property owners. sal in each of the three sections is as follows: Old Crystal Bay Road/Willqw - South Side - As noted in the capital budget the City had set aside approximately $250,000 for this project. It is currently estimated at $352,000 with the City share being approximately $150,000. The expectation in order to buy the access particularily to VanDale and WSI would be construction either prior to or in conjunction with the 1992 safety improvement. Except for granting/or paying for the necessary right-of-ways it is not anticipated that the owners should pay for anything additional for this project. Additionally because this would sever storage areas from their main plant these should be granted variances for the separation because it was lost by a City project. Half of this project would lie in the City of Long Lake. They may have indicated an interest in the alignment but they do not have money nor gain much benefit by its construction. As such, it would be necessary for Orono to fund it. In order to use MSA funds the City would need to own that section of road plus the section of Willow Drive to the south in order to connect to another MSA street. (It seems a little ridiculous, but thems the rules.)O^d Crystal Bay Road to Wi 1 low/North Side - This area remains undeveloped and the alignment shown is one of only several possible ones being done for estimating purposes for MnDOT. It is anticipated that the City would get the necessary controlled access and a commitment from the Minnesota Department of Transportation to pay their share once it is to be constructed. It is felt the property owners should pay a substantal percentage of the City's share. The total project is estimated to be $372,500 in this area.W^l l^ow Road to Brown Road/No£^h S_ide - Se£ment A Wi 1 low/BL~Mnhal 1 - The property owner Mr. Clifford Otten has requested the right in right out or right in only access from MnDOT. However, while they will allow him to construct it now, they will deny further construction of this in the future. Continuation of this in the future after the safety project is put in place. As such he will need an alternate access, which would be provided by this segment. The cost of this segment is $235,600 and this would be put in at the time of the safety improvement. Section B Brimah11/Brown - The section from Brimhall over to Brown Road should await for the development of the front part of the Rebers' property. As the type of development on there may dictate the location of that road. As is the case with the section on the north side between Old Crystal Bay Road and Willow the City would seek a commitment from MnDOT for future participation with this project. Again the developer should pay a portion of this cost which the total estimate is $185,100. Originally the City had estimated $750,000 for these constructions based on prices two years ago. Based on this proposal the City would be looking at approximately half a million dollars of which a significant portion of the City's share should be paid by developers on the north of Highway 12. (One of the increasing costs factors was the segment in Long Lake for which they probably have no funds available. If they indicate their agreement with the alignment, we will seek their concurrence to work with the property owners and also obtain deeds for the street segments in order for Orono to use MSA street funds.) V r. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the Information* 2. Table for further discussion. 3. Direct staff to submit it to Minnesota Department of Transportation. 4. Tak'* no action. 1.ECOMMEMDAT10N - If the 3 atety Imp«Vejee^nt ““ mve=\K traffic on U andjongter.^^^^^^^ tS'wIrrtuhTnoST lo ob1a?n the necessary agreements. such a road.) participation agreements. Ayes —, Nays —. cc;John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director je:nne''A!'Aabis^h!l^^^^ & Zoning Administrator JThe city share of the project costs far the north frontage road could be funded with MSA funds if the street segments are designated as MSA streets on the city road system. The south frontage road does not meet the criteria for at. MSA Street and would not be eligible for MSA funding. It you have any questions please contact this office. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSEhu, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. G2V Glenn R. Cook GRC:dh Page 2. L4/2C I ir-APPENDIXSTREET COST ESTIMATES PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TRUNK HIGHWAY 12 FRONTAGE ?OADS-he north ttontaje ronh on-Vsl rrer - cru»tn tor::: ... ..... r. rll . hSSOCUT.S, X»=.SUMMARY! Part A: f t LU- o R. Cook dh Par- Part C: North Frontage Road from Old Crystal Bay Road to Willow Drive.Estimate I - Mn/DOT Participation $191,800.00 Eatimate II - City of Orono 180,600^0 TOTAL $372,400.00;h Frontage Road from Willow Drive to Brimhall Ave. Ext..ate I - Mn/DOT Participation $131,000.00mate II - City of Ortno 104,600 ._02 •i^.AL $235,600.00 North Frontage Road from Brimhall Ave. Ext. to Brown Rd. Estimate I - Mn/DOT Participation Estimate II - City of Orono TOTAL $ 97,400.00 87,700.00 $185,100.00 art D: South Frontage Road. Alternate 1: From Old Crystal Bay Rd. to Willow Drive Estimate I - Hn/D'''^ Participation Estimate II - City of Orono TOTAL $189,600.00 164.600.00 $354,200.00 Alternate 2; •'i n Old Crystal Bay Rd. to W. Industrial Blvd. Estimate 1 - Mn/DOT Participation Estimate II - City of Orono TOTAL $165,500.00 149.200. .•'0 $314,700.00 - 1 - APP13951 Page L4/2Q Unit Unit Pric•Est. Quant.Est. CostC.Y.$ 3.00 7,000 $ 21,000.00C.Y.6.00 3«800 22,800.00Ton6.00 5,000 30,000.00Ton14.00 1,760 24,640.00Ton16.00 880 14,080.00 Ton 150.00 160 24,000.00 Gals.2.00 600 1,200.00 Ac.4,000.00 0.75 3,000.00 Estimated Construction Costs $140,720.00 lOZ Contingency 14.070.00 Total Estimated Construction $154,790.00 18Z Legal, Engr., Admin.27.860.00 Total $182,650.00 5Z Bonding & Capitalized Interest 9.150.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST ...$191,800.00 Item Unit Unit Price Est. Quant.Est. CostCommon excavation C.Y.$ 3.00 3,000 $ 9,000.00Class 3 Aggregate base C Y.6.00 600 3,600.00Class 5 Aggregate base Ton 6.00 800 4,800.002331 Bituminous base course Ton 14.00 56 784.002341 Bituminous wear course Ton 16.00 28 448.00AC-1 Bituminous material for mixture Ton 150.00 5 750.00Bituminous material for tack coat Gals.2.00 100 200.00 B618 Concrete curb k gutter L.F.6.00 5,450 32,700.00 15■ RCP culvert L.F.22.00 850 18,700.00 18" RCP culvert L.F.24.00 750 18,000.00 36" RCP culvert L.F.45.00 400 18,000.00 36" RCP apron w/trash guard Each 1,500.00 2 3,000.00 Standard catch basin Each 700.00 5 3,500.00 Standard catch basin manhole Each 1,000.00 4 4,000.00 5* dia. catch basin manhole Each 1,500.00 2 3,000.00 Rip rap w/geotextile fabric C.Y.100.00 20 2,000.00 Mechanical trench compaction L.F.1.00 2,000 2,000.00 Restoration Ac.4,000.00 2.0 8.000.00 Estimated Construction Costs $132,482.00 —Frontage Road from Orono Road No. 87 to Brimhall Avenue Ext. Estimate I - Minnesota Department of Transportation Participation Item Unit Unit Price Est. Quant.Est. Cost Coofflon Excavation C.Y.$ 3.00 5,000 $ 15,000.00 Class 3 Aggregate base C.Y.6.00 2,600 15,600.00 Class 5 Aggregate base Ton 6.00 3,300 19.800.00 2331 Bituininous base course Ton 14.00 1,200 16,800.00 2341 Bituminous wear course Ton 16.00 600 9,600.00 AC-1 Bituminous material for mixture Ton 150.00 110 16,500.00 Bituminous material for tack coat Gals.2.00 400 800.00 Restoration Ac.4,000.00 0.5 2.000.00 APP13951 1 Estimated Construction Costs lOZ Contingency Total Estimated Construction 18Z Legal, Engr., Admin. Total 5Z Bonding 6 Capitalized Interest TOTAL PROJECT COST . . . . . . . . $ 96.100.00 9.610.00 $105,710.00 19,030.00 $124,740.00 _ _6j260.00 $131,000.00 - 4 - I ^ p.„ B, north Frontage 8o.d £ro» Orooo Road »o. 87 to Brinhall Avanua Ext. Estimate II - City of Orono Item Common Excavation Class 3 Aggregate base Claes 5 Aggregate base 2331 Bituminous base course 2341 Bituminous wear course AC-1 Bituminous material for mixture Bituminous material for tack coat B618 Concrete curb & gutter 15' RCP culvert 18" RCP culvert 24* RCP culvert 18" RCP apron w/trash guard 24* RCP apron w/trash guard Standard catch basin Standard catch basin manhole Rip rap w/geotextile fabric Mechanical trench compaction Restoration Unit C.Y. Unit Price Est. Quant.Eat. Coat $ 3.00 2,000 $ 6.000.00 C.Y.6.00 400 2.400.00 Ton 6.00 550 3,300.00 Ton 14.00 40 560.00 Ton 16.00 20 320.00 Ton 150.00 4 600.00 Gals.2.00 100 200.00 L.F.6.00 3.700 22,200.00 L.F.22.00 200 4,400.00 L.F.24.00 450 10,800.00 L.F.30.00 300 9,000.00 Each 600.00 2 1,200.00 Each 800.00 1 800.00 Each 700.00 4 2,800.00 Each 1.000.00 5 5,000.00 C.Y.100.00 14 1,400.00 L.F.1.00 1.000 1,000.00 Acre 6,000.00 1.2 4.800.00 Estimated Construction Costs $ 76,780.00 102 Contingency Total Estimated Construction 182 Legal, Engr., Admin. Total 52 Bonding & Capitalized Interest TOTAL PROJECT COST . . . . . . . . 7.680.00 $ 84,460.00 15.200.00 $ 99.660.00 4.940.00 $104,600.00 - 5 - i i{ ♦ t 1 !? ■ M APP13951 1 Part Ct North Frontage Road from Brimhall Ave. Ext. to Brown Road. Estimate I - Minnesota Department of Transportation Participation Item Unit Unit Price Est. Quant.Est. Cost Common Excavation C.Y.$ 3.00 4,000 $12,000.00 Class 3 Aggregate base C.Y.6.00 2,200 13,200.00 Class 5 Aggregate base Ton 6.00 2,800 16,800.00 2331 Bituminous base course Ton 14.00 1,000 14,000.00 23A1 Bituminous wear course Ton 16.00 500 8,000.00 AC-1 Bituminous material for mixture Ton 150.00 90 13,500.00 Bituminous material for tack coat Gals.2.00 400 800.00 Restoration Acre 4,000.00 0.5 2.000.00 Estimated Construction Costs $80,300.00 lOZ Contingency 8.030.00 Total Estimated Construction $88,330.00 18Z Legal, Engr.. Admin.4.420.00 Total $92,750.00 51 Bonding & Capitalized Interest 4.650.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST . . .$97,400.00 - 6 APP13951 p„t C, North Frohfge Bo.d fro. Bri.h.11 A... E«. to Bro™ Bo.d. Estimate II - City of Orono Item Common Excavation Class 3 Aggregate base Class 5 Aggregate base 2331 Bituminous base course 2341 Bituminous wear course AC-1 Bituminous material for mixture Bituminous material for tack coat B618 Concrete curb i gutter 15* RCP culvert 18* RCP culvert 24* RCP culvert 24* RCP apron w/trash guard Standard catch basin Standard catch basin manhole Rip rap w/geotextile fabric Mechanical trench compaction Restoration Unit C.Y. Unit Price Est. Quant.Est. Cost $ 3.00 2,000 $ 6,000.00 C.Y.6.00 350 2,100.00 Ton 6.00 450 2,700.00 Ton 14.00 32 448.00 Ton 16.00 16 256.00 Ton 150.00 3 450.00 Gals.2.00 100 200.00 L.F.6.00 3,100 18.600.00 L.F.22.00 250 5,500.00 L.F.24.00 300 7,200.00 L.F.30.00 300 9,000.00 Each 800.00 1 800.00 Each 700.00 2 1,400.00 Each 1,000.00 4 4,000.00 C.Y.100.00 8 800.00 L.F.1.00 900 900.00 Acre 4,000.00 1.0 4.000.00 Estimated Construction Costs lOZ Contingency Total Estimated Construction 18Z Legal, Engr., Admin. Total 5Z Bonding i Capitalized Interest TOTAL PROJECT COST . . . . . . . . . $ 64.354.00 6.436.00 $ 70,790.00 12.740.00 $ 83,530.00 4,170.00 $ 87,700.00 - 7 - II APP13951 Part D; South Frontage Road Alternate 1 - From Old Crystal Bay Road to Willow Drive. Estimate I - Minnesota Department of Transportation Participation Item Unit Unit Price Est. Quant.Est. Cost Coounon Excavation C.Y.$3.00 7,000 $ 21,000.00 Class 3 Aggregate base C.Y.6.00 3,800 22.800.00 Class 5 Aggregate base Ton 6.00 4,800 28.800.00 2331 Bituminous base course Ton 14.00 1,740 24,360.00 2341 Bituminous wear course Ton 16.00 870 13,920.00 AC-1 Bituminous material for mixture Ton 150.00 160 24.000.00 Bituminous material for tack coat Gals.2.00 600 1.200.00 Restoration Acre 4 ,000.00 0.75 3.000.00 Estimated Construction Costs $139,080.00 lOZ Contingency 13.910.00 Total Estimated Construction $152,990.00 181 Legal.Engr., Admin.27.540.00 Total $180,530.00 5Z Bonding St Capitalized Interest 9.070.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST . . .$189,600.00 APP13951 - 8 - Part Dt South Frontage Road Alternate 1: From Old Crystal Bay Road to Villow Drive. Estimate II - City of Orono Item Common Excavation Class 3 Aggregate base Class 5 Aggregate base 2331 Bituminous base course 2341 Bituminous wear course AC-1 Bituminous material for mixture Bituminous material for tack coat B618 Concrete curb & gutter 15* RCP culvert 18* RCP culvert 48" RCP culvert 48" RCP apron v/trash guard Standard catch basin Standard catch basin manhole 6' di. catch basin manhole Rip rap w/geotextile fabric Mechanical trench compaction Restoration Unit C.Y. C.Y. Ton Ton Ton Ton Gals. L.F. L.F. L.F. L.F. Each Each Each Each C.Y. L.F. Acre Estimated Construction Costs 102 Contingency Total Estimated Construction 182 Legal, Engr., Admin. Total 52 Bonding & Capitalized Interest TOTAL PROJECT COST . . . . . . . . . Unit Price Est. Quant.Est. Cost $ 3.00 3,000 $ 9,000.00 6.00 600 3,600.00 6.00 800 4,800.00 14.00 54 756.00 16.00 27 432.00 150.00 5 750.00 2.00 100 200.00 6.00 5,400 32,400.00 22.00 1,100 24,200.00 24.00 500 12,000.00 70.00 100 7,000.00 2.000.00 2 4,000.00 700.00 5 3,500.00 1.000.00 2 2,000.00 2,000.00 2 4,000.00 100.00 24 2,400.00 1.00 1.700 1,700.00 4.000.00 2.0 8.000.00 $120,738.00 12.072.00 $132,810.00 23.910.00 $156,720.00 7.880.00 $164,600.00 APP13951 - 9 Part Ds South Frontage Road Alternate 2 - From Old Crystal Lay Road to West Industrial Blvd. Estimate I - Minnesota Department of Transportation Participation Item Unit Unit Price Est. Ouant.Est. Cost Common Excavation C.Y.$3.00 6.000 $ 18,000.00 Class 3 Aggregate base C.Y.6.00 3,300 19,800.00 Class 5 Aggregate base Ton 6.00 4,200 25,200.00 2331 Bituminous base course Ton 14.00 1,520 21,280.00 2341 Bituminous wear course Ton 16.00 760 12,160.00 AC-1 Bituminous material for mixture Ton 150.00 140 21,000.00 Bituminous material for tack coat Gals •2.00 500 1,000.00 Restoration Acre 4 ,000.00 0.75 3.000.00 Estimated ([Construction Costs $121,440.00 lOZ Contingency 12.140.00 Total Estimated Construction $133,580.00 18Z Legal,Engr., Admin.24.040.00 Total $157,620.00 5Z Bonding & Capitalized Interest 7.880.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST . . . $165,500.00 - 10 - APP13951 Part D; South Frontage Road Alternate 2: From Old Cxrysta Estimate II - City of Orono Item Common Excavation Class 3 Aggregate base Class 5 Aggregate base 2331 Bituminous base course 2341 Bituminous wear course AC-1 Bituminous material for mixture Bituminous material for tack coat B618 Concrete curb k gutter 15- RCP culvert 18" RCP culvert 48" RCP culvert 48" RCP apron w/trash guard Standard catch basin Standard catch basin manhole 6' di. catch basin manhole Rip rap w/geotextile fabric Mechanical trench compaction Restoration Road to Vest Industrial Blvd. Unit Price Est. Ouant.Est. Cost $ 3.00 2,700 $ 8,100.00 6.00 550 3,300.00 6.00 700 4,200.00 14.00 48 672.00 16.00 24 384.00 150.00 4 600.00 2.00 100 200.00 6.00 4,700 28,200.00 22.00 900 19,800.00 24.00 500 12,000.00 70.00 100 7,000.00 2,000.00 2 4,000.00 700.00 5 3,500.00 1,000.00 1 1,000.00 2,000.00 2 4,000.00 100.00 30 3,000.00 1.00 1,500 1,500.00 4,000.00 2.0 8.000.00 Unit C.Y. C.Y. Ton Ton Ton Ton Gals L.F. L.F. L.F. L.F. Each Each Each Each C.Y. L.F. Acre Estimated Construction Costs 102 Contingency Total Estimated Construction 182 Legal, Engr., Admin. Total 5Z Bonding & Capitalized Interest TOTAL PROJECT COST . . . . . . $109,456.00 10.944.00 $120,400.00 21.670.00 $142,070.00 7.130.00 $149,200.00 AF?1j451 - 11 - 3.00 2.700 $ 8,100.006.00 550 3,300.006.00 700 4,200.00lA.OO A8 672.00 16.00 2A 384.00 150.00 A 600.00 2.00 100 200.00 6.00 4,700 28,200.00 22.00 900 19,800.00 2A.00 500 12,000.00 70.00 100 7,000.00 2,000.00 2 4,000.00 c 3,500.00700.00 1,000.001,000.00 •L 2,000.00 2 4,000.00 100.00 30 3,000.00 1.00 1.500 1,500.00 9 0 8.000.00A,000.00 X • V 11890.2aV.-^■vicrr/fisMayor and city CouncilJanuary is, 1955 I'vCT= City Recorder /»:<■ i?oo^J'k'- 'f.o. .aurie Schefner fcnetfier from the Cityerraine future direction. t^CTIOM - Lauri f//.time^recorderSION - The pro tly"bUdSe^Id" save about Si tial amount of the recordi^ ‘'^at is >00-?S%r„--„al coat o/tte-— and «'in‘;'?°rcrera“e\" ““h Laurie ea ff- - —ed erranseent tut eod.y ite clerical to ' new recorder. t»e realgnatlon and table to the 2/12/or, DATIOm - Jt i. /12/90 meeting. «lth our thanka for°rinh®'^ ‘l>e reaionar- employing Laurie ‘'*^1 ‘^one and that A " • nJratV„7l*„ro%^Vca?4 “”" lOTlON - Moved by T Of Laurie Scheffi^' seconded by = time canar-iK^^® to undertak^l the ly autho/Ae aLfVt''*^'' Reror"a''e%'"|'i'’i’‘"9 Laurie TO:Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratorPROM: Dorothy Hallin, City ClerkDATE: January 16, 1990SOBJECT: City Recorder PositionLaurie Scheffler, City Recorder, has given notice of resignation effective Friday, March 2, 1990.Laurie has proposed an alternative to the present Recorder’s job description. Stating she would continue as City Recorder on a contract basis charging $100.00 per meeting, doing the typing of minutes in her own home. This arrangement would eliminate the need to pay benefits for the Recorder position and would allow the City to hire a person to fill the full time secretarial position. The advantage of this arrangement is it would free up the computer and staff time that is been devoted to preparation of minutes. A new person in the secretarial position would most likely have a starting salary in the rang® of $8.33 - $8.82 per hour (85-90% of Level 4 Step I) with a salary review at six months. Laurie's salary is currently $10,371 per hour (Level 4 Step 2) with an annual review date of July 1990 (Level 4 Step 3). At the present time the Recorder's position is also a secretarial position. The Recorder works both the Council and Planning Commission meetings, prepares the minutes and does other secretarial duties; answering phones, issuing permits, general typing and helping walk-in customers. The position was changed to full time January 1, 1989, at that time Laurie requested instead of being paid over-time for time spent at meetings that she be allowed to leave early the following day using the time spent at meetings to make an 8 hour day. In addition in a effort to make better use of computer time during the busy summer months she volunteered to work a split shift, working mornings only and working on the minutes in the evening when there were no interruptions from the phone and other persons. Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk January 16, 1990 :ity Recorder Positionon^/°S°t®a®Un\" s1lVlo"u^^^^onU ^!le ircity Reco^rd®e^'“ .asis charging $100.0r per meeting? doing thei*v^benefifc'i°f®' arrangement would eliminate^thefor the Recorder position and would allow to hire a person to fill th? full time seorettiLrind®lta°/f 1= it would free up the» time that is been devoted to preparation of . , ** a cep ij with a salary review eiv h en%n currently $10,371 pit hour (LeJel 4 • h an annual review date of July 1990 (Level 4 Step 3). Recorder's position is also a secretarial n meef fworks both the Council and Planning prepares the minutes and does othe? duties, answering phones, issuing permits, general helping walk-in customers. The position wis chanaed Laurie requestedbeing paid over-time for time spent at raeetinas thaf owed to leave early the following day using ?hl t^me etings to make an 8 hour day. in addition in a efforf computer time during the busy summer months 1 ^ spilt Shift, working mornings only and 1 the minutes in the evening when there were no ns from the phone and other persons. i TO:Dorothy Hallin, City ClerkFROM:Laurie K. Scheffler,City RecorderDATE:January 4, 1990SUBJ:ResignationPlease accept this as my official notification of my intention to resign my full-time position with the City of Orono. As you know, I have agreed to contract with the City of Victoria to attend the Council and Planning Commission Meetings and prepare the minutes. This opportunity arose due to a recent reorganization of the City personnel of Victoria; they had a lack of space and equipment and felt it better to have the City Recorder work elsewhere (from his/her home).In my opinion, we have this similar situation here at Orono. I would like to continue working for Orono and have offered to attend the Planning Commission and Council Meetings and prepare the minutes at home. I would charge $100.00 per meeting and because I would be working as an individual contractor, I would no longer receive any benefits from the City. The meetings for Victoria occur on the 1st Monday (PC) and the 1st and 3rd Thursday (Council). The only conflicts I foresee are the optional Planning Commission Meetings that may occur during the building season. Since I started working here there have been 2 extra meetings. I would not be able to attend those meetings and that is something that I want you to consider when contemplating my offer. I have given you the date of February 28, 1990 as my last day, but would like to finish that week (and the pay period) and ask that you allow me to work through Friday, March 2, 1990. It is my understanding that you will discuss my offer to continue the recording aspect of my job with Mark. I would appreciate an answer to this question as soon as possible. I will be happy to talk with you and Mark about the details of my offer. I just want you to know that the only reason I have accepted this position with the City of Victoria is because of my son. He's growing so fast and it gets harder and harder for me to leave him at day care. You told me when I first interviewed for my job that it had the potential of becomming a full time position. I thought I could manage everything, but I can't. I even encouraged you to make my position full time when I saw how busy things are downstairs. I believe that was an immediate solution to the problem, even though it did not happen until January. Last summer I worked evenings to get my minutes done and that seemed to help somewhat, It allowed me to work more efficiently without interuptions and to help Teri with the typing of Zoning memos, etc. You may want to talk with Teri about her ideas for the downstairs personnel. / .A n N (,'* /’ 11690.4Mayor and City CouncilMark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator JA:i22i990 V I't, t vOwriJanuary 12, 1990SUBJECT: LOGO ISSUE -A. Provide information on contest process.B. Provide Council with proposed composition for judging panel.INTRODUCTION - At the Council's January 8, 1990, meeting they directed staff to further pursue a local contest for a LOGO.DISUCSSION - In the next few weeks an official contest blank and announcement will be made to the public together with a mailing to homes announcing it. Special emphasis will be made in the Orono Schools in the Junior and Senior high area together with the Mound Westonka district. JUDGING - Judging can be done in a number of ways, however, it is recommended that it be composed of the following: 2 CounciImembers, 1 Park Commission member, 1 Planning Commission member and 2 staff people. DEADLINE - In order to allow people to be creative about this, it is recommended that 1 April be the closing date for the contest. AWARD WINNER - Should a LOGO be chosen the person who developed it will be presented with a plaque with the LOGO on it. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Concur with the composition and appoint 2 CounciImembers to it. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council accept the information and make appointments to that at its February 26, 1990 meeting. I PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by Seconded by that the Council accept the information and table this matter until its February 26, 1990 meeting. Ayes , Nays [•rsi«»niT«irtleffl[•II Hi [•jiiF«r«i [•lIBVi [•nvr« [•HW* [•HC*Hi WM [•ifr«roiHii 11690.811690.63r and City Council ^ E. Bernhardson, City Administrateuary 19, 1990hway 12 corridor Selection Study mmi }ngvtWK jA:i2;ri93o iF ^017V PtTvision of infornntlon to the Council regarding atatus idor selection study. ON - At the ® t^fo®/Vhe^ studT^^ J»?s\ prior to ^meeting had "previously of January of the Ad " ct-udv undertaken. Staff isw on getting the corridor study under la on this meeting will meeting MnDOT will X=;V/u''l‘d“lA’’e t"^ sfe \ogAher with the type of Its composition that they would like. i - Following meeting /an^ decide how they would "outline issues and Council presented on this Board. ES - the information. \ • further discussion. js j ♦.Ka*- f-hls item be tabled until ^in'g“o‘lenSe'"the Representation and process for n study. j w... fhat the Council „0N - Moved by . •'li^ussion until theinformation an^table cn , 1990 meeting. Ayes —, Nay — » 51 /Mayor and City Council mTO: i'aayoi 'ina ^ir.y <^ount;ix ^FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato)|^^^DATE: January 16. 1990SUBJECT: Stubbs Bay 22 1933f‘i 1 V I > . •> ^• iAttachment: A. Stubbs Bay .Memo Dated 1/3/90B. Letter to ResidentsC. Stubbs Bay Memo Dated 9/l*f'89D. Stubbs Bay Memo 8/17/89E- November 13, 1989 Council Minutes ExcerptsISSUE - Review of key issues for the public informational meeting. INTRODUCTION - Following the July 24, 1989 meeting with the area residents staff reviewed, at the Council's November 13, 1989 meeting, the key issues of that meeting. DISCUSSION - Staff's present understanding of these issues are outlined in Attachment B. The Council may desire to discuss this further in advance of the meeting. The format of the meeting will be as follows: Introduction - City Administrator Recap of the project - City Engineer Questions and answers ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Indicate points of departure which can be presented at the beginning of the meeting. 3. Reschedule the meeting. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the meeting continue on the jOth and that Council direct any changes that they may have on the major issues or other concerns that they may have. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council accept the information indicating any further policy discussions that they may have. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Glenn Cook, City Engineer Wayo. ^nd City Council /January le, 1990 ^®JECT: Stubbs Bay -a f» 4- i ,c: iBll— - .e, .3sues .oH;;tor the public^SS ION - Staff*e nr-^ Of the meeting win be ’ '=® « follows: ooclion - City Administrator «®«P Of the project - city Enpineer Questions and answers natives - ept the information. '"® <nlet/ng‘*°'’^‘''=''" '">i=h can be presented at th ■'«<3ole the meeting. * ■NDATION - It a and That r«., ,'l®°0'wnended thaf vk '»ajor issues or other^co^*^ ^^’angesotfter concerns that thev m. '"^y have (MOTION - Moeed by e '' *''®’ 'he information <ni*—' seconded by m . ^ -y -ave. Aye‘s"!l?Va7, fartheTUiVy ja"llY ^fr‘S', \“s‘s«f"|,«„„^oninp Administrator ’" Co°“ ?u;°Engf“e^^'' ««^a"?irM?o"i"® “"«‘af-tor 1390.f rn\Qi4<Kao'Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdministrateDATS: January 3, 1990SUBJECT: Stubb's Bay Sewer MeetingAttachment: A. Stubbs Bay Memo Dated 12/1/89 I !ISSUE - Updated information regarding proposed meeting to be held on Stubb's Bay sewer.INTRODUCTION - At the Council's December 11, 1989, Councilmeeting they established January 30th as a possible date for a Stubb's Bay sewer meeting. DISCUSSION - The staff has contacted the school, where the previous meeting was held, and they have indicated that the most usable space, the theater, is available for that date. If you desire this to be rescheduled please indicate at the meeting. If acceptable a notice will be sent to the property owners within the next 10 days. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Select a new date. 2. Select a different location. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that it be scheduled at the Orono School Theater at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, January 30, 1990. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council reschedule the Stubb's Bay sewer meeting for January 30, 1990, at 7:00 P.M. at the High School Theater. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Planning Commission Members 12189.5 -^4 TO: FSOM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate December 1, 1989 SUBJECT: Stubbs Bay Sewer Consideration OUNCIL MEETING DEC 111989 CITY OF ORONO ISSUE - Establishment of a d^te that the Council would like to meet in a public forum with the residents of the Stubbs Bay area. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's November 13, 1989 meeting Vhey discussed the issues that had been raised at the last Stubbs Bay meeting with the residents and staff. At that time they directed staff to establish a date at the December 11th meeting for the January/February timeframe. DISUCSSION - The following represents potential dates in January or early February that could be used for such a meeting. They are as follows: January 10th and 11th January 24th and 25th January 29th, 30th, 31st/February 1st February 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th ALTERNATIVES - 1. Select a date. 2. Table until January 8th 3. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - Is is recommended that January 30, 199^ be established as a joint meeting date to be held at the Orono nigh School Auditorum at 7:00 P.M. Notification of this meeting will be sent to all residents and property owners in the area approximately 2 1/2 weeks in advance of the meeting. A special letter will be sent to those on Oxford Road to determine what, if any, interest they have in being included in such a project. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Council adopt ____ as the date for a joint meeting with the residents of the Stubbs Bay area regarding Stubbs Bay sewer- Ayes ___r Nays cc:John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Planning Conunission Members 1 r CITY r QF^ CITYc /■ 'B Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minn On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka January 16, 1990 Subject; Public Information Meeting Dear Stubbs Bay Area Resident; On July 24, 1989, Orono staff met wih Stubbs Bay area residents at the Orono High school Auditorium to discuss sanitary sewers and alternatives for that area. At the July meeting, following introduction and comments by staff, the discussions turned to installation of sanitary sewer. Several questions were asked but too numerous to include in this letter, therefore I have reduced the questions and answers to what we feel were the most important. The key ones are listed below. The Council has reviewed these and will be available to discuss these further at the next meeting. 1. Inclusion of Other Areas A. Oxford Road. This area was developed to 2-acre lakeshore standards in 1978. Because the area is lake- shore, considerations may be given to service this area. B. Sussex Sauare/Foxbend. This area is a new 26-lot subdivision at Fox Street and Leaf Street. The property is being developed per the residential standards and is not being considered for project inclusion. C. Cygnet Place. This area is fully developed and is 2/3 to 1 acre residential lots. At this time this area is not included but the City may look at the area sometime within the next five years. 2. City Funding of Anv Reserve Charge Typically the City has not placed any sewer pipes less than 8" in diameter. An 8" pipe will handle more than just the Stubbs Bay area. This project is using reserve capacity that currently exists, from for which this area will pay not anything. Historically the City has not helped fund a project for that reason but may consider this. BUILOINC a ZONING - J73-7357 ANStSSlNG ADMIMSTR\T10N a FINANCE • 473-7358 FAX-47341510 PI BLIC WORKS 473-735<» I Stubbs Bay Area Resident January 16, 1990 Page 2 of 2 3. Potential Rezoning The Stubbs Bay area is currently zoned 2 acre residential. The City has not rezoned any of the areas that were zoned to 2 acre in 1975, and it is not anticipated this one will. 4. Level of Participation In order for a project to proceed, there would have to be a level of support for the project which would probably require the signing of an assessment appeal waiver by at least a large majority of the property owners. 5. Next Meeting Date The next meeting will be January 30, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. at the Orono High School Auditorium (theater). The Orono Council will be attending. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 473-7357. Sincerely, /? / /John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director JRG/tln I /tTACi^OJT CL TO: Mayor Grabek Orono City Councilmembers FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat<^^ DATE: September 14, 1989 SUBJ: Stubbs Bay Sewer Attachment: Stubbs Bay Sewer Memo-8/17/89 ISSUE - 1. Presentation of information to Council related to primary issues raised at the Stubbs Bay Meeting held July 27, 1989. 2. Establish a date for the next Stubbs Bays meeting which would be with interested residents of the area and the Council. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's August 28, 1989 Council Meeting, Attachment A was presented outlining significant issues related to the Stubbs Bay sewer that had been raised at the July Me^'ting. DISCUSSION - Issue 1. - Outline of Major Issues A. Inclusion of other areas - 1. Oxford Road - This area was developed at the 2-acre lakeshore standard in 1978. While sewer could be extended to this area an estimate for this extension has not been made. There are 11 properties in this subdivision and presently there is only one septic system that has had intermittent problems. The Oxford Road area is in part lakeshore property and this may have special consideration as to whether or not it is included in the sewer project. 2. Sussex Development - This is presently beingm u/ ^ w w w ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Z: _ _ -------— — ^ ^ proposed for development. It is at a 2-acre density for a total of 17 residential lots. The topography of this area may make it expensive to sewer this area as it would need either a deep gravity line or a lift station line into the Stubbs Bay sewer to feed into the proposed Stubbs Bay system. 3. Cygnet Place - This area contains 19 developed lots which are predominately 2/3 - 1 acre. It is an area the City may look at for an alternative waste management study in the next 5 years. Topography may make sewering this area expensive. Also there are another 6 lots in between the Stubbs Bay area and Cygnet that could also be looked at. In order to include any of these in the development, the City would need to make a request M^^A line extension. (Although the Stubbs Bay area is currently not within the MUSA line, it was identified as an area that could be expanded in the City's Comprehensive Management Plan.) The impact of adding these units would be an effort to reduce the cost to the existing 82 residential developed lots and the approximate 10 additional potentially buildable vacant lots. The inclusion of Sussex would reduce the cost approximately 15% of the trunk costs or about 7-10% of the overall. Oxford would reduce the per unit trunk cost about 12% and about 6-8% of the total per unit cost. Cygnet Place would reduce the per unit trunk cost by 21% and the total by 10-12%. If these were not included at this time, there is enough capacity in the line to allow for their connection in the future. This would probably be done as a combination of an assessment together with a connection charge into the main. 3. City Funding of Any Reserve Charge - As noted in the first item, there will be additional capacity of approximately 250+ units in this line which will be constructed at the minimum size. These together could reduce the total cost by about 25%. As an alternative for each $100,000.00 in reserve capacity the City would take would result in about $1,000.00 per property reduction of those currently in the Stubbs Bay area. * (About an 8% reduction in the total cost which ranges from $11,-16,000). If the City chooses not to fund any portion of the sewer the City may face a forced reduction of special assessments resulting from the appeals process. Obviously this could be limited by requiring a certain percentage of appeal waivers to be signed prior to the project being undertaken. C. Potential Rezoning - This area was originally zoned 1 acre and prior to 1975 and when the new standards came in was placed at a 2-acre zoning. The issue is whether the City would consider rezoning the properties in the area to 1 acre (or less) if sewer did come in. The advantage to the property owner is in part to reduce the number of variances that they would need to obtain permits to improve their property, together with allowing some property owners the ability to subdivide their property and to help finance the sewer project. It should be remembered, however, that additional units would have to pay an aunount substantially similar in the currently projected figures so there may not be that much gained in subdivision. The related issue is the fact that the City has not done any rezoning in the Crystal Bay area or any other 2 acre zone areas sewered since the 1975 rezoning. In the Crystal Bay area those served by sewers would remain substandard lots even under the 1-acre zoning and therefore there would be few if any lots that would be able to be subdivided. In the Stubbs Bay area there are approximately 9 2-plus acre properties that could subdivide into an additional 9 lots. This L would reduce the overall cost by 10%. D. Level of Suooort - The assumption on the Stubbs Bay project has been that the Council would require a certain level of support as expressed in waiver of assessment prior to undertaking the project. These waivers of assessment initially would express the "top end" over which any amount over that (apart from capitilized* interest) would require that new waivers be signed. Due to the nature of the area, it is recommended that a certain percentage of the property owners in the current area sign waivers prior to taking further steps in the process. Not having a certain level of assessment waiver, prior to the date that the project is ordered, would place the City at risk for the special assessment portion being appealed. (The staff is recommending a special assessment level that would not be that much greater than the Crystal Bay area finally was assessed), but this does not insure that this would not be appealed or reduced.) Issue 2 - Next Stubbs Bay Meeting It would be appropriate that the meeting be held in Noveraber/December in order for construction to be done next year. In advance of that however, the City could communicate to the residents that they would have to circulate among themselves a petition and get a minimum percentage of persons interested in undertaking the project. The City could request that the assessment waivers be signed prior to the ordering of the project. Once the petition is submitted, the Council could have a special meeting to address the questions raised and take any additional questions from the neighbors. ALTERNATIVES - Issue 1 - 1. Take a position of the Council on each of the items. 2. Table for further discussion. 3. Take no action at this time. Issue 2 - 1. Establish a meeting date. 2. Await establishing a date until after a petition is received. 3. Direct staff to send a letter regarding the level of support needed. »«» • RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that staff send a letter to the affected property owners indicating the tentative meeting date in December, but that a petition signing an assessment waiver at the 60% level of property owners interested in the project must be received prior to a meeting being held. PROPOSED MOTION - seconded by that Council directMoved by __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ staff to send a letter to the abutting property owners outlining the level of support needed in order for the Council and City to further consider this as a project. Ayes _ _ _, Nays _ _ _ _. cc:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, Planning & Zonining Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Glenn Cook, City Engineer rl 'd • •t• •• I ! : f ?JDATION -:y%"n%Ts"7"dtca'’“„ri“e Ventluvi^“e p“oper/;ii“7s t%"i?i3red“irtir“* tL"J prior to a meeting being*^held. project must be .-*N1 motion -by S6conded bysend a letter - - - -—' that Council directfl of support needed in ordpt”f Property owners outliningconside/?w| arf prijeftt^A^rs‘ Adaiinistratorin Cook/ City Engineer i A ;! r*.i ’ *•*' - ■ •* •• —-a-’-I *.r. ./I • a* L*0 81789.11TO: Mayor and City CouncilFROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratoDATE: August 17, 1989SUBJECT: Stubb's Bay Sewer Meeting IAttachment: A. Stubb’s Bay Sewer Meeting Questions and AnswersISSUE -1. Presentation of information regarding the Stubb's Bay meeting held July 27, 1989. 2. Establishment of a date for the ne.xt Stubb's Bay meeting. INTRODUCTION - At the informational meeting held July 27, 1989, a number ot questions were raised. Attachment A was prepared to summarize the questions and answers given at that meeting. In addition, a number of residents of the area who were interested in furthering the development of a sewer desire to have a meeting as soon a possible. DISCUSSION - It is hoped that a meeting regarding Stubb's would again be held in November and at that time the City would be able to respond to questions that were not able to be addressed at the July 27th meeting. Significant questions to be responded to are; 1. Will the City entertain allowing any other areas to be included, such as: ' a. Oxford Road b. "Fox Bend" Developmenc (Leaf/Bayside) 2. Will the City absorb any reserve charge. 3^ Will the properties in the designated area be allowed to change the zoning once sewer is available in order to help them def-ay the cost. Also, would additional buildable lots created through a rezoning be required to pay a full unit charge. (It should be noced that this was originally zoned R-IC, 1 acre lot size prior to the 1975 rezoning.) 4. What level of support (%) does the Council desire undertaking this project. and waivers of assessment to be signed prior to I Mayor Mark l Augus Stubbnt: AentatiLy 27,blishmCTION "of C'i' .26 the aitior sted i meeti [SION "again le to [sed at ided tc 1. be m ALTERNATIVES -1. Establish a date.2. Respond to the questions.3. Table for further discussion.4. Take no action.RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council table further discussion of the item until its September 25, 1989 meeting.PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Counciltable further discussion of the item until its September 25, 1989 meeting. Ayes _, Nays _.cc; Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning AdministratorMichael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Glenn Cook, City Engineer 2. 3. to h€ bv P' Wi 1 4 d u 8289.1 «« .. NINQUIRIES AND RESPONSES STUBBS BAY INFORMATIONAL MEETING JULY 27, 1989ORONO HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUMAt the informational meeting that was held on July 27, 1989, approximately 35 property owners were present together with CounciImember J. Diann Goetten and members from the staff including Michael Gaffron, Glenn Cook, John Gerhardson, Jeanne Mabusth and Mark Bernhardson. Following an introduction by the City Administrator, Michael Gaffron gave an overview of the Waste Management Study, outlining each of the alternatives and the merits and pitfalls of each of those alternatives. This was followed by a presentation of the sewering option as far as layout and expense presented by Glenn Cook. Following this presentation general questions were taken. The following represents the significant questions that were raised and responses given to those. (As these are paraphrased they may encapsulate two or three questions that were asked together with their responses and are not necessarily in the order in which the questions were asked.) 1. Is there not a law that re<~- ’res that the property owner be required to pay only the an : of benefit to the property? Minnesota special assessments are limited to the benefit (increase brought about by the improvement) to that property. The City is cognizant of this law and is structuring the amount of actual special assessment to be equal to or less than the expected benefit to the great range of properties. The balance of the cost will be covered by a connection charge. There is a possibility the connection charge can be financed by the City over the same term as the assessment which is expected to be 15 or 20 years. 1 * » ’• • •• 2. What are the costs of the project and what are anticipated to be the financing options. The costs are detailed on the sheet that was handed out, split out between about a $6,500 assessment charge and between $4,200 and $9,700 connection charge. It is anticipated that it would be a 15 to 20 year bond issue. If your total assessment plus connection charge was $10,000 over 15 years that would cost about $670 per year in interest together with an initial interest cost of about $800 which would be decrease over the 15 year period to a f'nal year interest cost in the range of $60.00. Spread over . years, the annual principal would go down but the amount of interest paid over that timeperiod would be increased. If your rate is $15,000 just multiply those numbers by 1.5 times the $10,000 number. 3. Are the larger lots subsidizing the smaller lots? To the extent that sewer is going to be installed adjacent to a large lot, a lot with a large frontage actually costs more to serve than a lot with a small frontage. To the extent that sewer is needed the greater number of smaller lots actually, defray the cost for the larger lots. (This is balanced out by splitting the areas between the larger and smaller lots and having the lateral cost for the smaller lots, in this case, being less than for the larger lots.) 4. Aren't there other places, such as Cygnet Place, that in the future will need to have sewer? The City staff has looked at Cygnet Place as far as sewering and what impact that has on this project. It is anticipated that that area will be looked at over the next 5 or 10 years. Whether the area needs sewer would be the subject of a Waste Management Study and will be dependent, not only, on lot size but also topography, soil conditions, water table etc. We looked at it as to how a sewer pipe will be run on an approximate basis. at are the costs of the project and what are anticipated to the financing options.e costs are detailed on the sheet that was handed out, lit out between about a $6,500 assessment charge and tween $4,200 and $9,700 connection charge. It is ticipated that it would be a 15 to 20 year bond issue. If ur total assessment plus connection charge was $10,000 er 15 years that would cost about $670 per year in interest gether with an initial interest cost of about $800 which uld be decrease over the 15 year period to a f'nal year terest cost in the range of $60.00. Spread over — years.annual principal would go down but the amount of interest .d over that timeperiod would be increased. If your rate $15,000 just multiply those numbers by 1.5 times the ),000 number. ! the larger lots subsidizing the smaller lots? the extent that sewer is going to be installed adjacent to .arge lot, a lot with a large frontage actually costs more serve than a lot with a small frontage. To the extent It sewer is needed the greater number of smaller lots :ually, defray the cost for the larger lots. (This is Lanced out by splitting the areas between the larger and iller lots and having the lateral cost for the smaller :s, in this case, being less than for the larger lots.) in't there other places, such as Cygnet Place, that in the :ure will need to have sewer? ‘ City staff has looked at Cygnet Place as far as sewering I what impact that has on this project. It is anticipated it that area will be looked at over the next 5 or 10 years, jther the area needs sewer would be the subject of a Waste lagement Study and will be dependent, not only, on lot size t also topography, soil conditions, water table etc. We oked at it as to how a sewer pipe will be run on an sroximate basis. • •5. 6. 7. Will there not be excess capacity in the line that someone else could use?The minimum diameter line that can be put in according to state requirements would be an 8 inch line? This obviously can serve more than the approximately 100 units in this area. Other areas could be hooked into this and utilize this capacity. Staff has discussed the possibility of having a portion of the cost of the excess capacity picked up by the City initially as a reserve charge, to eventually be funded by those -ho may use the pipe. To the extent that this is done, ev $100,000 that the City would set aside as reserve charge wou^d reduce the unit charge by approximately $1,000 per unit based on 100 units. It should be remembered however, that this area will be hooking into the line on Tonkawa Road (Co. Rd. 135) which has "reserve capacity for this area and for future areas. (.All the people along Tonkawa paid for their entire system and there is no anticipation that they would be rebated anything as a result of this improvement.) If you are on a large lot can you stay out of the sewer project? • It has been the City's policy to include all properties which are abutting a line. This is done because you now have an option for sanitary disposal that you previously did not have even if you choose not to exercise it. City policy has been that all properties abutting a line hook up in the study area and that they must hook up within 16 months and pay for the improvement. Will zoning be changed to help us afford the improvement? In 1975 this area was zoned from the previous 1 acre to 2 acre zone because there was not sewer in the area. This was also done in other areas of the City that did not have sewer, including the Crystal Bay area. That sewer was installe 1985 and there has been no request by the resident- ^ y initiative by the City to rezone that area. (It •- « noted that even if rezoned to 1 acre standards, L- ' the lots in the Crystal Bay area would remain subs . .-o.) Should a request for rerotiing be considered, the »ould have to amend its Comprehensive Plan. Also, to the extent I . in the line that someone:e not be excess capacity a use?nut in according to ,um diameter line that can obviouslyuirements «ould be enj in':; „ore than the and utilize thisess could be hooked i o£ having a. Staff has discussed t ^ picked up by the3f the cost of the ^^o eventually be fundedLtially as a reserve ^^,i3 ,s..ho may use the pip • as reserve5100,000 that approximately $1,000 ouJ-d reduce the ^ should be remerabere t based on 100 "YY;^\^^king into the line on , that this area -reserve capacity for Road (CO. Rd. 135) w i people along ea and for em and there is no ■ f;„"Jrth:J^ouir:r;eha;vd anythin, as a result been the City's . 3“ becaust rou ”n"ow “ave an -rslnu “y-dis:::^ -^you .evi^^^^ - ^ E you Choose not to up in the study areatt -rm:"tVoor:r«Vth^"^.r:;ntL and .y tor the u • , be changed to help us attord the i.pro,emen« his area was fn thi°ar%a\ This was because there was "°t * not have sewer, in other areas o£ the „oe installed In the crystal Bay ntea. Th „eUent "“t ^ny there has been no requ Id be w ritv to rezone tha ^ y q£re by the ^ i acre standards, ^ t even if rezone -rea would remain subs . -*• * in the crystal Bay at the City would request for Alzc, to the extent ,mend its Comprehensive P . that individual properties were looking for additional hookups that would help decrease the overall unit charge but that property would then have to pay for more units.8. Will a new subdivision, such as the one being proposed eastof Leaf Street, be included in the project?It has not been the policy of the City to include any areas that do not absolutely need sewer. This area is developing to a 2 acre standard and preliminary indications are that it will have adequate conditions for on-site septic systems on each building site. Even if the City were to allow sewering of this area, the topography of the area would require significant design parameters that would not result in a substantial reduction ir. unit lateral cost for the Stubbs Bay project. Inclusion of all those units in the project may reduce the trunk cost by about 20%. (100 units in Stubbs Bay 22, units in "Sussex") 9. Why is the property on Oxford Road being left out? Again, this area was developed to the 2 acre standard and although it is lakeshore property which differentiates it from the property east of Leaf, it is not contemplated to be included as there should be adeguate septic systems for this area. Based on general City policy we have not addressed this question to the Council but we will address both this and the question regarding the subdivision. The inclusion of the Oxford property would probably reduce the trunk cost by about 10%. (10 properties) 10. How soon could a project be undertaken? The project progress is dependent on the level of interest of the neighborhood. If substantial interest is generated this fall and hearings could be held this winter, plans could be drawn this winter and construction begun in the spring. It is important to realize that the Council will probably not undertake this project unless a substantial majority of the property owners are interested in undertaking this project to the point of agreeing to sign a waiver of appeal on this project. This is a neighborhood problem, and the neighborhood should get together to decide how they want to solve it. (It was mentioned that the current prices are as that individual properties were looking for additional hookups that would help decrease the overall unit charge but that property would then have to pay for more units.Will a new subdivision, such as the one being proposed east of Leaf Street, be included in the project?It has not been the policy of the City to include any areas that do not absolutely need sewer. This area is developing to a 2 acre standard and preliminary indications are that it will have adequate conditions for on-site septic systems on each building site. Even if the City were to allow sewering of this area, the topography of the area would require significant design parameters that would not result in a substantial reduction ii: unit lateral cost for the Stubbs Bay project. Inclusion of all those units in the project may reduce the trunk cost by about 20%. (100 units in Stubbs Bay 22, units in "Sussex”) Why is the property on Oxford Road being left out? Again, this area was developed to the 2 acre standard and although it is lakeshore property which differentiates it from the property east of Leaf, it is not contemplated to be included as there should be adequate septic systems for this area. Based on general City policy we have not addressed this question to the Council but we will address both this and the question regarding the subdivision. The inclusion of the Oxford property would probably reduce the trunk cost by about 10%. (10 properties) How soon could a project be undertaken? The project progress is dependent on the level of interest of the neighborhood. If substantial interest is generated this fall and hearings could be held this winter, plans could be drawn this winter and construction begun in the spring. It is important to realize that the Council will probably not undertake this project unless a substantial majority of the property owners are interested in undertaking this project to the point of agreeing to sign a waiver of appeal on this project. This is a neighborhood problem, and the neighborhood should get together to decide how they want to solve it. (It was mentioned that the current prices are as much as 20% below the normal because of the low lake level, which influences the water table, this however could changewithin a year to two.)11. When is the next meeting?It is anticipated that the next meeting will be within the next 2 to 3 months. In the meantime we suggest to you, if you have questions about your particular lot that you speak to Michael Gaffron as he has diagrammed each of the lots, and discuss not only set backs as diagrammed but also comments such as soil conditions and slopes. (Some owners indicated that they would like the meeting as soon a possible in order to get this underway.) 12. What Federal or State monies are available for this project? There used to be monies available in the '60's and '70's but with the change in the Federal program these monies are no longer available from the Federal level. The City looked at this for the Crystal Bay project and were not able to get any across-the-board grants. (We forgot to mention that the City was able to get funds individually for people through the C.D.B.G. program, but those are no longer available either.) Today we are not aware of P.C.A. or Lake Minnetonka Conservation District mandating hookups in order to preserve the lake. To the extent that other people around the lake have paid for the cost of hooking up their own sewer it is probably not expected that the L.M.C.D. would do a general assessment to help pay for the small area that is left. (Subsequent to the meeting Michael Gaffron has been in contact with P.C.A. to determine what, if any, grants migh be available to help fund this project. P.C.A. has funds available for septic system rehabilitation grants, but only for cities whose overall Citywide average income is below the state median. State median is $17,161. income is $30,736. (all 1980 data), hence PCA has indicated Orono would not qualify.) s 20» below the normal because of the low lake levelinfluences the water table, this however could change a year to two.) ^1 the next meeting?inticipated that the next meeting will be within theto 3 months, in the meantime we suggest to you, ife questions about your particular lot that you speakael Gaffron as he has diagrammed each of the lots, and1 not only set backs as diagrammed but also commentssoil conditions and slopes. (Some owners indicatedsy would like the meeting as soon a possible in order this underway.)teral or State monies are available for this project? sed to be monies available in the '60's and '70's but > change in the Federal program these monies are r available from the Federal level. The City looked for the Crystal Bay project and were not able to get ss-the-board grants. (We forgot to mention that the able to get funds individually for people through B.G. program, but those are no longer available Today we are not aware of P.C.A. or Lake Minnetonka ion District mandating hookups in order to preserve .To the extent that other people around the lake d for the cost of hooking up their own sewer it is not expected that the L.M.C.D. would do a general nt to help pay for the small area that is left. 5nt to the meeting Michael Gaffron has been in /ith P.C.A. to determine what, if any, grants might able to help fund this project. P.C.A. has funds * for septic system rehabilitation grants, but only s whose overall Citywide average income is below the lian. state median is $17,161. Orono'sT^rage $30,736. (all 1980 data), hence PCA has indicated Ld not qualify.) .*MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP NOVEMBER 13, 19 €TAX PORPEITBD PROPERTY PAIRVIEW COVENANT CHURCHCity Administrator Bernhardson explained that the property just east of the Contel property has been- in a "tax forfeit" status since 1979. The City had released the property for public sale. In 1987/1988 the City had a party interested in purchasing the property and variances were granted to this party to allow building. Shortly after the variances were granted, the party decided not to go forward with the purchase. The Church has asked the City to designate this parcel for park use only, however that may not be a course that the City can take at this point. Hennepin County currently has the property for sale for $20,000.00 and there is approximately $5,000.00/$6 ,000.00 owing for special assessments and taxes. The Park Commission reviewed the property in 1979 and did not have an interest in the property. Staff’s recommendation at this time is to refer the prooerty back to the Park Commission to see whether their opinion has'changed and bring back their recommendation to Council for their decision. Mr. Fred Abrahamson, Chairman of the Fairview Covenant Church, said that he had no knowledge that the recreation area encroached on other property. He said that he does not want the Church to lose the ability to use the tax forfeit property. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to refer this matter to the Park Commission for the review of the request and to report back to the Council. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. STUBBS BAY SEWER , , jCity Administrator Bernhardson asked Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron if there were currently any problems with failing septic systems on Cygnet Place. Gaffron replied that to the best of his knowledge there were no failing systems currently, but replacement systems have been installed for approximately half of the properties in that area over the last ten years due to past failures. Bernhardson explained the various options available -regarding the inclusion/exclusion of certain areas in the sewer project. Councilmember Goetten asked about Oxford Road and the need to sewer around the lakeshore. Goetten believed that the need to sewer around the lakeshore is a valid reason to sewer property zoned 2-acre. Goetten also believed that Sussex Square should be omitted from the study. Goetten questioned whether it would be necessary to amend the Comprehensive Plan if the MUSA line were to be extended. Bernhardson replied that the Stubbs Bay area was identified within the Comprehensive Plan for potential sewer. UKONO COONCIL MEETING 13 /I;CTED PR0PEHT7 COVENANT CHURCH P-=ert,ce 1979. The Cit^v ^ "tax forfeit"1987/1988 the City had a partv^nt® public^"f/^riances'^were granJJd PurchasingShortly after the variances wi?e arL?^^"^5t to go forward with the nnr-r-h^ 9^anted, the party City to designate this %aroe? ’'‘’® has-epTn''county* cl/AnV/y 'ka^a' th'’* “rlnd° hCoTOission to se» wh«h.“ tV P'’®ioT P-P--da1ron*k “councTri:?nh^J^fe^Jfrko htiT/d"ge°-;h:2%h^e^^^"‘-^ —nt)n other property. Me said rha#. i. *a t®®t®®tion area ■s® the ability to use the lax ’’?orf*eit “rroprrtr ‘ ber Go'ltten^‘^Vo" ref eJ° this seconded by of the request a^nVt^ Motxon, Ayes=4, Nays=0,Vt?on pissed SWER currentl^ Planning and septic systems on Cygnet Pilled Problems replied that to the best- k,* t 'Stems currently, but replacem^nl"°'^^®'^^® there were -hll ale- ' ^nc"lu\?oi/%“*/usL\" o? “ ?t“;in° ^rta- =i„= 'the 's\tel mber Goetten asked about Oxf^y-ri n j t3 the lakeshore. Goetten hoii* Poad and the need :he lakeshore is a va“ld rUso^t <=» Goetten also believed Jhi.J c s«''er property be study. Goe«erqueJSlL./t®K ’‘ =>’°"W bl -bd the comprehensive Plan"*/f “tVVVVVk'VlSrwVrl rehensiV'e^ pfan f“r pol^tial^VelV/. i<S®"tlfled fff. % > MINUTES OF THE ORONO COONCIL MEETING OP NOVEMBER 13, 1989 STUBBS BAY SEWER CONTINUEDCounciImember Goetten indicated that should any retoning be done, the City should rezone all of the 2-acre zoning areas which have recently been sewered.Goetten also questioned whether the Comprehensive Plan was due to be reviewed for 1990.Bernhardson replied that he would look into that matter further and report back.Planning Commission Representative Bellows did not believe it would be beneficial to rezone lakeshore property for the purpose of sewering lakeshore property.Bernhardson said that issue was brought forth by the lakeshore residents.Councilmember Peterson concurred with Bellows and Goetten that rezcning around the lake would be unwise. Peterson asked whether the Planning Commission would be invited to the upcoming meeting regarding Stubbs Bay sewer. Councilmember Goetten asked City Attorney Barrett if the City could legally ask residents to sign a waiver of appeal? Barrett replied that the City could p.roceed in such a manner. Acting Mayor Callahan believed that the next step for the City is to have another meeting and suggested bringing this matter back in December for consideration of a meeting date. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to bring this matter back for consideration at the December 11, 1989 Council meeting. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays=0, Motion passed. WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION #2730 ^Councilmember Goetten asked whether support from the Cities .would be indicated in the form of a letter to Hennepin County? Bernhardson said that there was a draft resolution included in the packets of information that, if adopted, would be sent to Hennepin County. Councilmember Goetten indicated that she would like to urge the Council to send a letter to the County in addition to a resolution. Bernhardson said that he could send both a letter and a copy of the resolution. It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by 8 ^ 0.0«0 COOHCX.13,TBB o*"'"” , h,Imeinber ^ezone all-fvv should te,6 Plan ■>»as,ly’'lien sOTe'®-*- . ,..-orehenslve Pi"fihouia re«ne an:®a — -W?ia%“aToVt3-- ln»--»a«e.viewed tor lookrda°^/|»ck.* Bellows did £®r*'*h'report d« ,.„tative nroperty„o Co«sisri»?"’benefic^Bore proP®''^^’ £orth bV ^h®lewarlM 1®>‘« ,,, brougur oidson said rha G°®'^JS .ggidents. . ..ia-vi Bello'* —asXed '‘p\a“\nV C0f3%=\°e«®“r ” « if rb® ,£dlng Stubbs , o®f aPP«l’ X-firasrr-"-« “ “ P^®«e^ ‘ Jll®d bbat tb® ClbV • tt repli-®“ step - „ ,ot callabab5 SlV®rb®^ -nonsld®rar- ^ ,1,-1-inq Mayor Motionr as -''retri®-"^\i^^S"s\ c\Vn=ll .®®»"S- erot'^^ December ”■■•*, ‘TSt "V“.«‘"^“"‘‘ ;asr. “A-—" •” „ „„ V ;r. ernbardso" said b .ooondad by „,olubiob. ^^„„,£i„e»ber b®bbl*s- •0 was movad by 8 11690.9Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator January 16, 1990SUBJECT: 1990 Legislative Policies / >Mffr/ivg22 !9 sqF j\ ^■ " '-i' r.cr}isrAttachment: A. Proposed 1990 Legislative PoliciesINTRODUCTION - Annually the Council adopts policies of particulsar note of several levels of government with which they deal.DISCUSSION - The following policies were deleted from the 1989 policy for 1990. Truth in Taxation - Modification made Police Pursuit - Law adopted Policy's additions were as follows: Land Use Legislation Drug Enforcement Well "Regulations" At the present time staff will be looking again at active participation in the area of the property owner initiated annexation. Once adopted these will be transmitted to Senator Gen Olson and Representative John Burger. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Adopt. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that following a discussion and desired amendment that the policy be adopted. The session this year will be only six weeks and it is anticipated that financial short-falls and the abortion issue will take up a considerable amount of the Legislator's short time. _, seconded by _, that the Council as it legislative policies for 1990. Ayes _, Nays _. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by adopt llb^O.9 / >Councilrdson. City Administrat JO Policies ' S?frr/,2s 'i$^Q■ • y f ':.1990 Legislative Policiest 9°''erniiiiit®with“whici'jKy'’leal"‘‘'“^'"'^ng policies were del^fo/i eaeieted from the 1989>n - Modification made Law adopted s follows: tionea the*proper tv activeproperty owner initiatedf ^-"-itted to senator Gen Olson and : rn'7“11290.2cm CF GHMO uonsiAnve policies Draft 01/08/90 AdaptedUpdate _________wnSt OP QovEmofr state poLiof/ocifffiwrs STATUS LEAGUE POLICY A»1 POLICY0 Indicates PriorityENraomr - iand use1. Lake HimetonkaUser fees2. Solid Haste Adequate access exists & the City is opposed to additional No policy No policyaccessAppropriate use atickers/ fees to pay lake use oostsPrenote appropriate recycling to lixdt use of landfills 18% recycling by Orono oonnunity during 1989. Metro Oouncil looking at establishment of a non-profit broker system to handle waste/recyclables. Possible regional solid waste agency to be proposed.LUEET-2 (A) Sqpports *Effective planning ^Alternatives to landfill *Oo^p/Incentatives for Ocnminities/Individuals *Clean-qp hazardous wastes *Oondennation awards/polluted land*Support to implement Federal Super fund Ocnmimity right to know provisions*Deal with potential antitrust ^Oppose Compensation of haulers being enacted*Proper disposad QPC's % handling 1281 (B)Counties continue financial support and surtax plans assume responsibilities for abatement/ recycling iHien a city does not aieet the goals with the municipality keeping authority to regulate oollection. Also sipports several of League's policies (Also Metro Policy 43-1) Sion. ■ . iTy% • -i-u3slon X weeks and it is^ session the abortion issue ®9islator's short time. up a __f seconded bv ♦•k ... *.u Olioies tor 1990-Aye, W-. •m --Ml11290.2 #.cm OF OKDMO idqjsuoivb poLicns Draft Ol/oe/90Mapped updateS»TUS ’^'”0 i«)l«te. Pclocltym\ POLicsfk the tlonal:s/ysts No policylinghandle waste/recyclables.Possible regional solid waste agency to be proposed.Ho policyUJEET-2 (A) Sqppats •Effective•Alternatives to la^fill •Ooep/lncentativcs t<x ^Siaunities/lndividuals •clean^MP hazardous iwsteB •Oondesnation awards/pollutedland•Support to isplsn^t Federal Si^«rfund Oanunity right to•oHJITwltTStSitlal•Oppose Oonpensation of haulers *7^ dl££l crc's k handUng 1281 (B;Oounties continue financial auppoctfor ^atsment/ recycling %**n a city does not seet the goals %Hth the Milcipality keeping authority to regulate collection. ainports several of League's policies (Also Meuo Policy 43-1)•1 fe-t••. r Vir LBVB. OP QCMSHmr STATEISSUE POLiaf/OOWEOTS cm OP GRONO urasunvB policiesSTATOS Draft 01/08/90 Adopted Updater • :Dir - LAND USB Continued3a Aimsation4. Land Use Change law back to requiring both Municipalities to concur in change in Metropolitan areasOppose "Aefona" of enabling statutes that would significantly alter cities current «ays of conducting Land Use LEAGUE POLICY 0 Indicates Priority A»l POLICYLUETT-4 (B) In part reoonmends review of 1985 law and at a minijoun give a veto power to the affected cities.LU^r-4 (B) Opposes any changes restricting cities current flexibility 90-27 (II-N) Requests review of 1985 law change permitting property owner initiated annexation. Modify to allow only under following criteria. •Denied reasonable use of property*Signifleant barriers to separating from current CGsnunityDiscuss process and criteria to be reviewed.90-33 (A) Major change not needed. Seine specific improvements can be made. 2JI <9^ * cm OP GROK) UBGISlAnVB POLICIES Draft 01/08/90 AdoptedUpdate _ _ _ _ _Draft 01/08/90 AdoptedUpdate _ _ _ _ _LEVS. CP ojJEsmEtrr stmeissue poLicv/oowans STATUS LEAGUE POLICY AW POLICY0 Indicates PriorityIndicates Priority 1991 POLICY nNANCIAL1. Property Tas ^ta mvtag systa90-27 (II-H) Requests review of 1985 law change permitting property owner initiated annexation. Modify to allow only under following criteria. *Denied reasonable use of property*Signifleant barriers to separating from current CGsmunityDiscuss process and criteria to be reviewed.Legislature held special session in October to *fix" the systa. Anticipate at least sane "technical" correction by 1990 Legislature. Maybe nore significant given estimated State short fall.RS-1 (A)*Limit increasing in disparities among taxing jurisdictions *Phase changes^Property tax relief increase at least at Inflation rate ^Address need and taxing capacity *ReIief to C/1, rental, hivalue *Not jeopardize TIF ID/D3 (A) Undertake study - phase-inD-4 (A) restore henestead credit PimyCIAL Qon4. OosparablePay Bgai^y2. Local Qoverimnnt Aids Amend formula so the "needs" funded are not driven by past expenditures State's anticipated shortfall nay reduce available monies to fund program in 1990.Orono had all State Aids removed by 1989 special session in exchange for allowing a higher levy.RS-2 (A)"Continuation of program "Increase in line with inflation "Have LSA take into account decreases in State/Federal revenues I-C (0) Continue Oosnitment to local government increasing funding on fair/equitable basis. Legislature explore creative means to address unique local problems.5. TAX Incraianycities90-33 (A) Major change not needed. Seme ^lecific ixprovements can be made.3. Lavy Limits Eliminate City still subject to Levy Limits which are suppose to be eliminated in 1992 but there is no penalty for exceeding them.RS-3 Eliminate levy limits lA (D) Eliminate levy limits 8. Tax Exespt Draft 01/08/90 AdoptedUpdate_ _ _ _ _ndicates Priority Mft POLICY LEVEL OP OOVERMair ISSUE POLICY/OOfOnSID/D3 <A) Undertake stu^ pluse*inD-4 (A) restore homestead credit PINANCIAL Oontinuedncreaserateng capacity hivaliie 4. Ocumrable north/ Pay /inflationcountderal I-C (D) Oontinue Goamitment to local government increasing funding on fair/equit^le basis. Legislature eiqplore creative means to address unique local problems.5. Time Increment Preserve current autliority for developmentmitslA (D) Eliminate levy limits 6. Tax Bseapt Property cm OP (xoo mnSlATlVB PQUCII5 Draft 01/08/90 AdoptedUpdate_ _ _ _ _STATUS LEAGUE POUCY AMI POLICY0 Indicates PriorityNot let "essential enployeea" binding arbitration drive upward pay results of other employees with no oenp worth control on "essentials"State Bsplpyee Relations Director continues to put forward proposals to make it significantly more costly.GLP-2 (A) Oppose changing law until 12/31/91 but if so specific principals to be adopted.90-26 (Il-C) (A)Improve to make workable. Mjustments for oonp wrth be outside levy limit, niot prohibit contracting *No changes until current deadline 12/31/91 lapses *Job analysis based on duties not gender *Don*t limit local flexibility to implementation 2. Ground and SuiHater ManagmmD6-1 (A) No further change in current legislation chat diminish cities ability.90-30 III-B-4 Eliminate development limitations/ considered as statewide issue. Agreeable to impartial and through review.Tax exempt institutions should pay their "fair share" of all municipal costs.RS-10 (10) All State and local units should reimbuise Cities ^or police, fire and street s«.*'vices.ID/O-1 (D) Same as League 3, Individual He!TRANSPORXATIGN/P!SBimosI. Highw^ Fundii i . '• ♦' . •1« • « V V (• ■ 1 Ml •■('•!<• ''V-^ Draft Ol/Oe/90 Adopted U|)dateIndicates Priority Draft 01/06/90 Adopted Update 1£VEL GP GO laaiB Draft Ol/Oe/90 MaptadUpdata _________:ates Priority Mfl POLiaV-R Give tetro approval authority. Should have a^ple parking.cm OF OMCHO unsuvnvE folicqsITCL GP GCK/ERMElir XAKE MINNETTONKA CONSER^TICM DISTRICT ISSUB POLIGT/OCMIEIIIS SIRIUS Draft 01/08/90 AdoptedUpdate _________1£AGUE POLiar AfM POLICE0 Indicates Priority1MB MlNNBnMRA OGNSEIMVriON DISTRICT1. niturt of UCD Revitalize IMCD as an effective governing body on the lake in oonjunction with Bunicipalities that nake qp the IMCD.Continue development of a ocqprehensive mgt. plan.First drafts of ocnprehensive plans made available. City developed initial coRfsents to chose drafts. ^ - V Vi, . w 4ir.. I,.. ^ 4| \r \ 1990.7 CDraft 01/08y^0 MoptedUpdate _________I£MaC PCX^lOr P^fi PC3LICy0 Indicates Priority TO:FROM:Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk > .DATB: January 10, 1990SUBJECT: Senior Citizen's Deferral - Reapplication from 80-1 Sewer ProjectAttachments: A. Resolutions #1093 and #1779B. Proposed Deferral ResolutionsThe following residents have applied for renewal of Senior Citizen Deferral of special assessments on their property. They are both in the 80-1 sewer project. Basil M Young, 1225 Dickenson Street Mr, Young is a resident of the Minnetonka Bluffs area of this sewer project. He is single and gualifies under the income and asset guidelines. Henry M. Skarp, 1045 West Ferndale Road Mr. Skarp is a resident of the West Ferndale area of this sewer project. He is single and qualifies under the income and asset guidelines. TO: PROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat Forwarded recommending approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by adopt Resolution Numbers , seconded by that the Council _ and _ establishing deferrals for those named within each of the resolutions. Ayes , Nays 1990.7 U-■) .tratorapplication from 80-1for renewal of Senior i their property. They:a Bluffs area of this s under the income and ale area of this sewer r the income and asset :rat i _r that the Council Lishing deferrals for Ayes _, Nays _. RESOUITlOtJ 11093A nCSOLUTIOM Rr.LATi:i(l TO DCFER.-iniT OF SPECIAL ASSESSItENTS FOR PERSONS 65 ''TARS OF AGE OR OLDERWHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono is theoificial oovorning body of the City of Orono; andHMCREAS. M.S.A, Section <35.193 through Section <35.195authorizes the City of Orono, upon proper application, to defer the payment of special assessments against any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older on January 1 of the payment year and for whom it would be a hardship to make the pay-ments; and vniEPXAS, section 435.194 authorizes the municipality to establish an interest rate to be added to the deferred assessment which shall be payable in addition to the deferred assessment; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determir-d that the de ferral of assessments should be granted to any person otherwise qualified who makes proper application to the City of Orono on forms prescribed by the County Assessor of Hennepin County and by the Crc.no City Council and for whom the City Council determines that it would be a hardship to make the payments, based upon the following criteria: It is presumed to be a hardship if the applicant is single and has a total annual gross income of $8,000 or less and total assets, includ ing non-homestead real property, of $15,000 or less. 2. It is presumed to be a hardship if the applicant is married and together with his spouse, has a total annual gross income of $12,000 or less and total assets, including non-homestead real pro- perty# of $22,000 or less* 3. If the applicant does not fall viithin one of the above criteria, the City Council shall, in its discretion, deternini3 hardship based upon the applicant’s income, assets and expenses, now, TiicncroRC, bc it ncroLVEo dy the city cou!icil or THE CITY OF onOlIO I!l REGULAR MEETIMG ASSE'IDLCD, that assessments against any liomestead property o^^ed by a person 65 years of age . or older and for v/hon it would be a hardship to make the payments, be deferred for a period of time not to exceed five years, subject to the aforementioned financial criteria, upon suI;mission of an appropriate application signed by the qualified person; and DE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that interest at the rate for that particular assessment shall bc added to the deferred assess ment and shall be payable in accordance with the terms and pro visions of M.S.A. Section 435.195; and BC IT FURTHER F.ESOLVED, that the right of deferment is automatically terminated under Section 435.195 if; 1. The ovTier dies and the spouse is not otherwise eligible; 2. The property or any part thereof is sold, transferred or subdivided; 3. The property shouid lose its homestead status; or 4. If for any reason the City determines that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at regular meeting held November 13, 1979. ^ am wiilian B. Van Nest, Mayor Attest: !l C Tom EXahm, Ac<i[Tng Mayor COONCIL OP THB he assessments 5 yeacs of age ) to make the :o exceed five riteria, upon the qualified itial oc any and subject to riteria upon not to exceed deferment is lot otherwise of is sold. status; or is that there ite or partial linnesota at a A RESOLOTION OP^PECIAL ASSESSMENTspecial assessments have been levied against the benefite properties; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution Numbers 1093 an3 ”'f^tUblishln, a policy and procedure (or such soc.-lal assessments (or persons 65 years o( age or older who ha7e limited income and assets and (or whom t»y»ent o( such special assessment would constitute a (inancial hardship, and HBEREAS, Basil M. Young has made reapplication (or de(erment o( the above noted special assessment pursuant to the rrlvlsTons o£\esolution Numbers 1093 and 1779, ‘h* f subseqten? dt(erment approved by the City Council on February 24, 1986. NON. THEEEFC*-.. BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono nereby finds that the applicant has demonstrated a hardship consistent J ^solution NO. 1093 and 1779, and hereby orders deferral of the payment for the levied special assessment as follows: APPLICANT: Basil M. Young ADDRESS: 1225 Dickenson Street LEVY NO. P.I.N.S.LEVIED AMOUNT AMOUNT DEFERRED 7989 02-117-23 31 0048 $6,700.00 $6,700.00 Deferral of payments for principal and for a period of time not to exceed five (5) years payment of principal and Interest due in collection year 1995. interest at the rate of 9 1/2% annum shal 1 be added to the deferred assessment. Deferred principal and be oavable at the time of the first payment due in collection year 1995. The remainder of the principal and thereafter be payable in accordance with the adopted assessment roll. This right of deferment is automatically* terminated in collection 1995 or upon the occurrence of ary one or more of the following conditioner whichever may occur fir:t: 1. The owner dies and the spouse is not otherwise eligible^ 2. The property or any part hereof is soldr transferred, or subdivided; 3. The property should lose its homestead status; or 4. If for any reason the City determines that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Oronor Minnesota on the 22nd day of January, 1990. ATTEST: James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City cler¥ If the applicant wishes to reapply at the end of this five (5) year deferment the applicant roust reapply to the City of Orono for deferment of special assesmsents in October 1994, to keep the assessment from being included with the real estate tax due and payable in 1995. Basil M. Young Date itionsf whichever may occur first:he owner dies and the spouse is not otherwise ligible The property ^ hereof ransferred, or subdivided, :he property should lose its homestead status; or easann the Citv determines that there ;Lw'be",fo h«dsh"ip to require ionedl.te or partial )aymente „ed by the City Council of the City of on the 22nd day of January, 1990. James R. GrabeK, Mayor iallin. City cieTK: nt wishes to reapply at the city of Orono the applicant must 1994, to keep the ^rnVMV “'wTt‘h t\"e°'retr'e.tate ta. due and Basil M. Young A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REAPPLICATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTDEFERMENT FOR HENRY M. SKARPWHEREAS, the City Council has ordered a local improvement project known as LS1980-1 Sanitary Sewer for which special assessments have been levied against the benefited properties; andWHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution Numbers 1093 and 1779 establishing a policy and procedure for deferring such special assessments for persons 65 years of age or older who have limited income and assets and for whom payment of such special assessment would constitute a financial hardship; and WHEREAS, Henry M. Skarp has made reapplication for deferment of the above noted special assessment pursuant to the provisions of Resolution Numbers 1093 and 1779, the original deferment was approved by the City Council January 12, 1981 with a subsequent deferment approved by the City Council on February 24, 1986. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby finds that the applicant has demonstrated a hardship consistent with the provisions of Resolution No. 1093 and 1779, and hereby orders deferral of the payment for the levied special assessment as follows: APPLICANT: Henry M. Skarp ADDRESS: LEVY NO. P.I.N.S. 1045 West Ferndale Road LEVIED AMOUNT AMOUNT DEFERRED 7990 02-117-23 43 0024 $8,831.40 $8,831.40 Deferral of payments for principal and interest shall be for a period of time not to exceed five (5) rs with the first payment of principal and interest due in co ^on year 1995. Interest at the rate of 9 1/2% annu >hall be added to the deferred assessment. Deferred principal and interest shall be payable at the time of the first payment due in collection year 1995. The remainder of the principal and interest shall thereafter be payable in accordance with the adopted assessment roll. This right of deferment is automatically terminated in collection 1995 or upon the occurrence of any one or more of the following conditions, whichever may occur first: 1. The owner dies and the spouse is not otherwise eligible. 2.The property or any part hereof is sold, transferred, or subdivided; 3. 4. The property should lose its homestead status; or If for any reason the City determines that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Ocono, Minnesota on the 22nd day of January, 1990. ATTEST: James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk If the applicant wishes to reapply at the end of this five (5) year deferment, the applicant roust reapply to the City of Orono for deferment of special assesrosents in October 1994, to keep the assessment from being included with the real estate tax due and payable in 1995. Henry M. Skarp Date I C. ' / DATE:January 19, 1990 TO:Chief Kilbo FROM:Lt. Cheswick SUBJECT: Replacement Officer Status Report Contact has been made with Jeffrey Larson. He was told that he was being offered the full time position. Arrangements are be ing made with him for the psychological exam, physical exam, and release forms for the background check. Contact was made with Jay Dembouski who was offered the part time position and he stated that after giving it considerable thought, must decline for his interest is in getting a full time position as a police officer. Jay Dembouski will send us a letter declin ing the part time position. He does wish us to consider him if we have a full time position open up in the future. 1 • •/; 'Jr-r To; Fron: Date; John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Coordinator Jack Brinkhaus, Street Foreman January 9, 1990 Subject; Seasonal Weight Restrictions JA!i22iv-0 r'lTV Hi ’rriOhH: Attached is a list of the recommended axle weight limit restrictions for each City street. The streets will hrs posted from March 15 through May 15, 1990. The normal length of time that restrictions are in effect is related to weather conditions. Certain streets might be closed to school buses if a street becomes Impassible. In the past several years, we have allowed solid waste haulers to continue their normal operations, limiting them to gross weight on any single axle of seven tons or 14,000 pounds. If a street shows signs of severe breakup we will limit the solid waste haulers to smaller vehicles. I have drafted a resolution for the 1990 weight limits for Council approval. TO; Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Froa; Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. PROPOSED HOTIOH; Moved by _ _, seconded by _ _, that Council adopt Resolution # establishing the 1990 Weight Limits for City streets from March 15 through May 15, 1990. Ayes _ _, nays I CITY OF QRONOJ City of OR.OIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO._ _ _ _ _ of Orono ordains that axle weight limits are restricted on the following streets in the City of Orono from March 15, 1990 through May 15, 1990 in accordance with regulations as provided in Chapter 6.11 of the Orono Municpal Code. No refuse collections vehicles shall be operated during the seasonal restriction time where the gross weight on any single axle exceeds 14,000 lbs. and no vehicles shall be operated upon any City street at any time where special posting specifially prohibits refuse collection vehicles. The following streets are limited to five ton axle limits: Arbor Street Baldur Park Road Barrett Avenue Bayview Place Bederwood Drive Birch Lane Blaine Avenue Bohn's Point Lane Bohn's Point Road Brackett's Point Road Briar Street Brown Road, North Carman Road Carman Street Caroline Avenue Casco Avenue Casco Circle Casco Point Road Cherry Avenue Cherry Place Chevy Chase Drive Chippewa Lane Concordia Street Corral Road Country Club Road Crestview Avenue Crystal Avenue Crystal Bay Road Crystal Place Cygnet Place Dahl Road Dickenson Street Dickenson Street Alleys Dickey Lake Drive Dunwoody Avenue East Lake Street East Long Lake Road Eileen Streor. Elm Lane Elm Street Elmwood Avenue Ethel Avenue Fagerness Point Road Fairview Cottage Farview Lane Ferndale Green Ferndale Road v;est Forest Arms Lane Forest Lake Drive Forest Lake Landing Fox Ridge Road Fox Street (S. Brown to Orono Orchard) Fox Street (S. Brown to Willow Drive) Fox Street (#84 to Willow Drive) Frederick Street Glendale Avenue Grandview Avenue Hackberry Hill Hanlon Avenue Heritage Drive Heritage Lane High Lane Highwood Road Hunter Drive Ivy Place Keene Avenue Kelly Avenue Kenwood Way Lakeview Avenue Page 1 of 2 Lakeview Terrace Leaf Street Lilac Lane Linden Avenue Linden Lane Livingston Avenue Loma Linda Avenue Long Lake Boulevard Long Lake Union Cemetary Road Lydiard Avenue Lydiard Circle Liman Avenue Lyric Avenue Maple Lane Maple Place Mapleridge Lane Minnetonka Avenue Minnetonka Highlands Minnie Avenue Myrtlewood Road Navarre Avenue Navarre Lane North Arm Drive North Arm Lane North Ferndale Road Northern Avenue Oak Street Old Beach Road Old Long Lake Road Olive Avenue Orchard Beach Place Orchard Park Road Orono Lane Orono Orchard Road Orono Townline Road J 1 CITY OF ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. SSnuation of five ton axle limit streets: Tonka Avenue Turnham Road Vine Place Watertown Road Webb Street Webber Hills Road West Ferndale Road West Lafayette Road West Lake Street wildhurst Trail Willow Drive (Highway #12 to Sixth Avenue) Willow Drive (Sixth Avenue to Medina City limits) Willow Drive (from South Brown Road to Fox Street) Willowbrook Road Windjammer Lane Woodhill Avenue Park Avenue Park Drive Park Lane Partenwood Road Pheasant Lawn Road Prospect Avenue Railroad Avenue Rest Point Circle Rest Point Lane Russell Avenue Scotch Pine Lane Shevlin Drive Smith Avenue Spates Avenue Spring Hill Road Spruce Place Starkey Road Stubbs Bay Road Tamarack Drive Togo Road The following are nine-ton axle limit: Old Crystal Bay Road McCulley Road willou^Drl^''*froin Watertown Road to Long Willow Drive (from Fox Street to Watertown Road) 2?%lS “|eflrucx1;d ‘luilirfile?orse;;i?«aUer^ Willow Drive The following bridges ^^“^^?g^o/s‘]^i2t?nier^combi^32 Tons per truck and full trailer or semi rraxx Old Crystal Bay Road West Ferndale Road Adoped by the city Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held January 22, 1990. attest: Dorothy Me Hallin, City Jr. irKTrri EEKHKlr*i««i«i»][•11H* rtXH; [•liiii* ril ■ the Police Department being a rather junior force. Despite the increases in pay equity adjustments and the adoption of the compensation plan these increases have not been noticable in years in which it was introduced. (Additionally included in this item is not only the compensation but also workers comp costs and unemployment costs which vary from year to year and are subject to other factors not directly related to compensation. BtS 1-! 5 i t f :'r*.>o w. .... . LIST OP LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR MEETING OP January 22, 1990 Cigarette license - Minnesota Viking Food Service for Washington Scientific Rick's Super Valu Navarre Amoco Keaveny's Navarre Drug Navarre Liquors, Inc. 0' Sulliv ’ans Orono Golf Course Navarre Lanes Jimmie’s Lounge Wayzata Country Club On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License - Orono Golf » f '•uv. \J:i ' * : ■ ti (> . -. . 01/07/90 PR CB PRREGOR I NAME dpt ANDERSON. BRUCE L 3X BERNHARDSON. MARK E 12 BERNHAROSON. M^»K E 12 BOB2IEN i>ut A 31 BOSMA JAMIE L 12 BRINKHAUS. JOHN F 42 CHESWICK. GARY B 31 CHRISTIANSON, SALLY 31 CORNICK. JAMES L 31 DENNISON. TROY A 35 ENGLISHIII. IRVING ERICKSON KURT R fi‘''henich. dan T FR. . ZLER. JOHN M GAFFRON MICHAEL P GERHARDSON. JOHN R GREGORY. JAMES D HALLIN. DOROTHY M HANSEN. STEVEN C HANSING. CAROL J JOHNSON. BRADLEY P KILBO, MELVIN H KNUTSON. CHARLOTTE KUEHN. THOMAS M MABUSTH. JEANNE A MORAN. MARK F MOROWCZYNSKI, JAMES NAAB. THEREsA L OBRIEN. RANDY L OMAN. LYLE E OUAST. WAYNE A RATHBUN. BARRY J SASS JOHN J SCHAUSS. CHARLES R SCHEFFLER. LAURIE K SKREEN. DALE S STEFFENHAQEN. RONALD THOMTON. MARK R 31 TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F 31 TOMCZYK MARK W 31 VANG, BRUCE L 33 WALSH. KEVIN L 35 WALTERS. LINDA G 15 YTD GROSS 1632 250 2365 904 465 1334 1468 209 1591 10 73 00 60 12 23 16 00 36 52 20 1327 1445 1364 1059 186 698 47 62 36 16 16 29 45 1632 250 2115 904 465 1334 1468 209 1591 .73 00 60 12 23 16 00 36 52 H 31 1759 67 1759 67311881 69 1881 69311369 03 1369 03311693 27 1693 27331313 00 1313 00421727 09 1727 09421101 20 1101.20121130 96 1130 96421026 01 1026 0131592 48 592 48311470 74 1470 74311926 64 1926 64A 15 904 12 904 12151834 52 1834 52331644 24 1644 24311337.28 1337 28311619.94 1619 9412904.12 904 1292984.10 984.10331205 24 1205 24921585 21 1585 21921090 67 1090 67421043 17 1043 17312769 05 2769 0512813 73 813.7342988 40 988.40 1132 1327 1445 1364 1059 186 698 47 62 36 16 16 29 45 52.910.00 CURREN-f GROSS [| : •* ! ; r"' ISIS CITY oooCHECK SEGISTERCHECK NO DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV012040Ol/lt/90 194 84 194 84 a APACHE PAPER CO 01434124942 01-4341-249-42 022134 Ol/ll/SO 201 01 201 01 a CONNELLY INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATORS 73-4232-569-92 3S27S6 Ol/lt/OO 238.00 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED JACKET 01-4221-121-31 3627S6 Ol/lt/SO 238 00 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED JACKET 01-4221-126-31 3S27S8 Ol/lt/SO 238 00 714 00 a UNIFORMS UNLIMITED JACKET 01-4221-129-31 3S300S Ol/ll/SO 65 96 65 96 •ACRO-MINNESOTA INC CATALOG RACK 01-4210-249-42 3S30U 01/11/60 65 00 ALL STAR ELECTRIC TRAFFIC LGT REPAIR 01-4342-249-42 363014 Ol/ll/SO 20.00 85.00 a ALL STAR ELECTRIC REPAIR LGTS 01-4343-129-31 363031 01/11/90 18.17 AT A T COMM TELEPHONE 01-4320-039-12 363031 Ol/ll/SO 12.32 AT A T COMM TELEPHONE 01-4320-129-31 363031 Ol/ll/SO 1.27 38.76 a AT A T COMM TELEPHONE 01-4320-175-34 363064 01/11/90 241 63 241.63 a BLITZ ONE HR FOTO PHOTO REFISH 01-4210-129-31 363065 Ol/ll/SO 125.00 125.00 a BLACKOWIAK A SONS TRASH 01-4343-099-17 362011 01/11/90 104 33 104 33 N BLACKS PHO" TiAAPhT FILM PROCESS 01-4210-129-31 363113 01/11/90 36 00 36.00 a CELLULAR ONE SALES 2 ANTENNA 01-4232-129-31 363212 01/11/90 10 20 10 20 a EXPRESS MESSENGER POSTAGE 01-4321-039-12 ■»».« •-** -»k*< »AQE i •SSAQE-CKS • • a •CKS a • •-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS ••*-CKS -••-CKS -CKS GOULD &CO INC PROSECUTIONSGOULDACOINCCONSULTINGGOULD&CO INC CONSULTINGGOULDAcc^NC CONSUL’ING 01-22-90 PAGE 2 ACCOUNT NO INV • P 0 • MESSAGE01-423201-434272-423272- 434273- 4232 73-4234 73-4342 249-42249-42549-91549-91569-92569-92569-9201-4302-080-1601-4303-840-7124-4399-414-0024-4399-461-0001-4221-249-4201-4343-129-3172- 4221-549-9173- 4221-569-9274- 4221-590-9301-4220-129-3101-4220-129-3101-4341-129-3101-4341-249-4201-4341-249-4201-2226-000-0001-4232-129-31 01-4232-249-42 01-4324-099-17 ■ ■ •-CIVS•••-CKSa • •-CKS•••-CKS•••-CKS•••-CKS•••-CKS •••-CKS 1989 CITY OF OROMO CHECK NO DATE363490363490363490393547163548363548363548363548363548363548363548363548363548363548363562363562363562363562363562383S97363S97393597363597363597363597363597363597363597363597363597363597 363597 363597 363597 363597 01/16/9001/16/9001/16/9001/18/9001/16/9001/16/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/16/9001/16/9001/16/9001/16/9001/16/9001/18/9001/16/9001/16/9001/18/9001/16/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/16/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/16/9001/16/90 01/16/90 01/16/90 01 /90 O' '0 AMOUNT130 06 796 03 61.22 2.079 2419 24 19 2499 75 99 75 *53 81 2.75 1.340.52 217 52 446 95 2.061 55 •CHECK REGISTERVENDORMINNEGASCOMINNEGASCOMINNEGASCONAVARRE AUTO REPAIRNATL COMPUTER SYSTEMNAVARRENAVARRENAVARRENAVARRENAVARRENAVARRENAVARRENAVARRENAVARRENAVARREHARDWAREHARDWAREhardwareHARDWAREHARDWAREHARDWAREHARDWAREHARDWAREHARDWAREHARDWARENSPNSPNSPNSPNSPPUBLICPUBLICPUBLICPUBLICPUBLICPUBLICPUBLICPUBLICPUBLICPUBLICPUBLICPUBLICPUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC EMPLEMPLEMPLEMPLEMPLEMPLEMPLEMPLEMPLEMPLEMPLEMPLEMPL EMPL EMPL EMPL ASSNASSNASSNASSNASSNASSNASSNASSNASSNASSNASSNASSNASSN ASSN ASSN ASSN ITEM DESCRIPTIONUTILITIESUTILITIESUTILITIESGAS/OILMAINT 10-12/89MISC Ml SC MISC MISC MISC MISC MISC MISC MISC MISC SUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESUTILITIESUTILITIESUTILITIESUTILITIESUTILITIESPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERAPERA PERA PERA PER7 12/25-12/25-12/25-12/25-12/25-12/25-12/25-12/25-12/2512/2512/2512/2512/25 1? 25 ‘ /25 31/8931/8931/8931/89-31/89-31/89-31/89-31/89-31/89-31/89-31/89-31/89-31/89 -31/89 -31/89 -31/89 01-22*90 PAGE 3 Av-OUNT no INV. 6 P 0 6 MESSAGE01-4324-129-3172- 4324-549-9173- 4324-569-9201-4220-129-3101-4340-129-3101-421001-423101-423201-423201-423301-434372-423272- 434273- 4232 73-4234 -174-33-099-17-129-31-249-42-249-42-099-17-549-91-549-91-569-92-569-9201-4324-099-1701-4324-175-3472- 4324-549-9173- 4324-569-92 73-4324-569-9201-41n •01-4141-Cl-4141-01-4141-01-4141-01-4141-01-4141-01-4141-01-4141-01-4141-01 -4141-01-414101-414172- 4141 73- 4141 74- 4141 039-12059-14069-15099-17-111-31-115-31-119-31-121-31-126-31-174-33-185-35-249-42-290-61-549-91 -569-92 -590-93 •••-CKS•••-CKS•••-CKS•••-CKS r-1989 CITY OF OR CHECK NO DATEa a « a a a39362736*»3636:^9 363628 363628 363628 363628 363628 3636;8 01/01/01/01/01/31/363660363660363660363719363724363815a a a a a a363835363842363852 363901 ». 01-22-90 PAGEA,.:COUNT NO. INV. I P O. • MESSAGE01-4324-129-3172- 4324-549-9173- 4324-569-9201-4220-129-3101-4340-129-3101-421001-423101-423201-423201-423301-434372-423272- 434273- 4232 73-4234 -174-33-099-17-129-31-249-42-249-42-099-17-549-91-549-91-569-92-569-9201-4324-099-1701-4324-175-3472- 4324-549-9173- 4324-569-92 73-4324-569-9201-41:, •01-414^'Cl-414101-414101-414101-414101-414101-41410;-414101-414101 -414101-414101-4141 72- 4141 73- 4141 74- 4141 -039-12-059-14-069-15-099-17-111-31-115-31-119-31-121-31-126-31-174-33-185-35-249-42-290-61 -549-91 -569-92 -590-93 iit»f *■ — r - r* ^ ^ X9I9 CITY OF OROMO CHECK NO DATE CHECK REGISTERAMOUNTVENDOR31 75 31 75 •1.120 25 68 6J 221 40 170 00 12 40 118 40 81 10 2.701.50 4.493 65 •PITNEY BOWESPOPHAMHAIK &ASSOCPOPHAMHAIK8.ASSOCPOPHAMHAIKAASSOCPOPHAMHAIKAASSOCPOPHAMHAIKAASSOCPOPHAMHAIKAASSOCPOPHAMHAIKAASSOCPOPHAMHAIKAASSOCORLIN REDEOENNING ORLIN REDEPENNING ORLIN REDEPENNING ITEM DESCRIPTIONINK ROLLERRETAINER C B :>WR LL 105 CONSULTING CONSULTING CONSULTING LS 10/43 HWY 12 S/WTRASH OCT-DEC TRASH OCT-DEC TRASH OCT-OECOL DEMMURAGE4TH OTR SURCHRG 01-22-90 PAGE 4 ACCOUNT NO INV • P 0 • MESSAGE01-4210-129-31''l-4'^oi cl-4303 01-4303 01-4303 01-4303 01-430'* 26-4303 26-4303 080 ao 080-16 080 :6 129-31 174-33 249-42 433-81 439-87ni-4343-129-3101-4343-290-6174-4343-590-9372-4234-549-9101-2222-000-0072-4320-549-9172-435 -549-91 •••-CKS-CKS•••-CKS •L \ I9t0 CITY Of 090NO CHECK REGISTERCHECK NO . DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV30 00 •363902 01/18/90 30.0030.00 ■MICHAEL DALE PENALTY REFUND 01-3131-000-0036390301/18/90 30 00 30 00 m CITY OF MEDINA PENALTY REFUND 01-3133-000-0036390401/18/90 30 00 30.00 ■LORIN DERBY PENALTY REFUND 01-3131-000-0036390S01/18/90 30.00 30 00 *KENNETH HICKEY PENALTY REFUND 01-3131-000-0036390601/18/90 30 00 30 00 *PERSONNEL DECISIONS PENALTY REFUND 01-3131-000-0036390701/18/90 35.0035.00 •RICHARD NICCUM PENALTY REFUND 01-3131-000-0036390901/18/90 663.45663.45 •BUSINESS TESTING ERICKSON EVALUATION 01-4306-129-3125.242 96 248 50 2.782 60 4,137.22 1.233 97 111.68 FUND 01 TOTAL FUND 24 TOTAL FUND 26 TOTAL FUND 72 TOTAL FUND 73 TOTAL FUND 74 TOTAL GENERAL FUND PERM IMPROVE REVOLVING F 1989 SWR-WTR CONSTR FUND WATER OPERATING FUND SEWER OPERATING FUND GOLF COURSE OPERATING FD33.756.93 TOTAL 1990 CITY OF ORO CHECK NO. DATEOl/lOl/lOl/l01/101/101/101/101/101/101/J01/J01/]01/i01/:01/01/01/01/01/01/01/ :1AL REMRTSEOULED RUN DATE 000000 ORT DATE 000000ITY REPORTSlEDULED RUN DATE 0U890 >ORT DATE 012290)LL POSTING OATES 000000000000000000000000 1990 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE01/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/90 CHECK REGISTERAMOUNTVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION0220060220060220060220060220060220060220060220060220060220060220060220060220060220060220101535154154653964.42.65428.32 15 64 8.32 8.32- 106.52 4.42 15.64 9.95 251.66 ACRO-ACRO-ACRO'ACROACROACROACROACROACROACROACROACROACROACRO MINNESOTA INC MINNESOTA INC MINNESOTA INC MINNESOTA INC MINNESOTA INC MINNESOTA INC MINNESOTA INC MINNESOTA MINNESOTA MINNESOTA ■MINNESOTA ■MINNESOTA -MINNESOTA -MINNESOTA INCINCINCINCINCINCINC OFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICE SUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIES 01-22-90 PAGE 1ACCOUNT NO. INV. 8 PO. 6 MESSAGE01-4210- 01-4210- 01-4210- Cl-4210- 01-4210- 01-4210 01-4210 01-4210 01-4210 01-4210 01-4210 01-4210 01-4210 01-421001/18/90 17 17 17.17 *AT&T INFO SYSTEM01/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/90 165.00170.00165.001.035.00107.001.642.00 •APPLE VALLEY AGENCY APPLE VALLEY AGENCY APPLE VALLEY AGENCY apple VALLEY AGENCY APPLE VALLEY AGENCY01/18/9001/18/90 61.50 61.50 123.00 •ASPLUND COFFEE ASPLUND COFFEE01/18/90 1.675.001.675.00 *ASSN METRO MUNICIPS01/18/90 114.00 114 00 •CHAPIN PUBLISHING 01/18/90 01/18/90 01/18/90 17.00 83 49 122.67 223.16 * COLONIAL LIFE INS CO COLONIAL LIFE INS CO COLONIAL LIFE INS CO 01/18/90 11.00 COMM-REV SALES TAX TELEPHONE CCOUNT MO. INV 01-22-90 PAGE t P 0. • MESSAGE1-4210-1-4210-1-4210-1-4210-1-4210-1-4210-1-4210-1-4210-1-4210-I- 4210- H-4210II- 4210 11-4210 lt-4210 039-12039-12059-14059-14069-15-069-15-129-31-129-31-129-42-129-42-174-33-174-33-249-42-249-42 •••-CMS74-4320-590-93 •*»-CKSI- 4373-039-12 H-4373-129-31II- 4373-174-33 11-4375-069-15 11-4375-069-15 •«*-CKSH-4382-039-12tl-4382-174-33 !•••-CKS01-4380-020-11 •••-CKS26-4323-437-85 •••-CKS01-4152-121-31 01-4152-126-31 01-4152-129-31 •••-CKS 01-2222-000-00 l'- ■•• •• •: ; . •r-.v:. •OF ORONO DATE01/18/9001/18/90 CHECK REGISTER■’ . *>■1000 CITYCHECK NO022133022133 AMOUNT 19.00243.00272.00 •VENDORCOMM-REV sales TAXcomm-rev sales tax ITEM DESCRIPTIONSALES TAX MTR 12/89 SALES TAX WTR 12/89 ACCOUNT NO. INV72-2222-000-0072-2222-000-00iV-8ia«8i««01-1261-000-0002214201/18/90 456.00 456 00 •COPY OOP PR INC TONER COUPON BK 01-4322-129-3102230301/18/90 840.00940.00 •HENN CTY FIN DIV TRAFFIC TICKETSI' .vh■022300022300022309022309022300 01/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/90 3 554 40 2.25 2.6014.05 26.85 -HENN COUNTY TREAS HENN COUNTY TREAS HENN COUNTY TREAS HENN COUNTY TREAS HENN COUNTY TREAS ASMT PARCEL CHRG ASMT PARCEL CHRG ASMT PARCEL CHRG ASMT PARCEL CHRG ASMT PARCEL CHRG 24-4322-422-0042- 4322-903-0043- 4322-906-00 45-4322-908-00 73-4322-569-92101-2035 000-00 01-4140-039-121 ' 1 022330022330 01/18/9001/18/90 47.39 47 39 94 78 •ICMA RETIREMNT TRUST ICMA RETIREMNT TRUST 1989 PAYABLE ICMA 1/1-1/7 01-4380-039-12I r 022346 01/18/90 415.00 415 00 •INTL CITY MGMNT ASSN MGMT SUBSCRIP -V 022347022347022347 01/18/9001/18/9001/18/90 100 00-100 00100.00 100.00 INTL ASSN CH OF POL INTL ASSN CH OF POL INTL ASSN CH OF POL DOESDUESDUES02235302235302235302235302235301/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/90 18.60 18.60 18.60 18.60 18.60 93.00 *INTL MAILING INTL MAILING INTL MAILING INTL MAILING INTL MAILING SYSTEMSSYSTEMSSYSTEMSSYSTEMSSYSTEMS POSAGE MTR POSAGE MTR POSAGE MTR POSAGE MTR POSAGE MTR 022388 022381 01/18/90 01/18/90 12.50 66.16 78 66 * KILBO-MELVIN KILBO-MELVIN COMM MTG MTG EXP 01-4350-129-3101-4380-129-3101-4321-039-12 01-4321-069-15 01-4321-174-33 01-4321-249 -42 73-4321-569-92 01-4356-129-31 01-4382-129-31 OF OROM DATEOl/iS01-22-90 PAi • p 0 • MES 01/1901/1901/1101/1101/1101/101/101/101/101/101/]01/:01/01/ 1990 CITY Of OiOIK) CHECK NO. DATE022402022407022407022437022437022474 022500 022500 02253S 022549 022546 022571 022571 022597 022591 022608 01/11/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/9001/18/90 01/18/90 01/18/90 01/18/90 01/18/90 01/18/90 01/18/90 01/18/90 01/18/90 01/18/90 01/18/90 AMOUNT6.465 50 6.465 50 •5 60 1.025 00 1.030.60 •22.497.00 2.534.40 25.031.40 «10.715 35 10.715 35 • 2.368 48 204.40 2.572 68 • 13.046 25 13.046 25 - 15 05 29.20 44 25 - 150.COO.00 9.000 00 159.000 00 - 1.986.37 1.986.37 * 9.00 9 00 • 1.515.00 CHECK REGISTERVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTIONLAKEMTKA CONS DISTLANO EQUIP CO LAND EQUIP COCITY OF LONG LAKE CITY OF LONG LAKEMETRO WASTE MINN COMM MINN COMM CITY OF MOUND NAAB TERRI NAAB TERRI NORWEST BANK MINN NA NORWEST BANK MINN NA PUBLIC EMPL RET ASSN PERA INS PANNELL KERR FORSTER 1ST QTROILCAB/HEATER BOBCATQTR 1 FIRE SERV 1ST QTR PD RENTFEB MWCC TELEPHONE TELEPHONE 1ST QTR FIRE MTG EXP MILEAGE MAT BONO DUE 2/1 BOND INT DUE 2/1 PEA 1/1-7/90 JAN INS AUDIT PYMNT 1 01-22-90 PAGE 3 ACCOUNT NO. INV i P.O • MESSAGE01-4380-020-1101-4232-249-4214-4550-633-0031-4315-130-3231-4332-129-3173-1282-000-00 01-4320-129-31 01-4320-174-33 01-4317-132-32 01-4356-039-12 01-4381-039-12 42-4610-903-00 4^-4620-903-00 01-2031-000-00 01-4152-129-31 01-4300-020-11 •••-CKS■ ■ A -CKS-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS • • ■-CKS ■ • ft -CKS it*'-'/. *1990 CITY OF OKONO CHECK REGISTER 01-22-90 PAGE 4CHECK NO.DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV i P.O. 9 MESSAGEP022i0t02290102290101/19/9001/19/9001/19/90 280.00326.00210.00 2.331.00 •PANMELL KERR FORSTER PANNELL KERR FORSTER PANNELL KERR FORSTER AUDIT PYMNT 1 AUDIT PYMNT 1 AUDIT PYMNT 1 72- 4300-549-9173- 4300-569-9274- 400-590-93;.. '^.■ ' A .. 0229SI Ol/U/90 7.00 7.00 • R C INOENTIFICATIONS 2 IDS 01-4210-129-31 •••-CKS --‘•CKS I' ! 022979 01/19/90 2.733.54 2.733.54 • ROLLINS OIL CO GASOLINE 01-1260-000-00 •••-CKS - T 022999 01/19/90 1.150.00 1.150 00 • SENIOR COHM SERVICES SR CIT2 1ST OTR 01-4385-100-21 ■(r •••-CKS r 1 ■ 022732 01/19/90 4.231.00 4.231.00 • PAUL SMITH & ASSOC JAN 01-4307-059-14 •••-CKS 022740 01/19/90 270 00 270.00 • STRETCHERS AMMO 01-4241-129-31 J • .-o’*••-CKS ■'■' ( •• - •:■ >. [' ■■'' 022713 022713 01/19/90 01/19/90 73.45 37.00 110.45 • TOHCHECK LARRY TOMCHECK LARRY CLASS MILEAGE 01-4356-129-31 01-4381-129-31 1 i'-f 1 022792 01/19/90 130 00 130.00 • TWIN CITIES DICTN SV TAPES 01-4210-129-31 •••-CKS •••-CKS 022915 022915 022915 022915 022915 01/19/90 01/19/90 01/19/90 01/19/90 01/19/90 49.70 29 62 27.41 22.42 33.22 161.37 • US WEST COMMON US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMON TELEPHONE TELEPHONE DATA PROC DATA PROC DATA PROC 01-4320-129-31 01-4320-249-42 01-4355-069-15 72- 4355-549-91 73- 4355-569-92 •••-CKS 022950 01/19/90 24.00 24.00 • WEST PUBLISHING BOOKS 01-4240-129-31 0^-^ ♦%-. m m m M -CKS ».1I■ 5 ^1 i 1 '4 ■ » ^—» -——*■ IW'*'I' ■ i|». ..-H*** •.- V.*j iSOO CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTERCHECK NO.DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV02200001/11/00 379.00 379.00 ^SCREENING PLUS DARE POSTERS 01-4322-120-3102201001/11/90 60.00 69.00 •LAW ENFORCEHNT LEGAL SUBSCRIP 01-4322-129-3102201101/18/90 IS SO IS.SO •JAMIE bOSMA MILEAGE 01-4381-039-1202201201/11/90 75.00 75.00 • AMER SOC IND SECRTY DUES 01-4380-129-31 022013 01/18/90 60.00 60.00 * HN CHIEF POLICE ASSO DUES 01-4380-129-31 022014 01/18/90 25.00 25.00 • METRO ENERGY MGR DUES 01-4380-129-31 022015 01/18/90 165.00 165.00 • COLE PUBLICATIONS DIRECTORY 01-4322-129-31 022010 01/18/90 25.00 25.00 • MCPOA DUES 01-4380-129-31 022017 01/18/90 120 00 120 00 • HEN CTY CHIEF POLICE DUES 01-4380-129-31 022011 01/18/00 20.00 20.00 • MACA DUES 01-4380-129-31 022010 01/18/00 27.45 27.45 • U OF NORTH FLORIDA WORKBOOK 01-4322-129-31 022020 01/18/90 10 00 10 00 • POLICE EXEC RESEARCH REPORT 01-4322-129-31 022021 01/18/90 70 90 70.00 • PDR DRUG VOLUMES 01-4322-129-31 022022 01/18/90 35.00 35.00 • MINNETONKA SPORTSMEN DUES 01-4380-120-31 022023 022023 022023 01/18/90 01/18/90 01/18/90 10 00 10.00- 10.00 10.00 * MN DEPT OF AGRI MN DEPT OF AGRI MN DEPT OF AGRI PESTICIDE Lie PESTICIDE Lie PESTICIDE Lie 74-4383-590-93 74-4383-591-93 74-4383-591-93 022024 022024 01/18/00 01/18/00 10.00 30.00 40.00 • U OF MINNESOTA U OF MINNESOTA MANUAL WORKSHOP 01-4241-174-33 01-4356-174-33 022025 01/18/00 50 00 50.00 • LONG LAKE C OF C DUES 01-4380-249-42 022020 01/18/90 155.00 MILE SEMINAR ENGLISH 01-4356-129-31 01-22-90 PAGE %l.-'-v . ''f' V,'.. H-v. 1190 CITY OF 090N0 CHECK NO. DATE 0229?i Oi/ll/90022927022929022929022930 022934 i 022939 > 4 01/19/9001/11/9001/11/9001/11/90 01/11/90 01/19/90 AMOUNT155.00310.00 •120.00 120.00 *60.00 60 00 «50.00 50.00 •41.4041.40 • 225.00 225.00 • 199.00 199.00 • 67.295.99 1.025.00 3.55 114.00 159.004.40 2.25 2.60 563.42 11.107.22 553.17 239.671.49 CHECK REGISTERVENDORMILEBURLINGTON NORTHERN CRAGUNS CONF CNTR SENSIBLE LAND USE HUDSON MAP CO WASH CRIME NEWS US TELEPHONE DIRECT FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND 01 14 24 26 42 43 45 72 73 74 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL ^ - ITEM DESCRIPTION SEMINAR ANOERSN 01-22-90 PAGE • ACCOUNT NO. INV. • P.O. • MESSAGE 01-4356-129-31LEASE CONF NAAB DUES3 90 ST ATLAS 74-4323-590-9301-4356-039-1201-4380-174-3301-4322-129-31 DUES 01-4380-129-31 LISTING 74-4323-590-93 GENERAL FUND IMPROVE A EQUIP OUTLAY F PERM IMPROVE REVOLVING F 1989 SWR-WTR CONSTR FUND 1966-76 IMP BONO 0/S FUN 1980 IMP BOND 0/S FUND 1985 IMP BONO D/S FUND WATER OPERATING FUND SEWER OPERATING FUND GOLF COURSE OPERATING FD •»( ‘ ••*-CKS •••-CKS ••*-CKS .•■'r ..V fi-r WM rP ,3^j-riOf\ A r ■i\-MflCl ot f’i t*U 00 rcti. s«t-fr!NG -'A.'i 22 i9?3 ‘ » r \' . / /^ January 19, 1990 Long Laka Planning Connisslon 1964 Park Avenue City of Long Lake HN 55356 REi Notice of Public Hearing 1/19/90 regarding Golf Dome Dear Planning Commission! The proposed golf done would appear to be very popular. One aajor concern is traffic patterns and what affect the golf dome would produce. With restricted access to Highway 12 being a reality in the near future, a new frontage road has not been defined. Both cities. Long Lake and Orono, along with affected property owners, need to look at what will benefit our communities now and in the future. This district is in the country and near the city place to live and work.It is a good Sincerely, Jo ^ Pallansch illties Engineer cci City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay MN 55323 Attm Jeane Mabusth JP0209 SNTRVVuaW.iyy.iUfVn. • Mmiy;r.-V. ATVX'X (^!H) "vfv2T4:M.ix (hl2) 17V?M ‘ ^ I * • % •• • .1 .*?• i-j ►.« -•r .j j — T — a I i-« I— ¥ PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF LONG LAKE Notice Is hereby qlven that will hold a Public Hearing on T^esNayi ►ng Lake Planning ComMisslon January 19f 1990 at 6:00 p~m~ at City Hall, 1964 Park Avenue,''as requested by Richard Martin to construct a Golf Dome Air Structure at 2445, 2455, and 2465 West Industrial Blvd. to consider variances to the following Sections of the Long Lake Zoning Code: Section 16 subd. 4 5, requires a 35 ft. front yard set back, and a 12 ft. variance is needed to allow for only a 23 ft. setback. Section 16 subd. 5 a, allows for a maximum height of 35 feet, and a 55 ft. variance is needed because the structure is 90 ft. high. Section 20 subd. 8 r requires 456 parking spaces, and a variance of 350 parking spaces is needed because there are only 106 spaces. K Conditional Use permit will also be applied for in accordance with Ordinance No. 202, to determine if this a substantially similar Use. All interested parties will be heard at this time. LuVerne Hanson Long Lake City Clerk • t-r I T I r t-4 .-r «-4 r ■« • 'S* f T T >1 t — M r r .DATE 22 DEC 89 08:53:18 RID 201 22 DtC 89 FOSS TO CHIEF KILBO FR JACK FOSS UTKA BEACH I UANTED TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THE ACTION OF OFFICER ANDERSON THE NIGHT OF 12-21 ON CTY RD IS IN WHICH .iii SHOWED AN EXCEPTIONAL AMOUNT OF COURTESY IN HELPING ME HANDLE A CAR STALLING PROBLEM. HE WAS VERY HELPFUL TO ME IN THIS SITUATION. THANKS u. Saturday Thurday Friday Monday LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 473-7033 L.H.C.D. MEETING SCHEDULE JANUARY 1990 JW-91990 I • •J 'wL 13 Hater Structures i Environment Connxcced' 7:30 a.n.. LMCD office. Uayzata Depot Wednesday 17 Advisory Conmittee* Management Plan 7:00 p.m.t Tonka Bay City Hall Intergovernmental Relations/Funding Subcoimilttee. Management Plan 7:00 p.m.i Tonka Bay City Hall 19 Eurasian Hater Milfoil Task Force 8:30 a.m.. Freshwater Foundation, Navarre 22 Lake Use Conmittee 4:30 p.m., LMCD office, Uayzata Depot Wednesday 24 LMCD Board of Director's regular meeting 7:30 p.m.. Tonka Bay City Hall Wednesday 31 & Thursday Feb 1 LMCD and LMCD Cities participation in MN DNR Shoreland Rules: Workshop (by Invitation/reservation only) 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.. Holiday Inn Minneapolis West at Highway 12 6 169 1-3-90 f 1 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT HATER STRUCTURES & ENTIRONMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA 7:30 a.m., Saturday, January 13, 1990 LMCD Office, Uayzata r i V 1. David Thomas development, new dock license proposal and review of public hearing report (enclosed) 2. Review of Code S2.0S, Subd. 1, S2>0S, Subd< 4(a)(16), and S2<05, Subd. 4(b), relating to new vs. existing amenities for Special Density License considerations (excerpt enclosed) 3. City of Wayzata Special Density License and New Dock License; review of public hearing report (enclosed), and pending notification on mandatory EAW 4. City of Deephaven Special Density License and New Dock License application review, recommending an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), enclosed 5. Excelsior Bay Yacht Club Special Density License and New Dock License application review; evaluation of expansion for possible EAW, and change of use (to follow) 6. Proposed Code amendment recommending an interim ordinance to restrict licensing, construction and maintenance of new commercial and multiple docks, evaluating wetlands in relationship to shoreline measurements and other considerations (copy enclosed as previously submitted) 7. EAW evaluation for Minnetonka Boat Works (Orono), based upon results of the submission to the EQB; recommending final consideration of the new dock license and Special Density License applications without further environmental studies (hearing report attached) 8. Discretionary EAW for Wayzata Yacht Club's District Mooring Area (enclosed); review and lecommendation to Board as presented/amended 9» Inquiry regarding refund of dock license application fees for slips not used in 1989 and/or 1990 10. Guidelines (enclosed) for temporary residential dock extensions without a formal permit application, recommending renewal for 1990 11. Reaffirming that 1989 temporary low water variances for multiple dock licensees are renewable as part of 1990 license applications (copy attached) 12. Pelican Point multiple dock license application review for preliminary acceptance without final property development plan (copy attached) 1-J. Rockvam Boat Works temp, low water extension request and proposal to subsitute floating docks in exact same configuration as existing dock plan on site d 1. (Copy attached.) ENVIRONMENT: 1. Eurasian Water Milfoil 1990 planning progress t •••I ‘ f LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Roport oft Hinnetonk* Boat Works, Inc. (Oronol Special Density Peroit and New Dock License Public Hearing: Saturday April 0. 1909 7:30 A. H. LMCD Office Hayzata Thooas Reese (Mound) announced he is joining the Hater Structures and Envirunoint Cooiittee and was welcoaed. Present:David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; JoEIlen Hurr; Orono; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Jaoes Grathwol, i'xcelsior; John Lewnan, Minnetrista; Robert Pillsbury; Minnetonka; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Thooas Reese, Mound; Robert Slocue, Woodland. Also present: C>»XfIes Lefevre, Counsel; Gene Stroeoen, Executive Director. PUBLIC HEARING LMCD Ch.ir JoElIen Hurr convened a Public Hearing at 7:30 A. M. on April 0, 1909 to consider the application of Minnetonka Boat Works, Inc., Orono for a Special Density Peroit and new dock license to increase its Boat.Storage Units (BSU) froa 4t BSU to 47 BSU on Brown's Bay and froo 25 BSU to ►^'BSU on Tanager Lake, ■ore than oeeting the 1:10 rule under the LMCD rule at 1:30. Byron Heioark and Beth Hhi! .ker were present to represent the applicant and suboitted the following Public and Environoental amenities: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 0. Public Fishing Pier Liaited number of Parking Spaces for the Fishing Pier One (1) Auto Look-Out, to overlook the Lake Provide waste containers and disposal of the waste for Fishing Pier Provide Public Rest ooa Facilities Provide one (1) slip for the Water Patrol to use for emergency pur- poses. Satisfy drainage requirements of the municipality Satisfy green screening and vegetation cover per the City of Orono s Ordinance. Jaoes Walker, property owner southwest of the subject property on Tanager Lake, expressed concern about additional traffic on Tanager Lake, problems with excessive speed by boats passing through the narrow channel, high level of water skiing, safety and related accident potentials. Walker asked for assurance that there would be no fishing boat rentals. The last dock near the channel entrance creates a haiard. Mrs. Walker stated her biggest concern is tripling the number of slips. DISCUSSION 1. 2. 3. 4. The Public fishing pier location has not been determined. There would possibly be 10 parking spaces reserved for those fishing. The Auto Look-Out would have time-limited parking Heimark expressed willingness to change the position of the end slip at the channel entrance to allow safe separation from the channel. Thr docks are floating docks of individual slips. It appears the City of wuuld object to removal of the hill which could provide additional parking <he applicant. Signage for a fishing pier and over-look would be needed. FINDINGS Orono for 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Adjacent neighbor, James Walker, Tanager Lake, sees added boat traffic a concern, raising issues of aesthetics and safety - density on small laket speed through channel frequently uncontrolled; water skiing is heavy, on weekends especially; last pair of slips are too close to channel. Amenities offered per April 7, 1989 submittal, copy attached. Applicant believes present dock use is under-utilization of property. Distance of docks froe channel to allow safe navigation is a consideration Shoreline footage of Brown's Bay is accented by the narrow -finger' exten sion, to be calculated to show effect on over-all density. Fencing of area is presently not under consideration, in spite of heavy un invited public fishing and unauthorized parking in marina lot. Signage must be included to assist the public in identifying the ar- ities being offered. Fishing pier nay require a variance. All interested parties having been heard, the Public Hearing was closed at 8 s 0 0 H, ft« RECOMHENDATION At the 4-8-89 committee meeting, it was moved by Hurr, seconded by Foster. Density Permit and new dock license application of Minnetonka Boat Works. Orono, be approved, the applicant to work with staff on the use of the last two slips at the channel, signage for the proposed fishing pier and over-look, review need for variance for the fishing pier along with determining its location, and soliciting Water Patrol comments on the application. . . .The Committee accepted a friendly amendment to the motion which would allow comments from the public up to the time of the Board meeting. Motion carried as amended, Rascop voting nay. At the 4/26/89 Board meeting, Strommen reported that the applicant withdrew the fishing pier and parking for the fishing pier amenities following the April 8 public hearing. Hurr reported the City of Orono Planning Commission has forwarded the request to Its council with no recommendation, indicating concern about traffic. Lowman, for the applicant, said the amenities presented at the april 14 public earing for the Wayzata location are intended to serve both locations. (See Board minutes of 4/26/89 for more complete discussion.) Cochran moved, Foster seconded to refer the application back to committee to tie the Wayzata and Orono amenities together.^ Motion carried unanimously. At the 5/13/89 conunittee meeting, Beth Whittaker and Irwin Jacobs for Minnetonka Boat Works (Orono) submitted the following amenities for the Orono site: ^ . Minnetonka Boat Worksi Inc- {Orono> Public Hearing for Density on M/fl/fiT The Order for approvali per committee recommendation-i was subject to the outcome of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet as required by the Environmental duality Board- Action on the order was held pending the EAW outcome- The Environmental Assessment Worksheet was approved by the Board Oct- SSi I'W'li for subsequent distribution and publication as required by the EdB- Comment period on the EAW was determined to be Dec- 13i llfll'* during which time all eligible agencies and interested parties were notified of their right to comment on the marina expansion- The following comments were made or received: 1- Orono City Council Acting Mayor Callahan was left with the impression that the footage of lakeshore to justify the expansion should only have been that on the Tanager Lake side- In facti the applicant was allowed to apply the 3i310' of lake frontage which involves both the Brown's Bay and Tanager Lake shoreline- The marina is considered one site- 2- The Metropolitan Council concluded that the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns•« and raises no major issues of consis tency with Council policies- It concluded an EIS is not necessary for regioral purposes- 3. The MN Dep.irtment of Natural Resources concluded this project has no adverse Imparts on natural resources- M- The Minnesota Historical Society inquired to verify if a burial mound might be involved in the vicinity of the marina property- Upon review with Ted Lofstromi it was concluded that the suspected burial ground is to the west of the channel to Tanager Lake-i not affected by the marina expansion- Pursuant to MN Rules part Mm0-31D0i subp 1 -Bi this EAW review process finds support for a negative declaration and a determination that an Environmental Impact Statement CEISl is not required- I Minnetonka Boat Works, Inc. (Orono) Public Hearing for Density on A/L/89 * One (1) slip for Water Patrol purposes. * Boat for charter purposes, to groups and/or Individuals, available three times per season, at no profit to MBW. * Fishing excursions, with a professional guide, for underprivileged and handicapped chlldren/adults (Make-A-Wlsh, Big Brother, etc.), a minimum of 5 times during the season, providing access for approximately 25 children/adults at no charge to the groups. * Install a public pay phone. * Add one (1) additional restroom on the Tanagei Lake side. * Provide MCWD*approved skimming and ponding basfn for runoff. * Provide landscaping for the grounds. ^ Provide a loading zone for Tanager Lake customers, allowing slip customer to also load a boat at the Brown's Bay location which is handicapped accessible. * Access and use of MBW's shop boat for the supporting fire departments emergency use (would require the fire departments, supporcing the City of Orono, to name MBW as additional insured). Hurr reported the lack of Lake access for the handicapped was mentioned at the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park hearing. This would demonstrate steps are being taken in this direction. Foster suggested the LCMD Administrative Staff handle the Group Charter reservations* The committee's consensus supported MBW handling these arrangements both as a practical and a public identification benefit for MBW. MBW notification of such charters will assist in monitoring this amenity. Density was noted as 1:29 including the breakwater shoreline and 1:19 without It. Hurr reported the City of Orono has supported the increase. Is comfortable with the parking and likes the loading zone. Jacobs stated he does not see a greater traffic problem being created by the additional density. Hurr moved, Foster seconded to recommend to the Board the Increased density for the Minnetonka Boat Works (Orono) subject to the list of amenities as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. (The applicant requested a continuance from the May Board meeting to the June Board meeting I) At the May 24, 1989 Board meeting Cochran moved, Foster seconded that the Minnetonka Boat Works agenda items be advanced to the June 28 Board meeting. Motion carried unanimously. At the June 28, 1989 Board meeting Cochran moved, Grathwol seconded acceptance of the committee recommendation for approval of a Special Density and new dock license for Minnetonka Boat Works (Orono) to increase 6 BSU on Browns Bay and 42 BSU on Tanager Lake, based on amenities as submitted. Strommen read the list of amenities as detailed in the public hearing report. Responding to a question from Babock, Strommen stated the amenities are confirmed annually as license stipulations when application is made for renewal. Motion carried unanimously. •*n« i IM Bflia tUTIMQ tMOMUNI oarmeocKt Mo#ou0 eocMt rofAi oocRt U%9 U M UJ0t •• ftU^t tu lU0t oar 10 MMMO «i SMcu R«I0OUO »RMiM0 ti MACIt rOTAt MUItMO M MACU •t 4- r i AWOMO DOCK AM AMUM UMOUf AIM AUtMAfl I ~ ~ OfUOMOAiAff MMNCTOMA lOATWOflKS /iitT. me. X- • • r> . t:» I ' 97 ^A Awrwvr. -rwj NMV190V1IU lONtniO Ml iMUOti 'IM Vi mA4mM^W10!1.3NMIU4«^ •- V^rm3NNR 3W1 AV4 f.Nnc?^ M—ClMniiasMn. EmWw^Shwmiaod Sarfor—WM.. Jan. X1990Committee refines fuel thut will drive luke d 1Bv Parker Hodccs i-i.. _• .... JlBy Parker HodgesSweeping changes in the management of Lake Minnetonka are under way, with the Lake Minnetonka Management Plan scheduled for unveiling in the spring.The hid that will drive the management plan to fruition is currently being reflned by the Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the Lake Min netonka Conservation District ■LMCD). which is conducting the plan. That fuel consists of the money needed to make the pro gram work. The proposals being discussed in the plan call for in creased regulation and control over many areas of the lake. In order to implement the plan’s proposals, more money fo r die LMCD than currently ex ists is required, according to Dave Amdorfer who is conduc ting the study for the LMCD. The plan calls for some sweeping changes in how the l^e is managed, including limiting ui-lake dock slips, increasing the Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol presence, s^fening enforcement of en- vironmMtal regulations, and controlling on-shoredeveiopmoit.Creating the plan, scheduled for LMCD ratification in this spring, is only the first phase. It has identified areas that need streamlinuig and clearer outlina of enforcement respon sibilities, and has developed some proposals on how to cor rect them. But as developing the plan hits the homestreach, the two major hurdles that need to be cleared are coming into focus. The first is to get the cooperation of the agencies that re^te parts of the lake. The second may te the most important: money. Currently the LMCD gets a majority of its budget from con tributions from the 14 cities that border the lake. It also gets some money from licenses and fees, and grants from the state and federal governments.Hennepin County provides public safety through the Sheriffs Water Patrol and maintenance of channels and buoy placement through its Public Works department.In exchange for the contribu tions. the 14 cities each have an LMCD board representative. But when the LMCD s In tergovernmental Relations Sub committee makes its final report m the next month, aU that may change. TTie subcui .mittee’s preliminary report is looking at how to increase the LMCD's fun ding in order to give it the resources to better control all aspects of lake management, said Arndorfer. Several possibilities are being discussed. They include a metro-wide boat sticker “for boats used in water bodies around the metro area.” said Minnetonka Mayor Larry Donlin, who has regularly at tended the suteommittee meetinp. But a specific boating sticker for an area of the state has traditionally met opposition from the Department oi NaturalResources. said JerryRockvam. Spring Park mayor and regular attendee at the meetings.Rockvam said he thinks a Hennepin County tax makes more sense. “If the LMCD is trying to broaden its scope and bMome a regional agency a broader base of funding is need ed.” he said. Donlin agreed, but said he would support a three-tier tax ing system. Riparian, or lakeshore. homeowners should be taxed the heaviest, with homeowners in a r^awn LMCD boundary taxed at a lower level, and then the rest of the county taxed at a still-lower rate. What next? The Intergovernmental Rela tions subcommittee is scheduled to hold its final meeting beginn ing at 7 p.m. Thursday, Jan. 18 at Tonka Bay Village Hall, 4901 Manitou Road. Any funding changes sought by the LMCD will require ap proval by the Legislature, in eluding a metro-wide - boat sticker or a new taxing district.Donlin said that the LMCD needs to be strengthened if it is to survive as a viable management agency for the next 20-25 years. The main obstacle, he said, is the sense ot “parochialism ” among the lake communities. "The communities are goin^ to have to give up some of theii authority. If they resist the Mel Council can recommend to U h Legislature that the LMCD be disbanded,” Donlin said. Rockvam said that some lake area mayors have not been regularly attending the In tergovenunentol Relations Sub committee meetings and in some cases have not been there at all. He said that those cities may not want to give the LMCD anv more power than it currently has, but that that thinking may be a mistake. “Those dties should be represented because what is being discussed is serious stuff," he said. I Lake Minnetonka Cable Comntunications443 OAK STREET • EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331 • (612)474-5539 I 0 '990 11 u DATE: TO: FROM: RE: Dec«mber 18« 1989 LNCCC MEMBERS Jennifer Watts 1990 MEETING SCHEDULE AND LOCATION The following Is a list of dates, times and locations for our meetings In 1990. Please note our February full Commission meeting and system evaluation will be held at the Tonka Bay City Council Chambers In the Tonka Bay City Hall loc...ted at 4901 Manitou Road. Please mark your calendars for these dates: Jan.16,1990 Tues. 5 PM Executive Comm.LMCCC studio Feb.20,1990 Tues. 5 PM Full CoHiKiesion Tonka Bay 5:30 PM System Evaluation City Hall Mar.20,1990 Tues. 5 PM Executive Comm.LMCCC studio Apr.17,1990 Tues. 5 PM Executive Comm.LMCCC studio May 15,1990 Tues. 5 PM Full Commission Excelsior (Elections)City Hall June 19,1990 Tues. 5 PM Executive Comm.LMCCC studio July 17,1990 Tues. 5 PM Executive Comm.LMCCC studio / Aug.21,1990 Tues. 5 PM Full Commission Excelsior 1 City Hall 1 Sept 18,1990 Tues. 5 PM Executive Comm.LMCCC studio Oct.16,1990 Tues. 5 PM Executive Comm.LMCCC studio 1: Nov.20,1990 Tues. 5 PH Full Commission Excelsior ? City Hall Dec.18,1990 Tues. 5 PM Executive Comm.LMCCC studio Thank you. 8 Minnetonka Cable Communications443 OAK STREET • EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474-S39'<^'^|[jul I 01990 IliykTE:OM:December 18, 1909 LMCCC MEMBERS Jennifer Watte1990 MEETING SCHEDULE AND LOCATIONetinae**rn"?Qin * dates, times and locations for our etino aid February full Commission uiil? ? evaluation sill be held at the Tonka Bay City ni?iJ R^ad ^ * *** loc-ted at 4901 ease mark your calendars for these dates: 1. 3 • k • 16, 1990 Tues, 5 PM 20, 1990 Tues. 5 PM 5:30 PM 20, 1990 Tues. 5 PM 17, 1990 Tues. 5 PM 15, 1990 Tues. 5 PM »e 19, 1990 Tues. 5 PM y 17, 1990 Tues. 5 PM I. 21, 1990 Tues. 5 PM t 10, 1990 Tues. S PM . 16, 1990 Tues. 5 PM . 20, 1990 Tues. 5 PM • 18, 1990 Tues. 5 PM nk you. Executive Comm. Full Commission System Evaluation Executive Comm. Executive Comm. Full Commission (Elections) Executive Comm. Executive Comm. Full Commission Executive Comm. Executive Comm. Full Commission Executive Comm. LMCCC studio Tonka Bay City Hall LMCCC studio LMCCC studio Excelsior City Hall LMCCC studio LMCCC studio Excelsior City Hall LMCCC studio LMCCC studio Excelsior City Hall LMCCC studio LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONEXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETINGTUESDAY, JANUARY 16. 5:00 P.M.COMMUNITY TV STUDIOEXCELSIOR COMMUNITY CENTER AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Approval of Minutes from December Meeting III. Reports: a) b) c) Officers Administrator Triax IV. Five-Year System Evaluation Update -System Evaluation Ciuestlonnaire response -Technical Evaluation report V. Unfinished Business VI. New Business VII. Adjournment ->■ilO] r«T<x*^ •! LM'.’CC t1inut:<sH t>aye Two - December 19, i969 ror tne lebruary tuli Cotnmisaxon and System Evaluation. That n “u':rTonL “’bav C,.«b*ra ^ ^ ^ ^ scheuules witn tlie Exoeisior. With no oommenta. Watts stated she would send the st-hedule out to members and cities in the next packet. Watts reminded the Committee the 1990 budget would go into efteot the lust oL January. Tne budget received appr oval^ti om all communities on the Commission. Additionally, Watts noted a vear-ei.d sysuem iitatUii repui l would be dratted and eent to Tn - • t r...., „.rvic.. .no gr... revenue. £or th. Snii;,'.' tiguxes wo«jld be an indicaUoi as to the amount oi iranchise tees tu be leceived by the Commission by March 31, 1990. Subscriber complaints leceived by the Commission otiice lor the months ol November ami becemoer numbered three, includinu a loiiow- up call trom a poteficial subscriber on an install date. Watts stated the evaluation process would address the issue ot inlormation provided to subscribers regarding the complaint process! Watts said no new information was available on the issue of soace reciaimation at ECC. cine noted the Minnetonka School District's uar! Uiiectors would be making a decision on the matter Jan- uaX y o• UpdisLes un itema fiom x<mt month's meeting included: A tuur to Waseca would be arranged tor March 20, it that can be CO,.With Tti.,. Th. co,t o£ chartering . .otirJLch“ou!d oot^it. would b. April 17. Ti.. £or tr.v.l ... Eeyarding the possible system upgrade mentioned at the last meeting by Ric Hanson, Watts said she had reviewed the ordinance that addressed the issue of upgrades and stated they were subject to toi!** P*^^^esses in place by the Commission. Some discussion comments, and it was stated that Triax should inform the commission when it was ready to propose system changes. Watts made available sample newsletters she had developed for use in ^hrnui?f communities and instiLtionl, the public in general with regard to the access facilities and activities. The newsletter could be sent to approximately 140 groups/indiv.i.duals each quarter for an annual coat of «140. The members agre id the newsletter was a good idea and felt there would be aufixcxent funds for mailing. I ! r-Trtwi«T« X [•IMS '3^ IT4 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON DECEMBER 11, 1989 The regular meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Monday, December 11, 1989. Present; Dave McKown Don Anderson Kitty Crosby James Franklin Lucie Taylor John Maresh Thomas Mich William Fenholt UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the consent agenda was approved as follows: - approved the minutes of the November 13, 1989 regular meeting; - approved the foT >g variance requests: Angela Haugen. ade 1, to attend Orono Schools for the 1989-90 school year, Tara Grande, grade 7, and Sean Grande, grade 8, to continue attendance at Orono Schools for the remainder of the 1989-90 school year, Wesley Pogue, grade 7, to continue attendance at Orono Schools for the 1989-90 school year, Edward Henrich, grade 4, and David Henrich, grade 6, to continue atten dance at Orono Schools for the remainder of the 1989-90 school year, Jessica Humphrey, grade 2, to continue her attendance at Wayzta Schools for the 1989-90 school year; - accepted the resignation of Marsha Noll, middle school cashier, effective November 30, 1989; - approved the Treasurer's Reports for August, September, and October, 1989; - approved the following new winter Early Childhood Family Education class offerings: ECFE WINTER CLASSES Approved by the Board of Education - 12/13/89 Parent/Child Classes 1. Parent/Child Siblings class (18 month • S year-olds in class together) 2. Family Fun Night * parent/child activity sessions with time for parents to receive information regarding behavior and development Parent Only Workshops 1. Guest Speaker: 2. Guest Speaker: Or. Linda Budd, "Children's Temperaments", Feb. 6, 7 - 9 PM Mary Chesney. R.N. , M.S., Cert. Pediatric Nurse Practitioner, "Promoting Your Child's Health", 3 separate sessions geared to age groups. Special Events 1. Parent/Infant offerings: Sensory Play Day, Dad and Me Activity Night, and Toymaking session 2. Parent/Child Sledding Party - Schumann Elementary, February 22, 10-11:15 AM 3. Dad and He Pizza and Playtime Night for Dads and their 2-5 year-olds. 4. Parent/Toddler Large Muscle "Obstacle Course" activity session (for "walkers' under 2 years old) - approved the bills as covered by vouchers 063975 through 064312. Dr. Mich reported that attendance by parents for parent/teacher conferences was excellent at all schools and that the time change at the high school level has been well received by both parents and teachers; that there are a variety of concerts being given by the schools at this time of the year and he encouraged Board members to attend; that an open house will be held at Orono Primary School on December 12 at 6:30 p.m.; that the first meeting of the expanded P.E.R. com mittee was held on December 5 under Connie Fladeland's leadership and he distri buted the committee membership list to the Board and stated that Board members are welcome to attend the meetings if they so choose; that the MSBA Convention will be held on January 18, 19, 20, 1990. Don Anderson expressed appreciation to administration for their work in the equity lawsuit as acknowledged in a letter from Timothy J. Pawlenty, attorney for the intervening school districts in the equity lawsuit. Or. Mich, in turn, expressed appreciation to the district office staff for their work in compiling all the necessary information for the attorney. Dave McKown stated that a parent whose children are attending Orono through open enrollment had contacted him to express appreciation for the way they had been accepted at Orono by students, teachers, and administration. Regarding the revised construction plan. Dr. Mich informed the Board that the Facilities Committee has made decisions on the best way to reduce costs, without compromising on quality, and that the committee now asks the Board to grant approval for the architect and construction manager to proceed with bidding according to the reductions proposed. Jim Franklin MOVED, Lucie Taylor SECONDED, that the Board of Education approve the construction plan proposed by the Facilities Committee. Construction plan follows: Sumnary of Board Facilities Committee Meeting with Architect & Construction Manager December 5, 1989 Following are the major points discussed and the agreements reached: 1. Shotcrete will be specified in the base bid. However, it will be left to the contractor if he wishes to substitute cast-in-place concrete. 2. He will go with the stainless steel gutter system which precludes the need for tunnels. The S2,000 surge tank savings is a part of the overall gutter system bid. 3. 4. Metal halide lights will be specified but the bid will call for an indirect lighting system and, if funds are available, the Board will consider it. Air handling units will be on the roof with special walkways to protect the membrane roof. 5. The district will do final grading, sod and seed. 6. Aluminum connectors are acceptable. 7. He will go with the sand filter system and will review carefully the various systems available. 8. Fiberglass acoustic board is acceptable provided that Bob Rego checks insulation and is satisfied. 9. Orywall will be placed above hall lockers. 10. Ceiling tile will be 2'x2'. 11. Marcite will be specified in the pool tank below the gutters but an alternate ceramic bid will be taken. 12. Acoustical ceiling in the pool will be a less costly system than original design. If absolutely necessary, it could be added later but all present hoped this would not be necessary. Mr. Christensen will supply the Board with a revised listing of alternates. This meeting resulted in an overall savings of S996,466 with total bids now estimated at $2,674,434, including construction manager fee. Hhen one adds the architect's fees of $162,000 and $88,000 for furniture and equipment, the total cost of the building is at $2,924,434. This leaves a "cushion" of about $75,000. Mr. Christensen's revised budget for construction costs is attached. Mr. Christensen stated that he was comfortable with the estimate, as he generally comes in at 1-2$ within estimate. Everyone agreed that it was good to have the "cushion." For example, furniture and equipment will probably exceed the $88,000 estimate. The Board received the project schedule (attached) from the Construction Manager. This schedule shows bids to be taken no later than February 15 with completion of the project in November. This schedule holds out the possibility of using classrooms the second semester of 1990-91. W.A.F. 1 I Pw^mlian ^ I P Corporanon D«c«Bib«r 5, 1989 Mr. Bill r*nholt Assistant to the Superintendent ORONO SCHOOL DISTRICT f278 685 Old Crystal Bay Road Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Re: Construction Budget Orono Pool and Classroon Addition Orono, Minnesota Dear Sir: The attached budget is herein submitted for your review. Our budget for construction costs is in the amount of $2,675,000. This includes amounts for base bids received on September 19, 1989 and the alternates noted. Alternates are described in more detail in our letter uO you dated November 9, 1989. Additional savings, which are currently under review, include storm sewer and sales tax revisions. If you desire additional information or clarification on any item in this budget, please call. Very truly yours, CHRISTENSOI^nBUI^DING CORPORATION Ronald A. Christenson RAC:kg Enclosure DtvtlopmBnt tnd ConstntcOon MsntQt/ntnt Stnricts 2910 Multitoods Tower • 33 South Sixth Street • Minneapolis, Minnesott S5402 • (6t2) 59M393 EXHIBIT A C0B8TK0CTI0N B0S6ST OROHO POOL AHD CLASSROOM ADDITION OROBO, NimiESOTA BASE BIDS 6«n«ral Machanlcal Elactrical ALTERMATES 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 13. 14. $120,000 Oaa Construction Management vs. General Contracting project delivery system; fee reduction. Substitute 4" rockface block with 12" backup and 2" rigid insulation for all exterior walls. Substitute 14" plain, painted block walls for glased masonry unit walls shown inside the pool area. | go,000 Rebid and actively solicit competitive bids through Construction Management. $100,000 Relocate duct work in the pool area from the tunnel to the roof; eliminate tunnels around pool. f 89,540 Substitute EPDM roof with phonolic foam insulation for built-up roof. | 80,000 Alternate casework for classrooms. Alternate acoustical ceiling panels in the pool area. Omit all work in shop areas $ 10,000 $ 24,000 $ 58,000 Substitute Marcite for ceramic tile in pool. Target and racing lanes to remain ceramic tile. I 55,355 Delete whirlpool and revise finishes in Physical Therapy room No. 116; keep mechanical and electrical rough-in | 34,061 Delete cast in place concrete pool and substitute Shotcrete. | 35,300 $2,465,300 871,000 337,800 Exhibit A Orono Pool and Classroom Addition Dacomber 5, 1989 Pago Two 15. 17. 18. 21. 23. 24. 25. 28. 30. 31. 33. Revisa construction schadula; bagin Spring of 1990 and avoid tamporary haat costs.I 36,000 Substituta joist and dack for 12'* precast planks at roof in classroom area and mechanical wing. f 28,250 Substitute carpeting for terrazzo in the corridors. $ 27,255 Substitute asphalt paving for concrete paving. | 20,000 Omit full height ceramic wall tile. Substitute 4*0" wainscot in rooms 106, 111, 126, 131, 133, 205 and 215.I 16,285 Delete custom light fixtures at pool area and substitute standard metal halide fixtures. | 15,000 Relocate air handling units to roof. | 12,700 Change pool piping from Sch. 80 flanged plastic to Sch. 40 glued. $ 11,000 Delete two courses of block in pool area.I 4,000 Substitute Republic lockers for Debourgh Manufacturing lockers as specified; knock down lockers. I 9,178 Omit front entry wall at ramp and pedestals. Keep stairs and install on grade ramp on one side only. Omit curved portions of slab between ramp and building.$ 8,250 34. Substitute seeding for all sod work. | 8,000 36. Delete ceramic tile floors in locker room nos. 133 and 106 and substitute concrete floor sealer. 37. Omit vinyl wall covering; substitute painted walls (two coats). f 7,000 I 6,611 i*.' ji’ Exhibit A Orono Pool and Clasiroom Addition Dacanbar 5, 1989 Paga Three 38. 39. 40. 42. 43. 44. 49. 50. 51. 52. 54. 56. 57. 58. 59. Substitute alternate carpet for the Bigelow's "Interwove Highlights" specified.$ 5,632 Use aluninuin conductors for services from transformer to main panel and main to sub-panels. I Change cast iron soil pipe to PVC. f Substitute vacuum sand filter for Diatumatious Earth vacuum system as specified. I Use No. 10 stainless for ramp rail. | Substitute 6" of Class 5 for paving of ^ire lane in rear of building. | Substitute fiberglass board for ceramic acoustic board in office and locker room ceilings (Rooms 106, 107, 133, 134) | Delete surge tank and related valves, piping and transfer pump. Omit custom color frame; use standard size windows. Omit all exterior walks on west side of building. I Omit cast in place stairs and substitute steel pan poured steps. | Substitute Durafirm 1 meter board for Paragon board specified. Pool sound Pool scoreboard. Redesign front of building. 5,000 5,000 4,800 2,000 4,400 2,000 $ 2,000 I 2,000 1,500 1,159 I 1,000 I 14,900 I 12,780 I 25.000 (1996,466) TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 12,674,434 SC] 5 -ii I i . ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I iBBI II ■■■! ■■■! II !■■■■■■■■■■■lani l■■■■l ■■■! ii !■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I Ml II l■■■■l ■■■! II !■■■■■■■■■■■Ml !■■■■■■ ■■■• II' iiipaBaaaaaBanai n n Maaaai aai; ij Mpaaaaaaaaa ■ISaSaBaaaaBaBaaai II n■aBBBt •aall ii laaBBBBBBBBi allEaBBBaBi n mbbEbbi lEliaaBi ii bi 'aPB iBBBiBaaaBp|Ba::s!Ti si isbb &h»Fsh^iiiaaaa i iiMaaEBaBnlEaaaaiiBflBaBpi BaaiE iBai liiEEaaaai i ii laaaaaaai laaBaaBi laBiaaai laBaai ibbbb aapiaaBaai II laaaai aai aaapBi iiiaBBaap aaaaiiBBaBriplEaBaai ii ibbbI ii aai EaaEBi ii liaEaBE iaBt iBBaaiIrlBBBBanBiuiBBBi II aai iBBBi ibi iBBBaaa ibbbiibbbbb PBaBBBBI IBIII IBani II IBBI BBBBI IBI IBBaBBBBBBPI IBBBBB HaBBBBBI Ml II IBB IBBaBI BBaaBB aBMBBBBBI IBBBBBBriilBaai Miiiiai mEbbi afiaBaa iaaBEiiiaai laaBBaa F:IEiaai laai ii iBaa*M**' aiaaaa iBaaaBBaai luaaaaBB LiaaBBi laai ii laiiaaBat lafiaBaa iBBaBaaEai laaBaaBB 1 Discussio' ensued with Don Anderson stating, along with approval of the construction plan, he would like the Board to give the Facilities Committee the authority to approve the final design and order the bidding. Don Anderson MOVED, Lucie Taylor SECONDED, to amend the motion to grant the Facilities Committee the authority to approve the final design and order the bidding. The question was called on the »iiendment to the motion. Carried unanimously. The question was called on the motion as amended. Carried unanimously. Dr. Mich stated that according to the timeline that has been developed, the new building should be completed by the middle of November, 1990 which would enable occupancy of the building for the second semester of the 1990-91 school year. UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the Board of Edu'^ation ratified the Teachers' Master Contract for 1989-91 as recommended by the School Board Negotiations Committee. Dave McKown expressed appreciation to the Board Negotiating Committee for all of the time/effort they gave in this process. Jim Franklin stated that he appre ciates the good working relationship that exists with the teachers and the effort put forth to resolve issues in the bargaining process. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by Jim Franklin, the School Board engaged the services of Christensen Building Corporation as construction manager for the classroom and pool addition construction project. Member Kitty Crosby introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: m ISI«l2l ;j^.' - and considering sealed bids for, and awarding the sale of, the Certificates. The Clerk or i';?r designee shall open bids at the time and place specified in such Notice of Sale. 3. Notice of Sale. The District Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the time, place and purpose of said meeting to be published in the official newspaper of the District and in the Northwestern Financial Review not less than ten (10) days in advance of the date of sale, as provided by law, which notice shall be in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof. 4. Official Terms of Offering. The terms and conditions of the Certificates and the sale thereof are fully set forth in the "Official Terms of Offering" attached hereto as Exhibit B and hereby made a part hereof. 5. Official Statement. The District Clerk and Treasurer and other officers or employees of the District are hereby authorized to participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Certificates. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Don Anderson and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof; Crosby, Taylor, Franklin, .'.nderson, McKovm and the following voted against the same: None Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 5290 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of Independent School District No. 278 (Orono) Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original minutes of a meeting of the School Board of said District duly called and held on the date therein indicated. which are on file and of record in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to said District’s $1,660,000 General Obligation Tax Anticipation Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 1990A. WITNESS my hand as such Clerk this _ _ _ _ _. 19^. day of ' District Clerk ~—' 529Q EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF SALE $1,660,000 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 (ORONO) HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX ANTICIPATION CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS, SERIES 1990A Sealed bids for these Certificates will be opened January 22, 1990 at 1:00 o’clock P.M., Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, in Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101. Consideration of the bids for award of the Certificates will be by the School Board at 7:00 o'clock P.M., the same day at the District Offices in Orono, Minnesota. The Certificates will be dated Febrtiary 12, 1990, as the date of original issue. Interest will be payable at maturity. The Certificates will be general obligations of the Issuer for which its unlimited taxing powers will be pledged. The Certificates will mature without right of redemption on March 12, i991. Sealed bids for not less than $1,655,000 and accrued interest on the principal sum of $1,660,000 will be accepted. An approving legal opinion will be furnished by Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota. The proceeds will be used for the same purpose for which taxes payable in the year 1990 were levied. Bidders should be aware that the Official Terms of Offering to be published in the Official Statement for the Certificates may contain additional biddin<j terms and information relative to the Certificates. In thn ‘’.ont of a variance between statements in this Notice of Sale and said Official Terms of Offering, the provisions of the latter shall be those to be complied with. Dated: December 11, 1989 BY ORDER OF THE SCHOOL BOARD /s/ Katherine P. Crosby District Clerk Additional Information may be obtained from: SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED 855 East Seventh Place Suite 100 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2143 Telephone No.: (612) 223-3000 4 EXHIBIT B OFFICIAL TERMS OF OFFERING $1,660,000 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 278 ORONO, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX ANTICIPATION CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS, SERIES 1990A Sealed bids for the Certificates will be received by the District on Monday. January 22.1990. until 1:00 P.M.. Central Time, at the offices of SPRINGSTED Incorporated. 85 East Seventh Place. Suite 100. Saint Paul. Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Certificates will be by the School Board at 7:00 P.M.. Central Time, of the same day. DETAILS OF THE CERTIFICATES The Certificates will be dated February 12. 1990, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable at maturity on March 12, 1991. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months and will be rounded pursuant to rules of the MSRB. The Certificates will be issued in the denomination of $5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof, as requested by the purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the registrar and interest on each Certificate will be payable by check or draft of the registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at the holder's address as it appears on the books of the registrar as of the close of business on the 25th day of February, 1991. The Certificates will mature March 12,1991. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The Certificates will not be subject to payment in advance of their respective stated maturity dates. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Certificates will be general obligations of the District for which the District will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. The proceeds will be used for the same purpose for which taxes payable in 1990 were levied. TYPE OF BID Bids shall be for not less than $1.655,020 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Certificates, and shail be accompanied by a certified or cashier ’s check in the amount of $16,600, payable to the order of the District. No bid will be considered for which said check has not been received. The District will deposit the check of the purchaser, the amount of which wiil be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted bid, said amount will be retained by the District. No bid can be withdrawn after the time set for receiving bids unless the meeting of the District scheduled for award of the bids is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award cf the Certificates having been made. Bidders shall specify a single rate of interest. Certificates cf the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Certificates to the date of maturity. No conditional bid will be accepted AWARD The Certificates will be awarded to the bidder offering the lowest dollar interest cost to be deternnined by the deduction of the premium, if any, from, or the addition of any amount less than par, to the total dollar interest on the Certificates from their data to their final scheduled maturity. The D'strict ’s computation of the total net dollar interest cost of each bid, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The District will reserve the right to; (i) waive non-substantive informalities of any bid or of matters relating to the receipt of bids and award of the Certificates, (ii) reject all bids without cause, and, (iii) reject any bid which the District determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. REGISTRAR The District will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The District will pay for the services of the registrar. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Certificates qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Certificates, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Certificate nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Certificates. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Certificates will be delivered without cost to the purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the District and the purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Briggs and Morgan, a Professional Association of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the Certificates, and of customary closing papers, including a no-litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Certificates shall be made in fe ‘>ral, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the District or its designee r,<jt later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Certificates shall have been made impossible by action of the Distric', or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the District for any loss suffered by the District by reasons of the purchaser ’s non- compliance with said terms for payment. OFFICIAL STATEMENT Unden^vriters may obtain a copy of the Official Statement by request to the District ’s Financial Advisor prior to the bid opening. The syndicate manager will be provided with 50 copies of the Official Statement. Dated December 11.1989 BY ORDER OF THE SCHOOL BOARD /s/ Katherine P. Crosby District Clerk - II Dr. Mich addressed the Sexual Harassment Policy that the Board had received in their packet. He stated that adoption of a sexual harassment policy for the district will insure compliance with state and federal laws dealing with sexual harassment and that the proposed policy has been reviewed by administration and that this is a first reading for the Board with adoption of the policy to be presented at the first meeting in January. Jim Franklin expressed r-ncern •■egarding two areas. These items were noted by administration and wdl be studied/reviewed before the policy is presented for adoption. Dave McKown opened the public hearing on the proposed tax levy for comment. Hr. Fenholt gave a brief overview of the property tax levies by fund, noting that the total levy for 1990 represents a S463,752 decrease compared with the 1989 levy. The main reason for the levy reduction is the increase in state school aids provided under the recently enacted tax reform law. Mr. Fenholt recom mended that the Board certify the final property tax levy for 1990. There being no comments from the audience, Mr. McKown closed the public hearing. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the School Board adopted the final property tax levy for 1989, collectible 1990, as shown below, and directed the Clerk to certify the levy to the Hennepin County Auditor. General Fund (Maintenance) Transportation Community Service Capital Expenditure General Debt Service $6,836,843.54 635,311.14 165,065.10 590,743.13 354,226.00 $8,582,188.91 Don Egnell, Froehling, Anderson, Plowman & Egnell, Ltd., presented the 1988-89 Audit Report. Mr. Egnell briefly summarized the audit report for Board members stating that the audit supported an unqualified opinion in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Dr. Mich expressed appreciation to Bill Fenholt and George Stubbs for their work/efforts in working with the auditors. Mr. Egnell reiterated Or. Mich's comments and also expressed appreciation to the district office staff for their assistance and cooperation. UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by John Maresh, the Board of Education accepted the audit of school district records for 1988-89 as submitted by Don Egnell of Froehling, Anderson, Plowman and Egnell, Ltd. UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Oira Franklin, the meeting was adjourned. C^LO^J^ Katherine PTCr^by, uer^ Approved: \k Dave McKown, Chairman LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA Regular Meeting, 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, January 24, 1990 Tonka Bay City Hall 4901 Manitou Road (County Road 19) 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Reading of Minutes: 12*6-89 Regular Meeting 4. Public Conents - from persons in attendance not on agenda 5.Reports A. Chair Cochran 1) Personnel review and recommendations for compensation adjustments Draft Shoreland Grant Contract and Management Plan partial fund re imbursement from MN DNR, per advance review copy, engaging the 14 Lake communities with LMCD for Shoreland Rules adoption Save the Lake Recognition Dinner, Thursday, February 15, Lord Fletcher's Executive Session to consider St. Alban's Bay Marina and Yacht Club, Inc. litigation, immediately following this meeting 5) Additional announcements 3) 4) B.Financial Reports: Treasurer Lewman 1) Statement of Cash Transactions, months ending 11-30-89 and 12-31-89 2) Audit of vouchers for payment C.Standing Committees 1) WATER STRUCTURES & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE: Chair Grathwol a) approval of minutes, 1-13-90 (enclosed) b) David Thomas residential development new dock license. South Upper Lake, Victoria, recommending approval for 5 slips on a 100' multiple dock, and 1 slip on each of 3 riparian lots c) Amendmert to Code S2.05, Subd. 4(a)(16), recommending approval to Include existing as well as proposed amenities, and reviewing amenities for ranking in value by 10-90 City of Wayzata Special Density and New Dock Licenses, recommending approval subject to requirement for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) City of Deephaven Special Density License, Kew Dock License, and Variance applications for dock expansions in Carson's and St. Louis Bays, tabled for further application adjustments and pay ment of fees (continued) LMCD Board Agenda LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2 January 24» 1990 5. C. 1) run f) Proposed Code amendment for an Interim Ordinance to Restrict Licensing, Construction and Maintenance of New Commercial and Multiple Docks, recommending approval for two years g) Recommendation to declare a negative response and determination that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required for Minnetonka Boat Works (Orono), and recommending approval for the Special Density and New Dock License applications h) Recommendation for a Discretionary EAW for Wayzata Yacht Club's District Mooring Area, In response to Its 1990 temporary low water variance request, extending the mooring area to 800* i) Review recommending multiple dock licensees requesting refund of dock fees be subject to a New Dock License and accompanying license restrictions, or responsible for full fees to preserve existing dock privileges j) Recommendation to renew Guidelines for Temporary Residential Dock Extensions without Formal Permit Application during years In which low water is declared k) Temporary Low Water Variance renewals for Multiple Dock Licenses renewed for 1990 to date, recommending approval 1) Recommendation to Declare Low Water for the 1990 Lake Minnetonka Boating Season m) Reconnnendatlon to accept the application and to table Pelican Point residential development pending complete development plans n) Recommendation to approve Rockvam Boat Yards temporary low water extension request, and to change the dock from permanent piling to floating dock In exact same dock configuration 5- C. 2) ENVIRONMENT, Chair Reese a) Recommendation to request LMCD cities to assist In weed unloading and providing a disposal site for Eurasian Water Milfoil weeds cut in the 1990 season b) Progress on Eurasian Water Milfoil budget and organization plans 5. C. 3)LAKE USE COIOfITTEE, Chair Pillsbury a) Approval of minutes 1-22-90 (to be submitted 1-24) b) Hennepin County Lake Improvement Section 1990 Quiet Water Areas and Low Water Hazard Buoy placement plan, pending committee outcome of 1-22 c) Code amendment corresponding with Resolution 59, Open Water Fishing Contests, recommending approval d) Charter boat registration, recommended changes per committee out come of 1-22 e) New Special Fvent application, private fishing contest and chill lunch, per committee outcome of 1-22 (continued) t •I LMCD Board Agenda 5. C. 3) LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT3 January 24, 1990 5. C. 4. f) Policy for Special Event Licenses prior to installation of buoys on the Lake during low water level, per committee outcome of 1-22 g) Policy for Special Event applications for water skiing slalom submerged buoys between uses, per committee outcomeor 1-22 outco^rori-22 report, pending committee ADVISORY cmMITTEE, Chair Rascop, Consultant Arndorfer a) Recommendation for approval of December expenses of $5,512.39 b) Progress report on Introduction statement to Management Plan J"*:ergovernmental Relations and Funding Committee joint meeting of 1-18 d) Report development to assist directors in reports to cities on Management Plan readiness, public hearing/comment period e) Meeting schedule f) Additional funding for Management Plan Reports D. Executive Director's Report, Stronunen a) Administrative priorities b) Announcements 6. Unflolahed Business A. As recommended by the Board 7. New Business A. As recommended by the Board 8. Adjournment 5. 1-19-90 LAKE HlNNI-roNKA CUNLEHVATIUN LIDTUICT LOAIiD OF UlltECTOHii Ucf^Iar Moetinn.V:30 p.m. ,Df3cr~'"*r G, 1989 Tonka Lay City H«»> 1. Call to Order The meeting was ca Cochran at 8:10 p.m. order by Chair 2. Roll Call Members present: David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Marvin B.jorlin, Tonka Bay; Jan Boswinkel, Secretary, Minnetonka Beach; Bert Foster, Vice Chair, Deepliaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; JoEllen Hurr, Orono; Douglas Babcock, Spring Park; John Lewman, Treasurer, Minnetrista; Tliomas Martinson, Wayzata; Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Robert Ra.. 3 *p, Shorewood; Thomas Reese, Mound; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also present: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director; Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Cliff Schmidt, Hennepin County Sheriff’s Water Patrol; David Arndorfer, Consul tant. Member absent: John Malinka, Victoria 3. Reading of Minutes: Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, approval of the minutes of the October 25, 1989 regular neetirig as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Public Comments: There were no comments from persons in attendance not on the agenda. 5. Reports A. Chair Cochran 1) Eurasian Water Milfoil. Task Force Cochran reported Reese, as Chair, will handle agency relationships with the task force. BJorlin will serve as operations vice cliair and the funding vice chair has yet to be designated. Cochran requested consideration by the Board members so the vacancy can be filled within the week. 2. LMCD-DNR Shorcland Contrf'ict and Comprelicnsive Management Plan Funding Propvisal The Executive Director furnished the Board with a summarization of t.lie DNR’.s offer to provide partial funding for the Comprehensive Management t'lan (Bhoreland section) and LMCD to serve as the managing agency for involving its 14 municipal communities in the; adoption of tlie revised statewide Shoreiand Rules. The lump sum amount for the two programs will be $100,000 as detailed in the report dated November 29,1909. John Stine. Regional Hydrologist, MN Department of Natural Resources, stated the grant propo.sai is mutually beneficial to the MN DNR and LMCD in that it will provide the MN DNR with a local coordinator and as.sist the LMCD in payment for the Management Plan. LMCD Board of Directors December 6, 1989 to handle theStine outlined the proftram as follows: 1) The Board would enRURo a staff person program. 2) That person will tevelop a model ordinance in conformance with the LMCD Management Plan as well as justification for any deviations from the State Shoreland Rules. 3) That person will present the proposed ordinance to the cities and assist their staff people in making revisions to their ordinance. , 4) The LMCD Executive Director will handle the administration of grant funds to local governments on a 50-50 match with eligible expenditures. Stine noted the grant contract will require the signatures of all fourteen LMCD community mayors. Ail cities mu.st adopt the new rules no later than December 31. 1991. The grant funds will be available to LMCD in January. 1990. A training workshop is being conducted by DNIt 1/31 - 2/1/90. Babcock asked how this reduction in the anticipated $100,000 grant from the DNR for the management plan will affect the budget. He was infoi'ined reserve funds are being used. Hurr requested the $40,000 grant for Management Plan funding be now in advance of the City Shoreland Rules grants, fatine responded the MN DNR prefers a single contract, but he would investigate the possibility. Martinson moved. Bjorlin seconded, to approve preparation of the contract with the MN DNR. sub.iect to review by Counsel, and submission to the Board at tlie January 24 meeting. Martinson and Bjorlin accepted an amendment from Hurr which would include asking for separation into two contracts to permit funding of the Management Plan grant prior to approval funds for implementation by the 14 cities. Motion unanimously. B. Financial Reports. Trea.surer Lev/man 1) Tlie Board accepted and ordered filed the statement of cash transactions for the month ending 10/31/89. 2) Lewman moved. Boswinkel seconded, approval of vouchers for payment Nos. 5745 - 5825 for November and 5826 - 5851 in the amount of $8,968.14 for December. Motion carried unanimously. advance of the carried C. Standing Committees 1) WATER STRUCTURES & El MENT COMMITTEE. Cliair Grathwol Fostera) Approval of minutes. Grathwol mo'*ed, --US; -iS C. Turnquist. Pelican Point Development, Mound, including a n ts mixture I miwt][•^HsXtl Otf««Tin mii^t l•^•J•x•X£X• I ^ j 1 LMCD Board of Directors December 6, 1989 c) City of Hayzata New Multiple Dock License and Special Density Perrit •irathwol moved, Foster seconded, approval of a revised and combined new multiple dock license and special density permit for the Cdty of Wayzata authorizing 15 additional slips to its Upper Marina as described in the 12/6/89 public hearing. The motion and second were withdrawn following a discussion o? amenities and the possibility of adopting an ordinance which would consider all special density permits as new applications for the pui'p.se of defining amenities. Wayzata’s upper and lower marina permit was granted before the ordinance requiring amenities. The most recent addition to their facilities was the transient docks at Broadway Avenue. This application did not involve a special density permit since it was predicated on on 1,390’ of shoreline from the depot to Broadway Avenue complying with the 1:50 rule. Grathwol moved, Foster seconded, a motion directing the staff to prepare the Public Hearing findings and order to approve the application of the City of Wayz<ta for a new Multiple Dock License and Cpecial Density Permit allowing 15 additional slips in its Upper Marina. Babcock said the Spring Pai'k Council would like to see amenities as a part of the application. Rascop would like follow the procedure of returning the application to Committee following the Public Hearing. He also would like answer as »hether an environmental assessment worksheet nee' Hur suggested an amendment to the ordinance covering am< a: they relate to special density permits should be cor, .d before determining the outcome of the Wayzata app„ ion. the to the an is The motion and second were withdrawn. Hurr moved, BJoriin ser.onded, to direct the staff to draft an ordinance amendment to roi'iect the discussion of combining all existing and new amenities applying to special density permit applications. Motion carried, Lewman votinrr nay. Bjoriin was excused. Martinson moved, Grathwf seconded, approval of the City of Wayzata application for a new 'ck license and special density permit. Foster moved, Rascop stoonded, to table discussion of the City of Wayzata application and return it to the Water Str’/.cture and Environment Committee. Motion carried, Boswinkel, Reooo and Martinson voting nay. I t F . LMCD Board of Directors December 6, 1989 Variance deposit refund Rascop moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve th« inspection report recommendinj^ variance deposit refund for Rosenblum-Ulrich and new dock license deposit refund for Cardinal Cove Beach Association of $100 each plus $20 WSU adjustment for Cardinal Cove Beach Association. Motion carried unanimously. e) Late dock license renewal Rascop moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the Crystal Bay Service 1989 late dock license renewal. Motion carried unanimously. f) Deicing applications Rascop moved, Grathwol seconded, approval of seventeen deicing renewals, including the late renewal for Reid MacDonald, Minnetonka Beach, as follows: Curly's r.netonka Marina, Gayle’s Marina Corp., Gray’s Bay Resort & Marina, Howard's Point Marina, Maxwell Bay Marina, Minnetonka Boat Works, Inc. (Wayzata), Minnetonka Boat Works, Inc. (Orono), Minnetonka Yacht Club, North Shore Drive Marina, Paul Resberg, Rockvan Boat Yards, Inc., Smith’s Bay Marina, Rodney Wallace, Wayzata, City of Wayzata Yacht Club (Site 1), James Wyer. Motion carried unanimously. g) New Deicing Application Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, appro''^! of a deicing permit for Wayzata Yaclit Club, Site 2. Motion carried unanimously. Hurr was excused. 2) EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE - Chair Reese a) Proposed Contract for Barge Service Reese submitted a summary of a proposed barging contract for transporting weeds harvest-. \ from the weed harvester to shore in order to improve wee^i liarvesting tx*ansport efficiency. A suggestion to advertise for a request for proposals (RFP) was deemed not a good plan in this instance with so many conditions in the weed liarvesting operation requiring explanation which a contract bid provides. Foster moved, Boswinkel seconded, approved preparation of a contract for transporting weeds harvested and authorized advertisement for bids. Motion carried unanimously. > LMCD Board of Diroctors December 6, 1969 b) Progress on Equlpoient Maintenance Reese reported Harvester It2 will be the last to have maintenance completed within a week and then put in storage. Responding to Babcock’s question, the executive director stated maintenance was not specifially budgeted for 1989 with no experience on which to base a maintenance budget. c) Project Manager Reese submitted a position description for a part time project manager who would serve as an independent consultant to the weed control program, taking over most responsibilities now conducted by the executive director. Rascop asked liow this position affects consultant Rob Merila's duties. T!i2 executive director reported that some of Merila’s duties will be ad.iustcd, and the pro.iect director’s duties would include items tliat are not within Merila’s expertise. Merila will report to the project manager. Cost of this consulting service will be incorporated into the 1990 weed coitorol budget. Reese moved, Cochran seconded, to authorize advertisement for a part time project manager consultant for the weed control program, candidates to be considered at the January board meeting. Motion carried, Rascop voting nay. 3) LAKE USE COMMITTEE, Chair Pillsbury a) Minutes Pillsbury moved, Foster seconded, approval of the minutes of the 11/19/89 meeting of the Lake Use Committee. Motion carried unanimously. b) Charter Boat Code Amendment Foster moved, Pillsbury seconded, to approve the draft of an Ordinaiice Relating to the Registration of Charter Boats Amending Section 3.07, Subdivision .3 and 4, with an addition at the end of Subd. .3 to include State of Minn<-f.'{‘'M<a inspect.Irns a.s may be required by law from time to time. Kotion carried unanimously. c) Reaffirm Resolution No. b9. Regarding fl.shing contest renewal application deadline. Foster moved, Reese seconded, reaffirmation of Resolution No. 59 allowing fishing contest renewal application deadline to be within 90 days of event date to avoid late penalty. Motion carried unaniinouslv. 6 W LMCD Board of Directors December 6, 1989 Code Anendncnt to Ai^ree with Resolution No. 59 Foster moved. Grathwol seconded, to amend Code Sec.3.09.Subd. 5(b) to agree with Resolution No. 59. permitting applications to be submitted 90 days in advance of the open-water fishing event to avoid the $50 late fee penalty. Motion carried unanimously. e and f) Correspondence The Board accepted the Committee authorized the following correspondence: recommendation to Letter to Mr. Brodie to respond to his concerns about silt build-up believed from boats passing through the channel near the Areola Bridge. Letter to charter boat operators to use the east-west channel only, except for emergencies, for traffic from the Areola Bridge to Lower Lake North. g) Code Revision - Speed Limit Rascop moved, Foster seconded, to instruct the staff to investigate the need for a possible Code revision to resolve the 5 vs 6 mph difference between MM DNR and LMCD regulations. Motion carried unanimously. h) Deputy Cliff Schmidt, Sheriff’s Water Patrol, no new information to add to tlie report given at the Lake Committee meeting. had Use i) Babcock circulated a Charter Boat Study *b- Committee meeting notice for 4: .'30 p.m. , Wednesday December 20th at the LMCD Office. He submitted an updated charter boat study reflecting comments at the Committee meeting. The study group intends to prepare suggestions before having a meeting with the charter boat operators. The executive director reported he has been contacted by a charter boav operator t’ho was concerned about changes in berthing, as many operators have already made dockage arrangements foi* 1990. The Board indicated any such changes could be delayed from going into jffect until the 1991 boating season. 4) ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Cliair Rascop,Consultant Arndorfer a) Report on 12/2/89 meeting Rascop reported that the nine preliminary management plan topics were well received witli the exception of the comments by the Sheriff on the Public Safety plan. Arndorfer submitted a Lift_ LMCD Doarcl of DirecLorn Deconiber 6, 1969 management plan review calendar which proposes completion by mid August, 1990. He would like to meet with former Chairs of the District in January for their comments. Implementation cannot occur until after Metrop‘olitan Council review. b) Progress report Arndorfer plans tlie final Intergovernmental Relations/Funding subcommittee meeting Thursday, January 18. c) Uillliig Foster moved, Pillsbury seconded, authorization accept Arndorfer’s November services payment in the amount $7,491. Motion carried unanimously. to of Arndorfer expressed liis appreciation to the presenters and members for their contribution to the success of the December 2 meeting. D. EXECUTIVK 1)1 UKCTUU’UEl’OUT, (Jene Gtrommen 1) Administrative Priorities Tl»e Executive Director expressed liis appreciation to the Board for the support given in obtaining the participation of tlieir cities in the 12/2 meeting, representation being excellent. The comment period on the Wayznta Boat Works Oror>t> EAW ends December 13. Tlie Metropolitan Council has indicated they have no ob.iection to the expansion. Dock licen.se applications are beitig received, tlie pre application review process resolving a number of discrepancies. Lewman was excused. Tlie executive director reported Muriel Gtewart’s services as bookkeeper/clerk have been very satisfactory. The final quarterly financial report is scheduled for the January meeting. An early 1989 audit is also planned, compared to past mid->«*ar Liming. 2) Annual Review Preparations The Executive Director submitted an outline of current position responsibilities and an overview of the position responsibilities as the.v have developed since then. He expects to meet with the officers before the January Board meeting to discuss 1909’s achievement.s and pro.ieotions for 1990. 0 a LMCD Board of Directors December 6, 1909 6. Unfinished Business. A. The Comprehensive Management Plan/Shoreland Contract was covered under the Chair’s report. 7. New Business A. Designation of official newspaper Pillsbury moved, Rascop seconded, to re-appoint the three newspapers now serving the District as official newspaper in 1990. LeFevere suggested the Board select one paper as the official newspaper so an official publication date can be ascertained, using the other newspapers for publication as often as possible. Pillsbury and Rascop withdrew their motion. Reese moved, Cochi'an seconded, to designate THE SAILOR as the official newspaper and to encourage the staff to publish legal notices in the other newspapers whenever possible. Motion carried unanimously. B. Conibbee Assignments for 1990. The Board received th<_- Committee Roster and assignments C. 1990 Board Calendar Cochran moved, Pillsbury seconded, approval of the 1990 calendar, changing the Advisory Committee meeting date to January 17. The annual Recognition Dinner is scheduled for its traditional month of February, the 15th. Motion carried unanimously. D. Oath Of Office LeFevere administered the oath of office to Boswinkel. He was seated as Secretary. Jan E. Rascop introduced a discussion of the exclusion of wetlands in counting the 1:50 shoreline density rule for watercraft. LeFevere noted this exclusion will not exclude building a dock over the wetlands. Rascop moved, Grathwol seconded, to direct the attorney to draft a change to Ordinance 2.02, shoreland requirements, to prohibit wetlands being counted in the 1:50 general rule. Motion carried, Reese voting nay. I i LMCD Board of Directors December 6« 1989 F. Babcock asked about any ordinances regarding boats frozen in the ice. Deputy Schmidt responded that buoys are to be removed normally by November 15, or December 15 with Water Patrol written approval. However, apparently there is no ordinance requiring boats to be removed from the lake at any specific date. 6. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting was adjourned at 11 p.m. David Cochran. Chair Jan Boswinkel, Secretary LAKE MINNETONKA CONSEKVATION DISTRICT Acbion Repor'fc oft Water Structures and Environment Committee Meeting:7:30 a.m., Saturday, January 13, 1990 LMCD Office, Waysata m. Members present: James Grat'.wol, Chair, Excelsior! Douglas Babcock, Spring Park; Marvin B.iorlin, Tonka Bay; Jan Boswinkel, Minnetonka Beach: David Cochran, Greenwood; Bert Foster, Deephavtn; JoEllen Hurr. Orono: John Lewman, Minnetrista; Thomas Martinson, Wayzata; Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Thomas Reese, Mound; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also present: Eugene Stro.jnen, Executive Director. The meeting was called to order by Grathwol at 7:30 a. 1. David Thomas development. New Dock License proposal and review of public hearing report. The committee reviewed the minutes and findings of the Public Hearing held on December 6, 1989 to consider the request of David Thomas for eight boat storage units (BSU) at a residential development, 6415 Baycliffe Drive, Victoria, South Upper Lake, Lake Minnetonka. The Executive Director reported water depth readings have been taken. They show the existing depth of water at the furthest slip, 84' distant from shore, is 4’ 10", not deep enough to n’low dockage for a sailboat with a typical draft of 5 feet to 6 feet according to the applicant’s concern. Edw. Hasek, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban,lnc., representing the developer, showed photographs inJ.icating the 100’ ''■■'ck would have less impact on the shoreline than four divid docks. Foster responded with a suggestion that tl ,remaining three individual docks could be incorporated with the multiple dock. Reese spoke against using the full 385’ of shoreline to permit non-riparian docks. Cochran questioned whether this was an accepted plat because the City of Victoria has approved six of the lots, the two remaining lots to be developed at a later date. Hasek responded the developer does not intend to build the multiple dock until there is an owner or owners for the non-riparian lots. Wm. F. Kelly, Attorney representing Richard Marks, 6425 Baycliffe Drive, an adjacent property owner, cited the LMCD Code Sec. 2.03,Subd 3(B), FACTORS NOT CONSIDERED. The use of multiple dock or mooring area.s or launching ramps on the La .e for the purpose of increasing non-riparian property values is not a valid consideration in licensing such facilitie.. Kelly indicated Water Structures and Environment Committee January 13, 1990 there is not authority for this kind of easement arrangement. Marks stated the additional dockage will have a negative impact on his property value. docks‘’lr“*g«W*'brKelly.’' residential Thomas, developer, pointed out that he has moved the multiple dock from its original location which was adjacent to the narks property. Foster offered the concept of moving the individual dock on the east side closer to the multiple dock and the two docks on K common lot line. Hasek indicated this wouldbe difficult to do. toward the center with a minimum setback of twenty feet from the Pilliburv^°«nd BjorJin. Foster. Grathwol. Lewman, ^illsbury and blocum voted aye. Cochran, Hurr, Martinson and Reese voted nay. Motion carried. ana BoswinKel arrived. « _c received an amendment to LMCD Code Section Subd ^ value placed on the amenities in 2.05 Reese moved, Boswinkel seconded, recommendation to the Board the approval of the amendment to LMCD Code Section 2.05, Subd. 4 as submitted, with an understanding that by October. 1990 the reviewed by the committee for ranking in value. Motion carried unanimously. of Wayzata Gpocial Density and New Dock License, review KAW hearing report and pending notification on mandatory City of Waysata in the matter of a Special Density and New Dock License for an increa.se of 15 boats in the upper marina. Wayzata i Water Structures and Environment Committee January 13, 1990 Bay. The committee also received a letter from the City of Waysata stating the City Council has approved the project. The Minnesota DNR has given written notice recommending an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The Environmental Quality Board (EOB) response is pending. (Subsequent to this meeting tlie EOB agreed than an EAW is mandatory. Reese moved, Boswinkel seconded, recommendation to the Board to approve the Special Density and New Dock License for the City of Wayzata, subject to the EAW Worksheet and Board approval of the amendment to LMCD Code Section 2.05, Subd. 4. Motion carried unanimously. 4. City of D« )|>haven Special Density and New Dock License application and <:.nvironBental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Review The committee received an application for a Special Density and New Dock License for the City of Deephaven proposing the following increases: Carson's Bay - Boat Storage Units from 102 to 141 Water Storage Units from 121 to 186 St. Louis Bay - Boat Storage Units from 153 to 172 Water Storage Units from 176.5 to 222.5 The Executive Director submitted an evaluation of the application indicating items not completed on the application along with a listing of variances and the need for an EAW. Grathwol noted this is a comprehensive application and opened the discussion to air questions and comments to give direction on how to work out the details. Gerald Laugh 1in. Chair of the Deephaven Boat Committee, and Richard Brown, CounciJiit*.'mHer, were present <.o represent the City. Laughlin stated the My currently has 292 facilities available to the residents, ail rented, and 375 names on their waiting list. Responding to questions from Hurr, Laughlin stated very few riparian owners rent a city dock or mooring. Their ordinance prohibits any one individual having a buoy and dock although a buoy user has the right to also rent a slide or canoe rack. The City issues permits to tlie property owner, whether they are the resident or not. Laughlin stated tliey are removing nine buoys which will open up additional water space. Bjorlin, Babcock and Hurr commented that the fees did not accompany the application. Laughlin explained the fees will be authorized at tlie next City Council meeting. The Executive Director reported the City has paid its 1990 dock renewal fees of $4,160. Water Structures and Environment Committee January 13, 1990 f ^ Foster spoke in favor of the application, detailing the many amenities the City furnishes the public. Chris Lindstrom,20050 Lakeview Avenue. Deephaven, commented on the need for sanitary facilities such as garbage removal and portable rest rooms being required as an amenity at all facilities including the proposed fishing pier. Diane McCarthy, 19765 Lakeview Avenue, Deephaven, commented that this increase in traffic would create a safety hazard. Robert Loeffel, 19605 Chimo West, Deephaven, questioned why they have to increase what they have, adding to an already congested bay. Colleen Ryan. 19785 Lakeview Avenue. Deephaven, questioned the location of the additional thirty parking spaces. Bill Frank,. 19575 Chimo West, commented on the increased density in a small bay. Can enforcement be maintained? Howard Bennis, Deephaven CounciImember, noted the elimination of the buoys will open up more space in the bays. Jennifer Young, 20035 Lakeview Avenue, raised questions about hardship and the impact of the amenities. Foster moved, Bjorlin seconded, tabling of the application. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Excelsior Day Yacht Club The complete material for this agenda item has not been received. 6. Proposed Code amendment recommending an ini' ■im ordinance restrict licensing. construction and maintenance commercial and multiple “^ocks new The comnittee opened d ordinance. *sion on the proposed interim Slocum quesManed whether it would prohibit a license holder from reducing ti e number of slips and whether it applied to District Mooring He also questioned whether it would allow reconstructic existing docks. Grathwol stated there should not be any fie .oility in a moratorium. Reese objected to the ordinance because of tiie type of development it will encourage, namely long narrow riparian lots. Be would prefer going from four to th.ree boats per riparian lot.. t-E • -Nr / . Water Structures and Environment Committee Jan*’ 'y 13, 1990 Lewman stated Minnetrista is in favor of mult-jp'la docks as benefiting the lake more than a series of lndlvid-;al viocks. Hurr spoke against the two year length. She also believes an image is being pro.iected of restricting lake use. The wetlands provision was questioned. Grathwol advised that the wetlands definition must be resolved, but that the moratorium could be adopted ahead of wetlands being defined for this purpose. Cochran moved, Pillsbury seconded, a recommendation to the Board to approve the Interim Ordinance for the Purpose of Protecting Lake Minnetonka, the Planning Process, and the Health, Safety and Welfare of the Public and Restricting the Licensing, Construction and Maintenance of New Commercial and Multiple Docks,to be effective upon publication and to remain in effect for two years. Motion carried, Martinson, Reese, Hurr and Boswinkel voting nay. 7. EAW evaluation of Minnetonka Boat Works (Orono) The committee received .’.in updated Public Hearing report, subject to the outcome of a mandatory EAW. The Executive Director reported the EAW was submitted to agencies and published as required by the EQB. Comments from the City of Orono, Metropolitan Council, Minnesota DNK and the Minnesota Historical Society support negative declaration and a determination that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. Pillsbury moved, Martinson seconded, a recommendation to the Board that in view of no negative responses to the EAW for Minnetonka Boat Works (Orono). it be determined a EIS is not iteeded and final approval be given to the Special Density and New Dock License. Motion carried unanimously. 8 Discretionary EAW for Wayzata Yac(y.- Club's District Mooring Area The committee received an EAW for the Wayzata Yacht Club for its temporary low wate>- mooring field relocation from 400’ shore to 000’ from shore as prepared by the Executive Director. The Executive Director explained that a discretionary EAW is proposed. It is anticipated a petition for an EAW would otherwise be rece ad for the Wayzata Yacht Club’s 1990 temporary low water permit. Duane Markus, 405 Bushciway Road. Wayzata, expressed .►’it opinion that a mandatory EAW is re<piired and the District d *6 not have the right to authorize an expansion until the a‘AW process is completed. Water Structure and Environment Committee January 13, 1990 Bruce Tam, contact ptrson for the Waycata Yacht Club, has reviewed the EAW and finds it satisfactory. It is understood the Waysata Yacht Club is responsible for costs involved in the preparation of the EAW as stated in the EQB rules. Foster moved, Pillsbury seconded, a recommendation to the Board that the EAW be approved as submitted in anticipation of an EAW petition. Motion carried unanimously. 9. Inquiry regarding refund of dock license application fees for slips not used in 1989 and/or 1990. Bjorlin stated the City of Tonka Bay consideration for a dock fee refund. would like If Reese moved, Hurr seconded, a recommendation to the Board to advise concerned marina operators they have the option of renewing their 1990 application for the full number of slips for which they are licensed to preserve their privilege or to submit a new dock license application for the number of slips they anticipate will be usable, with all accompanying ^isw dock license restrictions. Motion ca,.‘ried. Bjorlin voting nay. 10. Guidelines for temporary residential dock extensions without a formal permit application. The Guidelines for Temporary Residential Dock Extensions (without a formal permit application) provides in 1 (c) that the extension shall be permitted only during the 1989 season. Foster moved, Cochran .seconded, to recommend to the Board tiiat 1 (c> of the Guidelines be amended to read "Tlie extension shall be permitted only during a year in whii?i the Board declares low water is in effect." Motion carried u.animons 1>-. Cochran moved. Bjorlin seconded, to recommend approval of the Guildelines for Temporary Residential Dock Extension as amended. Motion carried unanimously. 11. Reaffirming 1909 temporary low water variances for multiple dock license renewals for 1990 license . Babcock mov<^d, Pillsbury seconded, a recommendation to the Board that the following licensees holding 1939 temporary low water variances for low w^*er be approved for r*.;,.::wal in 1990 >uith the conditio.n^s of tho water variance for multiple Jocks: t; Water Structures and Environment Committee Jano'Jiv 13, 1990 A1 & Alma’s Supper Club Bayview Condominium Lyle Berman Big Island Veterans Camp BD/Govern Boulder Bridge Farm Inc. Cedarhurst Association Chimo Association Cochranes Boatyard. Inc. Deephaven, City of Forest Arms Association,Inc. Gideons Point Homeowners Association Greenwood, City of The Harborage Lakewinds Association Libbs Bay Boat Club Loring Acres Beach Association, Inc. Methodist Lakeside Assembly Minnetonka Boat Works - Orono Minnetonka Edgewater Apartments Mound, City of Roger J. Wikner Windward Marine, Inc. Woodend Shores Beach Assoc. Chapman Place Homeowners Assoc. Wayzata Yacht Club Motion carried unanimously. Declaration of Low Water Foster moved, B.iorlin seconded, to recommend bo the Board that 1990 be declared a low water season for Lake Minnetonka to be effective for all types of licenses. Motion carried unanimously. 12. Pelican Point multiple dock license application. The committee received an 2820 Tuxedo Road, City of Mound multiple dock and 10 moorings. The application purpose is for rights at this site in view of multiple docks. The property although it was licensed in 1979 application from Pelican Point, , for 20 boat storage units at a (45 watercraft storage units), the developer to preserve dock LMCD code changes restricting has not yet been developed, for a development at that time. The committee consensus was that this application docs preserve the developer's riglit to a hearing when a plan is prepared but does not grandfather the number of slips for which he applied. A question was raised as to tlie inclusion of bUU feet of shoreline on an island off of, but not contiguous to the land. • • Water Structures ar.d Environment Committee January 13, 1990 L_. Hurr moved, Co<;hran seconded, to accept the application from Pelican Point with the understanding there is no approval of the license and the applicant has the right to withdraw. Motion carried unanimously. Babcock moved, Pillsbury seconded, to table any further action on the Pelican Point application. Motion carried unanimously. 13. Rockvain Boat Works temporary low water extension request. The committee received a temporary low water extension request from Rockvam Boat Yards, Inc., Spring Park, for their site #1 along with a request to change their HI dock from a piling dock to a floating dock. The floating dock will be in the same location as the piling dock but will give better access to the boats. Foster moved, Martinson seconded, a recommendation to the Board that Rockvam Boat Yards, Inc. be permitted to change their HI dock from a piling dock to a floating dock provided there is no change in the footprint. Motion carried unanimously. Hurr moved, Foster seconded, to recommend to the Board the approval of a temporary low water dock extension to allow Rockvam Boat Yards, Inc. to extend the present 211foot dock 85 feet to a distance of 296 feet, .sub.iect to inspection by the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Water Patrol to assure no hazard to navigation exists and all other low water variance restrictions are mot. Motion carried unanimously. The staff was asked to review the proposed moratorium to determine if the change of dock material would be allowed. ENVIRONMENT 1. Eurasian Water Milfoil 19PJ inning progress Reese reported Hennepin County Public Works will not furnish equipment and personnel In 1990 but will recommend to the County Board that they handle the land side costs under LMCD supervision. Boswip«el suggested the cities assist in the hauling by removing the weeds from tlie land discharge point to either their own compost site or a County site. Fo.ster moved, Reese seconded, to recommend to the Board that they request the cities to assist at unloading sites in their city by making a truck available and a disposal site when the District is cut-'.ing lake weeds in tlieir area. Motion carried unanimously. The Executive Director was asked to prepare a consideration by the Board. letter for I ••. I Water Structures and Environment Committee January 13, 1990ADDITIONAL BUSINESS The Executive Director and Cochran met with the MN DNR regarding the shoreland grant of $40,000 for the Management Plan and $60,000 for implementing the shoreland rules. The DNR was responsive to advancing the $40,000 but they want the grant to bo handled under one contract. The committee expressed concern that some of the cities might opt out of the program. In such an event those cities would be responsible to the DNR for the new rules without the flexibility being allowed through the LMCD plan. The Executive Director has set a meeting for 7:30 a.m. Tuesday, January 16th to consider David Arndorfor’s reply to DNRs lake density questions in the Management Plan. The Executive Director has planned a meeting of the officers, Hurr and any other interested Directors at 7:30 a.m. Wednesday, January 17th to discuss personnel matters, long range staffing and the Executive Director’s job description.. Adjournnent The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 11 a.m. For the committee: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director James N. Grathwol, Chair August LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT PROGRESS REPORT August - December* 1939 Members of the Minnesota Future Resources Legislative Commission were hosted by Chair Hurr for a tour of Lake Minnetonka to observe weed harvesting operations and low water problems. This commission will provide grants for environmental programs having a state benefit. Presentations made to the Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Assn, by Chair Hurr and the Executive Director* the Association now numbering some 1*200 members. City of Greenwood memo suggesting a study of lake docks and use for possible implementation of more extensive city ordinances was reported by Greenwood representative Cochran. Project manager to assist in executing the Eurasian Water Milfoil weed harvesting program engaged on a consulting basis. Acreage harvested is 235 through 8/18. Personal watercraft study sub-committee appointed* met with dealer and manufacturer representatives to discuss operating concerns. Shoreline boat count conducted* showing total of 6*811 watercraft at docks on the lake in 1989 vs. 7*519 in 1988. Advisory Committee on the Management Plan continues its sub-committee studies* with Use* Institutional Arrangements and Intergovernmental Relations studies the current focus. Boat densities are the concern of the Use Study. Agency representation on the Board and director appointment terms highlighted the other two committee priorities. Adopted Ordinance 103 relating to introduction or removal of weeds to control spread of Eurasian water milfoil. bowers residence* Greenwood* inspected for overlaping dock use area* determined through inspection to require a variance for 1990 season. Inaugural issue of WAVE LENGTHS newsletter published* distributed. Presentations made to member cities regarding 1990 LMCD budget. Request for proposals initiated for LMCD’s legal service* 14 applicants under consideration* six finalists interviewed with top two candidate firms recommended for Board consideration. September Follow-up meetings held with MN DNR to secure funding for Management Plan. MN DNR invited LMCD to serve as agency to facilitate adoption of the new Shoreland Regulations among the 14 lake area cities. Rockvam Boat Yards received approval through a temporary low water variance to move six pontoon slips from site #1 to site #2* pontoons to be offered to public on a rental basis* deemed a valuable like amenity. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Progress Report. Aug - Dec. 1989 1 September Minnetonka Boat Works Wayzata order for 12 new permanent docks approved on a special density permit. Minnetonka Boat Works Orono order for 6 new permanent docks on Brown's Bay and 42 new permanent docks on Tanager Lake was approved contingent upon resolution of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Minnetonka Yacht Club/Lake Minnetonka Sailing School order for 22 new permanent docks in St. Louis Bay approved on a special density permit. Deicing ordinance reviewed to adopt minor changes to fencing requirements during deicing season. Bean's Greenwood Marina application for changes to dock configura- tion under consideration pending City of Greenwood and LMCD Water Structures Committee reviewt recommendations. Minor discrepancy in Smith's Bay Marina as-built survey resolved as inconsequential to the total dock installation* approved as built. Installation of docks on residential property in Greenwood at Manor Drive reviewed for conformance to LMCD Code* found in compliance with present provisions. Greenwood moratorium on outlot and other dock installations brought to LMCD Board attention. Eurasian water milfoil weed harvesting report shows over 600 acres presently harvested* program to end September 29* for this season. Consultant to weed harvesting program Merila and Chair Hurr visited Lake Chataqua in Lakewood* NY* observing their operation for possible application of LMCD doing its own "in house" operation in 1990. Matching fund request for Corps of Engineers support of 1990 Eurasian water milfoil weed harvesting effort submitted to Wash. DC headquarters. Chair Hurr and executive director met with Hennepin County Public Works director to secure additional equipment support for 1990 weed harvesting program. Eurasian water milfoil weed harvesting program* chaired by Tom Reese* Mound* recognized by the Board for being positively carried out. Personal watercraft study involved testing of decibel ratings and noise output of factory produced and modified personal watercraft. Results showed factory noise levels are within allowances* modified equipment is significantly above it in many instances. Charter boat code amended to advance application due date from May 1 to March 1* and making application approval subject to operating inspections conducted by MN DNR and Sheriff's Water Patrol. A charter boat study committee was formed to review other operating conditions. Water Patrol reported 57 Boating While Intoxicated citations* highest number for any county in state* a recognition of tough enforcement. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Progress Report» Aug - Dec, 1989 September Consultant Arndorfer reviewed boat density study segment of the Management Plan study, recommending the need for a means to activate lake use controls as boat density increases. Agency and public officials informational meeting on the Management Plan Study set for December 2. Milfoil Task Force Chair Tom Reese and the executive director made presentations at the State Lake Management Conference on weed control and shoreland regulations for lake communities. Election of officers supported Dave Cochran, Greenwood for chair; Bert Foster, Deephaven, for vice chair; Jan Boswinkle, Minnetonka Beach, for secretary, and John Lewman, Minnetrlsta, for treasurer. Charlie LeFevere, Holmes & Graven, was appointed to continue service as LMCD counsel. October Prosecuting Attorney Steve Tallen, Holmes & Graven, appointed to continue service as LMCD prosecuting attorney. Resolution approved supporting LMCD*s re-commitment to the 1990 Eurasian Water Milfoil Weed Harvesting Program, Board assistance to i*;. LMCD service as lead agency to facilitate adoption of the MN DNR Shoreland Regulations approved, to include engagement of an indepen dent contractor to assist cities in preparations. Funds to support removal of hazardous rocks from certain lake areas was approved in the amount of $3,000 from Save the Lake in coopera tion with program underway through Hennepin County Lake Improvement. David Thomas residential property development in Smithtown Bay, Victoria, referred to a public hearing upon receiving initial data. November- MN DNR Hydrologist John Stine reviewed agreement outline to engage December LMCD in a specific plan to facilitate adoption of Shoreland Regula- (combined) tions. Plan further included funding of Management Plan Study funds reimbursement for Shoreland segment of the plan. Board approved preparation of a contract separating Shoreland Rules from the Management Plan reimbursement, at $60,000 and $40,000 respectively. Proposed code amendment recommending an interim ordinance to restrict licensing, construction and maintenance of new commercial and multiple docks was reviewed and referred back to committee for further study and clarification if intent and certain issues Identified by the Board. City of Wayzata new multiple dock license and special density permit for 15 new slips was referred back to the Dock Committee for additional review and response from their City Council as to specific support of the expansion. Amenities were a point of concern in the application. Seventeen deicing applications approved as renewals, one new for Wayzata Yacht Club Site #2 approved. .3 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Progress Report* Aug - Dec, 1989 November- Proposed contract for service to barge weeds to shore from December weed harvesters to improve weed transport efficience was (combined) approved to include advertising for bids. i Weed harvester equipment in final weeks of being fully main tained following the 1989 operating season. Project manager to undertake the 1990 weed harvesting operation was approved for purposes of seeking candidates to serve on a part time basis, undertaking the major responsibilities carried out by the executive director during 1989. Resolution to a silt build-up concern expressed by a Minnetonka Beach resident near the Areola Bridge channel was approved by a letter explaining the boat traffic changes to assist the situation. Charter boat study sub-committee meeting to prepare recommendations to the Board in January. Management Plan presentation to public officials/agencies was well received December 2, setting stage for some plan segment reviews and completion of Intergovernmental Relations and Funding. Comment period for Minnetonka Boat Works Orono Environmental Assessment Worksheet ended 12/13, report to Jan. 24 Board meeting will show no objections having been registered to the expansion. Designated THE SAILOR newspaper as the 1990 LMCD official news paper for legal notices, using WEEKT,Y NEWS and THE LAKER for additional communication as appropriate to the notice. I .%Is Li ■' ;i' ■ Ilfl\\- 2 21990 lil'vif - ; I ORDINANCE NO. Ii>S^ J^5~ORA/AiA/vrc<r CO/vjiix ia^tc lolSf • AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF WHITE BEAR LAKE MUNICIPAL CODE DISALLOWING THE SALE OF CIGARETTES THROUGH VENDING MACHINES AND INCREASING THE FEE FOR SAID LICENSE The Council of the City of White Beer Leke does ordein es follows: SECTION I. That Section 1104.010 CIGARETTES; LICENSE REQUIRED, APPLICATION, ISSUANCE, is hereby repealed and replaced with the following: 1104.010 CIGARETTES: LICENSE REQUIRED. APPLICATION. ISSUANCE. No person shall keep for retail sale, sell at retail or otherwise dispose of any cigarette or any tobacco product or cigarette paper or cigarette wrapper at any place in the City without a license. Application for a license shall be asde to the City Clerk on a form supplied by the City. The application shall state the full name and address of the applicant, the location of the building and part intended to be used by the applicant under the license, the kind of business conducted at such location and such other information as shall be required by the application form. Upon the filing of an application with the City Clerk, it shall be presented to the City Council for its consideration. If granted by the Council, a license shall be issued by the City Clerk upon payment of the required fee. SECTION II. That Section 1104.020 CIGARETTES; LICENSE FEE is hereby changed to increase the license fee from twelve (S12) dollars per year to twenty two (S22) per year. SECTION III. That Section 1104.060 CIGARETTES; PROHIBITED SALES, is hereby repealed and replaced with the following: 1104.060 CIGARETTES: PROHIBITED SALES. No person shall sell or give away any cigarette or any tobacco product, cigarette paper or cigarette wrapper to any person under the age of eighteen (18) years. No person shall sell or dispense any cigarettes or tobacco product, cigarette paper or cigarette wrapper through the use of a vending machine. No person shall keep for sale, sell or dispose of any cigarette or tobacco product containing opium, morphine, Jimson weed, bella donna, strychnia, cocaine, marijuana or any other deleterious or poisonous drug except nicotine. t • I SECTION IV. This Ordinance becomes effective eporr-j.pproval—*nd pwM>i«ab4«no ninety days after the date of Its adoption. , Passed by the City Council of White Bear Lake, Minnesota, this 10th ___ day of October_______,# 1989. First Reading September 12, 1989 Second Reading October 10. 1989 _ ATTEST; CITY OF SHOREVIEW ORDINANCE NO. 523 CTCO\(\i^AJCX.U-ll-SrJ AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 904.070 TO THE SHOREVIEW MUNICIPAL CODS RELATING TO THE SALE OF CIGARETTES THE CITY COUNCIL ORDAINS AS AN ADDITION TO THE SHOREVIEW MUNICIPAL CODE: Section 904.070 is’hereby added to the Municipal Code of the City of Shoreview to read as follows: 904.070. Vending Machines. When a vending machine is used to sell or otherwise distribute cigarettes, the vending machine shall not be located in an area that pe.*mits unrestricted access to the vending machine by a person who is under the age of 18 years. A violation of this provision shall be cause for immediate revocation of the licenc-- to sell cigarettes. This ordinance shall become effective on the first day of January, 1990. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Shoreview this 6th day of November_ _ _ _ _ _ _, 1989. ^ i ATTEST: Dwighty Johnsony City Manager PUBLISHED on this 22nd day of 1989. Users: Carol-L 86950RD.006 10/27/89 fc. ir 0 VJiii'-:-A- ti|i -■ fK&>^^r’':'v ■< -1!:■ ■ fc-'' I',*. ■ . **'«'*'•’ :;:u- ^ ^ |J::;ir/^::::S:oSS^-v, Ki:rfte:l if! "' «!PSmi ■ ‘^T tbme —B ■!> i'*-tez3 • pi>ij mm" . .-'i.rii.g.r ivvV i-;:-^ • .■^.^ ., i p r 1 AGENDA FOR COONCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JANUARY 8, 1990, 7:00 P.M. (*) ROLL CALL Asterisk items ace considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Discussion will be held upon request. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet which may be obtained upon request from the Recorder. COUNCIL MEETING 1. Certificate of Achievement/Financial Reporting JAfi 8 1590 2, Virginia Sweatt Recognition CITY OF GRflHf^ 3. CONSENT AGENDA* APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 4. Regular Meeting of December 11, 1989 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS 5. Park Dedication Fee Review PLANNING COMMISSION CCVWENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Liait 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR*S REPORT **APPLICANTS** Immediately after the Council has reviewed your application please sign the three (3) original resolutions at the Recorder's desk. Applicants need not execute resolutions for subdivisions and vacations. 6. 7. 8. #1452 Walter Pemberton, 1720 Shadywood Road - Variance #1468 George Pillsbury, 1300 Bracketts Point Road Variances/Conditional Use Permit #1480 Ed Toth, 725 Old Crystal Bay Road South - Vacation Resolution ENGINEER'S REPORT * 9. Highway 12 Sewer and Water Payment MAYOR/COONCIL REPORT 10. 1990 Appointments - Resolution CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 11. Canine Program Employee Recognition Program/City LOGO Compensation Incentive Program Lieutenant Selection Telephone System Acquistion Longevity Pay Step - Officer James Cornick Tax Forfeit Properties - Resolution * * 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. • «JCV •Vrf V ^ •yr»- TzarTT^- -V ’" i: s AGENDA FOR COONCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JANUARY 8, 1990, 7:00 P.M. * * * * 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Continued * 18. Police Car Acquisition Compensation Adjustment and Final Pay - Officer Schauss Resignation - Scott Kuyper and Charles Schauss Well Licenses/Permits Adjustments to 1989 Budget End of Year Transfers and Loan Payments Public Use of Private Roads - Ordinance Amendment 1988 Financial Health Profile Request to Re-Issue Certificate for 1985 G.O. Bond Issue - Resoltuion Stubbs Bay Sewer Area Meeting Date Administrator's Information Art Center 1950 Shoreline Drive Shoreline Drive 1972 Shadywood Road Lake Minnetonka Park Lawsuit 3536 Lyric Avenue DARE Program October/November Receipts & Disbursements Wire Transfers Goals and Objectives 27. 28. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT LICENSES (29*) BILLS (30*) ADJOURNMENT UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 01/08 01/15 01/16 01/22 01/30 Council Meeting Holiday - Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Planning Commission Meeting Council Meeting Stubbs Bay Sewer Area Meeting I k PUBLIC ATTENDANCE meeting oats \/R/Q12----- CITY OP ORONO V_LAWV>W-— 'fCC-l IIKlLy I 1 PIEME fill 00* *« IOFORHMION REQOFStED BELOW FOR 00* CITY **C0W>8. Cj WJCU- mams print)address name or number PRESENT FOR (from agtnda) 122089.5 /COUNOL MEETM6 TOs FMMs OATIt Mayor and City Council Mark B. Bernhardson* City Adniniatrat Dacaaber 20, 1989 JAN 81990 CITY OF ORON SUBJECTS Cartificata of Raporting Bxcallanca - 1988 Financial Raport Attachaant: I A. Govarnaant Pinanca Officar Association Cartificata of Bxcallanca in Financial Raporting Lattar Dated 12/1/89 ISSOB - Acceptance and congratulations for receiving this award ^or the second year. IMTROOtICTION “ The City of Orono has bean awarded the GFOA's Cartificata of Bxcallanca in Financial Raporting for the second year for its 1988 financial raport. RECOMMBNDATXON - It is racomandad that the Council congratulate particuiarly’^tha Financial staff for their ongoing efforts, the City's Auditor who has assisted in achieving this award and the Council itself for its efforts in leadership in proaoting the City to seek this award. PROPOSBD MOTION - Moved by seconded by _, that the Council congratulate Thoaas Kuahn, Finance Director, the rest of the Financial staff and the staff as a whole for the City's excellent financial raporting, and Pannall Karr Forster, its Auditors for their invaluable assistance. Ayes Nays cc:Thoaas Kuahn, Finance Director Pannall Karr Forster GOVB^MBMT RNANCE OFRC0?S ASSOCIATION MCMSAMAVPAJE totot DttC«Bb«r 1# 1989 Thm Bonocablt Jaa«s R. 6rab«k Mayor City of Orono 9.0. Box 86 Crystal Bay# Nlanasota 55323 Oaar Mayor Grabaks Wa ara plaaaad to notify you that your coaprahansiva annual financial {•port for tba fiscal yaar andad Oacaabac 31« 1988 quallfiaa for a Cartificata of Jtehlavaaant for Bxcallanca in Financial Raporting. Tba Cartificata of Achiavaaant is tba bigbaat fora of racognition in govarnaantal accounting and financial rapocting« and its attainaant {•psoaonta a significant accoapllshswnt by a govarnaant and its aanagaaant. Wban a Cartificata of Aeblavaaant is awardad to a govarnaant, m Award of Financial Reporting Aebiavaaant is also pcasantad to tba individual da^ ignatad by tba govarnaant as ptiaarlly rasponslbla for its having aarnad tba cartificata. Enclosad is an Award of Financial Reporting Aebiavaaant fort Tboaas M. Kuahn, Finance Director Tba Cartificata of Aebiavaaant plaque will be sblpp^in about tan weeks. MS hope that you will arrange for a for^ presently tion of tba Cartificata and Award of Financial Reporting Aebiavaaant, aw that appropriate publicity will be given to this notable aebiavaaant. A saapla news ralaasa is enclosad. Me suggest that you provide to tba local nawspapars and radio and television stations. In Mditlon, enclosed is the 1988 Cartificata Prograa results representing tba aost recant statistics available. wa hope that your azaapla will encourage other govarnaant officials in their efforts to aebiava and aaintain an appropriate standard of tscal- lance in financial reporting. If you have any questions ^ ppttar, or if wa nay be of any further assistance, please do not taasltata to contact os. Sincerely, govbrmmeut fihamce officbrs associatioh Frederick G. LantsAssistant Olractor/Tacbnical Services Canter FGL/ds Bnclosuras co I §%n < tAhm C8 O 0 c3 1 5• S Mu* ^ <M <« ® t)5Ic ^ S *2§ D O «> L? I H Z tts u Seu 5 3 % ^ Uioc c^ Ui ‘“C £2 oCKo u.o ilili ill .tti lll^l •Hi mlii^fill N'^ i ^ ■ ^I V |!!i*i ^ 1 -ii^ii4imh j HEWS RSLBASE GOVERNM&JT FINANCE OFFICB5S ASSOCIATION BEi cm or ORONO Is Awarded HI6BBST AWARD IN FINANCIAL REPORTING MCH6AN AVB«JE ^312/97^4606 (Chicago)—Tha Cartlflcate of Achlavanant foe Bacallanca in Financial Reporting baa boon awarded tot cm OF ORONO by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) for its cosqprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) • The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in the area of governs»ntal accounting and financial reporting» and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment* When a Certificate of Achievement is awarded to a government* an Award of Financial Reporting Achievement also is given to the individual (Sasignated as primarily responsible for its having earned the certificate* This Award of Financial Reporting Achievement has been presented to: THOMAS N* KUBBN* FINANCE DIRECTOR The CAFR has been judged by an impartial panel to meet the high standards of the program including desK>nstrating a constructive spirit of full disclosure* effort to clearly communicate its financial story and motivate potential persons and user groups to read the CAFR* The GFOA is a nonprofit professional association serving 11*500 government finance professionals* The association produces a variety of technical publications in various fields of governmental finance* and {•presents the public finance community in Washington* D*C* The association provides numerous training opportunities* and conducts an annual conference attended by 5*000 public finance professionals. For more information* contact Fred Lants at 312/977-9700* -- - ,P M I f ' V GlTYof ORONO PiMt CMB m Bm fl$«CnMd Bay. MinsaHU 563X3allaakiyal OOm r1 On the North Short of Lake Minnetonka January 3, 1990 •^*•01IKETIHG JAN 81990 wry OF ofumVirginia Swaatt 3225 Bohna Point Lana waysata, MR 55391 Daar Virginia* It ia with ragrat that wa accept your raaignation from tha Orono Park Coauniaaion. Since your appointvant in October 1980 your input into tha Parka and recreation ayatan in Orono haa aided tha City in being raaponaiva to tha recreational naada of tha City. You ware alao inatruaantal in tha conatruction of an ice abating rink at Rackbarry Park, tha upgrading of !>adarwood Park and Suainit Park •''^■■Ing beach juat to naaw a few. Your aaaiatanca in preparing and coaplating tha recant Parka Survey will aaaiat tha City in datarmining praaant and future recreational naada. For tha Orono Council I want to thank you for nearly tan yaara of coaonunity aarvica to tha City of Orono. Sincerely, Jamaa R. Grabak, Mayor JSG/jb •UlLOmca ZONING - 47J-73S7 ASSESSING AOMINISTIUnON A FINANCE - 473-7JSS FUILIC WORKS - 473-73S9 council HWUllBd^ JAN 81990 NXaORS OF THB KB60LM OBOBO COOBCXL ■BLD OKBNBD 11» 19f9 rtm 0\JY OF 0R(W 7s00 P.N. Th« Council Mt on the above date with the following MBbers present: Mayor 6rabek» CounciImembers Goettenr Peterson and Callahan; CounciIneiiber Mettles arrived at 7:45 p.n. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Building 6 Zoning Administrator Mabusth» Public Works Director Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Chief Kilbo, City Attorney Barrett* City Engineer Cook and City Recorder Scheffler. C.D.B.6. BIALLOCAnoa OP TBMl XIV POMDS PUBLIC BIBBIBa 7t00 P.M. TO 7>05 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson* to adopt Resolution 2742* amending Year XIV of the Community Development Block Grant Program transferring $14*553 from the Highway 12 Corridor Study to the Bousing Rehabilitation Program. Motion* Ayes*4* Nays*0* Motion passed. „JT MBKKDh* City Administrator Bernhardson noted that the summary of fee ordinance changes had been distributed to the Council today and that the Waysata and Woodhill Country Clubs' applications for liquor licenses had been added to the licenses for approval this evening. Councilmember Callahan requested that items f24 and #27 be removed from the consent agenda. #30. Councilmember Goetten requested the removal of items #29 and It was moved by Mayor Grabek* seconded by Councilmember Callahan* to approve the Consent Agenda* with the exception of items #24* #27* #29 and #30* which were removed and discussed in the order appearing on the agenda* and with the addition of the Waysata and Woodhill Country Clubs' applications for liquor licenses. Motion* Ayes-4* Nays-0* Motion passed. APPPBOVAL OP NIHOTBS* It was moved by Mayor Grabek* seconded by Councilmember Callahan* to approve the Minutes of the November 27, 1969 Regular Council Meeting. Motion* Ayes>4* Nays>0* Motion passed. APPROVAL OP MIBDTBS* It was moved by Mayor Grabek* seconded by Councilmember Callahan* to approve the Minutes of the November 30* 1989* 1990 ^ w fD-CEB eoi "“”"® nfr^f n.il mftJncflme^bir ^ "«««ber8ctC^£^r -:«S-s:;r, •“!■•»"<* City l..cord,/iS;,«*i:. *«or„,y VrJ^tt? cl??2' I?“ »" wms'•t.w r,n, TO 7*os D MOf Publicatlcn'^d Certificat .ificate of Mailing were••rinrwri'cfoMd!^® P“bilc regarding this matter*<* by Mayor Grab-k . ^Pt Resolution *®conded by Counr.< i opeent Block Gr*It^n amending Year 1/ stu"y"\/”r*»" A' |5‘*y«-4, N,y..o, ".habi ’i/tVt'l’In' ' =»”»•?? lt»">s #24 ,„a ,2, ^ - ite.. .2, * by Mayor Grah<»k ‘ - c-^PJ: !• Mayor Grab*k a-as-T!;; 1 MXBOTBS OP THE ■0 COOMCXI., I ^riNG OF DKBNBBR lip 1989 n ' i i>AFPROVlkL OP NmiTBS COBTIIII Budget Public Hearing. Motion* Ayes*4* Mays-O* Motion passed.PAM COMaSSIOB C0MMBRT8 PAM DBDICATIOM POLICYCity Administrator Bernhardson indicated that there would be no representative present at this meeting. Berhardson said that he was presenting the park dedication policy for initial consideration. A Park Commission Representative would come to the January 8* 1990 Meeting for discussion of this policy. CounciImember Goetten thought it was a good idea to be looking at the Park Commission fees* but thought the proposed fees were a drastic change. Goetten was glad that the Park Commission was presenting this to the Council* and wondered if the Planning Commission should review this. Mayor Grabek suggested sending the Park Commission information to the Planning Commission for their review and comments before the January 6* 1990 Council Meeting. PLAiniiws coMMiBBioa comaaTB Planning Commission Representative* Edward Brown* arrived later. PUBLIC CONIIBBTS Ms. Barbara Hite* 247S Countryside Drive* read an open letter to the Orono City Council concerning County Road 116. Ms. Rosemary Scheuer* Laker Newspaper* asked Mayor Grabek for a brief statement regarding the City of Long Lake and the sewer plant property. Mayor Grabek stated that the City of Orono had received a letter from Long Lake indicating that they disagreed with a number of points brought out in negotiations. Mayor Grabek said that the letter also indicated that Long Lake will probably proceed with annexation of the sewer plant property. Mayor Grabek said that this issue is a form of litigation and therefore he cannot discuss the matter further. 8CNIXB6 ADNmSTBATOB'S RBPOKTi •1289 BOBBBT HILL 115 OLD CBT8TAL BAT ROAD BQRTB 80BD1VI8IOB>MSOLOTIOB Mr. and Mrs. Will were present for this review. City Administrator Bernhardson gave a brief explanation of this application for subdivision. Zoning Administrator Habusth advised that the applicant MIMOTBS OP TUB OROHO COOMCIL MEBTIIIG OP DBCBMBBR 11, 1969 •i.oI0HIII6 PIU •1289-NILL COBTIIH---- plana to provide an access corridor along the north side of Lot 1 f0fve Lot 2 as originally indicated* At the Planning Comnission Meeting, the applicant revised his proposal to locate the access corridor along the south aide. Mabusth said that additional septic testing will be necessary if the access corridor is to be located along the northern boundary. Mabusth said that the location of the cul-de-sac should be left to staff's determination so that elevations, plantings and the location of the septic site on the far eastern lot can be taken into consideration. She said that the road cannot encroach within 20' of the septic test site. Mabusth asked Mr. Will to indicate his preference of the location of the driveway outlot. Mr. Will said that the real preference is to locate it on the north side of the property. He said that if the cul-de-sac is moved further north, the outlot should be along the northern border. Mr. Will said that there are less trees in that area as opposed to the south side. Mayor Grabek asked how access to the north would be achieved if the cul-de-sac is located in a more southerly location? Mabusth asked City Engineer Cook to respond to that question. Cook said that a driveway could be constructed between the cul-de-sac and the northern outlot? He said that the cost to the pfop0jjty owner will increase the further the City extend' the road. Cook said if the City does extend the road along the street right-of-way it should be constructed to City standards. Mabusth said that as part of this application, the Council is being asked to approve Wear Lane North as a public roadway. She said that the Planning Commission has recommended public maintenance of the road if it is to be dedicated to the public. Planning Commission Representative Brown commented that the Planning Commission recommended public maintenance because it was their feeling that the road would not otherwise be maintained. Mayor Grabek asked what made this different from other private roads. Mabusth replied that the cost factor set for each unit by the current owner of the subdivision on which Wear Lane North is presently located is $20,000.00 and that is prohibitive to Mr. Will. CounciImember Goetten expressed her concern for the need to address the issue of private vs. public roads. She questioned whether a pr'*cedent would be set by making this a public road to be maintained publicly. NimiTBS OF THE OROMO COUIKIL MBBTIK OP OBCBMBBR 11, 1989 S0IIZE6 PILE fl289-«ILL CORTIEUED Bernhardson said that the City does have the ability to dedicate the road for public use and require it to be privately maintained. He said that there are multiple property owners along this road, as opposed to one developer owning all of the property as in other subdivisions, which makes this unique. CounciImember Goetten asked whether the City should be addressing the issuw of private/public roads as a whole, rather than addressing them individually. Bernhardson said that access, maintenance and development of the road are the issues. The developer will be responsible for the development of the road either way. The question in regard to maintenance is whether or not the property owners of the three lots, short of the dedication of a public road, have the right to go over that portion of the privately maintained Wear Lane North. Citv Attorney Barrett advised that the Council need only draft an Ordinance amendment stating that in such circumstances access must be allowed to any adjacent property via underlying public access easements taken over private road outlots. Mr. Bill Wear asked where the cul-de-sac would be located. Mabusth depicted the approximate location on the overhead sketch. Mr. Wear asked if the City was aware of the trees located in that area that would need to removed? Mabusth replied that the trees will be considered when determining the actual location of the cul-de*-sac. Mr. Wear had no other comments. Mabusth asked for clarification from the City Attorney as to how much of the road will be dedicated as a public road? Barrett replied that at a minimum the northern portion will be dedicated because the easement that is available to the developer to the north is the one that the City o%ms. Mabusth asked if the portion of Wear Lane North now existing will remain a private road. Barrett suggested that the Council pass an ordinance that says in these circumstances these private roads must be opened tc homeowners and their invitees who need to cross over the private road in order to get to their residences. Nr. Bob Lorenzen, 20S0 Wear Circle, said that he currently has a l/6th interest over Outlot A, which includes both Wear Circle and Wear Lane North. He asked how this public/private issue will affect the maintenance costs he nc*w pays. I NIVUTI8 OF TBB GROW) COUNCIL MBBTIH6 OF DBCENBBR 11, 1$09 SCNIING FILE #1289-WILL COHTIHOBD (Councilm«inb«r Nettles arrived at this time) ^ responsible for maintaining %Mr *^Circle*ai^^^JjBtib Nor^h* Mabusth asked who would be responsible for maintaining the l^rtion of the roadway constructed by Mr. Will that exists on Mr. Wear s property as a result of extending the cul-de-sac. understanding is that Planning Comission s proposal was that, because of problems of enforcino maintenance, that Mr. Will would be responsible for maintainlnq tnat portiorie ^ Pl«nning Commission Representative Brown said that was not his understanding. He said that the Planning Commission had preferred to have the entire road publicly maintained. Mr. Wear asked about compensation from Mr. Will for constructing the road. ^*Tett said that the issue might be whether or not Mr. Wear nas the right to compensation of that portion of the road by the homeowners and their invitees that would use it. Barrett said that in «is opinion, he would not be entitled to such compensation because the would City regulate it. whether or not the Council had approved the covenant filed with his property? Mabusth said that the Council does not approve specific covenants or easements filed against plats. The covenants are completed by the developer, using a standard form provided by the City. The City has no authority to specify unit costs for future access of the road. Mr. Wear asked whether the Wills had actually purchased this property they are applying to subdivide? Will said that he has not had the closing to purchase the land as of this date. Mayor Grabek asked whether the City has spent all of this time on this application and they have not been dealing with the property owner? A i ^*^***fh said that Mrs. White, the owner of the property, joined in the application with the Wills. Lorensen asked whether the existing covenants were sufficient in handling what is being proposed. Mabusth said that what now exists is sufficient. ^ »■* OMMO O IMCIL OP DacBon 11. 1,„; r*,pon,l^n *4* «•rc^VV„^:."^who Won 1H• Pi^oposal was tha^ “*^**’*tandlng is that di».....Brown uld tn-V. tB. Sn tV?Md. '»"P«»««tlon from Mr. win ‘ opinion hi would use iV n *»y th« *“uh Ji.’V’rVrV?®* "*0 »PProv,d th. isk»d whathar tha Wi11 • k j ■« •pplyln, to .ubdiWdi? «ctu.ny purcha.ed thl, d«.‘. '■• '“• •>•«> th. clo.ln, to porch... '“-'S •id that Mrs wk4.. •PUctlon “;h"?h‘.‘*M'u?.« «' t-. Prop.rty. '•B askad wheth^.- ..i. •”'« b.i„, cov.n.nt. w.r. •> that What now ,. is St’fflcioBt. NXBOTBS OP TBS OROHO COOHCXL mnG OF DBCl lip 1989•i -♦>SOmilG PILE fl2B9>WILL CONTIEICounciInambar Callahan said that the roadp regardless of where the cul-de-sac is located, ought to go to the northern boundary line of Lots 1. 2, and 3.It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabekd to direct staff to prepare an ordinance in accordance with the opinion of the City Attorney, which will require land owners in the position of the Wear Subdivision ownership to p^'OVlde access to adjoining land owners and following such preparation and in conjunction with it. the preliminary subdivision be brought back for review, and is therefore tabled at this time. Motion. Ayes>4. Goetten. Nay. Motion passed. #1445 GREGORY C. PETERSOH 1355 ARBOR STREET VARIABCE/COEDITIOHAL 08E PERMIT PORTHER CLARIPICATIOE OP COOECIL'S RECOMMEMDATIOII Mr. and Mrs. Peterson were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson summarized the events leading to this reconsideration of variance approvals. Bernhardson said that the Public Works Director has denied the applicant's request to keep the fence in its present location in the right-of-way. Zoning Administrator Mabusth said that this is a two part application; the appeal of the administrative decision disallowing the fence to be located in the right-of-way and the height variance for the fence located within the 50* rear yard setback area. Mr. Peterson explained that he had indicated that he would be installing a 6* fence and that was part of the building permit application for the pool and the porch. He said that they had Indicated at the Planning Commission Meeting that they intended to replace the existing fence. Mr. Peterson said that they made the same representations when they met with the Council. He said that he Is shocked to be back before the Council because he thought he had covered everything the City required. He said that he had all along asked the City Staff if there was anything missing from their application. Mr. Peterson said that the Resolution only refers to the fence in one paragraph, but the fencing was part of the application from the very beginning. Mrs. Peterson said that she distinctly remembered talking of replacing the existing fence at the Planning Commission Meeting. CounciImember Goetten read a portion of the Planning Commission minutes from that meeting. Goetten also recollected the discussion that took place at the Council Meeting regarding this matter. Goetten said that she did not believe any discussion took place regarding a fence under €' around the property. Mr. Peterson said that this was a terminology issue. He MIHOTBS OP THB ORONO COUHCIL MEBTIR6 OF DBCBMBBR 11, 1989 X0HIH6 PILB •1445-PBTBRSOH said that in his mind, the fence is around the pool area. Mr. Peterson said he never referred to the fence being around the pool. In Mr. Peterson's opinion, the backyard is the pool area. Re asked why there was no specific mention, other than reference to height, in the resolution, to where the fence is to be located. He said they have done everything as they said they were going to do. Mrs. Peterson said they do not have a large enough yard to have various fences breaking up the amount of area. She said that S' security is imperative because there is a playground right across the street. CounciImember Callahan said that he recollected that the discussions at the Council Meeting centered around the pool, the variance needed to put in the pool, and the requirements of the insurance company to protect the pool with a fence. Callahan said that the Council never thought, or thinks now, that they gave approval for the fence that *^ow exists. Callahan said that there may be a misunderstanding, but he does not believe it is proper to leave the fence in the right-of-way. Callahan said that he could not allow a pool to be installed in that neighborhood without fencing around it. Callahan said that what is left to be decided is how tc screen the pool and what variances are required to accomplish that. Mr. Peterson said that many of the decisions they have made in regard to the pool were based on the approval given. He said that at no time did he say anything other than they intended to replace the existing fencing. CounciImember Callahan said that he does not recall replacement of a fence being discussed. CounclImember Peterson said that she had listened to the tapes of the Council Meeting twice today and at no time did she make the comment noted in the Peterson's letter. Peterson also said that at no time did the Peterson's mention replacing the fence. Peterson indicated that she too did not approve of the fence being located in the right-of-way because the Peterson's neighbor to the north could come in and request the same. She said allowing that to happen would create sight line problems. Mr. Paterson said that Mrs. Belt, to the south of them, has a fence in the right-of-way. Mr. Peterson said there are many fences in that area that are located in the right-of-way. He asked whether any sise fence would be allowed within the right- of-way? Mr. Peterson said that he does not intend to declare any rights to the City's property by locating the fence there. CounclImember Callahan asked Mr. Peterson if he had discussed the installation of the pool with the City staff? Mr. Peterson said yes, quite a bit. k I NIM0TB8 OF THE OROHO COOMCIL MBBTIH6 OF DECEMBER 11» 1F89 X0M1E6 FILE «1445-PETERSOE COBTIEUED Callahan askad if there was any discussion about the need to fence the swistming pool? Mr. Peterson said yes. Mrs. Peterson said that she was confused by the conversation involved with the fencing and lot coverage. Callahan said that despite the misunderstanding, he did not believe the fence should exist without a fence near the pool. CounciImember Goetten said that issue was discussed along, but at no time was a fence around the perimeter of the yard or in the right-of-way discussed. City Administrator Bernhardson said if the Council does not allow the fence to remain in the right-of-way, a determination of where to relocate the fence should be made. He said that the Council probably will not require the fence to be moved this winter. Mrs. Peterson asked what the City considered a reasonable distance between the fence and the pool? Mr. Peterson asked why that criteria was not mentioned before this? CounciImember Peterson said that her understanding is that the fence would be put immediately beyond the width of the decking of the pool. Mr. Peterson said that he was told the only reason he needed A variance was because he had a through lot. Mabusth said that a conditional use permit is required because of the through lot, the variance is necessary for the setbacks. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Peterson what his neighbors thought of what had been done? Mr. Peterson said that his neighbors were in favor of what he had done and that Mrs. Belt had come to the Planning Commission meeting to make sure everything was going smoothly. Public Works Director Gerhardson said that the section of Mrs. Belt's fence in the right-of-way had been removed at the request of the City. CounciImember Goetten said that she would be comfortable with a 3.5' fence as it was existing around the property to tie in with the front picket fence. Goetten said that she did not want the fence in the right-of-way and she was concerned about the "fencing in of Orono". She added that a fence around the pool would also be appropriate for their own liability. 8 MIVUTB8 OP TBB OROHO COOHCIL MBBTIH6 OP DECEMBER 11, 1989 X0EIE6 PILE #1289>iriLL Mayor Grabek asked Public Works Director Gerhardson if the fence in the right-of-way would pose a problem? Gerhardson replied that fences usually do pose a problem because of maintenance# tree removal, etc. Mayor Grabek suggested requiring the Petersons to move the fence back out of the right-of-way, but keep the fence the way it is now and if there is any change in the height, a variance will be required. CounciImember Goetten asked what height the fence could be? Mayor Grabek said that it could remain at the 5* height on the one side, but 3.5* will remain. He said allowing the fence to be 5* all the way around would give a "boxed-in look” to Orono. Mrs. Peterson said that all of the houses in their neighborhood were already boxed-ln. Mayor Grabek said that the fence has to be removed from the right-of-way. He said the Petersons could then come back to the Council with a plan of what they would like to do with the rest of the lot. that. Mr. Peterson said that he had thought he had already done Mayor Grab said that he was trying to reach a compromise for the Petersons that would mean the minimal amount of work at a minimal price. Mayor Grabek said that in the Spring they can move the fence back cut of the right-of-way and come back before the Council with their proposal for the remainder of the fence. CounciImember Peterson said that she understood their hardship about buying the additional 18* of the adjacent property. CounciImember Nettles asked the Petersons if their primary concern was safety or privacy. Mrs. Peterson said that it is both. The Art Center parking lot is across from their property. CounciImember Nettles suggested a cover for the pool that could be locked. Mr. Peterson indicated that financially that would not be possible. Nettles believed that it was unreasonable to have a fence 3* from the pool. MIMDTBS OP THB OROMO COOMCIL MBBTIV6 OP OBO 11, 19S9 SOHIWS PILE «1289-PBTBRSOM COIfflllUBD Nettles asked what problems had been encountered with Mrs. Belt's fence that had been located in the right-of-way? Gerhardson said that maintenance requirements differ from year to year. It was moved by Mayor Grabekr seconded by CounciImember Nettles# to move the fence back out of the right-of-way by June 30# 1990 and present a plan to the City for the remainder of the fencing on the property by May 1# 1990. Councilmember Goetten asked at what height the fence being removed from the right-of- way could be re-installed? Mayor Grabek said 5*. Councilmember Nettles said that he would probably vote against this because he does not believe the fence should be moved out of the right-of- way. He said that the fence has been in that location for many# many years and has not caused any problems. Councilmember Callahan said that he does not believe stuctures should be allowed in the public right-of-way. Councilmember Goetten concurred. Motion# Ayes-3# Goetten# Nettles, Nay. •1471 OAKTLB OPBOPP 2C99 KBLLT AVBIUB COHDITIOHAL USB PERMIT RBSOLOTIOII f2737 Mr. Uphoff was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained this application for a conditional use permit to repair a sea wall. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan# seconded by Councilmember Nettles# to adopt Resolution #2737# approving the conditional use permit for repairing a sea wall at 2699 Kelly Avenue. Motion# Ayes»5# Nays-0# Motion passed. •1472 DAVID CARLSOB 1960 8BORBLIMB DRIVE COMDITIOMAL USB PERMIT Mayor Grabek informed the public and the Council that this item had been tabled at the request of the applicant. City Administrator Bernhardson requested authorisation from the Council to direct the City Attorney to research reasonable uses of this property. Mayor Grabek stated that the City Attorney is so authorized. •1474 DOMALO BBLAMSKI 1695 COMCORDIA 8TRBT VARIABCB The applicant was not present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson informed the Council and Mayor Grabek that the applicants were seeking a hardcover variance to remove an existing garage and replace it with a K ! NINOTBS OP TBB ORORO MKI WCIL !T1HG OP 01 OR 11, 1989 80NIRG PILE fl474>BBIAN8KI CORTIRI garage existing on an adjacent property. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron said that the Planning Commission did not recommend removing any existing hardcover. Councilmember Goetten said that she would like to see a little trade-off and that removal of some hardcover would be appropriate. Mayor Grabek asked whether the Council could request removal of hardcover without the applicants being present? Bernhardson replied that if Council voted in favor of hardcover removal, the applicant could come back before them to express his objections. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to request the applicant to remove excess hardcover (amounts and location to be determined by staff) and allow him to come back before the Council should he object to removing hardcover. Motion, Ayes-5, Mays>0, Motion passed. *1476 DAVID AMD 808AMMB PRA88 1085 LIRDRM LAMB VARZAMCB DLOTIOH #2738 Mr. and Mrs. Prass were present for this review. City Administrator Bernhardson explained the brief history of this application. Re said that the applicants have submitted proof of insurance as requested by the Planning Commission, but coverage is unclear. Bernhardson suggested that approval be conditioned on proof of insurance being satisfactory. Mr. Prass said that he did not understand what question the City had regarding liability. Bernhardson said that the binder indicated that coverage is in effect for a vacant lot, but if there are any buildings on the property, a special insurance would be required. Bernhardson said that the pump house and the pool may both constitute buildings. Councilmember Goetten asked Mr. Prass if he had a time in mind for rebuilding? Mr. Prass understood that he had one year to file for a building permit. Goetten asked if that was his Intent? Mr. Prass said it was. MIllDnS OF TBB OROHO COOMCIL NBBTIII6 OF OBCBMBBR 11, 1989 XOaiHG FILE •1476-PRAS8 CORTIW Counci1member Callahan said that the application should be denied because he sees no reason for an accessory structure remaining without a principal structure. He said that the pre existing principal structure was removed due to the failure of the applicant to conform to the requirements of the City. Callahan believed that it would be a long time, if ever, before the Presses will rebuild. CounciImember Goetten said that she agreed with Callahan, but thought that a deadline for building could be established by Council. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the resolution addresses those concerns and deadlines. Mabusth added that the resolution will be amended to include the pumphouse. Bernhardson said there was a problem with the City's policy regarding the building deadline in that it allowed a 24-month construction period. He suggested placing a 6-month deadline on construction time. Mabusth said that the City's policy requires that construction activity begin within 6 months of the Issuance of the building permit. Bernhardson said that a certificate of occupancy should be obtained within 6 months. Mayor Grabek noted that the pool cannot be removed until spring. Mrs. Prase clarified that the pumphouse is not a free standing structure, but it is built into a hill, like a cave. She said if the pumphouse were to be removed, the hill would also be removed. Mr. Prass asked why the City would only allow him 6 months to construct a house when 24 months is the standard. He said they have owned and used the property for 20 years. CounciImember Callahan asked who had signed the zoning application? Mr. Prass replied that the fee holder had signed and noted that he purchased the property on a contract for deed 20 years ago. Mayor Grabek asked the Presses where they live? Mrs. Prass said that they live in Minneapolis and the home they had to tear down was their summer home. Mayor Grabek suggested the date of September 1, 1990 for .pplyin, for th. boildin, p.r»it ,„d ,ivin, th. Pr..s« 1, 1 7 MIHIITB8 OF THB OROIK) COOKCIL HEBTI8G OF DBCBHB8R 11* 1989 lOBMG FILE #1476-P«A8S COBTIMOBD lo to complete tne exterior of the building and an additional 12 months for the interior work to be completed. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles* to amend Resolution #2738* to require the applicants to apply for a building permit by September 1, 1990* have the exterior work completed within one year and the interior work completed one year beyond that. Motion* Ayes*4» Callahan* Nay* Motion passed. «1478 ROBBKT R1TCHB 3572 8BOBBLINB DRIVB COHDinOWO. 08B PERMIT RE8OLDTI0E #2739Mr. Ritchie was present for this matter* as was Dr. Janet Roshar* the proposed occupant of this property. City Administrator Bernhardson explained this application for a conditional use permit for a veterinarian clinic. Counci Imember Callahan said that the Planning Commission’s recommendation was unusual. Callahan questioned the circumstances that could result if the Council denies the application. Callahan recollected that the jjj® Planning Commission recommendation was due to the date of the real estate closing on the property. Mr. Ritchie added that the date for Dr. Roshar to begin her practice was also a pertinent factor in the Planning Commission recommendation. Councilmember Nettles said that any risks would fall on the buyer of the property. It was moved by Councilmember Nettles* seconded by Councilmember Peterson* to adopt Resolution #2739* approving the conditional use permit for Robert Ritchie. Motion* Ayes-5* Nays-O* Motion passed. •1480 ED AMD 6ERDA TOTE 725 OLD CRYSTAL BAT ROAD SOOTB TACATXOB - RBSOLOnOB #2740 Mr. and Mrs. Toth were present for this review. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained this application for a vacation and rededication of a drainage eanement. Gaffron said that the reviewed this proposal and recommends approval of the vacation and rededications. In addition, the applicants are requesting approval of a side setback variance for a deck and appeal of an administrative decision denying construction of a fence in the right-of-way of Farview Lane. Q^ffron briefly explained the request for a side setback M1MDTB8 or THE OROHO CODVCIL MBBTIHG OP DBCBMBBR 11# 1989 ZOHIHQ PILE •1480>TOTH COBTIW variance of just under one foot due to the angle of the house in relation to the west lot line. Public Works Director Gerhardson said that a driveway had been constructed off of Farview Lane. He said that the fence would identify the curb cut and would have aesthetic value# but offers no security. Mayor Grabek asked why the fence could not be placed within the property lines? Gerhardson said that the applicants believe that would serve no purpose because of the steep slope. Mayor Grabek asked if the fence would pose a problem for road maintenance? Gerhardson said that it may interfere with snow removal but the City prefers not to have structures in the right-of-way. Gerhardson said that he would provide information concerning liability for structures within the right-of-way at a later time. Mr. Toth said there is a heavy stand of trees that are closer to the roadway than the fence. Mr. Toth believed that the City put a split rail fence on the corner of Farview that is only 3* or 4* from the roadway. Mr. Toth said that there was a steep grade in the driveway coming off of Farview and a delivery truck fell off of the drive. He said that he had brought in a lot of fill for both sides of the driveway# but can add no mere without changing the topography. Mr. Toth said the fence will add to the lot aesthetically and will provide safety by defining the driveway. Gerhardson said that the City has not placed any fencing in the right-of-way. CounciImember Gcetten asked if the access onto Old Crystal Bay Road was being closed? Gerhardson said that is the intent# but that this driveway onto Farview is being used on a trial basis over the winter. Counci Imember Goetten said that it was unusual to have two separate accesses to one property. Gaffron explained that David Nits# previous owner of the property# had constructed the house and had originally proposed three different locations for the driveway. Gaffron said that there were certain requirements that had to be addressed with the various locations# and Nits eventually settled on the Farview access after the house and Old Crystal Bay Road acess were built. Gaffron said that it is the City's position that there be only one access for this property. MIHDTBS OP TBB OROVO COOMCIL MBBTIH6 OP DBCBIBBR 11, 1989 PIU •1480-TOTB COHTIRUBD irnhardson added that the Toths agreed to that. K.?. Toth said that he would willing to sign a hold harmless agreement releasing the City from any liability should the fence be damaged. He said that the fence will help define the driveway. Mayor Grabek asked Gerhardson whether the fence will in fact aid in defining the driveway? Gerhardson said the fence would be one way to define the driveway. Goetten suggested that shrubs would serve the same purpose. Mr. Toth said that the fence would offer more support in keeping any vehicles from falling off of the driveway. Goetten advised Mr. Toth that he did not need a variance for bushes and shrubs. City Administrator Bernhardson said that there are alternatives for defining the driveway. He suggested tabling that portion of the application until the January 8, 1990 meeting to allow time to explore those options. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2740, approving the vacation, and to approve the .9* side setback variance. Goetten said that she could not see any hardship for the deck setback variance. Callahan asked the applicant to explain his hardship. Mr. Toth said that there is a discrepancy in the surveys indicating the location of the house. Motion, Ayes>2, Peterson, Goetten, Callahan, Nay. Motion failed. It was moved by CounclImember Callahan, seconded by Councilmenber Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2740, approving the vacation and rededication of the drainage easements. Motion, Ayes>5, Nays«0, Motion passed. It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded by Counci Imember Goetten, to conceptually deny the .9* side setback variance. Mayor Grabek indicated he felt that the .9* is such a small amount that it will have no impact on anything. Motion, Ayes*3, Nettles, Mayor Grabek, Nay, Motion passed. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to table the administrative appeal regarding the placement of a fence in the right-of-way to the January 8, 1990 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays>0, Motion passed. I I MIHQTES OP THE ORORO COOliCIL MEBTIRG OP DBCBNBBR 11, 1989 EKI1 8 REPORT: HIGHWAY 12 8BWBR AND NATBR PAYMENT #1* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to approve payment #1 in the amount of $84,872.25 to Albrecht Excavating, Inc., for the Highway 12 sanitary sewer and water main rroject. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays*0, Motion passed. DIPT STATION »10 PAYMENT «4* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to approve payment #4 in the amount of $23,15*» 33 to Albrecht Excavating, Inc., for the sanitary sewer improv- ..ents lift station #10 and #43 replacement. Motion, Ayes«4, Nays-0, Motion passed. REQUEST POR PAYMENT NOODHILL AVENUE 3RD AMD PINAL PAYMENT* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to approve the third and final payment in the amount of $6600.70 to Hardrives, Inc., for Woodhlll Avenue Street Improvements. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays^O, Motion passed. NATBR NELL TEST DRILLING PAYMENT «1* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to approve payment #1 in the amount of $20,688.62 to Keys Well Drilling Company for water well test drilling. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays*>0, Motion passed. NAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT: There was no report from the Mayor or CounciImembers. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT CITY PACILITIES City Administrator Bernhardson said that he was presenting information regarding cost infcrmation at $80.00 per square foot for the city facility and at $48.00 per square foot for the public works. Bernhardson said that Ehlers and Associates was asked to layout the financing options and that information is also being presented. Bernhardson said that it would be helpful if the schematic phase of this project could begin with the architect. The cost to initiate thif. phase will be approximately $22,000.00 which will be offset from the architectural fees quoted. Bernhardson said that the schematics would be especially helpful in determining the amount of space needed, including expansion room. Bernhardson said that the information presented also sets out the various decisions and issues that will need to be addressed as the process continues. Mayor Grabek said that it was a good idea to keep moving forward. Councilmember Goetten thought that the $80.00 and $48.00 per square foot indicated was high. Goetten said that she was concerned about the escalating cost of this project and the lack MiaUTBS OP TBI OSCNK) COUNCIL MBBTIBG OP DBCBNBBI 11, 1989 CITT PACXLITXBS COBTXBUBD of definite information being presented to suppcrt the costs. Mayor Grabek said that he understood it was the concensus of the Council and Planning Commission to go with the higher cost/foot because of the long term maintenance cost. Goetten said that she would like to compare the $80.00 with a lesser cost per foot. Grabek said that was the purpose of visiting other facilities. Grabek said that the majority of Council and Planning Commission felt it was better to go with cement than dry wall. Grabek said that the $80.00 was not for luxurious furnishings# but rather good# sound construction and maintenance. Goetten said that she has not seen any facts to support that. She said that she does not know how the estimates went from approximately $70.00 to $80.00. Goetten said that she too was concerned about the BK>st quality for the dollar. CounciImember Callahan said that the City was not committing itself to $80.00/square foot. Callahan said until the knows what it is going to build a cost/square foot will be difficult to determine. He agreed with Goetten that the estimated cost has escalated considerably. Counci Imember Goetten said that she wanted to be assured that the $80.00 figure is the only figure that is considered. Goetten said there should be some give and take and other options considered. CounciImember Callahan asked how the schematics could be drawn without a site for the facilities being determined? Bernhardson said that the schematic preparation could be started without knowledge of the actual site. CounciImember Goetten believed that having a public meeting in January or February would be too early. It was moved by CounciImember Callahan# seconded by Mayor Grabek# to direct staff to provide the necessary information to aid in determining a site for the facilities and to adopt attachment F extending Boarman's contract to undertake the conceptual design. Motion# Ayes*S# Mays*0# Motion passed. MBSVOMKA POOL - RBQOB8T FOB A88X8TAMCB Ms. Lorraine Painter and Mr. Chuck Champine were present as representatives for the Westonka Pool Boosters. City Administrator Bernhardson said that tt. « will be a $12#500 ■*«»flcit for the We*}.onka pool. The W*i.4ton’ta Pool Booster/ e requesting contributA^'us from the cities of Orono# Mound# ing Park# and Minnetrista in the amount of N1HCITB8 OF THE ORCEIO C(KIMCIL MBETIMG OF DBCBNBBR 11, 1989 ijMtSTOmUk POOL COSTIW approximately $1,200 to $1,800. Bernhardson suggested a contribution at this time of $1,500. He said that Spring Park is hoping for a joint powers, or some other funding arrangement. Mound, Spring Park and Minnetrista have agreed to contribute the same amount Orono is proposing. Ms. Painter explained the circumstances under which the pool situation came to be. She also informed the Council of the many community uses for the pool. She said that community use far outweighs school use. Ms. Painter said that the School Board is being asked to fund whatever portion they can. She said that research has indicated that there is only one pool in the entire metropolitan area that is not subsidized. She Indicated that in going door-to-door there has been over 90% of persons indicating support and signing the petition being circulated. CounciImember Goetten asked what impact this reguest for funding will have on the new Orono pool? She assured Ms. Painter that she is not against the Pool Boosters proposal. Bernhardson said that CounciImember Goetten's question is one reason he is recommending the $1500.00 interim contribution. This will allow the City to contribute, but look into the ramifications of future funding. Mr. Chuck Champine showed the Council how the Pool Boosters hope future funding of the pool will be accomplished. He believed that there is a present need for fundir<v that will diminish in the future. Mr. Champine said that thei hculd be a reduction in the operation cost of the pool le to the acquisition of a pool blanket. He said that with the combination of the School Board, Pool Boosters and community service funds that it may not be necessary to ask Orono for money next year. He urged the Council and Mayor Grabek to consider entering into a joint powers agreement with the other cities. Mayor Grabek said that he had no objections to Orono paying its fair share, but he is concerned about long term subsidizing. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to authorize a $1500.00 contribution out of contingency for 1990. Ms. Painter suggested that Orono may wish to contribute more to show a good faith effort on their part. She said that would signal the School Board and other cities to do likewise. Mayor Grabek stated that $1500.00 is an affordable and reasonable contribution. Mayor Grabek said that the City needed to explore the issue of joint powers. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays«0, Motion passed. 1990 ntALn IMSOIIAHCB It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Counci Imember Peterson, to adopt a rate of $211.00 per month for family health coverage for general employees for 1990. Motion, Ayes»5, Nays"0, Motion passed. 1 Q *Til •JmiTi] L?lil'»»T-l OMTi •LMo? 0:^1) Jil-I::rj - :•1^1 l<lC^ni*l-•w.r*r*i •• II • [•>««l*l • )4«* .1 “ i -< LlrliW: • I •1IPC*W •liT*I-I»H*J L'I:Ii MIHUTBS OF TUB OROUO COUHCIL MEBTIN6 OF DBCBMBBU 11, 1989 11.0CMmn PROGRAM COMTIHI___ COUSULTART SBRVICBS RBVIBN PLAN Callahan asked whether just a cursory review of the consultant fees had been performed? Bernhardson said that was correct. ^^.4 Councilmember Goetten said that the 5-year frequency for reviews is a long time. Goetten suggested a 3-year review would be more appropriate. wwuxu V"*"?®J ^«ll«han sugg,. ed tabling this until more comparative fee information is provided. Bernhardson indicated that he would prefer to have the evening so that Bonestroo will have a contract by the 1st of January. Councilmember Callahan, seconded by ?? table this matter until the February Meeting to allow staff time to complete their review of the fees. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays»0, Motion passed. 1990 BDDGBT* r*i Grabek, seconded b:* Councilmembercaiiahan, to adopt Attachment A as its 1990 Budget. Motion, Ayes“4, Nays«0, Motion passed. 1990 8TRATBGIC PLAN* Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to adopt Attachment A Strategic Plan for 1990 with 1990 A<*®inistrator's Goal Setting. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays^O, Motioin passed. T AND 80NMARY FCR PUBLICATION1990 FBB8 - OROIHAMCB AMBNDHB ORDIHANCB 7C, 2ND 8BRIBS Councilmember Callahan questioned whether the proposed fees are high enough, especially the fees for the golf course. Public Works Director Gerhardson said the golf course fees $1.50 less per round than surrounding golf l2 topography of the golf courseis such that it is necessary to draw golfers to the course. 'll®® Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor ® Ordinance #76, Second Series, as the 1990 Fee SeJlM^*sft Nu®ber 62 Second Series, 65 Second 74 ** Series, 70 Second Series, 73 Second Series and 74 Second Series and adopt Attachment B as the Summary Ordinance MIMDTBS OF THE OROMO COOMCIL NBBTII16 OF DBCBMBSR 11, 1989 •J HI1990 FBB8>OROIRAMCB RMBRDIIBIIT CORTIRI for Publication. Motion, Ayes*>5, Nays^O, Motion passed. 1990-91 ASSBSSniG SBRVtcbs* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Callahan, to select Paul Smith and Associates to provide its assessing services for the period of 1 January 1990 to 31 August 1991 and that staff be directed to enter into a contract with Mr. Smith to provide such services. Motion, Ayes*>4, Nays»o, Motion passed. OOMFRBIIBM8IVB FLAM - SYSTEMS STATBMBWTS - RBSOLOTIOM 2743 CounciImember Goetten asked whether the issue of private, public road was being addressed in the comprehensive plan. City Administrator Bernhardson said that it probably does not matter to the Metropolitan Council whether Orono has private or public roads as it would not effect the regional transportation system. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2743, requesting a time extension from the Metropolitan Council for responses to the systems statement. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays«0, Motion passed. DARE PROGRAM - ORONO SC800LS Councilmember Goetten said that she is elated that the 5th grade Coordinator has established a pilot DARE program. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept the information encouraging the school district to work to make the pilot program a success and to then expand the program for the fall for grades 4 through 6. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays*0, Motion passed. RBCrCLlHG BID ANARD - 1990* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to award the curbside recyling bid for 1990 to Polka Dot Recyclers of Buffalo, Minnesota for an annual amount of $26,400 for bi-weekly curbside pick-up and to enter into a contract with Polka Dot Recyclers. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays*0, Motion passed. CDBG RRALLOCATIOH OF YEAR XIV F0MD8 - RBSOLOTIOM #2742* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to adopt Resolution #2742, amending Year XIV of the Community Development Block Grant Program transferring $14,553 from the Highway 12 Corridor Study to the Rousing Rehabilitation Program. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays*0, Motion passed. 1990 NOOMD FIRB CONTRACT* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to adopt its fire service contract with Mound for 1990. Motion, Ayesa4, Nays*0, Motion passed. N2MDTBS OP THE OROMO COUNCIL MBBTIN6 OP DBCBMBBR 11, 1989 1990 INSOKMICB IIBNBIIRLS* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Callahan, to award the City of Orono 1990 insurances to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust, United Fire t Casualty and Western National, effective January 1, 1990, as proposed. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays«0, Motion passed. MmOSISATlON TO DI8B0S8B CITY PONDS POK CLAIMS RBCBIVBD* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Callahan, to authorize the City Treasurer to disburse City funds in payment of claims received for the December 25th Council meeting, which has been cancelled and that such paid claims are to be presented at the January 8, 1990 regular Council meeting for formal approval. Motion, Ayes>4, Nays>0, Motion passed. ADNINISTRATOR'S INPORMATIOH* It w«. a moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Counci Imember Callahan, to accept the City Administrator's Information regarding: Art Center; 1950 Shoreline Drive; Section 89; 3442 Rest Point Circle; Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. Motion, Ayes«4, Nays*0, Motion passed. CITY ATTONHBY*S NBPORTz There was no report from the City Attorney, however. City Attorney Barrett requested an Executive Session. LICBHSIS* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Callahan, to approve the following license: Septic System Installer: K's Mechanical 20880 Nowthan Blvd. Elk River, MN Commercial Kennel: Residential Kennel: D. Brian/Cathy L. Fulmer The Dog House Boarding Kennels, Inc. 3505 Wayzata Blvd/Cathy L. Fulmer Maxwell E. Alvord 960 North Brown Road Thomas a Ingrid Anderson 3550 North Shore Drive Wayne E. a Gayle D. Carrier 1376 North Arm Drive Frank a Sue Kokesh 4100 Watertown Road Marilyn Pickard 4607 Watertown Road G. James a Judith A. Spinner 940 North Arm Drive MINUTES OP THE OROHO COUNCIL MEETING OF O BER 11, 1989 LICENSES COHTINI r Liquor: Frank Yusup 2220 French Creek Circle John E. Baker 4680 West Branch Road Rollie ( Nancy Martin 2675 Shadywood Road Ross B. Nathanson 2420 Countryside Drive Wayzata Country Club 200 Hayzata Blvd. Woodhill Country Club 2C2 Woodhill Road Motion^ Ayes*4, Nays*0, Motion passed. BILLS* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounclImember Callahan, to approve payment of the All Funds Accounts. Motion, Ayes«4, Nays*0, Motion passed. EXECUTIVE SESSION - lOslO P.M. City Attorney Barrett requested that the Council go into an executive session at 10x10 p.m. ADJOOENMBMT 10s35 P.M. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember ***ttles, to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 10:35 p.m. Notion, Ayes«5, Nays*0, Motion passed. ATTEST X Oorocny m. Haiiin, City Clerk James R. Grabek,Mayor 1390.11 TO: PROM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson/ City Administrato January 3, 1990 COimiL MCETIHG JAM 8 i9^0 SUBJECT: Park Dedication Fees CITY OF mNO Attachment: A. Park Dedication Fee Memo Dated 12/8/89 B. Letter to Planning Commission Dated 12/15/89 ISSUE 1. Determine if Council desires any change in its park dedication fee. 2. If change is desired, to what level should it change. 3. If the goal ^evel the Council desires to achieve should be phased in, the means for phase in. INTRODUCTION - .'t the Council's December 11, 1989 Council meeting they reviewed Attachment A, proposal from the Park Commission relating to a change in the park dedication fees. As noted in that memo the City last changed is park dedication dollar amount in 1975. Since that time the Consumer Price Index has escalated approximately 250%. Had the park dedication fee followed the Consumer Price Index it would be approximately $500 per single family home on 2 acres as opposed to the present $200. DISCUSSION - Attachment A outlines the proposal together with providing comparisons of the rates with other cities. A synopsis of the proposal is as follows: Current Rates Proposed Rates Single Residential Dersity Range .15 or less per acre 1 per 2.00 acres 1 per 5.00 acres $600/Lot 200/Lot 100/Lot 10% of fair market value at time of platting not less than $500/Lot (Based on their example it could range from $800 to $1800 per lot) Multiple Residential (Units/Acre) Duplex .20 to 6.01 250-1500/Bldg Multipel .20 to 6.01 150-900/Unit 10% of fair market value at time of platting and not less than $300/Unit Commercial Industrial $500/Acre 10% of value I PHASE IN - If the Council does not desire an immediate imposition of a certain dollar amount, there is a possibility that it could be phased in over a 3 to 5 year period. ADM INISTRATTON - Presently the schedule is relatively easy to calculate. The new system would involve determination of value which is subject over to some "dispute" depending on the proposed value. As presently proposed it does place the Council in the position of being the final arbiter of value on each subdivision. An alternative would be to either base it on the last market value for tax purposes or base the annual rate on a "Typical value" property to be set at the beginning of the year. PARK DEDICATION POLICY - The City's Comprehensive Plan felt that park development was appropriate in the urban areas but because there were 2 acre and 5 acre in the rural zone, that there was less of a need for park facilities. To the extent that parks were viewed strictly as open space, there is less of a need for such open space in the 2 and 5 acre zones. However, those do not lend themselves to other uses of parks such a organized sports, significant playground equipment, etc. USE OF FUNDS - The expenditures in the park areas have been on an "as need" basis, with no programming for these funds. It would be appropriate in conjunction with or as a follow up to this that the Park Commission be directed to develop a plan for utilization of these funds. An initial need has been the desire for implementation utilizing these funds for implementation of the Bike Hike system previously presented to the Council. No estimate has been made of the cost of this system and there is a need to review the use of park dedication funds for such ideas as Bike Hike trails. As you will note Attachment B was transmitted to the Planning Commission, but no responses have been received. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the proposal as is. 2. Table for further discussion. 3. Concur with the idea of consideration of specifics. a change however, table for 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - Given the fact that there has been no adjustment in the park dedication fees for 15 years it would be appropriate that a change be made. The extent of the change however, should be tabled until the Council's meeting in February. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council agree to change the fees, however, delay specifics for the change until its February 12, 1990 Council meeting. Ayes , Nays cc:Park Commission members John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members 12889.3HDTo: Proas Data: December 8, 1989 Subject: Park Dedication Fees Attachment A - Park Conunission's Memo dated 11/9/89CITY OF ORQfIfi Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratos^S^,,.,^.. COlWCtt MEETING DEC 111989 Xseaes - Providing Council with Park Commission ’s prooosal re<rep<34nrr manner in which City collects Park DedicftiSn Introduction > -5__u the Park Commission nas been reviewing the City’s Sith tht^D^ttlel^ln?’*# proposal would bring it more in-line xtn tne practice and fees of area municipalities. Alternatives - Issue #1 - 1• Accept. 2. Discuss. 3. Table. Recooaendation - . recommended that the issue be tabled for further CounciV de*lr« Councils January 8, 1990 meeting should the thS Siietsl present system. A subsequent amendmaut to upon^pj^llcatiol anytime to be effect Proposed Motion - Moved by Council accept the information seconded by _ _, the Orono the Park Commission regardinqtheir -T— commission regarding Pets! alternation of the Park Dedication I • r MFMnRAWpm* TO:Orono Parks Commission FROM:Dick Flint DATE:November 3,1989 Enclosed are: 1, Proposed new Orono City Ordinance and Park Fee Schedule (drafted by Jim Gilbert)• 2. Proposed Report and Recommendations to the City Council which would accompany the proposed ordinance. We should finalize each of these at next Tuesday's meeting. 0571X pfpnPT AMD RFrnMMENDATIQN TO* Orono City Council FROM: Orono Parks Commission Proposed New Park Ordinances and Park Dedication Fee Schedule DATE* November 9, 1989 COPY* City Administrator City Engineer For more than 18 months, the Orono Parks Commission has been studying the Orono Parks Dedication Fee Schedule and Ordinance. Based on that study and the reasoning set forth herein, wo recommend that new ordinances and Fee Schedule be adopted in the form of Exhibits A and B attached to this memorandum. Adoption of the new Fee Schedule and Ordinances would accomplish the following: 1. Bring Orono's Park Dedication Fee Schedule and Ordinances in conformity with that of similar Minnesota commxinities. 2Raise the Park Dedication Fee to a level consistent with that levied by other communities and provide an automatic adjustment for inflation (since it is tied to a percentage of the value of the land being subdivided). 3, Provide more ade«juate funding for parks , playgrounds , trails and open space as our community is subjected to inevitable development pressures. Li 4. Asiend the resolution which governs the Park Fund to bring it in conformity with Section 462.358, Subdivision 2b of the Minnesota Statutes by providing that the funds therein can be use 1 to acquire land for "trails or open space", as well as public parks and playgrounds. SUMMARY OF PARK DEOirJVTION FEE SCHEDULE IN ORONO AMD OTHER COMMUNITIES The Parks Conunission has surveyed the Park Dedication Fee levied in (a) nearby communities and (b) other communities in the metro area which, according to the League of Minnesota Cities, recently have adopted Park Dedication Fee Ordinances. The results of that survey are set forth on Exhibit C. Our conclusions from that survey are: 1. Orono's approach of charging a Park Dedication Fee based on a sliding scale depending upon the acreage of the resulting lots (the larger the lot, the smaller the fee) appears to be unusual among the communities surveyed. 2. The most common approach appears to assess a Park Dedication Pee equal to a percentage of the land value, with the percentages varying from 7t to 10%, but the most common percentage being 10%. 3. One problem with the current Orono approach is that it fails to adjust for inflation, resulting in the Park Dedication Fee charged by Orono being much lower than chat charged by other coRV’t anities. SUHUARY OF THE RESULTS OF PARK DEDICATION FEE CHARGED BY ORONO IN RECENT SUBDIVISIONS The following schedule summarizes the Park Dedication Fee charged by Orono in recent subdivisions and comparer hat to the fee that would have been charged had a 10% Park Deu cacion Fee been charged. Painters Creek - 5 acre zone Total Acres (37.69 + 14.971 Land Value (131,800 + SO,000) Number of Lota (PRD) Park Dedication Fee Actually Charged Using Percentage of Value (10% of 181,000) 52.56 $181,800 10 $1,000 $18,180 Golden View - (Peterman Addition) 2 acre zone Total Acres Land Val'ie Number ot Lots Park Dedication Fee Actually Charged Using Percentage of Value (10% of 83,900) 18.75 $83,900 6 $1,200 $8,390 Ifeyer Dairy Addition — 2 acre zone Total Acres Land Value Number of Lots Par ’" Dedication Fee Actually Cheurged i' Percentage of Value (10% of 115,000) 34.24 $115,000 11 $2,200 $11,500 Rolling Keadowa - 2 acre zone Total Acres Land Value lumber of Lots Park Dedication Fee Actually Charged Using Percentage of Value (10% of 49,000) 18.4 $49,00C 6 $1,200 $4,900 The foregoing schedule, we believe, demonstrates the woeful inadeguacy of the current Orono Park Dedication Fee Schedule when compared with the fees charged by other similar communities -3- NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDINGThe following schedule summarizes the Park Dedication Fees collected and expended from the time the Park Dedication Fee Schedule was first adopted in 1976 through the end of 1988. It also shows the current balance in the fund,PARK FUNDCash and investments balance at 12/31/88Investment $117,113Year1988 P^rk Fees Tnt. Earned Total Expen^irt$ 7,900 $ 8,923 $ 16,823 $ 16,631 1987 6,440 10,368 16,808 32,394 1986 6,950 10,283 17,233 1,884 1985 2,950 11,125 14,075 5,917 1984 11,830 11,744 23,574 15,888 1983 6,290 11,708 17,998 68,834 1982 17,339 17,664 35,003 6,199 1981 5,480 19,268 24,748 7,661 1980 2,890 9,258 12,148 7,731 1979 10,140 10,515 20,655 7,316 1978 38,781 5,996 44,777 989 1977 37,964 305 38,269 14,398 1976 29,239 142 29,381 2,535 1975 Total 2.453 2.453 — — $186,646 $127,299 $313,945 $188,377 Major expenditures include the following: 1988 - Well at Hackberry Peork to flood skating rink 1987 - 1984 - Bederwood Park and Summit Beach 1983 - Repay golf course debt The current size of the fund ($117,000) plus annual addition of under $10,000 prevent the Park Commission from undertaking any more than a "maintain and hold" approach toward the existing park system. Major improvements and enhancements 4- 1 EXHIBIT B CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1252 A RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION 1252 ESTABLISHING A PARK FUND The City of Orono hereby amends Resolution 1252 to read: WHEREAS/ City of Orono Ordinance No. 220 requires the establishment of a separate fund for deposit of all cash contributions received from subdivisions in lieu of conveyance or dedication of land for parks/ playgrounds, and other public purposes. BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the Park Fund be established and all park dedication fees collected by the City according to the current fee schedule be credited to the Park Fund. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the park dedication fees be used only for the acquisition, development, or maintenance of public parks, playgrounds, trai1a. open sDACfi, surface water holding areas limited only to ponding areas § and debt retirement In connection with land previously acquired for such public purposes within the City of Orono. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held -- - - - -- Attest: ♦Proposed chance is underlined 7034T -6- EltHTP]-.p ^co».cx.r/oTo' f resolved that tK- » . *nd all park ^ ording t? the cur«^t°faf®®®K®°^^«cted by the Park Fund. *®« achedule be ^ * resolved that f.h-> *or tlw «cqSjJiJ?* ‘’*5* <l«llc«tlon fu« '* public pSkJ or ty of Orono. ^ PubUc purpose. lined. are just not practical. In addition, we have been studying a trail system for several years and the City Council has given it conceptual approval but there clearly are insufficient funds available even to initiate such a system.For the reasons stated above, we recommend adoption of the Ordinances and Fee Schedule schedules set forth on Exhibits A and B. .1 :7‘5 ■■ ^ 1 m u II G €1 •H « « I « •H AJ| 0 « X fl 0 H3 V} N V X s Z9a o 4A U 0 0 > O s so o•a- ^ u Ic iA CM CM I I 'H, in CM pM ^ % oeou O 0 0N >% d •0 5o £ 4^ d i>% d Ail 0 >> Liu JG U d 04 c K M O Ouca co AM 0ccs oo » 0uo oc 0 0 0 Wi « 0 0 ^ U 0 0 > “ Bi5 0 K 0 0 0 U 0 0 O |... 0 ►ou u 0 >c d M»QO 03 CN eo 00 00 00 in CD f-4d •H c V•o •H cn d >i tn H in I CM Mm MmI CM in §ou •o XI oo in M CM I CM M CM I CM ►%4J •W cac 01•o co 0 •a n> d Q CO ^ CO O •o in CM M in 1 cM ;Hm £ •o 0) 0)u s 0)u a > oxc CB 00 c a C9 CS fO 4a CO T< i4 4J Vcc 00 Id => d •H Q Q 4J c JC ^ • o d o O V 10 in o so •o CO CM •ro d ^4 •H o •00 •«in r—^-t» CO 6 o. V d •H rfoc4Jo <-H OJ >3d£O tic a d rd •H H d Qi ocoiJim £in CO :o toc •H -o V £ (0 0) JS o a.s lO 00 00 O \D 00 Hm CITY OP ORONO STATE OF MINNESOTA Ordinance No. An Ordinance eunending Section_ _ _ of the Orono City Code relating to park dedication and cash for development of land. The City Council of the City of Orono ordains as follows; Section 1. Section 2.20 of the Orono City Code is hereby amended and the current fee schedule for park dedication fees is hereby repealed. Section 2. Section . ParJcs, Playgrounds and Open Space A. Lands for Public Use. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes/ 1971, §462.358, subd. 2, the City requires all persons, corpora tions or other legal entities that subdivide land within the City of Orono must as a prerequisite to approval of a lot division, final plat, or development of any land previously divided by plat, metes and bounds, or any other means, to convey to the City or dedicate to the public, for use as parks, playgrounds, trailJi, or open space, a given percentage of the land being platted or devel oped as hereinafter specified, said portions to be approved by the City. In lieu thereof, the subdivider shall, at the option of the City, pay to the City, for use in the acquisition, development or maintenance of public parks, playgrounds, trails or open spaces and debt retirement in connection with the land previously acquired for such public purposes, an equivalent amount in cash based upon the fair market value of the land to be developed. The form of contribution (cash or land, or any combination thereof) shall be decided by the City Council based upon the need and con formance with the Comprehensive Plan. • .. .... B. Dedicated Land Requirements, Any land to be dedicated aM a requirement olf this section shall be reasonably adaptable for the above public purposes. Factors used in evaluating the ade quacy of proposed dedicated areas shall include size^ shape# topo graphy# drainage# geology# tree cover# access and location. C. Land Dedication Minimum Area. Subdividers shall be required to dedicate to the City £or parks# playgrounds# trails# open spaces and other public purposes as a minimum that percentage of gross land area as set out below: (1) Residential/Agricultural/Multiple Residential Zoned Land. Dedication requirement of 10% of the land being platted, subdivided or existing lot of record. (2) Commercial/Industrial Zoned Land Dedication requirement of 10% of the land being platted, subdivided or existing lot of record. D. Cash Contribution in Lieu of Lands. In those instances where a cash contribution is to be made bythe subdivider, in lieu of a conveyance or dedication of land, the cash contribution to be contributed shall be equivalent to the fair market value of the equivalent undeveloped land that would otherwise have been con veyed or dedicated. E. Fair Market Value of Lands. "Fair Market Value" for pur poses of this Code shall be the land value to be determined by the M ^*<1 .or 0-1 0.1 ... ^ ^ ^ J mm, i mmCity Council as of the time of preliminary plat application in accordance with the following: (1)The City Assessor shall recommend to the City Council as to the fair market value of the land after consultation with the subdivider. (2)If agreement is not reached between the City Assessor and subdivider, then the fair market value shall be determined in accordance with the following: (a)Fair market value as determined by the City Council based upon a current appraisal submitted to the City by the subdivider, at his expense. The appraisal shall be made by appraisers who are approved members of SREA or MAI, or equivalent real estate societies. (b)If the City disputes such appraisal amounts, it may obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified real estate appraiser which the City Council selects and which appraisal may be accepted by the City as being an accurate appraisal at fair market value. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the sub (ivider. (3)The determination of fair market value of the undevel oped land by the City Assessor, City Council, or desig nated appraisers, shall be determined as of the time of preliminary plat application as long as there is final plat approval within the time limits as set forth in this chapter. The time of preliminary plat approval is utilized because the nature of the subdivision, its probable oooulation, lot size and value, and other rele vant factors are known. If an extension of the time limits in this chapter is approved by the City Council, the fair market value shall be determined as of the time of the approval of that extension. In determining the fair market value as of time of preliminary plat PP cation, or the extension thereof, the factors to be included in the analysis shall include any and all fac tors which are generally accepted and used by approved members of SREA or MAI or equivalent real estate appraisal societies. (4) ^*300.00 per dwelling unit. F. Develooment of Land Previously Platted. If the_land^^has already been previously suocivided and a fee had not been previ ois?y ^d! tL requirLents of this division shall apply at the time^of the issuance of a building permit for the primary struc ture. G •Futi . Subdivision. Any land which is ^ dpd divided~or replatted subsequent to _ _ _ _ _ ___/ f" brsubiecfto the ?eouirements of the ordinance then in etrectDe SUDjeci. nnrnoQes. aconlerSiSg Ldicatio^ of land for public purposes, and «=dit shall be liven for any charges previously imposed “PJ" if the suMivlder can prove that fees were previously paid, in no .. BKmii -i-ho ritv he liable for any payment which may be due bllllsf If a'sIb^lLnl «lS«lon in LI ^plication percentage of land or equivalent market value in cash to be dedicated. n administrative Procedures. The City Council shall estab- lish sGch administrative proceoTITes as they may appropriate to implement t.he provisions of this section or code. Section 3 This ordinance shall have full force and effect upon its passage and publication. Passed bv the Council of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this _____ day of_____________________ Mayor ATTEST; Clerk XICla C CQawoau 3a ® o Id 3a cx: •H c •O 3 r-l tt Id 01u 6 u 0 XI « >1 3cru 3 oXIa>c »ou Ooo 3 01 X3 iH Idx: 10 01 ZJ\ oc c •H 01 fH XI -o 01 O-^ w K 01 H c; o O o o o o o o </> •o 01 XI do •o 01 *o r-4 y rr a; o c z oooooooo i/^OOVOCSCO^'S </y OOOOOOOO qOO^®^'^^ cr- CO co 3 XJo 0 •X u 3 >xl 0 01 C U u o o a u >1 fd ^ r-4 C VJ (da ^cx r-4mId «k ox:1 X* M XI xl c Co Id ^01 •3 CU r-B —4CaCl 0 a ^ jj r-l c: 01 ** J3 01 > O >f 3 C Cl ^r-l a co D x: Id —i4 S vui o 0 ri4 XI id Du c Cl — «<- 2 3 =1-1•X a r4 a f-H ? td 2 ^O 0 ^ u X -«4 0^ VM • xl o d o • x: ! s ^xl cn 01 C r-l cn XI < c w •-4 «r4 W Kca oooooooo inooooooo oooooooo rH n m ^ ^ in in </> ^ rH rH I—I r-l •-< c D c r-4 r-lo a Cl 01u Cl c c; N jjc r-l rH O tQ ^ m • • r-^ 01 ^ 2 • ON n CM 01 rH • • • • r^ o cs rH r-l r-l rH 01 O O o Uo (Nj m ^ S 0B u O xJ o q O XI XI 0 0 0 XI XI XI u O uooooooq QxlXlXlXXlXlXl o o o o o o CM tn • • • CM O O O r-lo o o o . • • • ^ VO VO X: xj 01 xl rH c U0 rHd ^ W 3 gJJ fd •MXl-X 3.X 0 U-i a d X "o ■-<y -X5 -rs * V r-* -*- id ty or It thec0•—401 •X wc-Xua t o r (d u p l Shou e shai t o r un 11u ^>D1 -• £Cl '*-* X5 0 g 'O <u q > •X X) 3 01 #-• xl C •X xl 01 -X X 3 “• c ». a> cn 3 5 « Oj c .Q ^ S; V4s a-^•^Xl fji 3 3 Cl -X '3 rn XI ro ^ Id JD 3••an •X 'O u O UH •3 *-• _i^ rH e -O ® a a “ <H *H H .Q •H Cli-iJ ^ -H rX IC .X Cl 3 xl 1 D 3 3 C o ~4 ^ C' 0 >ix:Id n.u J *0 OJ 3 xl d »X r-4 XI M4 •X rO X3 •X a t in g V a c a n t :e on p re v io u s to be p a id w it : Fee to be3 O' Clu 01 •X 0 01 X4 o j- J3 ^ jj q w 01 2.‘woixJ-— 2 U ^ Cl 'O 0 cU-l rH C ^ .X ^d ^ g o ^ ^ J* d r. Cl « vu ^ 3 01 U ^ ^ y X , •o 0 r •X UJ C d •— a XI r- 2 w-^ U - ^ rX 0 UJ x-i ^ 0 z JQ -X n m r. m ^ c ^1-3 rH O 01 ™ JJ 01 I-* —- X <U 0) '^r-T •^ 01 ^ Xl 01 u Cl 0 O o rH 3 n e e , New lo t . mm f-H d •X XI 3 01 'O : F ee to r o ccu rs hed s in g y c e s id e r u le amoutfc, 3 c O 3 O mm 0 a rH u d i-i 0 •X 01 ^ XI > .o 2 > -H C) 'J -X ^ 01 O rX 'O 3 01 n•C C —4 ig rrt 3 > d ^ 01 « 2 0 —4 'O —4 n i; .a Xl Xi01 dl 01 *-* • 01 Xl g .3 XI fd Cl «0 o t *v*4 f* t01 o 3 3 ca'“ CO 5 >ii ”^S- 3 »3 u Cl 5 ci -a —H >1 tn rH 01 •X U cn ” C-H — c ^ 3 « •X 4 XI o fO U-I w 3 a ^ 0 ^ 2J •a * »rli; •H Xl “ = n -H 'ti a ^ u a> j ^ c: - >’ = 1 rH 0 ^ g 01 ^£X a o 0 S oj O -X ^ d 2- 5 .2 01 •• fc4 ^ O a ?jJ en cnixi d -X = ' = i!---a “ to C^rH ® = - H X3 ra Q W J > s s in g le each “ne1 and 2 re s id e n tD u p le x s u b d iv1 de C 1 ne<] c x ls t in one h a l >.f -X ^ XI .o X rX - 3 3 3 S 3 S <33 CJ o fc2 o o o o m lO o O rN CM r-< r-l >1 a Lf. * • ' ’. . I^ 'CITV? I 2 OF I ^aRaNcy CITYofORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323•Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka December 15/ 1989 Dear Orono Planning Commission Member: At the December 11/ 1989 meeting of the Council/ the Park Commission provided background information and a proposed amendment of the park dedication fee for Council's review action. At that meeting/ Council accepted the information but requested that the Planning Commission review the proposed amendment before Council's formal action. The Council will formally act on the park ded.^ ration fee amendment at their January 8/ 1990 meeting. Tfc Planning Commission is asked to submit their comments to Jeann. Mabusth or Mark Bernhardson by a deadline of Wednesday/ January 3rd. The packet submitted for Council's review has been enclosed with this letter. If you have any further questions on the informatloiir please contact Dick Flint of the Park Commission (473-5585). Sirc^ely , idUn/uLrf J6anne A. Mabusth/ Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/tin cc: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Mark E. Bernhardson/ City Administrator John R. Gerhardson/ Public Works Director Richard Flint/ 1405 Sixth Ave N/ Long Lake |I.DiSG A ZOSlNt; - 4T3-T357 \DMIMSTP.\TION 1 t - 4":j.T35* FVX-47J-n?I0 PiSLIC WORKS - 4T3-'n5» CITY of ORONOPostOmce Box 66•Crystal Bay. MinnesoU 55323•Muniopal Offlcsa On the North Shore of Lake MinnetonkaDecember 15, 1989Commission Member:Hr 1989 meeting of the Council, the Park d background information and a proposed rk dedication fee for Council's review and sting. Council accepted the information but Plannxng Commission review the proposed ncil's formal action. 11 formally act on the park ded^ ration fee January 8, 1990 meeting. Th Planning :o submit their comments to Jeann . Mabusth or 1 deadline of Wednesday, January 3rd. itted for Council's review has been enclosed If you have any further questions on the contact Dick Flint of the Park Commission Sirc^ely, 'CUVLi^ Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator rono Council Members son. City Administrator an. Public Works Director 105 Sixth Ave N, Long Lake AnMiMsmvTicrs a nviscE - -47J4l5Ut PI BUC Ut)Hm - 473-7359 To:From:Date:Mayor Grab«.\ & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson council. MEETINGJAII 8«53niTV fr?Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Adminlstre?or December 29, 1989Subject: #1452 Walter Pemberton, 1720 Shadywood Road -Variance - 3rd ReviewList of ExhibitsExhibit A - Letter from Applicants 12/28/89 Exhibit B - Staff Letter to Applicants 12/20/89 Exhibit C - Existing Hardcover Sketch Exhibit D - Proposed Removals Sketch Exhibit E - Proposed Final Hardcover Sketch Exhibit F - Council Minutes 11/27/89, 10/23/89 Discussion •* Staff and the applicants and their attorney have met to discuss applicants' options. The Pembertons again reiterate that there are no other reasonable locations for an addition that would accomplish their goal of making the dining room larger, without requiring variances and negatively affecting of the character of the house. The applicants have conridered whether additional areas of hardcover can be removed, and per Exhibit D, are proposing to remove 375 square feet o^ 'hardcover in the 0-75' zone, and remove 844 square feet in the ' 250' zone. In the 0-75' zone, hardcover decreases from 26.8% to 19.9%. In the 75-250' zone, hardcover decreases from 57.5% to 45.9%. Staff Recoannendation - Please review the attached exhib-ts. Council's options are as follows: 1. Approval with hardcover removals as proposed. 2. Approval conditioned on further hardcover removals. 3. Denial. Action for approval should specify the hardships supporting approval. Action to deny should specify reasons for denial. A resolution reflecting Council's action will be drafted for your next meeting. ■V, ? 1 .J • Vj •* ! * r** — ■*". t ! • t \ .iN\■ ‘ ■ •' 1 •;I. ; • :*•. \ I 1 i i \ t DeC29l989 December 28, 1989 Michael P. Gaffron Ass'c Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN Dear Mr. Gaffron: My wife and I want to thank you and Ms. Jeanne Mabusth for the time you accorded us in preparing our revised hardcover reduction proposal. The sketches vou prepared are an accurate reflection of the agreed upo^ removals and fairly represent our best efforts to remain cooperative with the city official's wishes. The removal of this hardcover will enable us to landscape these areas with greenery and flowers* We believe, as we have previously submitted, that the windows and openings to the balance of the house. ments or subsr^vtial architectural modifications > could easily destroy the appearancfe of the structure* We respectfully submit this proposal '« will focus on the positive nature of ot . hope that the counci members ntly agreed upon effot W. H. Pemberton Marilyn tl- 'emberton /Ik .1 CITYOFORONQ o M ■r«i [• H «•! •I*lcVcT« 0 A I <r q: *»•i • • I i/o U) 0 ::>*5A » • • * • J • / \ff\r iI 4 I 0 cc y»»m, •• • 4»•- !© JXV»XVVXVV» N CO to Nr* /I V'A x\> v\> \ M % \ ‘vxSv^w\r % N v\>.vVvvww • . ^ r ■ f cw.XTl 5\ •^ • ' ' ■ i!; , *\\ ^ , •S 1 ^ : .\ • f:‘ '•v 5S V, V%Vv vVVVWW 0 t % % \nr- o i: 3-> «. fO f4 rS " " n 5 \ 05 3: v3 CSi It i (» > (O N s5 •I lo <r- «- % v3 U) vt 3 |l It !• ii •I •>* 2 >V* Vl 0 i<\ to(ft 3~ >1 It i« Cl ^ ti k\ <ft 0 Ia A ?• h •< «II ^ ^w \ ^ it \ s s • '? i 1 1 p) r: o vSVo MINUTES OF THE ORCNO CCONCZL MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1989 #1452 WALTER PEMBERTON 1702 SBADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCE SECOND REVIEW Mr. and Mrs. Pemberton were present for this application. City Administrator Bernhardson informed the Council and Mayor Grabek of the issues involved with this application. Mrs. Pemberton explained that the dining room was too small for the size of the house. She said there is no room in the kitchen to eat and the dining room will not accomodate a family sit down dinner very well. is? CounciImember Goetten asked what the size of the dining room Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron said that the dining room is approximately 10' x 13*. Bernhardson noted that by constructing the addition 7' to the side# a 3' side yard variance would be required and there would still be a portion of the addition in the 0-75' setback area. Mrs. Pemberton said that the addition being proposed is very complimentary to the design of the house. Bernhardson informed the Council and Mayer Grabek that 1710 Shadywood Road# adjacent to the Pemberton's# hardcover in the 0- 75' zone is 17.5% compared to 22.5% and 29% in the 75-250' zone# compared to the Pembertons' 52.03% The residents of 1710 requested to increase hardcover in the 75-250' to 43 , and the City denied their request and required them to remove an existing garage. The residence of Mr. Jack Rhode# 2 homes to the north# was within 55' of Lake Minnetonka and pulled it back to 61'# using only a portion of the existing foundation to rebuild. His proposal was 13% hardcover in the 0-75 and 24% in 75-250* zone. It was moved by CounciImember Nettles# seconded by CounciImember Goetten# to deny application #1452. CounciImember Callahan asked what the Planning Commission had recommended. Gaffron replied they had recommended approval with a 4 to 2 vote. Mrs. Pemberton said they were being punished for something they did not do. She said they did not put in the deck# driveway or plastic. She said they were improving the architectual design of the house. CounciImember Goe ten said that she was not faulting the Pembertons for the situ, ion that existed when they bought the property. Goetten saiu that the problem involves not allowing the situation to continue or worsen. Goetten offered the Pembertons the option of tabling the application to explore other options. Mr. Pemberton asked what other options they had? Goetten said that perhaps there were no others. Mr. Pemberton said that the title to the house should reflect the condition of ^1MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 27, 1989 ZONING PILE «1452-PEMBERTON CONTINUED the house. Goetten said that issue would have to be addressed with the sellers of the home Pemberton purchased. Mrs. Pemberton asked if they could give up more hardcover? Bernhardson requested amending the motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial. Councilmember Mettles amended his motion, Councilmember Goetten seconded. Councilmember Peterson asked whether part of the driveway could be removed? Gaffron replied that approximately 300 s.f. of driveway could be removed and still be functional. Councilmember Nettles suggested to Mr. Pemberton that he would table the application if he wished to explore removal of the hardcover and come back. Councilmember Nettles withdrew his motion. It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to table this application to allow the applicants to further explore their options and return with a more favorable proposal. Mayor Grabek said that it was apparent that what was being proposed would not be acceptable so that there would have to be a compromise or redirection of the addition or there would be a vote at the next meeting. Mrs. Pemberton asked for direction as to how much reduction in hardcover the Council would like to see? Mayor Grabek said that he has a problem with approving an addition over a deck in the 0- 75* setback zone. Grabek said the only factor that allows him to even consider this application is that the house is not extending further toward the lake, it is filling in a corner. Councilmember Goetten said that the only way she would be inclined to approve the application would be if the deck were removed. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the northern sidewalk could be removed also. Mr. Pemberton said that gravel, with no plastic, could replace the sidewalk. Councilmember Callahan said that he usually is persuaded by the Planning Commission recommendation and is impressed with applicants' efforts to reduce hardcover. Callahan said that on the other hand he would * Inclined to adopt a rigid policy pertaining to covering ove -*cks. Councilmember Peterson said that she concurred with v icilmember Callahan and asked the Pembertons if they had considered totally removing the deck? Mrs. Pemberton reiterated that her hardship is that the dining room is too small for the size of the house. Mayor Grabek said that such a hardship could be cited by anyone wishing to add on to their homes. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays«0, Motion passed. *1463 CONTEL OF MINNESOTA TONKAVIEW LANE/COUNTY ROAD 19 VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #2734 Mr. Milt Seeman, Wayne King and Peter Brozlac were present as representatives on behalf of Contel of Minnesota. City Administrator Bernhardson provided a brief history of this application. Bernhardson said that the building proposal now has the building rotated as requested which reduces the variance to the north lot line by 6' and increased the south lot MUIDTES of OROHO COOHCXL MEETIIIG held OCTOBER 23, 1989 ZOHIHG FILE #1441-COPLET COHTIBOED It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Councllmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2717, approving the hardcover variance and average lakeshore setback variance for Mr. Don Copley, 1185 Tonkawa Road. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1452 WALTER PEMBERTON 1720 SHADYWOOO ROAD VARIANCE Mr. Pemberton was present for this matter City Adaiinistrator Bernhardson explained this application to the Council and Mayor Grabek. CounciImember Goetten said that she was surprised that hardcover in the 75-250* rone was not addressed at the Planning Commission meeting. She said that 58% in that area is far too much. She said that she would like to see a decrease in hardcover in the 75-250* area if this application is proposed. Goetten said that she did not oppose the structure being pj^opos©df something could b© work©d oub with th© st©££ to remove existing hardcover. Mayor Grabek expressed his concern with the conversion of decks into structure. Mayor Grabek said that he could not see the hardship for placing the addition in the 0-75' setback zone. Councilmember Goetten asked Mr. Pemberton if it would be possible to locate the addition elsewhere? Councilmember Callahan indicated that he agreed with the Planning Commissioners that voted against approval of this application. Mr. Pemberton indicated that he did not understand how the deck, which is hardcover, would be allowed, but putting a roof over the deck iid closing it in without extending \t further toward the Irxe is not allowable. Be said that he did not understand why he would be asked to remove hardcover from the front of the house when he is not proposing to do anything to the front of the house. Mayor Grabek said that the City is trying to protect the area between O' and 75 ’ of the lakeshore. Mayor Grabek said that the City would set a precedent by allowing structures to be built in that ar©a« Grabak said that ©ach application is r©vi©wed for a hardship that will warrant the approval of a variance. Mr. Pemberton reiterated his inability to understand how his proposal would have any more impact on the lake than what is currently existing. Ee noted that the hardcover being removed in front of the house is more than double than the area being converted into the addition on the back of the house. I HZHDTBS OF OROHO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 23, 1989 ZONING FILE «1452-PEMBERTON CONTINUED CounciInember Goetten tried to offer Mr. Pemberton a further explanation of the difference between deck and structure. She too informed Mr. Pemberton that she could see no hardship for the variance. Mr. Pemberton said that the only hardship he can offer is that he purchased the house with the assumption that there would be no difficulty in obtai*«lng a variance to do this addition. City Administrator Bernhardson said that the City has no records pertaining to the existing deck being allowed. Councilmemi.er Nettles questioned whether the City has any specific policies regarding covering over decks? Bernhardson replied that there is nothing directly dealing with that issue. He said that in the 0-75* zone the City prefers no encroachment at all. He said that there have previously been requests for minor encroachment into that area and in cases where there is an existing deck, the City has requested that the deck be removed. Nettles said that he disagreed with the policy categorizing decks as hardcover since they are watet permeable. Be said that in regard to this application, the City has two goals. One is to reduce hardcover, which Mr. Pemberton's proposal would do, and the other is to prevent the conversion of decking into structure. He said that he could not see a hardship for the variance. CounciImember Goetten offered Mr. Pemberton an opportunity to propose another location for the addition. Mr. Pemberton said that there is no other location for the addition that would allow them to enlarge the dining room. Mayor Grabek said that he would not approve the application as presented. He objected to the excessive hardcover currently existing, the building of a structure on an existing deck that was not approved by the City and adding a deck beyond that structure further into the 0-7b' zone. Mayor Grabek advised Mr. Pemberton that he could request the tabling of this application to allow time to revise his proposal. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to table this application to allow any revision to the proposal that would not encroach into the 0**75*. Councilmember Goetten suggested the addition of language requiring severe reduction of the hardcover. Mayor Grabek incorporated Goetten*s suggestion into his motion. Motion, Ayes*S, Nays*0, Motion passed. 8 t COUNCIL MEETINGJAN 81990 7 Proa: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson CITY OF OROW Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator January 3, 1990 #1468 George Pillsbury, 1300 Bracketts Point Road - Variance/Conditional Use Permit Application - Request for hardcover, setback and average lakeshore setback variances and conditional use permit for addition and minor grading in lakeshore yard. List of Exhibits - Exhibit A - 12/29/89 Letter of Request from Applicant's Attorney, Draft Resolution (Drafted by Applicant's Attorneyi Hardcover Iculations Memo & Exhibits of 11/22/89 Memo & Exhibits of 11/9/89 Exhibit B Exhibit C Introduction <- The applicants are proposing to construct a greenhouse addition, retaining walls, stairs and walkways, mostly in the 0- 75' setback zone. Also, minor grading is proposed at the top of the lakeshore bank in conjunction with the retaining walls. One corner of the proposed greenhouse will be 58.5' from the shoreline. A corner of the existing house is located 57' from the shoreline. Existing hardcover in the 0—75' zone is 1,491 s.f. (5.6%). Applicants have revised their original application to Include concurrent hardcover removals in the 0-75' zone, resulting in a decrease to 1,467 s.f. (5.5%). Hardcover in the 75-250' and 250- 500' zones is substantially less than the hardcover Allowance for this 3 acre property. Discussion - Included in your packet ..s all the information reviewed by the Planning Commission, plus additional supportive information from the applicants' architect (letter of 11/22/89) and the applicants* attorney (letter of 12/29/89). Applicants' attorney has drafted a resolution detailing possible findings of fact in support of approval of the application. h Zoning File #1468 January 3, 1990 Page 2 of 3 Planning Comission Reconendation - At their October 16, 1989 meeting. Planning Commission recommended approval of the hardcover and setback variances and conditional use permit for grading, on a vote of 5-2. In their minority opinion. Planning Commissioners Kelley and Cohen 4 they felt that there was no hardship nor justification shown for the increase in hardcover and structure in the 0-75* zone. The comments from the Planning Commissioners recommending approval Indicated that the relatively low percentage of hardcover in the 0-75* zone coupled with the fairly insignificant visual impact from the lake, are positive aspects of the request, as IS the intent to direct drainage away from the shoreline (applicants propose to construct a curtain drain to collect run- l*J^®shore side of the house and redirect it to the 75-250* zone)# Planning Commission also directed applicant to work with the City Engineer regarding the grading work at the top of the bank. The majority of the Planning Commission felt that the bank ^ work was appropriate and probably necessary regardless of Whether the greenhouse was constructed. Some slumping of the lakeshore bank is visible. Regarding the average lakeshore setback variance. Planning Commission felt that no neighboring residences would have their existing views affected by this proposed addition. ,__ that the 330 s.f. of pavers proposed for removal were included in the originally noted 1,491 s.f. of existing ISf***?®*!^ (confirmed by landscape architect). Paragraph two of the letter from pplicant's attorney should not be construed as recently discovered" hardcover. Summary of Variance/Conditional Use Permit Request - 1. Average lakeshore setback variance. 2. Variance for new structure located 59.5* from shorei 75* required. 3. Hardcover variance 0-75* zone, net haidco'-er reduction proposed. 0-75^°Jone^°"^^ permit and variance for gi. .^ng work in 1 Zoning File #1468 January 3, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Staff Recoamendation • The City has rarely granted variances to allow a hardcover Increase in the 0-75' zone. The proposed removals with net reduction of hardcover constitute a positive aspect of the request. Council must determine if th setback variance for additional structure in the 0-75* zone is supported by adequate justification and hardships. Can this addition reasonably be located in a more conforming location? Please carefully review the resolution drafted by applicants' attorney. That draft summarizes the applicants' stated hardships and justifications for the proposal. If Council feels that the stated hardships and justifications adequately support granting of the variances aid conditional use permit, that resolution is in a format that could be adopted by Council with minor revisions. If Council dete'^ .ines that denial is appropriate, app3 leant might be expected to request approval for the retaining walls and grading to preserve the lakeshore bank. Council has the following options of action: 1. Approval per applicants' draft resolution. 2. Partial or conditional approval 3. Denial, directing staff to draft a resolution of denial. 4. Table for additional specific information 5. Other. -^1 146890Addition -T has rarely granted variances to allow a hardcover the 0-75' zone. The proposed removals with net hardcover constitute a positive aspect of the uncil must determine if th setback variance for tructure in the 0-75' zone is supported by adequate m and hardships. Can this addition reasonably be more conforming location?carefully review the resolution drafted by attorney. That draft summarizes the applicants' lips and justifications for the proposal. incil feels that the stated hardships and IS adequately support granting of the variances aind use permitf that resolution is in a format that could ^ Council with minor revisions. cil dete** lines that denial is appropriate, applicant icted to request approval for the retaining walls and reserve the lakeshore bank. has the following option** of action: roval per applicants' draft resolution, tlal or conditional approval. ial, directing staff to draft a resolution of denial, le for additional specific information, er. LAU>tSS V acmman OCeAi.0 C MACNuSON M OUCNNON MCLVIK I OftCNSTCiN J SMC*»AN ISHACL C CUOCNC KC a 'INO jAMCS a ^ a UTINCAU mCwAmf j. riTzocoALD JOHN • roAmesT W* .tAM c rox JMN J CONNCtLV jC»»OtO r ■cnorALK Ow O M tCBCOOrr ST«0THMAN a. MCWMALL KU» *IS A GACCNuCr »OtCf»T V. A^'^MOUC AATmiCK OCkANCT•Omal O O vantin CJOHN ■ WiMSroN Lauwan CC » wal OOC h tmqmas m. cahwctt mi OAmrt.C L. uPNOrr OAVIO J. OAWCNf»OI>T m. .JOHNSON 0ICMAPQ A POIM'J-M m WAL^tW H a C mman TMOWa S L ^*BCL jcr»mcy m sc»«Miot TlMOtH*' M BuTlCA mOBCBT o MITCWCLL.JB J. MlCMACk OAOy J MCVIN COSTUCy poBC«*y J HAmyMAN JOICPM o komlca fflCMAMO O MCNCM. OONACOC SWCNSON • AJCC A BONJOOA JAMCS • MCCABT mt tTCVCN J. JOHNSON NiCHAAo <HHiaCAmow T mcermBOOew:?* wKCNZ'CWLLIA * i VNJAMCS V. . CBMICHACL ^ ^BGUW'CS THOMAS G. uoveyr iv THOMAS C OkCNNON JOHN B. HOUSTON OCNNIS M. O'MALkCT COWABO J. W*CGCBSOM LINDQUIST & VENNUM4200 IDS CCNTCRMINNCAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402-2205 TCLEPMONC 10121 371-3211TELEX 29 004A FAX; 161?) 371-3207 CABLE: LINLAW MINNEAPOLISWAY2AT4 OFriCE 740 EAS" LAKE street WAY2ATA, MINNESOTA 55391WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBcR612-473-4208 DANICL j SHCBAN DAVID A all GC vCA TCBBCNCC J rvCHiA-C BOLr CNCH BICHANO T C5TI.UHO OCBOBAH M KCC an MARTIN B BOU'NBAU m CkiNOB C BOSCHSyCiN BOSANNC H AriBTM DCBBA N BACC MICHACL O OLArsoN JOCL H CBCCN DAVID L HALtCTy CMABLCS B. WCAVCB. .,B OAwiD L SASSC villC OA/lC A DONNA OCNISC O ACILL^ JONATHAN M B^C MABV B mcCO nncll SALLT S CBUSS h AN Timothy r bacb timcthy s. mcin »CC joscBH A.ThomsonANN L. MJIMA CLIZABCT h g. abyrathabinC n . hclhs WAktACC G hila C C habl CS B ho OBSC PATl JO POTA h ;.LUYC H TCBHAARMiChaCL j young KABCN L SCHBC'BCB CHABLCS J LLOYD wAMCS A lodocn SUSAN B MONAMCYCB bandy O OULLIC a SON sabaw dutf halvobsonSANDRA KIM CHABLCS r MACLCAN AMLLI mM B M)A0S BOBCBT C. TUNHCiM *NS*S V. VIKSNINSO' CCUNSCkLEONARD t LINDQUIST NOB man L NCN ha ;.uacTtecoThomas vcnnumDecember 29,City of Orono1335 South Brown RoadOrono, MN 55391 Re: Mr. and Mrs. George Pillsbury Application No. 1468 Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent the Pillsburys in their application to the city Council for variances and a conditional use permit per the above application, as amended. I have reviewed the staff report, planning commission minutes, and proposed resolution granting the applicants' requests. I have reviewed all of the materials in the file including the amendments to the application made by iom Meyer per his letter of November 22, 1989 and those made by this letter. Noting the concerns of' the staff in their report and the •no* votes on the planning commission, on behalf of the applicants I present the following. First, the Pillsburys had Tom Meyer and Herb Baldwin reinventory the site during the wee. of December 26, 1989. There is a picnic area containing about 30 square feet of hardcover consisting of pavers near the dock 25' from the lakeshore. Originally, this hardcover was overlooked because the pavers are somewhat widely spaced a'** jve overgrown with grass to a significant degree over the paa'c decades. The applicants hereby amend their application by agreeing to the removal of the 3jC. sq.^are feet of pavers which constitutes a reduction in existing hardcover in the 0-75' zone from 1,491 square feet to 1,161 square feet. Ths amount of reduction of existing hardcover (330 sq. ft.) exceeds the amount of new hardcover (306 sq. ft.) they are asking to place in the 0-75' zone. Thus, there will be a net reduction in hardcover in the 0- 75' zone from 1,491 square feet to 1,467 square feet, or 24 square feet. This fact creates an entirely different legal a- ’ practical scenario before the city council compared to that . h was before the planning commission in that the net new totf.l ; * . ^V- LINDQUIST & VENNUM City of Orono December 29, 1989 Pago 2 improvements will constitute a net reduction in hardcover in the 0-75' zone. Second, the applicants and Tom Meyer have done everything in their power to move the building addition as far from the lakeshore as possible and to reduce its size as much as possible. But for the reasons stated in the application, namely design of the house, location of driveway, location of living areas insir.e the house, the need for the sunlight to come in from the southeast, the benefit of retaining existing mature birch trees, neither the size nor the location of the addition to the house can be further decreased. All uuch cases as this are difficult. Nevertheless, there are compelling reasons these variances and conditional use permit should be granted. It appears from the application as amended, rhe staff report, and the draft resolution I enclose that there are more than adequate and acceptable reasons for finding a hardship and granting the variances and conditional use permit requested. The enclosed resolution provides all of the necessary findings of fact to document the wholly unique circumstances present in this case which together more than comply with the variance standards. Without restating the draft resolution in its entirety, those compelling reasons are that the house is an architecturally significant house more than 40 years old. The house was constructed on a lot which is 50 percent larger than even present day minimum lot size standards require in this zone. The lot vastly under-utilizes the hardcover allowed. The reverse slope of the land is the primary reason the house is within the 75' zone in the first place. Much of the new hardcover is for the purpose of stabilizing the embankment. The actual house addition is only 170 square feet and because of the layout of the house the addition cannot go anywhere else since it is for living area purposes. With the above amendment to the application there is now a net reduction of hardcover within the 0-75' zone. Virtually no other property on the lake iias this unusual coincidence ot facts. While the Orono Council does look hard at variances, and should look hard at this one, I feel confident that when all of the foregoing facts and circumstances are taken into account that the reasonableness of the variances to allow an addition to this house should be granted. If you have any questions about the facts or if you would like to view the property, please don't I LINDQUIST & VENNUMCity of Orono December 29, 1989 Page 3 hesitate to call either me at 473-4208, Tom Meyer at 375-0336, Herb Baldwin at 492-2180, or George Pillsbury at 338-3873. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, LINDQUIST & VENNUMy / / / Robert G. Mitchell, Jr. RGMrskr Enc. A RESOUDTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 t 2, SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 FILE #1468 BACKGROUND 1. George and Sally Pillsbury (hereinafter *^the applicants*) are the owners of the property located at 1300 Bracketts Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter *City*) and legally described on Exhibit A attached (hereinafter the ^property*). 2. The applicants have made application to the City of Orono for variances to (a) Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, (b) Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to construct a greenhouse addition and a retaining wall within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, resulting in structure and hardcover in the 0-75' zone where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed, and which greenhouse addition encroaches past the defined average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed, and further (c) requesting a conditional use permit for grading work within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application October 16, 1989 and recommended approval of the proposed variances and conditional use permit on a vote of 5-2, based on the following findings: A) The average lakeshore setback encroachment will not impair any existing lake views enjoyed by neighboring property owners. B) The retaining wall and associated grading proposed at the top of the lakeshore bank is necessary for preservation of the lakeshore bank, which is currently exhibiting some slumping effect. The 24*-30* proposed height of the single proposed retaining wall is low enough that the wall can be easily screened using existing and additional vegetation coupled with the stone construction materials proposed. C) The proposed hardcover increase from 5.7% up to 7.6% (based on the extent and size of the improvements at that date) in the 0-75' setback zone is relatively minor in its impact on the lake given the relatively large 0-75' zone. Further, the effect of the additional hardcover in Page 1 of 5 the 0-75' zone is minimized by the proposed drain tile which will collect runoff between the residence and the shoreline and transport the runoff to the 75-250' zone for below grade and overland dispersal. D) The lakeshore setback variance is justified by the need for southeast exposure for the proposed growing of orchids, this being the only suitable location for such a greenhouse addition because of the existing orientation and location of the house. Further, the elevation of the existing house and proposed greenhouse addition above the lake and the height of the lakeshore bank wi^l tend to minimize the visual impact of the greenhouse as viewed from the lake. 4. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1468. FINDINGS OF FACT NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: 5. The property is located in the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District; is approximately 2.96 acres (128,938 sq. ft.) in area, which is almost 50% larger than the minimum lot size required of 2 acres. Distribution of area is as follows: Lot Area:0- 75' 75-250' 250-500' 25,925 sq. ft. 62,900 sq. ft. 40.000 sq. ft. Hardcover: 0- 75' 75-250' 250-500' Total: 128,825 sq . ft. =2.96; AC Existina Allowed So.Ft.So.Ft.) 1,491 ( 5.7%)0 ( 0 %)11,450 (18.2%)15,725 (25 %)2.500 1 6.3%)12.000 (30 %) 15,441 (12.0% avg)27,725 (21.5% avg) 6. The house was built in 1949 and then complied with all existing ordinances. The land between the house and the lake consists of a steep embankment with a reverse slope extending westward from the top of the embankment. The steep embankment creates an erosion problem. 7. Given the lie of the land, the date of construction of the house and the location of the Pillsbury house to the south, the house is a reasonable distance from the lake (closest point is 57' from the lake). Such house location was permitted Page 2 of 5 when the house was built 40 years ago. The house is as close to the lake as it is largely because of the reverse slope which made it necessary to move the house closer to obtain a view of the lake. 8. In response to Planning Commission input, the applicants' reviewed and reanalyzed the hardcover on their site. In such further review it was determined that there is a 330 sq. ft. area of large pavers near the dock ed^out 25' from the lakeshore. The applicants amended their proposal by letter dated December 29, 1989 to delete the 330 sq. ft. of pavers for a net reduction in existing hardcover in the 0-75' zone of from 1,491 sq. ft. to 1,161 sq. ft. 9. The hardcover computation, after reduction in size of applicants' proposed improvements and removal of existing hardcover (pavers by the lake) subsequent to the Planning Commission action, as follows: See "Data Sheet* attached In the 250-500' zone the hardcover is 6.3% where the allowed hardcover is 30%. In the 75-250' zone the hardcover used is 18.2%; the increase is only 1/lOth of 1% to 18.3%; and the allowed hardcover is 25%. In the 0-75' zone, the hardcover dating from 1949 is only 1,491 sq. ft. or 5.7%. With the removal of pavers by the lake, there will be a net decrease in hardcover in the 0-75' zone from 1,491 sq. ft. to 1,467 sq. ft., a 24 sq. ft. reduction. Taken as a whole the hardcover on this lot, which is 50% larger than the minimum lot size, will be only 15,461 sq. ft. when the allowed hardcover on this site would be 27,725 sq. ft. Therefore the applicants are aiding the lakeshore drainage by under-utilizing the allowed hardcover and decreasing the hardcover in the 0-75' zone. 10. While 170 sq. ft. of the 306 sq. ft. of new hardcover constitutes a portion of the new greenhouse, other parts of the hardcover including the retaining wall/stairs (96 sq. ft.) and paving (40 sq. ft.) are for the purposes of landscaping, screening and better stabilizing the embankment down to Lake Minnetonka. The embankment has suffered some erosion damage over the years. Significantly, the applicants' drainage plans call for betterment of the existing eroding condition by directing water away from the embankment. Such drainage plan is a significant improvement to control erosion. 11. The applicants are in their 60s and suffer from arthritis. The proposed additional area of ground floor, bedroom living space will assist them to better remain in their home (rather than having to climb stairs to bedroom areas) and the Page 3 of 5 L_. MnBlK:r*K*1 [•»9iT7^ M1H51 ^i!5HDSfiT3 M!l5iyi|>Hni l»M«/^ltl:^nr£3 r^c=vii [•jcnsi [•HiTil [•imi*I n M «0 !• (• I•«ul* Kl»lmim\^zJ9^9] • H* • 1*1 1 Bj*! I •1 if I •Ml 9 •!• W»r*l wTi I y in the greenhouse adjacent to the bedroom is0 reduce the impact of arthritis.The existing 1949 house is as close as 57' to Lake hich was permitted when the house was constructed.the new house construction will be further from the e Minnetonka than 57' with the closest such new g 58^' from Lake Minnetonka. Views from adjacent ot impacted by the addition.Given the layout of the house and the configuration line there is no reasonable alternative location for to the master bedroom for additional area for it and greenhouse since such improvements must be on the de of the house. The applicant did reduce the size sed addition and move it as far to the west to comply rdinances as best as possible under the s.The house has architectural significance. The findings of the Planning Commission majority set agraph 3(A)-(D) above are adopted by the Council. The combination of the above factors is justification tion applicants wish to make in the zone within 75' letonka, the placement of the addition 58.5 feet from 1 installation of requested retaining wall, stairs, ling, and drainage system. The conditions existing on y are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to ty in this zoning district. Granting the variances ’ersely affect traffic qonditions, light, air nor pose •d or other danger to neighboring properties. The e not merely conveniences to the applicants, but are • alleviate the foregoing hardships and difficulties, ts are necessary to preserve substantial property le applicants and are in keeping with the spirit and le Zoning code and Comprehensive Plan of the City, let decrease of hardcover in the 0-75' zone. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council :s variances to (a) Municipal Zoning Code Sections .visions 1 and 2, (b) Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to ^ruction of a greenhouse addition and retaining walls ’ lakeshore setback zone, and further (c) grants a use permit for grading and retaining walls in the 0' shore setback zone per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19, ) the applicants' application, as amended, subject to ig conditions: A) Applicant shall provide the City Engineer with a detailed final grading and retaining wall plan, which must be approved before permits can be issued for the grading/retaining wall construction. The City Engineer shall work in conjunction with the applicants to establish suitable limits for the grading work.B) The applicants shall maintain existing vegetation on the lakeshore bank as proposed, and shall plant additional vegetation to screen the proposed 24'-30" high retaining wall from the lake to reduce its visual impact. Applicant shall use native materials and natural coloring to minimize the visual impact of this wall to the greatest extent possible. C) As proposed, the applicants shall construct a drain tile system between the existing residence and the lakeshore, to redirect the drainage from the 0-75' zone to the 75-250' zone for dispersal. D) As proposed, the applicants shall remove the _ _ sq. ft. of pavers near the lake. 18. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (January _ _, 1991). 19. ^ 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. 20. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, representatives and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this January, 1990. ATTEST: day of Page 4 of 5 Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 5 of 5 4J iH • w (Q U \AJ D CO 0 • •y* rH ^ ^4J rHo o in cn lOo in 0>W in CM •c rH 1 1 1 ^ *-H <d o in o U 4J >4J in r*M 0)fO O (M cu o: ou 9-i I Tox Oat«x Sabj«ct X Mayor Grabck & Orono Council Mambers City Adainistrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator November 22, 1989 #1468 George Pillsbury, 1300 Bracketts Point Road - Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Resolution - Additional Exhibits Diecvssioa - This item was tabled at your November 13th meeting at the applicant's request, in order for applicant to provide additional supportive information. In addition to the attacned memo and exhibits of November 9, 1989, applicant has submitted the attached 3-page letter and additional exhibits A, B and C. •TO '■ ';<r /M ■^1 i mt • 4»i %iVT . » *8 . -W. • • •» 11 '• ■} ^, Srffi * '* 4 Sk. A 5 rt, • . MS&RMayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator BernhardsonMichael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning S Zoning Administrator November 22» 198911468 George Pillsbury, 1300 Bracketts Point Road - Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Resolution - Additional Exhibitsli^s^ Vequesl ""in ^®rdeV" f o^Ippl Lve information.addition to the att&ched memo and exhibits of l^vember applicant has submitted the attached 3-page letter and ial exhibits A, B and C. /■- - i 1- <• . e> i. 22 November 1989c/o Michael Gaffron City of OronoBuilding and Zoning Administration 1335 South Brown Road Orono, Minnesota 55391Dear Members of the Orono City Council: This letter is written in support of, and as a complement to, other materials submitted to the Orono Planning Commission on behalf of George and Sally Pillsbury. We have been encouraged by the staff of the Orono Planning and Zoning Administration to restate the reasons why the variance and conditional use permit should be granted for the proposed addition and sitework to the Pillsbury house. At issue are work within the 75'setback zone and provisions for hardcover water runoff. George and Sally Pillsbury retained the services of our office to help them plan for remodeling their master bedroom suite and build a plantroom for their large orchid collection. With their children gone, feeling the effects of arthritis, and desiring single-level living, they decided to consolidate their living quarters to have things more at hand. Their existing house was built in 1949. Corners of the house fall within the 0'-75' setback zone, coming as close as 57' to the defined shoreline elevation. The accompanying diagram shows how the house is organized in terms of formal, informal, and private areas. ArchitectsMeyer. Scherer Rockcastle, Ltd. tis Second /''•'•tine North Minneapolis, Minnesot,a 5 540t6i i t75-otU> / f / ij. — .1 I I f*.leo , .11. V..S r - I iwnjiiMAL Livmo a«lAt rRIVAm ARIA! nVinOfVORR ARRAS rtorasRO AODiroM MS&R Members of the Orono City Council 22 November 1989 Page 2 Our initial design work suggested a plantroom off the sunroom, which would have made the most sense based on the design of the existing house and how the Pillsburys use it. However, the location was clearly too close to the lake. Its current proposed location off the master bedroom suite still allows it to be adjacent to the work and informal living areas of the house. We had pursued a tub room addition, annexed to the plantroom, that would have been an ideal solution to dealing with the Pillsburys' arthritis problems, but decided to eliminate it to minimize the amount of hardcover within tne 0'-75' zone and to reduce the overall visual impact of the addition from the lake. Note that the southeast corner of the addition would come no closer than 58.5' to the lake. Orchids require bright but filtered sunlight. The proposed location of the plantroom on the south side, screened by deciduous trees and the trellis-like roof overhand, is ideal for cultivation. It is long and narrow in form to maximize exposure to the sun. It is quite small in size (about 210 s.f.), just long enough to accommodate the orchids and just wide enough for two chairs. It also aligns perfectly with the reinforced existing circulation axis leading from the front entrance hall. We have reviewed all conceivable location options for the addition with the Pillsburys, especially since they are involved in interior remodeling, but can come up with no feasible alternative. The proposed addition represents the only acceptable location. ^DOITrON \ • XI •-•.i \ \ SETPACK • \ (^PROPOSED ADDITION, T-n o ^ t Members of the Orono City Council 22 November 1989 Page 3 We believe that the water drainage proposal, prepared by Herb Baldwin and reviewed with the City Engineer, will completely deal with runoff. A line of 6” perforated drain tile will conduct water to a wet well with a perforated cover from where it will be dispensed to and percolated through the 75"-250' area (see exhibit A). The existing terrain along the house already drops away from the lake embankment so that the proposed arrangement will simply be a reinforcement of current drainage patterns. We are also willing to eliminate 68 s.f. of stone steppers and 16 s.f. of retaining wall to further reduce the impact of water runoff (see exhibit B). The retaining wall, screened by plantings along the lake side, is itself an effort to manage water runoff, in this case so that it does not further erode th embankment, which is already slumping in spots. Finally, we wish to bring to your attention the fact that hardcover additions within the 0'-75' setback zone will represent only a small percentage increase. (Hardcover in the 2b0 ”500 zone is only 6.3%, and in the 75'-250' zone will be only 18.^%.) The following matrix represents existing and proposed changes within the 0'-75' zone (see also exhibit C): Permanent Structure Retaining Walls/Stairs Paving TOTAL Unfortunately, there is virtually no existing hardcover that could be removed to compensate for increases elsewhere. We have worked with the Pillsburys to design an addition and landscaping plan that has minimal environmental and visual impact for others. That has always been their wish. We believe our proposal accomplishes this while satisfying the requiremen s o Orono^s ordinances and provisions for hardship variances. We look forward to further discussing the Pillsbury's request with you during the November 27, 1989 meeting and answering any remaining questions you may have about the project. Existing %Proposed %Dif 595 2.2 765 3.0 170 325 1.2 421 1.6 96 571 2.2 611 2 •40 1,491 5.7 1,797 6.9 306 Sincerely, LAa/V^\ Thomas Meyer end cc George and SalTy Pillsbury Herb Baldwin 8830/L112280 doe kt^ **" **• *........•• • .• A • •• exhibit* C Mo'vew.BER g*? \ Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator BernhardsonMichael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administratox* November 9, 1989Subject: #1468 George Pillsbury, 1300 Bracketts Point Road -Variance/Conditional Use Permit - ResolutionZoning District - LR-lA, Single family lakeshore residential, 2 acre, unsewered^PP^i®®tion “ Reguest for hardcover, setback and average lakeshore setback variances and conditional use permit for addition and minor grading in lakeshore yard.List of ExhibitsExhibit A - Planning Commission Minutes of 10/16/89 Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action of 10/20/89 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 10/12/89 Exhibit D - Draft Resolution Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of October 12, 1989. the applicants are requesting a hardcover and setback variance to construct a greenhouse addition to the existing residence. The existing residence is partially within the 0-75' zone. Per Exhibit H, applicant indicates that, contrary to staff's measurement on the small scale su''.*vey, the proposed addition will be no closer to the lake t ssnn portions of the existing house. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone is proposed to increase from 5.7% to 7.6%. No hardcover removals are proposed. In conjunction with the greenhouse addition, applicant proposes to construct a 24"-30" retaining wall at the top of the bank adjacent to the house (see Exhibit H). Also, applicant proposes to construct a draintile between the house and the lakeshore bank to transport surface run-off from the 0-75' zone to a wet well in the 75-250' zone, which would ultimately discharge over land in the 75-250' zone. The Planning Commission, at their October 16th meeting, recommended approval of the hardcover and setback variances and conditional use permit for grading, on a vote of 5-2. In their minority opinion. Planning Commissioners Kelley and Cohen Indicated that they felt that there was no hardship nor 3ustification shown for the increase in hardcover and structure in the 0-75* zone. Comments from the Planning Commissioners recommending approval indicated that the relatively low percentage of hardcover in the 0-75' zone coupled with the fairly insignificant visual impact from the lake, were positive aspects of the request, as was the intent to direct drainage away from the shoreline. Li [•HVI*r«Wfi«][•iti«i*lH n STini !U^iT^rTTirj • !• f. \ c •j»in: r«K4«j MIHUTBS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 16, 1989 ZONING PILE #1466-KOKESH CONTINDED ^ Gaffron said that in order to construct the 14 x 16 ® front setback variance will be required and a side setback variance will be necessary for the construction of the deck. Ms. Roberta Schmidt, 3980 Watertown Road, said that Mr. Kokesh's house was in a state of disrepair when he purchased it. Since that time, he has greatly improved the house and she felt that the porch would be a nice addition.no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Brown inquired as to the owner of the property to the north? Chairman Kelley answered that the property was owned by Mr. Kokesh's father and was pasture area. Planning Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Kokesh if he had considered purchasing land from his father? Mr. Kokesh responded that it was not financially possible at this time. He said that the house was very small and would probably be torn down at such time that he purchased land from his father. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Bellows, seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown, to recommend approval of the front and side setback variances to construct a porch and open deck. Chairman Kelley questioned whether Bellows wished to include in her motion a condition disallowing enclosure of the deck at a future time. Bellows amended her motion to include that approval is conditioned upon the deck remaining a deck only and may not be improved at any time in the future. Brown seconded. Motion, Ayes»7, Nays=0, Motion passed. I / fl468 GEORGE PILLSBURT \l/^1300 BRACKETT'S POINT ROAD VARIANCES ' PUBLIC HEARING 8:25 P.M. TO 8:40 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Thomas Meyer and Mr. Herb Baldwin were present representing the applicants. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the Pillsburys wished to put a greenhouse addition on their existing residence located less than 75' from the lake. Saffron said that the existing hardcover located within zone would increase to 7.6%. Gaffron further applicants were also proposing to put some kind of drain tile in the 0-75' setback that would lead back to the 75-250 zone to a wet well. BR 16t 19894' X 16’ porch a a side setback Lon of the deck.1, said that Mr. he purchased it. use and she felt)ublic regardingthe owner of thewas owned by Mr. Kokesh if he had ally possible at ima 11 and would ihased land from wSf seconded by proval of the porch and open lows wished to nclosure of the ;ion to include ting a deck only futurer Brown d. te of Mailing were Zoning File #1468 November 9, 1989 Page 2 of 2Planning Commission also directed applicant to work with staff to establish limits on the grading work proposed, and applicant was advised to contact staff to arrange a meeting with the City Engineer. As of this writing, applicant has not contacted us, but the City Engineer has advised staff that additional detail of the proposed grading would be needed before a permit could be issued for the grading, if Council chooses to approve the request. The engineer has indicated that the proposal is conceptually acceptable from a technical standpoint.Also note that there is a need for an average lakeshore setback variance for the proposed addition. All neighboring residences are so distant that the addition will not encroach on any existing lake views enjoyed by neighboring property owners.Staff Reconaendation -Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance and the conditional use permit for regrading and retaining wall construction per the conceptual plan. Such approval should be subject to final detailed plan approval by the City Engineer before a grading permit is issued. Regarding the lakeshore setback and hardcover variance, staff does not necessarily disagree with the majority Planning Commission recommendation, but would note to Council that past approvals of new structure in the 0-75' zone have in most cases been tied to removal of equivalent amounts of hardcover in the 0- 75' zone, resulting in no hardcover increase in the zone. Also, additions in the 0-75' zone normally have not been allowed to extend closer to the shoreline than the existing residence. In this case, applicant has indicated that the addition will be 58.5' from the shoreline with portions of the house already 57' from the shoreline. Council should consider whether the proposed drainage system to direct run-off from the 0-75' zone to the 75-250' zone is justification to grant a hardcover increase. This would seem to be breaking new ground, and would be an apparent departure from past Council policy. A draft resolution reflecting the Planning Commission recommendation is attached for Council review. fin were present Gaffron stated dition on their lake. Gaffron le 0-75' setback lained that the f drain tile in -250' zone to a •y rxie #1468 'ber 9, 1989 2 of 2Planning Commission ai<sn /ticant ‘’’®*9««ng'’itrk"pr °■ity Enalne« IZ staff to arrTnjL *''^‘’P°se<3, and•1 is conceptually a/cep'S^'e'YtoiS"Iso note that there < technical atandpolnt.JcelTr^sV dirtaS?%f ti- ^:rr:r ■1 Should be suhw^^r conceotusi ^^^^"^Jineer befor<> to final detailed r,f Plan. Such® grading permit is issued?" ^PP^oval by the ' r°esS{;Vlf *'S In the 0-75. increase in the 0- loser to thJrto?eli;rr?“5' »s''e not been fflo 'tlon iV«tached f^c^nnc"!? rev!Co^iasion MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 16, 1989ZONING FILE #1468-PILLSBURT CONTINUEDPlanning Commissioner Brown questioned whether the City Engineer had reviewed the drainage concept being proposed?Gaffron replied that the City Engineer had only conceptually approved of the plan, but had not received the plans in time to fully review them.Planning Commissioner Bellows said that the drainage and addition are really two separate issues.Planning Commissioner Johnson asked whether the sketch plan showed existing or proposed plantings?Mr. Baldwin explained that he was going to try to preserve the desireable plants on the bank and then supplement them with more plantings that would help prevent erosion.Chairman Kelley asked what is the hardship for the variance in this case? Mr. Baldwin said that it was the applicant's intention to have a plant room that has the kind of sun orientation necessary. In the process of constructing the addition, they will address the problems with the existing grades and drainage on the property. Mi;. Meyer explained the scheme or the existing house in relatl'n to the need to locate the greenhouse as proposed. Planning Commissioner Bellows said that she understood that the greenhouse would be used for growing orchids. She said that an orchid house is more sensitive than a regular greenhouse. She said that the orchids need a more southeast orientation rather than south or southwest. Planning Commissioner Hanson suggested that the greenhouse addition be shorter so that it would not extend toward the lake to the degree now proposed. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Johnson said that he did not have a problem with the hardcover, even though it is in the 0-75' setback zone, due in part because the slope to the lake is so steep that any runoff goes directly to the lake. He questioned whether a grading plan had been submitted? Mr. Baldwin said that he would work with staff to establish limitations for the amount of grading that the City will allow. Planning Commissioner Brown noted that there would be a new 2 foot retaining wall. He informed Mr. Baldwin that the City is sensitive of the visual aspect of retaining walls and that MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 16, 1989 ZONING FILE #1468-PILLSBDRY CONTINUED screening is usually required. Mr. Baldwin said that plantings would be placed in front for screening. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to recommend approval of the hardcover variance, average lakeshore setback variance to construct an addition and a conditional use permit for minor grading in the lakeshore yard, conditioned on the applicants working with City staff to establish grading limits. Chairman Kelley inquired as to what direction water running off of the roof of the addition will go? Mr. Meyer said that a drain spout will be installed that will direct drainage west. Motion, Ayes=5, Cohen, Kelley, Nay, due to their opinion that there is not a sufficient hardship to warrant encroachment of the 0-75' setback zone. #1469 CITY OP ORONO RIGHT-OP-WAY OP WINDJAMMER LANE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8:53 P.M. TO 8:58 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the City wished to install a civil defense siren within the right-of-way near 835 Windjammer Lane. Lieutenant Cheswick informed the Planning Commission of the locations of sirens throughout the City. He said that Minnetonka Beach is considering the installation of a siren in their area. The Windjammer Lane location was selected in order to provide protection for the northwestern area of Orono. He said that there is currently no siren in that area. Mr. Chuck Bidwell indicated that he did not object to the noise impact, but was concerned about the visual impact. Planning Commissioner Bellows questioned whether there were alternate locations for the siren? Mr. Bidwell said that it was his understanding that other sites were considered, but the Windjammer Lane site was selected. He said that the Police Chief had suggested placing the siren on the Lakeview Golf Course. Cheswick indicated that the owner of the Golf Course had indicated that he did not want the structure on his property. Chairman Kelley indicated that he would rather locate the ZONING PILE NO 1468 CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: 10/20/89 TO: Thomas Meyer COPIES TO: Meyer, Scherers, Rockcastle Arch. 325 Second Ave N Minneapolis, MN 55401 George Pillsbury 1300 Bracketts Pt Rd Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance/Conditional Use Permit DATE OP MEETING: 10/16/89 VOTE: 5 For 2 Against Planning CoaMission reconaends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Motion was to recommend approval of hardcover variance, lakeshore setback and average lakeshore setback variances, and conditional use permit for additions and grading work (land alterations) in 0-75' zone; conditioned on drainage re-routing as proposed, and conditioned on applicant working with staff to establish suitable limits of grading prior to Council review. Minority Opinion (Cohen, Kelley): "No justification for encroachment, no hardship shown." Please arrange to meet with staff and the City Engineer to review your grading plans. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, November 13, 1989; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. TO: Mayor Grabek Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: October 12, 1989 SOBJ: 11468 George Pillsbury, 1300 Bracketts Point Road Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acre, Unsewered Application - Request for hardcover and setback variances and conditional use permit for addition and minor grading in lakeshore yard. List of Exhibits - A - Application B - Property Owners Letter of Request 10/2/89 C - Architect's Letter of Explanation 9/28/89 D - Plat Map E - Property Owners List F - Hardcover Calculations G ~ Survey with Topography H - Site Plan I — Greenhouse Plan View J ” Greenhouse Elevation View — >K - Proposed Grading Plan L - Cross Section View 'Pmottd c>r^A.pL4 i Pertinent Facts - The applicants are requesting 0-75* hardcover and lakeshore setback variances to construct an attached greenhouse to the existing residence. Portions of the existing residence and most of the proposed greenhouse are located in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. The existing residence is approximately 57' from the shoreline. The proposed greenhouse will be approximately 55' from the shoreline at its closest point. 2. Hardcover existing and proposed on the property is as follows: r I Lot Area:0- 75' 75-250' 250-500' ' 25,925 s.f. ' 62,900 s.f. ; 40,000 s.f. 128,825 s.f. » 2.96 AC I EXISTING ALLOWED PROPOSED S.F. (%)S.P. (%)S.F. (%) HARDCOVER 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 1,491 (5.7%) 11,450 (18.2%) 2,500 (6.3%) 0 (0%) 15,725 (25%) 12,000 (30%) 1,965 (7.6%) 11,494 (18.3%) No Change 3. In conjunction with the greenhouse development, applicants are proposing some minor regrading and a 30" stone retaining wall at the top of the steep la)ceshore ban)c. This wor)c is intended to redirect drainage away from the ridge of the slope in order to preserve that slope. A draintile is proposed to collect runoff between the house and the steep banlc in the 0-75' zone, and transport that runoff to a wet well in the 75-250' zone where it will be dispersed below grade, with an overflow to grade in the 75- 250' zone. This drainage concept has been briefly reviewed with the City Engineer and he has requested some additional detail but feels the proposal generally should be acceptable. 4. Applicant was also as)ced to provide some elevation views and cross sections to help in visualizing the degree of impact the 55' setbaclc will have from the lalce. Due to the topography and low profile of the greenhouse, that visual impact may be minimal. Applicant was also made aware of the City's concern regarding 0-75' building additions that encroach closer to the shoreline than the existing house. 5. Technically, an average lalceshore setback variance is required. However, the most affected neighboring residence is more than 200' away and this greenhouse will have no impact on lake views enjoyed by that property. Discussion - This is an approximately 3 acre parcel, and the majority of runoff from the house and driveway areas already flows generally away from the eastern shoreline. The proposed tile/wet well surface drainage system would appear to compensate for not only the proposed additional hardcover, but may help to decrease the impact of existing runoff flows. The applicants have stated that the grading work directly east of the existing house and proposed greenhouse is to help redirect drainage and provide additional support for the steep slope area. Some slumping apparently is already occurring, as can be witnessed by a dip in the hedge line at the ridge. The applicant's stated intent is to preserve the existing vegetation on the steep slope. Planning Commission may wish to address the potential for screening the retaining walls to minimize its visual impact from the lake. The applicants have noted that other than the existing house and existing embankment walls in the 0—75' zone, there is v^ery little additional hardcover which could conceivably be removed to IEXISTING S.F. (%)allowed S.F. (%)PROPOSED S.F. (%)1,491 (5.7%) 11,450 (18.2%) 2,500 (6.3%)0 (0%) 15,725 (25%) 12,000 (30%)1,965 (7.6%) 11,494 (18.3%) No Change„ cclunction with thetop of s«eP Uklehore bank.is intended to Aof the slope ^runoff between the housetile is proposed ®oll®ct run^ transport thathe steep banlc th«J zone, a rsed below grade, with a . been briefly reviewed tone. This requested some Additional T bu^ propoVar,“e\%rally should be table. pllcant was also « PXllTl?sTn, the de°^^^ of '°t“e 55'\e°t4ck°will^ave from theraphy and low prof lie of the greenhouse. th« ^1^ : n«ay be minimal. Applicant was additions that UhTllse; t'o^Vh'e^sSoVll’nl tha^ ^he Ixlstln, house. chnlcally, an »v«rage l»^®hoje setback var^^^^^^ ^•thriro-'aiav rd%his1r%enho’use will have no on lalce views enjoyed by that property. ; an approximately 3 /“"iVead"/ f\ws”*gln«Vllythe house and driveway areas i^/wet well the eastern shoreline, t ^ ^a^gate for not only linage system would appear help to decrease the5d additional hardcover, but may neip ixisting runoff flows. pltcants have stated l»'a‘ ‘j? ^Ve^""ous^L^rheips existing house and prop 9 steep ralnage and provide additional suppo. some slumping apparently IS already :nessed by a dip In the hedge line existing :anfs stated intent \o /reser __ on the steep slope. Planning walls to ;e potential for screening the retaining s visual impact from the lake. plicants have noted that other than the ex^stlng^house "t\orx*"h«d%"o'v:r lh!ci"coS?d“cJn\e^;abIy be removed to compensate for the proposed addition. There is an existing stairway for lalceshore access, and there are two terraced areas with randomly spaced flagstones located in the 0~75' zone. Note that on an overall basis, hardcover on the property is substantially less than the allowed maximums, except for the small percentage in the 0-75' zone.Staff RecoBBendation -Staff would .'«2comroend approval of the variance for average setbac)c, based on the finding that no lalce views currently enjoyed by neighboring properties will be duced.Staff would recommend approval of the conditional use permit for regrading in the 0-75’ zone including installation of a drain tile/wet well system to transfer runoff from the 0-75' zone to the 75-250' zone, subject to final detail plan approval by the City Engineer. Regarding the lalceshore setback variance. Planning Commission in the past has adhered fairly consistently to the position that no new additions should extend closer to the shoreline than the existing house. The proposed greenhouse would extend approximately 2' closer to the lake than the existing house, but this occurring only at the very corner of the greenhouse. Planning Commission could base approval of the lakeshore setback variance on the location of the existing house and the fact that the bulk of the proposed addition, except for one corner, is no closer to the lake than the existing house. Regarding hardcover. Planning Commisison might consider finding that the proposed drainage system transferring runoff from the 0-75' zone to the 75-250’ zone for dispersement, is a suitable mitigation of the additional 1.9% hardcover in the 0-75' zone. Alternatively, it would be consistent with past Planning Commission policy to require removals of existing hardcover in the 0-75' zone, resulting in no net percentage increase. The fact that the majority of drainage from the house already drains or can be directed to drain away from the eastern shoreline, makes this property unique in that respect, and may be an additional finding to support a recommendation for approval. CITY OP ORONO - GENERAL LAND USB APPLICATION _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-l-t—- -V74— PROPERTY LOCATION JTx* 'jC Site Address I^CQ poiNP~ P^^cJ /oa^Kja^ UW. <5^^ ■A-QS . ^ ^ ■44 - 14 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) I (I IT TJ?> ^7-001 i CITY OF D.9QHQ Please check one - Property X abstract or ________ torzens? (^ICE (for Conditional Use Applications only) UHO^COOOO Please attach legal description to application if not includ on required survey. p^pj3/‘^Kjeetvtt<srr cp oPo^JO poisrr lot A- Phone (home) SI4 - H46APPLICANT Name TMOM^S MeVep.Phone (work) S4S -033fe> MEVEfZ. SCHBPEP S. MOCOACTLE /^Pi^Hrrecrs Address secpkiq Nootm __________ City Zip S540I OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) 4'73-4feS4- N^une 6E0P6E p!tLS80P.Y ______________ Phone _________35S- 3814- ______ CityAddress ISCD B^ctcgrr-c: pa»M-r tLO^o OPOKJO Zip Date Pro perty Acquired I (do) /4PWL. n<o3 (month/year) rSo not)! also own the adjacent parcels of land FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee Residential accessory Use $150.00 b) Institutional (church, school, etc.) After-the-Fact Fee $100.00 a) $150.00 b) $150.00 c) $250.d) $200.00 f)f) Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more // Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshoreX /vjtt. /(Aen>ccvns zcmAcfc PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS $150.00 $250.00 $150.00 $ 50.00 $250.00 $100.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) Vacation Easement Vacation Easement Vacation w. U Subdivision Re.toning App'.als Other - see fee schedule PRESENT OSE OP PROPERTY Present Zcnina District Lf^l A Present Use of Procerty Residential _ _ Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Describe request in detail: ■4DCn~'tK) Tp £XlSt~!KiC> HOME ( Buiur IM 1*^4*^WiTU MlSCgi.X>i^MECOS L<^NC'tC‘^PiKJC,. gV'CTikie Moucg ■^NQ PPOPOtcO 0pgsNiH.O'vSc LAMQf-ftP'vjc^ AUL. 0«ap.~n/^t_'jr ujrruiM IS'-o'* teTS<a<. OP L!*»g: V/^ri^HC-e SoueHT.REQUIRED SX7BMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) Stamoed, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. Certificate of survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). Plat Map. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Depa ..ment that Land Use Application is complete Zoning Officials Signature __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature r- Date ^ ^ 2*^ OWNERS SIGNATURE ( The owner hereby aclcnowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and ve^iificati^JSsof t^is request. Applicant must hav4 all Submittals into/We City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning (Wmmission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants mu^t be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please ma)ce arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Duilding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. PERTYg District \P-\ Af property (specify)!ST . rrr-i n '^‘ Aocmov^ ~m 4si■a,ousg I:’^' * _ --------------------“r~fT~g cQuet^. u—U .no, - - P^pos.d contours, if 1-d =o\%^^^cJn%’;Vin eievation^ ,lan, if applicable ise ..„,rate list of n to this application, application._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ions you wish n ________________________- Please “‘ ignature_____-__________________ * Sy'a’prees \/pUs ,„r/r"el rre“view of__thU application,^an^^^_ supplied IS true Z°I'il/ljJAayj , agrees to this appUcefl/%\"„tu"rtan^^^^^ ^^^.pate /■; G eorge S. Pillsbuhy1300 TCP TOWEHMinneapolis.Minnesota 5S402-2872. / • i .'ij,ocr~\3-^i^‘:v'^ '■'«' / •/era:• t ; tU ''UJ:>October 2, 1989Ms Jeanne A Masbusth Zoning Administrator City of Ororio Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn 55323 Dear Ms Masbusth: Unfortunately, neither Sally nor I can attend your next meeting (we made a commitment last May to be out of the country). However both Herb Baldwin and Tom Meyer will be representing us to explain our request and answer any questions. We hope that you feel as we do that our addition of a small conservatory improves the overall appearance of our house just as the porch did that we added off the living room and bedroom several years after we purchased the house in 1953. We believe that the addition does comply with both the Intent and spirit of the set back ordinance and hope that you will approve our request for a conditional use permit and variance. Sincerely, / / GSP/]rpd V MS&R Architect!. Meyer, Scherer & Rockcastle. Ltd, ;i5 Second Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 5t40t 28 September 1989 6ii 375-0t?6 Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono Building and Zoning Administration 1335 South Brown Read Oronr .nnesota 55391 Re; Pillsbury Residence - #8830 Dear Jeanne and Members of the Planning Commission: This letter is written in support of George and Sally Pillsbury^s request for a conditional use permit and variance to add on a plant room to the south side of their existing house. The original house, built in 1949, is itself in violation of the 75' setback and therefore also the zero percent allowable hardcover percentage area within 75 feet of the 929.4 foot defined lake elevation shoreline; certain portions of it lie within about 55 feet of shoreline. Although we acknowledge that additions cannot be grandfathered in under pre-exist_ng conditions, the location of the existing structure severely limits building options. The plant room addition has to be on the south side of the house to get the bright indirect light necessary for their collection of orchids and other plants. Furthermore, it is highly undesirable to have to direct guests, who wish to see Sally's flower collection, through private areas of the existing master bedroom. The only neighbor within direct view of the greenhouse would be Eleanor Pillsbury, whose closest living area would be 280 feet from the proposed addition. Few users of the lake would be much aware of the addition, because the 25 foot embankment would obscure close-up views and because the proposed addition has so much glass as to be largely transparent from a distance. The structure which looks somewhat like an arbor will be painted white to blend in with the existing house and with the mature white birch trees among which it is to be located. I o mro ro Ma I uias O's o <M Oo soe X ii 2 S o§ UI Lk M M M X M i o o a o in fO UI S“ I -5iE M > HI fH M ^ O O^ M Q. fO — < in532“' -J n UI Ui M U 2 I »H in <\J CO Kl O uja.K X X in N U U NO > S£22 s s o ___o a ^ <0 MH. a > -w./•* / O' O O I—Ui “ % CM Kl Li Kl CM I N. f-l I M -J -I »- M M& a u. m</>25 «Kl a Q in X O -i a X ss ® cn CM Kl r- Ul 3* o X h a o CM CM «0 IH Kl O •' >- h- C9 i- ^ Ui O X ug| a a CD KC mC O oa 'o m in •-, 2 - >• ^ ^ (M < lU UI «-C X < < a CM N X a X K p4 tt rH (/) 0) U.' u ^ UI UI K M O (0 O 5 3 (0 •-« UI lU Kl X Kl o (0 o ^ X -J ■< .y o t A K Oooo CM O O Xo <a < ►-o K U| u. u. M X O O HARDCOVER CALCULATIUfl WORKSHEET * * * >• - ~ 'MP-<vsjc5 ‘^.PPuorncN. \ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'75-250'250-500'500-1000' Existing H ardcover in Zone • • A. H ouse x 4ViO • S.P. LENGTH WIDTH• • X » •S.P. X • • S.P. m • X S.P. X S.P. B. Garage __ x S.P. c. Driveway x S.P. X • • • S.P.• D. Sidewalk x • • S.Fi _ X S.P. X S.P. E. >TIO/ Deck X • S.P. F. Landscape x • S.P. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY X m S.P. PLASTIC SHEETING X • • S.P. X S.P. G. Other x S.P. Total H ardcover in Zone -S.P. ^ Total Property A rea in Zone -^0 ooo S.P. b 1 A 4 B .X 100 - ‘^*'3 % • • ..A, .U K I [HARDCOVER CALCULATICfl WORKSHEEi “^PPUC^iTIONsetback ZONE: (circle one) 0-75'75-250'250-500' 500-1000' m Existing Hardcover in 1 Zone • • Ai Hnii^p X * S • F • LENGTH • • WIDTH X » • __ S.F. X • • » S.F. •X • » _ S.F. X « S.F. B. C. ^APAr;?X » . S.F. HaivBWAV X * S • F • X • • a S.F. 0.^rnPWAi K X • • * S.F. X » S.F. « X a . S.F. E.Jatio/Deck X - . S.F. •• B. 1 AfinqrAPB X » S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BV X ■ S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X • - S.F. X « S.F. 6. Other X • S.F. Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone N.4«aO s.F. • 0 B X 100 s.p. |TI 16.0 % 1 I HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEETrSETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' j75-250250-500' 500-1000' Existing H ardcover in Zone ABT5ja./p(j^tsQC5Q ___ S.F.A. H ouse j. Garage c. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio / Deck F.Landscape AREAS underlain BY •• . PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other • 44 length X X width Total H ardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone 4^‘loo B 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. II 4^4 s .F. I A I .F. 0 X 100 _______% t- I i r;tU:3v.fi.Y -1P.®UC«T!0N) HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1GQ0' Existing Hardcover in Zone ^TIKsJG A. House LENGTH WIDTH S.F X a S.F. • X S.F. t S-H • X I S.F. 'V X •i ^: S.F. - B. Garage X S.F. ' c. D riveway X a S.F. • X S.F. 'V-</ D. Sidewalk X S.F. X S.F. X - S.F. E. ’at 10/ D eck X S.F. «• P.Landscape X a S.F. areas UNDERLAIN BY X *S.F. PLASTIC • SHEETING X *S.F. X S.F. 6. Other X S.F. • Total H ardcover in Zone - 14 |S.F. Total Property A rea in Zone -S.F. 3 0-----------T B X 100 - HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET • setback ZONE: (circle one ) fo- Zone •75 '! 75-250 ' 250-500' 4iF-rES./FooP0s:o 500-1000' ExisTING Hardcover in ^'VJCL. P-so:= ' S.F. • • A . House X LENGTH WIDTH X __ _ S.F. X S.F. m ♦•X .S.F. X ._ _ S. r • B. c. (1ARA6E X ____ S.F. riBfVFWAY X . S.F. X m • • S.F. 0. • SinEWALK _ X S.F. X m S.F. X . . S.F. E.Jatio /Deck X • S.F. p.l ANnsm;F X S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY X S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING/ ____— 'X • S.F. X s. Other , X S.F. Total Hardcover in Zone - Total Property Area in Zone s s B 4iU.X ICi5 .F. IT .F. m % CS. t, -\IH V •V’*1ST ? . 4 <rnm y\\U re \ \ L? t *r. \K rpk s\K^ .x/> /A } —*.'.: r.> ■ “ \ 'r. llir*-'; 4..iS?A 5y“iS V. A’?It r ,-i'c= I'-U; I'-i# I) \•:.—.. \ ?ieo»t>scii HowiC »*• f ^/41 °h 4o\ —4.'l'. 'V V / \U I J: k ?.4- y\ •i\ \\ V/4 /••V*’ \ '-V .(>^' SVC ^ 1 X /r- »u .■*1 ‘ i r • V/: \ U "J* — / •^-nWr ^ n f.i n m. I 0 |k^ •; ^ ••I * J ^ ' K.2Blr J r I? nS*’* JV . - ----• —I it* •• !••• ».’ V >to4aB%« t« • • » S: /i I r- lL-4^ y»\»k . ; . :; i)l \ U .M*.**aa*«<pill »• :%A » •' .0 *?v '•m ■>f*1 I• %•<m. —V- O ii I 71 / / i*ii rvy ^ i V i \ le— 12 —89 THU 1^:51 BOUU.ER A R P R R I S R l_R . e 1 ■ • M- r m PILLSBURY RESIDENCE Hn» r mn -\ mz ■< 01 5 13m O Z > nr 5 73 OTl A •* V \ - I . r : r? -rV; » , • »• -r--? II ■m ^7 k n SITE PHOTOGRAPH REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERM IT/VAR IANCE 12 OCTOBER l^s A RBSOLOTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22r SUBDIVISIONS 1 & 2 AND SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 FILE #1468 WHEREAS, George and Sally Pillsbury (hereinafter "the applicants”) are the owners of the property located at 1300 Brackett's Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have ma<*e application to the City of Orono for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to construct a greenhouse addition and a retaining wall within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, resulting in structure and hardcover in the 0-75' zone where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed, and which greenhouse addition encroaches past the defined average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed, and further requesting a conditional use permit for grading work within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #1468. 2. The property is located in the LR-lA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The property is approximately 2.96 acres in area. 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 16, 1989 and recommended approval of the proposed variance and conditional use permit on a vote of 5-2, based on the following findings: Page 1 of 6 A) The average lakeshore setback encroachment will not impair any existing lake views enjoyed by neighboring property owners. B) The retaining wall and associated grading proposed at the top of the lakeshore bank is necessary for preservation of the lakeshore bank^ which is currently exhibiting some slumping effect. The 24"-30" proposed height of the single proposed retaining wall is low enough that the wall can be easily screened using existing and additional vegetation coupled with the stone construction materials proposed. C) The proposed hardcover increase from 5.7% up to 7.6% in the 0-75' setback zone is relatively minor in its impact on the lake given the relatively large 0-75* zone. Further, the effect of the additional hardcover in the 0-75' zone is minimized by the proposed drain- tile which will collect runoff between the residence and the shoreline and transport the runoff to the 75- 250' zone for below grade and overland dispersal. D) The lakeshore setback variance is justified by the need for southeast exposure for th» proposed growing of orchids, this being the only suitabxe location for such a greenhouse addition because of the existing orientation ana location of the house. Further, the elevation of the existing house and proposed greenhouse addition above the lake and the height of the lakeshore bank will tend to minimize the visual impact of the greenhouse as viewed from the lake. 5. 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 fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties; 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 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 6 I fi 6. The City Council finJs that granting a conditional use permit to allow the proposed grading and retaining walls in the 0-75' zone 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 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. CONCLDSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 and 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit construction of a greenhouse addition and retaining walls in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, resulting in an increase in hardcover from 5.7% to 7.6% in the 0-75' zone where no hardcover is normally allowed, resulting in additional structure in the 0- 75' zone where no structure is normally allowed, resulting in an average lakeshore setback encroachment of approximately 125'; and further grants a conditional use permit for grading and retaining walls in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19, subject to the following conditions; 1. Applicant shall provide the City Engineer with a detailed final grading and retaining wall plan, which must be approved before permits can be issued for the grading/retaining wall construction. The City Engineer shall work in conjunction with the applicants to establish suitable limits for the grading work. 2. The applicants shall maintain existing vegetation on the lakeshore bank as proposed, and shall plant additional vegetation to screen tne proposed 24'*-30'' high retaining wall from the lake to reduce its visual impact. Applicant shall use native materials and natural coloring to minimize the visual impact of this wall to the greatest extent possible. 3. As proposed, applicants shall construct a draintile system between the existing residence and the lakeshore, to redirect the drainage from the 0-75' zone to the 75-250' zone for dispersal. Page 3 of 6 4. Hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone shall not increase above the 1,965 square feet (7.6%) approved with this resolution, as indicated on the site plan attached hereto as Exhibit B. Applicants are advised that any future proposals CO Increase hardcover in the 0-75' zone will not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of equivalent amounts of hardcover in the 0-75' zone, resulting in no 0-75' hardcover increase. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (November 13, 1990). 6. 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. 7. 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 of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of November, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Acting Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 4 of 6 RMi] NNESOTA ) jENNEPIN )) ss., 199__day of —^5—said county»ii5»;rp^= ° _----l^r-^^____________ flpc^r.ribeci ifi #^v,f»Y) executed-w^rTET^e^^-Vgea that he (they) Uhel^) £tee act and deed. notary PUBLi'- qNESOTA ) ENNEPIN ) )ss. COMMISSioTEXP^ NNEPIN I loq , before me a_> ^ appeared day of ^ £1^ coun^» pers known to iTJithin 5-^;KS-^ f« __ _ _ _r-T-"^PScribed m and w" (they) executed nstrumentf a deed. his (their) free « notary Public commis^n eI^Hres MSmiSJA^I 8 1990 V f}f 6ITO: Mayor Grabek and CouncilPlanning Commission Chairman Kelley Planning Commission Members City Administrator BernhardsonPROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Admin.DATE: January 3, 1990SDBJ: ( .480 Edward & Gerda Toth, 2811 Farview LaneVariance Denial ResolutionList of Exhibits - A - Notice of Council Action, 12/13/89 B - Resolution At your 12/11/89 meeting. Council voted 3-2 for denial of the 0.9' side setback variance and directed staff to draft a resolution for denial. A denial resolution is attached for Council adoption. « Moved by , seconded by to adopt Resolution _ _ _, denying a 0.9' side setback variance for a proposed deck addition at 2811 Farview Lane. Motion: Ayes-_ _ _, Nays_ _ _ _. AJAN 8 |990CH'V Oh J‘c:LissiorShiir.an KellayConutiission Members Lnistrator BernhardsonP. Gaffron, Assistant planning a Zoning Admin.3, 1990ward S Oerda Toth, 2611 Farview Lane Denial Resolution!“of council Action, 12/13/99 ition 3/11/69 rden^aJ^A^e" a\"%esriution is attached for ion. , m K„ . to adopt Resolution TTrr s!drsltbao'^^J5?i35oe for a Ptopo«d deck . Farview Lane. Motion; Ayes---------f Nay ----------- APPLICATION NO. 1480 NOTICE OP COUNCIL ACTIONcrystal^ Bay, MN 55323 473-7- _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _TO; Ed & Gerda Toth COPIES: Karla Selseth2811 Farview Lane Dundee NurseryLong Lake, MN 55356 =55446_ _ _ _ _ _ _TXPE OP APPLICATION'. VarianceAdministrative Appeal -Fence'asement Vacation/RededicationDATE OP MBETINGi 12/11/89 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION:A) Easement vacation/rededication - Council voted 5-0 to approv^^^ vacation and rededication of drainage and utility easements aspresented. The vacation resolution will be cationupon receipt from you of signed and notarizeddocuments (copies attached — please sign ano return all p B) Side setback variance for deck extension - denial of the 0.9* side setback variance. will be submitted for final Council action at their January ^^^O meeting. Your deck contractor should submit a revised Pj-f/ deck extension so that a building permit can be processed for the deck. C) The administrative ap...al regarding locating fence i" was tabled until January 8, 1990. Please contact John Gerhardson you wish to discuss this matter. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder or City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. YOU must apply for and obtain a building permit prior to of deck construction. (The building permit application is a separate application from the easement vacation/rededication application.; tONO6 473-7.3erda Toth "arview Lane ■ajce, MN 55356 A»PL1CATI0«I bo . 14,0%4««csnoK:";;;;;";- Pence __________________________________ON - motion- -«>™At"er4“|lvotea 3-a . e.e.ceep i ^ “ty Councfl!^ «‘e°“rtke ‘‘--y the \*A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6(B) PILE fl480WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et seq., and 462 et seq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted a Community Management Plan and Zoning Regulations for the protection of che public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, Edward and Gerda Toth (hereinafter the "applicants"), are owners of the property located at 2811 Farview Lane within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: Lot 12, Block \r Farview, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter tht? "prcperty"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City o Orono (hereinafter the "City") for a variance to Municipal Zonin Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 6(B) to construct a deck additio.. to the existing residence, such deck addition proposed to be 29.1' from the side lot line where a 30* sideyard setback is normally required; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application, the recommendations of the City staff and Planning Commission, the comments and written statements submitted by the applicant and applicants' landscape contractor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono, hereby denies the side setback variance application of Edward and Gerda Toth based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: FINDINGS 1. This applic, jn was reviewed as Zoning File #1480. 2. This property is located within the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Page 1 of 2 k • 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 20, 1989, and recommended denial of the 0.9' side setback variance for deck extension, finding no demonstrated hardship for granting such a variance for this newly constructed residence. 4. Although the existing residence meets the required 30' side setback, the proposed deck addition would encroach into the required 30' sideyard because the house is at a slight angle to the lot line. 5. The City Council finds that a suitable deck can be constructed on the property without the need for the proposed setback variance. Further, granting of the variance would merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, and is not necessary for preservation of the applicants' substantial property rights; and ^ranting of the variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Adjpted by the Orono City Council on this 8th niy of January, 1P90. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Crabek, Mayor Page 2 of 2 # % ■■' , >V • -■ *••• J/ ,vt: . S- " ■' Srfx.x- -jx X- t:‘- y’J-x'V ■ :■ . 4* V "-^ . •V--'-- x'v L’V. :..■-.itKjie- iiJtJt-. ix ' iwseneAnderlik & Associates! Architects ■ e Vr-'. P£ i C C'JC^ PC 9 Csfin. PS ! \cyri P£ a k%-.:riL PfVc t $C^*4 PS A Wwfl56fi PSVifti A PgV:j K Pt^ p(KUr-^m, r a44*»*«jnn. PC 9 .rrwf pi Or, a ^ u><c:i. PI'.V ^WcrvjA PI C «w»>ei. A/A •^5-^J«. Argwi #»| A Jan^ PI j Is^nn. pp Vjrt A SCtA ##Otvgfst Pi •' -* 1 « in hti , ^I C'«Vf( « ff C A ^nttvsnP.hSHiky f^SKuiM Ofi0f» l-'vr M3, 1990)rono Mi8/990/n'' OP 0f>rmi'«y. KN 35323 •• Gfirhardoon ' ray quMtlcn. plea,. oo„t.„ truly, R osem:, anderlix 4 associates , inc . Leon REQUEST FOR PAYMENTDATE:January 3, 1990FUCEtOrono. Minna8otaPROJECT: Trk Hvy 12 Sanitary Saver t Water MainPROJECT NO.;InorovBaanta PILE N0.» 13939CONTRACTORt Albrecht Excavating. Inc._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ADDRESS: 1408 Vest Countv Road CRoBevllla. MN 55113REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.:FOR PERIOD;From; Dec. 1. 1989 Toi Dae. 31. 1939 SPECIFIED CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE CHANGES;Sanitary Saver January 1. 1990Water Main_ _ _January 1. 1990Lift Station January l, 1990 Restoration Work Juna 1. 1990SUMMARY:1. Original Contract Amount2. Change Order - ADDITION $ _ 3. Change Order - DEDUCTION $ _ _ _ 4. Revised Contract Amount 5. Value Completed to Date 6. Material on Hand 7. Amount Earned 8. Less Ratainage 3 t 9. Sub'Total 10. Lass Amount Paid Previously 11. iwMrUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.: 11,867.75 206,348.00 218.215.75 131,885.10 0.00 131.883.10 7j 394.26 144.290.84 84.872.23 59 J>18.39 Recommended for Approval by; BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. By; OWNER APPROVAL; m. Date;Approved Bv; ALBRECHT EXCAVATING. INC. Contractor By:v>.* PR13939 PAYIOT no.- A ; a ns. «wy j—- - - -i.— FILE NO:13939 /^nwTTiA^Tri© f Aihrprht 7ycavft&ins« IllC*DATE;January 3. 1990 STATEMENT OF WORiJ Unit Est'd Quantity Amount Contract Iteq Unit Price Ouantity To Data To Date PART 1 - SAfilTARY SEVER 8* PVC, 8'-10' deep in place L.P.$12.00 200 230 $2,760.00 8' PVC, 10'-12' deep in place L.F.12.00 330 340 6,480.00 8* PVC, 12'-lA' deep In place L.P.14.00 450 460 6,440.00 8* PVC, 14'-16' deep in place L.F.13.00 700 710 10.630.00 8' PVC, 16'-18' dee? in place L.F.17.00 850 793 13,313.00 8" PVC, 18'-20' deep in place L.F.23.00 100 83 1,953.00 12* DIP, 14'-16' deep in place L.P.23.00 43 Jack casing with 12" DIP carrier in pi . L.P.120.00 85 83 10,200.00 4* PVC. (SDR 26) force main L.F.6.00 1.380 1.340 8,040.00 Std. MH 8' deep, 4' dia., w/16428 catg . Each 800.00 11 11 8.800.00 Manhole depth greater than 8' deep L.F.60.00 50 43 2,700.00 Cut into existing manhole Each 300.00 1 1 300.00 8* X 6" PVC service vye branch Each 45.00 3 6 270.00 6* PVC service pipe in place L.P.10.00 160 90 900.00 6* PVC service riser pipe in place L.F.12.00 13 13 180.00 Improved pipe foundation per 6" increment depth L.P.1.50 600 550 825.00 Mechanical trench compaction L.F.0.01 1,600 1,550 15.30 Lift Station No. 30 L.S. 36 ,000.00 L S 252 9,000.00 total PART I - SANITARY SEWER PR15939 $83,030.30 Page 1 PROJECT:Trk Hvv 12 Sanitary S<wtr & Water Main- place: Oror.o. Minnesota_ _ _ _ Iwprcveoer.ta. CONTRACTOR1 Albrecht Excavating. Inc._ _ _ _ _ _ payment NO; FILE NO:13939 statement op WOS^ Contract Item PART II - water main 6” DIP, C1A99 52 wttar main 8" DIP, Claes 52 water main 6* reeilient wedge gate valve and box a* resilient wedge gata val’^e and box S' valve hydrant C.I. fittings Cut into 8* plug Mechanical trench compaction TOTAL PART II - WATER HAlH PART III - RESTORATION Common excavation Bituminous surfacing removal Class 5 aggregate base (1001 crushed) 2341 bituminous wearing surface 2341 bituminous binder surface AC-1 bituminous material for mixture Bituminous material for tack coat Erosion control fence Clear and grub trees PR13939 Unit L.F. L.F. Each Each Each Lbs. Each L.F. C.Y. S.Y. Ton Ton Ton Ton Gals. L.F. Each Unit Price $11.00 13.00 340.00 450.00 1,200.00 1.00 230.00 0.01 $1.00 2.00 8.00 23.00 23.00 190.00 1.00 1.50 73.00 Page 2 DATE I January 3, 1990 Est'd Quantity Amount Quantity To Date . To Dati 80 2.130 8 5 5 4,300 1 2,200 6,000 200 400 90 200 80 2.090 9 3 6 4,500 1 2,170 100 176 $880.00 27,170.00 3.060.00 2.250.00 7.200.00 4.500.00 250.00 21.70 $45,331.70 200.00 1,408.00 Ton 25.00 00 Ton 25.00 200 Too 190.00 16 Gals.1.00 30 l.F.1.50 500 Each 75.00 250 $13.00 390 380 17.00 50 50 430.00 4 4 1.00 1,200 1,200 11.00 7^80 135.00 1 1 100.00 1 1 0.01 1,275 49C 75.00 23 2! PROJECT P ayment statttcOrono, mi*lbr.cn. £xc.v.Un, I„c. l„e » Ct, H. c. H» «U3tract AMOUM'^3^8.00 total CHAfinr nnntvc $11,887.75DESCRIPTIOf?Completion Date Changes»>»r M.ln , T.«P well tea. H.y 12 „ „,u j TOTAL CHANCE ORDERS :riod 11- 30-89 12- 31-89 PAYMENT ISIS VOUCHEB $84,872.25 39.418.3Q VALUE COMPLETKn $88,405.00 151,885.10 AtlOUWT$0.0011.867.75 $11,867.75 RETAIMAC^ $4,466.96 7,59^.26 $144,290.84 _■ 7.594.26 $151,885.10 OATS:1390.3Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat January 3, 1990SUBJECT 1990 Appointments MEETINGJAM 81990nrAttachment: A. 1989 AppointmentsB. Proposed 1990 Appointments ResolutionISSUE - Adoption of appointments for 1990. INTRODUCTION - Annually the Council, at the beginning of the year, appoints its designees to certain Boards etc. with the Planning Commission appointments being done during the March timeframe for an effective appointment date of April 1. DISCUSSION - Park Commission Cha^r - It is the consensus of the Park Commission tViey woul3" like Mr. Phil Bradley to continue as the Park Commission Chair. The terms for Lee Erger and Bruce Kokal are up. The position from which Virginia Sweatt is resiging has one year left. Mr. Kokal has indicated his willingness to accept another three year appointment. Mr. Erger indicated his willingness to fill the one year vacancy left by Virginia Sweatt. There would then need to be filling of a three year vacancy for which staff will solicit candidates. L.M.C.D. Representative - 1990 veu J be the second of a three year term” for JoEllen Hurr as its i,...p.'esentative. Consultant Appointments - The consultant appointments have been set up on a consultant review basis and will be reviewed according to that schedule. The City Engineer and City Attorney are scheduled for reveiw during 1990. Cable TV Committee - This is an appointment of two primary and an alternate. Mr. Tim Adams is currently being asked if he desires to continue as a primary appointment if the Council so desires. The Council has indicated the willingness/desire to rotate the alternate appointment. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Adopt the resolution in total 2. Adoption of those that are unanimous. 3. Table the entire resolution. 1390.3 /§Dlution mnmJA!i 8 i990r%'V nr i beginning of the irds etc. with the * during the March April 1. 4. Table those that are not unanimous.5. Take no action.RECOMMENDATION — It is recommended that apart from alternations in the Cable TV Committee and a separate vote on Acting Mayor, that the balance of the list be adopted as proposed.PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, secondedappoint _ _ as the Acting Mayor for x990. Ayes, that the Council , NaysMoved by seconded_ _, that the Council adopt Resolution #setting forth the appointments for 1990. Ayes , Nays nsus of the Park to continue as the up. The position ne year left. Mr. another three year »ss to fill the one would then need to staff will solicit second of a three /e. intments have beer will be reviewed : and City Attorney two primary and an isked if he desires ouncil so desires, sire to rotate the L«KS1|| MWjt .. Jf •ltl4«Ys [•Bsr^Tsn* . V* ‘-V ?.*4- .v -.^<1- -V ilSI^ v» ■sm- - .. . <=-^ _ I 122089.8 // TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistrato CiiL'.'iOil, MEETING JAN 8 3:a DATE:January 3/ 1990 onv fiF SUBJECT: Canine Program Attachment:A. Canine Program Memo Dated 12/7/89 (Plus select*-d Attachments) B. Chief Kilbo Memo Dated 12/22/89 C. Minnesota Police Chief Article Excerpt 12/89 ISSUE - Determination as to whether the Council desires to go ahead with initiation of a canine program. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's December 11, 1989 Council meeting the issue of a canine program was presented for Council's initial consideration. At that meeting it was indicated that it be tabled until .he January 8, 1990 meeting wO determine the Council's position on the matter. DISCUSSION - Requests for financing the costs have been made to outside sources as noted in Attachment B. Apart from the initial funding, the annual cost is estimated to be $1,000/year (Attachment A incorrectly stated $100/year). While not a necessity a canine unit would be beneficial in the following areas: Officer Friendly/School Programs - (Currently use Wayzata's on a limited basis) Building/Alarm searches (200/year vii'le on duty) Search for persons (3-10/yr) Tracking of suspects (10-30/yr) Large event control (Corn Days) Large teenage parties (4-6/year) Drug searches (5-10/year) (Orono has had to share about $1,000 in forfeiture monies in 1989 with Wayzata as we had to use their dog on searchina for drugs in a house.) Training for dog and handler are in th-e areas of Officer protection, suspect pursuit and detention, tracking and drug searching. Not all dogs are equally skilled in all arf^*e and depends on the dog assigned as to capabilities. 1ALTERNATIVES -1. Initiate.2. Table at this time for future consideration. (Tabling at this time would require the City to forgo the traning opportunity in .March and look at initiating the program sometime this fall.)3. Choose not to undertake the program.RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council initiate this program as outlined in Attachment A.The introduction of a dog does provide a new element and a new area for the department and the ability to share with other departments where we currently are not able to share on a quid pro quo basis. Efforts will be undertaken to coordinate schedules of the Wayzata, Orono and Mound officers utilizing dogs so that all three communities are in a better position to maximize availability of a canine unit. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that the Council authorize the implementation of a canine program. .\yes _, Nays cc; Chief Kilbo ERNATIVES -Initiate.rable at this time for future consideration. (Tabling at this e would require the City to forgo the traning opportunity in ch and look at initiating the program sometime this fall.)Zhoose not to undertake the program.3MMENDATI0N - It is recommended that the Council initiate this jram as outlined in Attachment A.introduction of a dog does provide a new element and a new a for the department and the ability to share with other artments where we currently are not able to share on a quid quo basis. Efforts will be undertaken to coordinate tdules of the Wayzata, Orono and Mound officers utilizing dogs that all three communities are in a better position to .mize availability of a canine unit. 'OSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by. . - _ . _t that the Council lorize the implementation of a canine program. Ayes t Nays Chief Kilbo 12189.6Mayor and City Council Mark **. Bernhardson, City Administrate' December 1, 1989 COUNCIL MEETINGDec 111989¥SUBJECT: Canine ProgramAttachment; A. Canine Program Memo Dated 6/11/89 OF QROfijQB. Chief Kilbo Memo/Canine Program Dated 12/6/89ISSUE - Determine the Council's interest in having a canine program as part of its Police department.INTRODUCTION - The issue of undertaking a canine program in the Police department was discussed earlier this summer and at the time staff was directed to bring this back in November 1989. DISCUSSION - At the time this was discussed there were several issues raised regarding the program. These include: Number and types of calls ^ ^ used - As noted in the Attachment there are a number or calls in which a canine program would be of assistance. In addition to these calls a canine program is a good PR program in the schools in conjunction with Officer Friendly as we presently have used Wayzata's. Availability of dog - This would normally be available during the hours the Officer is on duty and as a dog is only to be utilized with one officer. Initial and ongoing cosjts - These costs are outlined in Attachment B. At present there is no budget for any of the . items and if the program were to be undertaken the initial funding for the following items: The training and dog Equipment for Training would be solicitated from outside sources. Use of other police departments canines - In the past on a rare occasion the Police department has utilized dogs from Wayzata, Minnetonka, and Mound. Currently Wayzata and Minnetonka do have canine units at the present time. Mound is looking to reactivate theirs. The city would look to coordinate schedules of its dogs with Wayzata and Mound so that they would be working different schedules which would expand the coverage availability of canine units in the area. In addition when cooperation is one way communities are reluctant to provide it, however, when cooperation is two way it benefits all of the communities. »n«p|p f- : f ■*, Intsra-f-fic« Mamo Oatsi Dacambar 6« 19S? To:Mark Bernhardson* City Administrator Frofflt Mol Kilbo, Chie-f o-F Polica Ra:Canina Program As the Council directed, I am submitting a proposal -For canine program -for the Orono Police Department. QF-ficer Dan Fischenich has researched the program and has submitted his Findings which are attached. The St. Paul Police Canine School starts March 6, 1990, running to June 2, 1990, a 13 week program. St. Paul must be notiFied by 12/18/69 iF wa are to be given a slot. They have six slots open as oF 12/6/89. The Minneapolis Canine School is starting on 3/19/90, running 12-13 weeks, speciFic dates unknown at this time, at a cost oF SIOOO For the dog and training, which is the same price at the St. Paul Canine School. Cost oF training is :>1000 For both, training equipment such as bite sleeves, attack sleeves, is partially included in that training. The other Fixed costs would be a kennel involving a concrete slab For approx. S375, and a dog house For approx. 4125. This kennel would be at the handlers residence. A squad car, an older one, with an adapted back seat, would also be needed. The adaptation would cost approx. 4500. This dog, properly trained For tracking and drug detection, could not be transported in the same vehicle as the Community Service oFFicers uses. Also, the canine unit should be a take-home squad For the program to be eFFective. Canine unit is continually "on-call” and should be available For call out when needed, even iF the oFFicer were oFF duty. This unit could be a squad that is not sold at auction. The yearly upkeep oF police dog is minimal as no new insurance costs are needed. Food costs are about 4300 yearly and vet charges approx. 4200 per year. The cost oF manpower to cover OFFicer Fischenich's absence while training ranges From a minimum oF 4560 to make sure an oFFicer is on duty to appro:;. 42000, to ensure shiFt coverage. UJc would utilize a part-time oFFicer to some part oF OFFicer Fischenich's slot. COSTFor dog and training Retrofitting a squad Loss of a trade-in Kennel Dog house Training equipment Manpower Costs (mauimum)Start up cost with car Without car ■SI 000. 500. 3500. 375 125. 200 2000#7700.#4200.RECURRING COSTSFood Vet Mi sc. costs Total Recurring #300 yearly 200 500 # 1000 In 1989, Waysata Police Department budgeted #1500 for recurring costs, however, through November, they have only used #600 of this budget, so I believe #1000 is relatively secure figure. I would ask the Council to proceed with the program as I need to notify the various police departments by 12/20/89 if we are going to participate in the 1990 program. I further request permission to approach the civic groups for funds to cover training costs, equipment costs and perhaps funds toward a dedicated vehicle for canine use. Officer Scott KuTPer vould assume Flschenlch's schedule slot. I have asked Officer Fischenich to make a committment of three years to the Department in exchange for the training and he has readily agreed. The cost for training, first year start-up costs, equipment (without a vehicle) would be $6000. I am asking Council permission to proceed with the program as I need to notify the Minneapolis Police Department by July 14, 1989, if we are going to participate in this years program. I further request permission to approach civic groups for funds to cover training and a dedicated vehicle for the K-9 use. ■ • Cm Jt jw A t ih. S=ott Ku^er vould>''« . h“•Xiloated vehiofa^l"” *orthe K-g *rhs?re were appr-:j- 2‘J calls when an otricH -founc a dcor ccen cn a builoinq cr house, possibly buraiary in procress. In ail commercial buildings and larger residential homes, a dog would be used.In 19S?, we have had 40 burglaries to date, ot businesses or houses. In about one-third ot these burglaries, a deg could have been used -for tracking purposes.We could also utilize the dog in large teen drinking parties and crowd control at high school games, and at large events such as Corn Days.□rono Police has had appro::. 10 drug busts where a warrant had been obtained to go into a house. A dog would have been very useful on this type ot call. l*Je did use Wayzata canine at one of these calls.There were appro;:. 20—25 calls where we have assisted other Departments wich people that have committed crimes and were running, such as in the case of Hillside Drive and Cty. 15 in Wayzata this past summer. It snoLild also be noted that when Orono has needed a dog from other jurisdictions, there has been very long delays before the dog is available. Sometimes if the dog is not available from Wayzata, we have needed to ask Minnetonka or sometimes even Minneapolis Police for assistance, thus causing long delays. We could arrange schedules with other Departments such as Mound and Wayzata to have a canine available at all times. Orono Police Department has utilized Minnetonka and Wayzata canine cars to this area for presentations and Officer Friendly programs. I believe our own canine would be very useful for public relations in cases of this nature. Canine would also be very useful when working nights and in stopping a car with more than one party in it, where you feel you should be more cautious and only one other car available in the jurisdiction. The dog would be like having an additional back-up unit witn you. It should also be noted that wnen the Orono deq vjould assist other jurisdictions in drug related arrests, and monev or goods are forfeiheo to the police departments involved, the Orono Police Department would get a snare of the forfeiture- 1 Duil'^'"® „„5in»**“* “jI'i* ifQ da't®’ p^ deg coul® i^hird o^ «.V one-tnir _^,^poses- parties^or tracking P'^'^p ..^,.king1 - 1 art one-tbinP ^^poses- partiesor trackin. prinking P tadon in 1^’'^® ^ind at larQ® *%inn senool gajl at ni- ^ warrant1 at big ' warrant;/*= ...........................this typ- iated otbe*^ ^ we oave asa ^^re p-tU pp*» ,,, „a,aeP a^d=5^ adictiona;. f ®%ometimea IP "““o? °*''®''way-^^ ’ pol^^® -e sched^^® canine l^inneapoy Id vl to bave a can *^,Vand WaV=ata as ^ Waysata . ^d rtinnetonka an,^^^ . has Nations and 0+^ ^ary «P»':''”trM PPP P''*n” caninp w°^„ ■ t UlievP o-;^: o< tniP "PP' '*P*'^rtlationa if' - nignt» *p ^glic relPP „orki' 9 ni^9^^, ^„u °"'/oronly"p"'’f,’’u “P.-'*"’ the witn y°'-^* -d sissist ' ’' t wner. the ,^°nd'mone- 1Interoffice MemoDate: December 22, 1989To:Mark Bernhardson, City AdministratorFrom: Kel Kilbo, Chief of PoliceRe:Canine Program - ‘Discussion" paragraphThe tentative financing for the cost outlined in attachment A have these amounts that must be financed from outside the Department for 199u.For Dog and Training For Retrofitting Squad For Kennel For Dog House For Training Equipment TOTAL $1000500375 125 200 $2200 F.ecurring Costs for 1990 Food Veterinarian Costs Misc. Costs $ 300 200 600 TOTAL $1000 The Grand Total is $3200 that must be financed from outsido the budget for 1990. I have asked several agencies if they would be willing to consider giving funds toward the Canine Program if the Council were to give permissic-n. The Orono Lions indicated that they would be interested in this program and the Hockey Boosters also said they will consider the request. The Long Lake Fire Department also indicated they will consider our request. PMT, Inc., which last year made a donation for crime prevention fund, stated in a call that they will make a donation to the Orono Police Department and at that time. I indicated the Canine Program start-up costs, as well as the DARE Program start up costs of $2500, as well as the crime prevention fund. They stated they will make a donation to the particular program that they wish to contribute to. ,-^U?'.- * V.r- ‘ • ■ . » MW. * - #J KrSL. ^ ^ tr r •A * *~ ^, •' '• DECEMBER 1969 31 Mtnnrfwifci Oflim- hinrl Kpdi and h*r dog. L«vi. arc the top canine and canine handler in the nation. (Photo by Paul Middicstacdtl and Rondo, Greg Majors and Samson, Pat Lyttic and Sh^ow, and Paui Rhodes and Max Officer Mike O'Brien and his dog. Rocky, also competed in ihe event. The St Paul team won the top team in the nation award and the top depart ment team in the nation award. Tim Jones's dog. Ninja, is the number three dog in the nation. Dave Bolt's Rondo placed eighth, and Greg Majorss Sam son placed 18th. Rondo also placed third in obedience, and Lynlcs Shadow placed fifth in that category. Deputy Lyle Lorenson of Goodhue County also placed in the top ten with his canine. The Minnesota K-9 officers com peted in a group of 136 officer-dog teams The competition categories were obedience, agiliiy. article search, box search and criminal apprehension. These Minnesota canine officers have accomplished more than just win ning natmnaJ championships. From July 1987 to July 1989. the Minnetonka Po lice Department seized 6.3 pounds of cocaine, valued at $286,4-14. 6.4 pounds of marijuana, valued at S2.844, and an assonment of LSD, amphet amines and ocher drugs—thanks to the help of Levi and Tonka. In St. Paul, the 19 officcr-dog teams narticipated in more than L500 crimi nal incidents and arrests m the lost year. 32/MINNESOTA POLICE CHIEF mm 9^•ir* ’. . - *.A* • i « . •J...^ 4 ;.:. ^«»-.•■ - ^f !» rWSSWsI i's'S.fSi ** .'*••:ItS•S',.'J'J• \w Tim Jones works out with Grej; Majors’s dog Samson. (Photo bv Kristal LcebricklI iSiksst c.i-*r;'^»r7i*TiJ •‘.:':V-^1 /i.•* jlV*-'" -4 -V '■'S^ r - W —^ %' - y-i /J*T ‘ - Below, the St. Paul competitors, from left: Tim Jones and Ninja, Dave Boll and Rondo. Greg .Majors and Samson. Paul Rhodes and .Max, .Mike O’Brien and Rocky, and Pat Lyttle and Shadow (Photo by Kristal Leebricki and Rondo. Greg Majors and Samson. Piu Lyttle and Shadow, and Paul Rhodes and Max. Officer .Mike O’Brien and his dog. Rocky, also competed in the event. The St. Paul team won the top team in the nation award and the top depart ment team in the nation award. Tim Jones’s dog. Ninja, is the number three dog in the nation. Dave Boll’s Rondo placed eighth, and Greg Majors’s Sam son placed 18th. Rondo also placed third in obedience, and Lyttle ’s Shadow placed fifth in that category. Deputy Lyle Lorenson of Goodhue County also placed in the top ten with his canine. The Minnesota K-9 officers com peted in a group of 136 officer-dog teams. The competition categories were obedience, agility, article search, box search and criminal apprehension. These .Minnesota canine officers have accomplished more than just win ning national championships. From July 1987 to July 1989. the Minnetonka Rj- lice Department seized 6.3 pounds of cocaine, valued at $286,444; 6.4 pounds of marijuana, valued at S2.844; and an assonment of LSD. amphet amines and other drugs—thanks to the help of Levi and Tonka. In St. Paul, the 19 officer-dog teams participated in more than 1.500 crimi nal incidents and arrests in the last year. SOTA POUCe CHtEF t^V.'4-:#rw>».r*\ .0*2, % ^ •H- &: . vs4* •- - - -yMf• Ji “. K't I ' '■ V • i ■ •?* M’i1% ^ r t1N 'r T V A;i i P;'.*5 1 M I'l'i m ^3 i f WBS |3 ft < • V * v-r; .i^f'-.-rP — KS «i? « , CV.'.. / ■rnmm ■ • ■imii i ■III ng^s^a^ . ^ ^ ^ iMi"iiBI. I IT II Sii»* wm^.. >steiM?i7*ai )COUNCIL MEEnNGJAN 8 WiUWY Of cwnBernhatdson, Cl Y.r 20. 1989„ M=o,nltlon Y-togra.,„Ulon .rograa .at.a Emoployaa ““^ttethaaa . COPY !.• In an EroploY®® j.”::,......... ...•••••• ■•' . s.vacal months ago .. .auaa hy aavaloP«an‘„ ”““h °.ar‘. ‘'’th.‘°s"all h^t/iCa.achmant »■ ? i, 20 ya»'V„ „»ny othat onas tot apptfS'" aittetent than m .ubstantlally eommanlty • alUlW a 1°’®' . city -la. 10,0 aavalopmant. :. Engaga an out.W. rivtS - , a eomP«“‘“”- t ,ta« to aa.lna a na« logo. , logo as it la. . ,o. ««th.t alacnaalo". RECOMMENDATION - It is reconunended that efforts be made over the next 3 to 6 months to develop a new City logo for utilization not only on the employee recognition but also on City letterhead. City signs and other City identification such as water towers but that it be tabled for a recommendation as to its development.In any event if a new logo were introduced the City would phase out its existing stock of letterhead, envelopes. City signs and the new logo would be introduced only as these are exhausted.PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that the Councilthat staff be directed to have a new logo developed for the City and bring back a recommendation to the January 22. 1990 meeting as to the means to accomplish it. Ayes _. Nays _.cc: All Department Heads 6189.4’• '"Ploy* ,»co/ni t ion but^\T on° crt“ \«*te‘r°h"e".d‘ leans to accomplish it. Ayes Nays .TO:FROM:DATE:Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk June 1, 1989SUBJECT: Employee Recognition ProgramAttachments: A. Employee Recognition SurveyB. Breakdown of Employees by 5 year Anniversary Datespartment Reads ISSUE - Initiation of a program to recognize employee’s length of service with the City. DISCUSSION - As you are aware the City currently recognizes employees for outstanding accomplishments but the City has no program to recognize individual employees relating to their length of service with the City. Attachment A is a survey from 13 municipalities which list recognition programs along with other employee activities. Attachment B is a current list employee anniversary dates brokendown by 5 year anniversary dates starting in 1989 through 1994. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the City of Orono develop a policy for employee recognition which would recognize employees length of service at 5 year intervals. This recognition could include a Resolution presented to the employee at a regular Council meeting or presented to the employee by the department head. In addition if the City at some future time has its logo made into a lapel pin the length of service could be noted on a special lapel pin and presented to the employee. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson. City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. I s a p h Si u & et Mtn j • <M 1-4 «M 41 sill IP «--• u « ^ ^ 08,2^ a.-“•c c « a||* l/V b« M e Ms 4J >• xi 01 Jdu 0 as M I ai i 1^1_ 3 all ,^••4 1 Ul _ *J MS’’"-8flI •fill s!-k^ * g«J"^ 3 « >•-< c<Ai > iJ r4 Ql C Ql a5 o 8fl 8.3 ws i o. •«4 IIm u Of <.< • ♦ K" «> Id O 8is A3 :a-s3 x».sla. 8®* . u • x» 0> C w >1 8 8 Xi u -4 ^O H mI S'* ^ t 0. cn M I J! xi o 1^ i %^a -31§r-s§ 3j «M4 Xi c l4l<8 6189.5 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 BREAKDOWN OP EMPLOYEES BY S YEAR ANNIVERSARY DATES 1994 Theresa L. Naab Charlotte A. Knutson Gary B. Cheswick John M. Fritzler Lyle E. Oman John F. Brinkhaus John J. Sass Ronald E. Steffenhagen Mark E. Bernhardson Dorothy M. Hallin Melvin H. Kilbo Irving H. English III Kurt R. Erickson Carol J. Hansing Mark W. Toraczyk James D. Gregory Jamie L. Bosma Thomas M. Kuehn James L. Cornick Bradley P. Johnson Mark F. Moran James Morowczynski Mark R. Thornton Lawrence F. Tomcheck John R. Gerhardson Dale S. Skreen Wayne A. Quast Dan T. Fischenich Charles R. Schauss Kevin L Walsh Thomas J. Jacobs Steven C. Hansen Laurie K. Scheffler Bruce L. Anderson Sue A. Bobzien James S. Morrow Peter B. Palmer Michael B. Carlson Jeanne A. Mabusth Michael P. Gaffron Randy L. O’Brien Barry J. Rathbun Linda G. Walters Sally L. Christianson Scott E. Kuyper Years of Service 5 15 20 10 5 10 10 15 5 20 15 5 10 10 10 15 5 15 5 10 5 10 5 5 25 15 10 5 5 5 15 15 5 15 10 5 5 5 15 10 5 5 5 5 5 years Hire Date 09/04/84 03/11/74 02/01/69 04/02/79 04/23/84 02/05/79 07/16/79 03/18/74 05/01/85 09/14/70 01/02/75 02/11/85 01/15/80 04/12/80 11/17/80 09/29/75 02/28/86 06/14/76 01/02/86 01/01/81 08/14/86 01/01/81 01/27/86 04/07/86 05/02/66 10/11/76 03/16/81 07/01/87 10/26/87 08/10/87 05/31/77 11/14/77 07/11/88 03/01/78 08/18/83 01/15/88 01/16/88 05/30/88 09/15/78 10/31/83 07/13/88 07/06/88 04/03/89 01/10/89 03/15/89 -_y »' r— sg^agfcstaiifeys-. -;-'** rj/.’ . - -♦ i 4. -- - ^ V • tt#^ A. ^ M •,%“Vr^->5i':^'^iT:'si5; ' 4 \ - -*.•*•1* ^ •% ^ I 122089.14 / TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator December 20, 1989 SUBJECT: Compensation Incentives mum JA:I 8 i?90 V (IP pPHiin Attachments: A. Article "Paying for Performance" Governing December, 1989 ISSUE - 1. Presentation of general incentive concepts for compensation. 2. Request of Council to give conceptual direction that they agree with in development of a compensation program. INTRODUCTION - In the development of the current compensation plan, which was done in part to meet the State's pay equity plan, the elements of the plan provided for: 1. Internal Equity - The FOCUS study which was to provide a method for internally relating the relative value of each of the jobs. 2. Externa 1 Equity - The compensation plan indicated that where significant deviations in the market for a job either positively or negatively from the Internal equity that the plan could use the outside market to adjust those. 3. Step Incentives - For persons in a new position, their ability to perform the job grows with experience on the job and the job value is based on their fully performing the job. To accomodate this "learlng curve" the person starts at a compensation rate less than the top level for the position. If they demonstrate adequate progression ?n job growth they can move up eventually to the compensation for fully performing the job . 4. Annual Adjustments - The annual adjustment was a means to Tiold the posTtion pay neutral in relationship to cost of living. The annual adjustment is based on the idea that pay for a position at the beginning of one year would change due to Inflation during the year. Because inflation by the end of the year that same salary would not bay as much as it would at the beginning of the year. In order to compensate for that inflationary increase, the plan provides for an annual adjustment which theoretically places the employee back at the same place as they were at the beginning of the year. To not adjust for such would eventually have that position's pay continue to decrease over the years in relation to its purchasing power. DISCUSSION - As discussed when the plan was implemented it provided for the position compensation based on both the internal and external factors and was to be the level that someone performing at the expected level for the job. This however did not provide a way to monetarily reward persons who are doing a better than expected level of performance. The problems with some of these systems have included the basis for these incentives and they have earned permanent increases in tneir pay based on one years performance. Recognition of someone's meritorious service to an organization can take several forms, some of which have been used in the past. The use of monetary incentives to influence such performance has been done in several ways for many years in the private sector. Some have been based on the amount of production, specific goals and objectives, overall organizational profitability, cost saving ideas, etc. General schemes for monetary incentives fall into the following categories : A. Pay for Per formance - This can be either through general goals and objectives or based on the financial results of the organization, a specific department or where possible to individuals. Issues related to this are the basis and sometimes arbitrariness of that basis on which they are distributed. B. Qua l^^^_ica^^ons A^^ainroen^ ” Persons have been rewarded for obtaining certaiTn qualifications (apart from their job rating) to recognize the fact that the employee is more valuable when they are more highly trained and able to do other jobs. Such plans provide a more "objective" basis because certain factors for criteria have to be met, however, these qualifications do not always directly translate to job relevant criteria. C. Si£n^ficant Speci^^J^c Achievements - Certain organTzatFons rewarJ employees either Tor specific meritorious projects, tasks, suggestions, etc. Such are generally in the form of a lump sum payment with a formula for determining the amount and the individual recipients. (Attachment A discusses use of pay for performance systems in the public sector.) Any incentive program is going to have those who question the fairness of the distribution. If there is not a differentiation in distribution among the employees, ther the question of whether there Is an incentive as many people receive the same thing. Some would argue that money incentives are not motivators, but the lack of them may be demotivators. However, the use of bonus incentive systems in the private sector does seem to stimulate the behavior of those organizational employees. To a degree some of the systems will create organizational discord between individuals if teamwork is desired and the incentive system does not incorporate that as a desired behavior. In any incentive system It is recommended that the following be considerations: A. No Effect on Base Pay - Any system for performance in one year should not mean an increase in performance for years beyond that and that the postion pay remains the same. B. Lump Sum - Instead of a percentage seen as a small part of several checks that any incentive pay be a lump sum payment at the time of award. C. Funding - The program should be funded from items that are separate from keeping the pay schedule in line with external wages and the cost of living. If it is not, employees will perceive the program as a means to decrease their pay and eventually undermine the idea of the program. Additionally the theory of the incentive is performance above and beyond that expected and the exp6CtGd performance is being paid for the position in the pay schedule. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Discuss. 2. Table. 3. Give direction to staff on a means of proceeding. RECOMMENDATION - It Is recommended that the Council discussio^n they may have on this item together with sharing their thoughts on the matter with the Administrator over the next two months. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _ table discussion of this Item until its March Ayes , Nays _. that the Couc'. 1 , 1990 meeting. cc: All Department Heads managemeni ^TT<^‘it(iKeUT' abe Ruth understood pay for performance. In I M 1929, when someone pointed out that he was being paid twice as much money as President I ■ Hoover, the Babe's response was succinct; “I had a better year than he did It might be going a little far to descnbe Barr\ Stevens, a soft-spoken financial manager in Lansing, Michigan, as the Babe Ruth of state government But if it turns out that Michigan’s pension fund performed well enough during fiscal 1989. Stevens will earn $130,000. That is twice his regular pav It is also $50,000 more than the salarv of the man who hired him, state Treasurer Robert A. Bowman, and $24,000 more than the salary' of the governor. James J. Blanchard, who has not had nearlv os bad a year as H(X)ver did in 1929 Stevens' superiors hope he does well enough to claim the money “If he outperforms the averages, he's earned it. sa\s Bowman, who initiated the pay-for-perlormance system under which Stevens and 44 other professionals who manage the $18 billion fund operate. Under that system, the standards by which the fund and its managers will be measured are agreed up>on before the fiscal vear begins. The better it d(x*s, the better ^hey do Bowman decided to tr\ this scheme after he arrived in state government nearly seven years ago from an invest ment banking job at Goldman. Sachs, and found himself without enough opportunities to encourage outstanding work. “You can onlv give out so many framed awards. Bowman savs. There is no sure wav to tell whether the Bowman bonus plan has improved the performance of Michigan's pension system, but it doe' satisfy another important goal of his—it keeps valued employees in place Before the plan was in effect, says Stevens, “we were losing people, not to New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco but to regional banks. We nettled to get more ctimpetitive.’* Since it was implemented in 1987, only one person has left the financial managers' group She was not lost to private industry but to motherh»>xl. To ensure such stabilitv Bowman built golden hand cuffs'* into his pay-for-performance plan. If Stevens earns his $65,000 bonus this year, he will see onlv half of it in ready cash. The other half will be paid out to him in tt^ual quarterlv installments over the next tour years But if he leaves, he forfeits the extra money Barry Slevem v an atypical state employee in that his performance is easilv measured in hard numbers that nobody can reallv argue about. Even the m(»t passionate advocates of the pav-for-performanc'e approach do nut claim that a sunilarly precise standard can be applied to more than a small numljer of government employees. That absenc'c of precision inevitably raises the specter of favoritism, which is the single biggest obstacle to an effective pav-for-performance system Manv public man agers are nonetheless convinc'ed that such a svslcm is worth trying, even in jobs where measurement is bound to be subniive, and in a number of different places thev are developing techniques for dealing with the favoritism isue. The managers who are turning to pav for performance Sugarplums & Lumps O f Coal Giving big raises to some employees and small ones to others isn't easy. But it may be the only way to keep your best people. Some managers know how to do it. By Elder Witt are doing so because thev want a true ment svstem in which an employee s compensation reflects his pnxlucMv- itv. not his longevitv Thev feel increasinglv amfined by so-called ment pay systems, most of whicn deteriorate into automatic annual step-and-grade increases for every em ployee. regardless of performance level. “The sy'stem has been stood on its bead.” savs Charles Nanry. New Jersey's acting personnel commissioner, “so that not to give an increment is a punishment, but the increment itself is not a reward, it s expetrtcd. That is not merit unless you consider meritorious the fact that you ve lived for another year. ' Pay for performance is not a new idea for the public sector It has been dis cussed. defended and criticized for the past de cade Those who do not like it contin- MANAGEMENTunderstood pa>‘ for performance. Inen someone pointed out that he wasd twice as much monev as President0he Babes response was succinct: ter year than he did.” a little far to describe Barry Stevens, il manager in Lansing, Michigan, as e government. But if it turns out that und performed well enough during irill earn $130,000. That is twice his $50,000 more than the salary of the state Treasurer Robert A. Bowman, in the salary of the governor, James IS not had nearly as bad a year as jpe he docs well enough to claim the forms the averages, hes earned it,” initiated the pay-for-performance evens and 44 other professionals who n fund operate. Under that system, h the fund and its managers will be upon before the fiscal year begins. better thev do. 0 \ try this scheme after he arrived in rly seven years ago from an invest* Soldman, Sachs, and found himself itunities to encourage outstanding give out so many framed awards,” f to tell whether the Bowman bonus performance of Michigan's pension ify another important goti of his—it es in place. Brfore the plan was in Are were losing people, not to New ian Francisco but to regional banks, more competitive.” Since it was )fjy one person has left the financial was not lost to private industry but ility Bowman built ”golden hand- performance plan. If Stevens earns year, he wiU see only half of it in \aii will be paid out to him in equal 9ver the next tour yean But if he xtra money. itypicai sUte employee in that his measured in hard numben that m about Even the most passionate For-performance approach do not ;ncise standard can be applied to ber of government employees. askm inevitably raises the specter ; the stogie biggest obstacle to an mance system. Many public man- convinced that such a system is fas where measurement is boimd to lumber of different places they are iof droling with the favoritism le turning to pav for performance SUGARH^UMS& Lumps Of G oal Giving big raises to some employees and small ones to others isn’t easy. But it may be the only way to keep your best people. Some managers know how to do it. By Elder Witt are doing so because they want a true merit system in which an employee's compensation reflects his productiv ity, not his longevity. They fee! increasingly confined by so^alled merit pay systems, most of which deteriorate Into automatic annual step-and-grade increases for every em- pteyee, regardless of performance level. 'The system has been stood on its head,” says Charles Nanry, New Jersey s acting personnel conunlssioner, **so that not to give an increment b a puiushment, but the increment it^ b not a reward, it*s expected. That b not merit unl» you consider meritorious ^ fact that you've lived for another •tyear. Pay for performance b not a new idea for the public sector. It h^ been dis cussed, defended and criticized for the past de cade. Those who do not likeitconrin-•- .u .*•. i I*. MANAGEMENTue lo say it is both costly and disrupti\e of group morale. But its time appears to be coming, brought about by a simple economic fact: Financial austerity in most states and localities now precludes generous across-the-board raises for all employees in a system. Giving each of them the same annual raise does not allow the best performers enough of an increase to keep them satisfied—or even, in manv cases, to keep them at all.“Given public hostility to pay raises for public employees. I don't see how we can win any sort of across-the- board increase without some sort of pay-for-performance element.” says Norman J. Ornstein. resident scholar at the .American Enterprise Institute and a member of a federal task force on pay reform.Pay for performance is. in fact, difficult, expensive and controversial. But it may be the only rational solution to the problem.\\ lot of states are having trouble funding across- the-board increases.' says Klentucky compensa tion officer Jim Stanley. “Ultimately, t.here s no choice other than pay for performance. You can no longer afford to give everxone ■ .-' -qFr."r.-/r I. .L - /I i-A*fi -•> ¥zh I 1^ i Cu mmm / V~ i-i-- . 0. ^ \ ■ * A' r ' L I »T_ V A .r' ‘ ^ '^:rzMz f-/ ‘ '^st* - Jr: <y .T ■ . ff-yr--- i management - V: « «k^«. — ♦*— '• » •.. . T., ^. -"’ •••, E-' '• ••i ■ •* ? %C-i ■ y •^. .. «;► V I . I • _____________ iJIvtL OJondo s penonnd din«« l> hopa.8 lo taunch it North CaroUna. which tned such a system ewly m the IMoTSd toS«i i>. »•» ■«~<«<l'»' ® *“year to trv again. Massachusetts has a pay-for-peffonna^ system all ready to go, assuming it ^ “*® ledslature. which has already approved it, to fund it. But the real pioneers in this area are local governments. Scottsdale, Arizona, put aU l,m city ^ performance in 1982. Bilozi. Mississippi s p65 em^e« have operated on such a system since 1986. In Hillsborou^ CountTVlori*!*- ^ ‘®P managers are paid BUosi's finance and personnel manager. Stwe Held, is cautiously enthusiastic about the success of his citys program: “I think that pay for performance, in some form. iO OOVERNINO Occefnb*r 1989 is really the only way to go. It's a true merit sys tem whereby the people who move your city for ward are the people who are being compensated.” Scottsdale Assistant City Manager Richard A. Bow ers thinks things are work ing well there, although be is frank to say that “no one ever gets it right. Even after years, the system needs con stant review and tweak ing and turning and ask ing people how they feel about it. It needs to be checked so it doesn t turn into a giveaway pro gram." Three months ago, Denver put its entire city work force on pay for performance—all 8,000 employees. It is the largest experiment of its kind yet under taken in a modem Ameri can community. Under the old system, “you got exactly the same raise if you met expectations, if you exceeded expecta tions or if you made an outstanding contribu tion.” says Personn^ ”H- rector .A. Fred Timme»- maa "Where's the in centive to do anything more than meet expectatioiu if I work outstandingly aU year next to someone who s just meeting expecUtions and we get the »me raise. Cogwit reasons to the contrary, the move »«> ^ perfonnance is a shock for many public employees. Ttey don't all like it says Jay SchustCT. a Lea on compensation issues. “I ve had manaprs ****^ “P “ meetiiV^Schuster relates, “and sa^ I came mto^ public sector to avoid having my p^orman« Why would I want to have yw m and teU me whrther I'm a pelican or an eagle. j, .l » It's a shock for cit<- ns. too. sometanea R«nh Bramion. assistont co nty executive in ough County, returned from va»tion that her salary was news. Budget realiUm had cut tte expected 5 percent cost-of-living eijjtoyees in^f. Unhappiness over BnSuon's 122.000 increase in pay over the past the result of a promotion and two pay-for-perf<^nce raise! Such raises, said one critic, “are -STfiiror make over 60 grand for sitting on your duff. The furor £management 1 '■JtL'* ■ *■' '1^ has died down, but Bramson remains sensitive to the ***^^e*don't claim that the system is in polished -he jays. "We’re learning every year and improving and rhaniring. It’s blryv’v at the moment because of lo^ iSo. ^d it’s a piulosophical issue, too. We in the pubhc S:tor have put a higher value on ^uily tl^ on oerformance. it’s an issue of organization culto*- ***The organizational culture in Hillsborough may be chiiging more than many suspect A ^y of county salarim bv an outside consultant is expected to recomm^ Uttt the entire payroll be moved to a performance-based system. - * At this early stage in its life as a management tool for the public sector, pav for performance is generating an orrav of experimental variations. Bi^i didn't want to abandon the familiar ground of step increases altogether, so it kept them as a framework but gave nianagers permission to award mulbp ® steps for high performance. Scottsdale ch^ to be bolder: It budgets one lump-sum amount for pay increases and leaves it to managers to allocate that amount among individu^ with no limit at all on individual raises. Still in the planning stage in several plac« is the idea of "lightning bonuses, immediate cash rewards for work that are complete'/ separate fr*..'^ the fe^ul^r Minual review. Another pro* vocative idea is the two-tiered system, in wUch a government places ib newly hired employees on pay for perform- ance and encourages senior employees to sign up for it voluntarily. But whatever the details of an Indi vidual plan, all pay-for-performance schemes face one problem. They are no stronger than the evaluatiw system used to justify the disparity in annual oompensatioa Even where such a sys tem is not loved, it must be accepted as fair in design and objective in practice. Favoritism, whether real or perceived, is fatal. Still it is hard to avoid, especially when the employees involved am not doing the sort of measurable work th^ - Barry Stevens does in Michigan. A ounager cannot reasonably evaluate a : iodal worker, a derk at the Depart- ” sent of Motor Vehicles and a public infonnation officer by the number of clients seen, licenses iswied or press leieates written. A degree of subjectiv ity is inevitable, even in the fairest •valuator, and with it the isnie of favoritism always creeps in. The most devout believers in pay for performance imist they can assess performance in a fair way even where numbers are irrelevant. *T can measure how things arc floing In the Department of Motor Vehicles by caUing up and asking a question,” says New Jersey’s Charles Nanry. Their response to my question tells me a lot about what s going on over there. Are they helpful? Are they con cerned? Or do they put me on hold?” But not all employees have quite so much conhdence in that type of evaluation. And equals* important, not ^ managers in state and local govemmt fed comfortable making it n »When Aurora, Colorado, made its first run at a Annual iMiraniio* salaiy incraisnforftila oovanunanteniployaM owing ttMpMtdacad* n.m, tmt^ .itmnttu iint GOVERNING Dwnbw IW management 1 .r. .. y--M-v , ., . •9 • mil v*^; -‘ ■ •! -s^Plf#• ■'^ ^ -t-Xjr* *fr - l>^7; > ’’'■''fril r , T|T h P'-"'- . ■' A' it 3*<."'• . r ' :.<•' %^alL \ •*: L- •if' 4HK1V.. n: ■■ ^ -ill \- pav-fof-p^rformance 5V»- tem for its 1.500 em- plovf« three years ago. It failed The city s su- per visors weren t trained in making the evalu ations. w-rcn t sure what the standards were and didn t know how to dis cuss it all with the peo ple they were evaluat ing “We hadn’t made the investment in our supervisors that was nec essary to give them the tools to do this as well as they were capable, savs City Manager Jim Griesemer The result was an uneven and un acceptable rating system that made people nerv ous Now Aurora is trving again, with a hybrid sys tem of broader pay ranges for each job and a bonus arrangement for employees who have maxed out.’’ who al ready earn the top salary available for their par ticular job Supervisors now can decide whether to give an individual a one-step, two-step or three-step salary in crease each year, based on how well thev do. The CUV is workmg ksrd to make the criteria as cl«r as possible and to make sure the employees are involved in '**Ev»'*^ith the best communkattor^n ll» 'vorlA however, pev-for-perfomunce syslenu need built-in saf^ guards against favoritism. Bilosi has three of evaluation. The immediate superviKir emplovee on a multi factor perfonn^ tcale; is checked bv section leaders and then approved by^ depertroent head. And before the evaluation is comply it u reviewed bv the manager of fina^ and personnH awi the chief citv administrator Then there is a gnev^ system for those who take issw with theu ^ svstem may not be absolutelv crony-proof, but it makes blaU-t cronvism rather difficult. ... ) 1 Fred Timmerman, in charge . npl-menting th) massive new pay-for-performance sv .h.. a w) of employees fear of favoritism. He requires t| valuation be documented All evaluations come , »ce If the written documentation doesn t support the .. ig. the evaluation l- returned to the supervisor for ^2 r.OVFRNIXr, December • » '- 4 - j.. :* . ; . ^ to' ■/ )-i' 9 I pm .; \ i P«y4br-^ additional justification or a change in the rating To ensure consisttmey, one person in Timmer man’s office is responsi ble for reviewing all ques tionable assessments ■‘Most designs are fir»e, * says Timmerman, "but unless you monitor and assure that it s being done as designed, they 11 all fall apart. Safeguards are necessary to be sure that the svstem is being used as it was designed to be “ But pay for perform ance needs more than fairness. It needs manag- en with the courage to send mediocre employ ees home everv year with the bureaucratic equivalent of a lump ^>f coal at Christmas It requires a lot of cour age. * savs Mary Cronin, aeputv personnel commiar sioner in Vtassachusetts, “for a manager to sav ‘Not only do I think vou re a better employee than this other guy. I’m going to show the world that because I’m going to give vou a bonus. It s much easier to give 10 1500 bonuses than to give one $4,000 bonus and two other $500 bonuses But 10 $500 bonuses may be a wav to evade the issue entirely Thev mav be too manv to reward true meni and yet too mall to make people work harder in hopes of getting one furthest toward authorizing lent decisions. In its pav-for- performance svstem. a supervisor can not o^d^'' an emplovee a raise but actualW reduce his or her h^ jalarv bv as much as 5 percent for an two years under the svstem, nobody has fir^ that ulti^' wea^showing ,ust how difficult marker to -^le even in a place where he has clear the decisions are made in the trenchea Some are made . the ven. t<^. “I^'^^ng- leadenhip has to consider the politi^ ‘ ‘ xSv ing the public emplovee unions, which aliuost oppose apav-for-performance system It a no accident States with relatively weak public emplovee uniors lUsmfi 0^ ii -m B 4 <I managementThe American Federation of State, County and * tunici- pai Employees opposes pay for performance as costly and delructive of the teamwork necessary for effective govern- mem. AFSCME contends that it fostcn individual achievement at the expense of cooperative effort.Fred Timmerman, putting the Denver $^em into place, chooses to meet that argument head on. ‘‘There s nothing wrong. ” he says, "with a little competition. But others prefer to look for ways in which pay for performance can be made to foster teamwork as well as individual achievement. One method is gain-sharing: setting a target for an agency or department, such as saving a certain amount of money out of a year’s budget, and then dividing the savings among the department employees if the gainIn many areas of government, team and individuai performance are often close to inseparable, says Scottsdale's Bowers. "There s no way an individual on a three-man pothole patch crew can e.xcel in laying down tons of asphalt unless the guys driving the truck and running the roller are going to cooperate with him. It s clearly a effort, vet it’s often equally clear who s leading the team. I ay for performance may government, but it is not cheaper "If you try to promote pay for performance on the basis that you're going to spend less money on your people, you are bound to fail,'* says Roy Pederson, who was city manager in Scottsdale when its pay-for- performance program was instituted. "What you are doing is spending roughly the same amount smarter than under the old civil service system of across-the- board increases." Rewards, in whatever form they come, are useless unless they are relatively large. Managers who have be^ offering them under pay-for-performance sys tems generally feel bonuses need to be no smaller than ISOO and preferably 91.000 to 95,000. Pay increases have to be at least twice the average percentage increase. Bonuses are reusable dol lars: They don't increase the employee's base pay and can be awarded to different employees year to year. Dou- bie-iixe raises are something else again Their impact on E/mm Lntm pEmmgmpd be a better wav to run a mi Aurora, Colorwio. m ^--------------- ir« not a paaacoa,* eautiofis City Menagtr Jim G a stale or local budget varies, depending on how riiany employees get them and how many employees are denied any raise at all that year But once given, even a limited number of jumbo raises inevitably boosts salary costs on a permanent basis.In Biloxi, pay for performance produces a curve. During an average year there, 10 to 15 percent of the city s 365 emplovees arc rated outstanding enough to get a 5 percent increase. That is offset by the fact that the same percentage of employees gets no increase, a result of unsatisfactory ratingi In the end costs are no higher than they would have been under a regular step-increase plan.But most systems prefer to leave some sort of cost-of- living adjustment in place for the ordinary employee, thereby making the level-budget argument impossible to sustain. "You can't let pay-for-performance dollars substitute for cost-of-living increases, ' says Mary Cronin in Massachusetts. "If your overall system isn't in go<^ shape, you can t stick pay for performance on top of it. Others resist the idea of an imposed curve. "Having to go around to find victims to have a cost-neutral system isn t a real recipe for success,” says one pay-for-performance manager. The payoff, if and when it comes, does not show up as cash saving}. It comes in productivity. Pay for perfor mance is a long-term invest ment. "Were not like corporate America," says Cronin. "Our revenues do not grow everv’ year, and any increases are immedi ately swallowed by the absolute necessities that citi- lens hiive to have. ,. As we have shrinking resources, our ability to manage smartly and correctly and well and with compassion is twice as important as it used to be ” In .Aurora. Colorado, Jim Criesemer, whose city has been through the unpleasant expenence of launching pay for performance, watching it fail and then trying it again, remains convinced that it is worth all the trouble "Pay for perform ance is a lot harder to im plement than it mufidi like," he savs. "It has to be done carefully because you’re changing an existing set of values. It’s not a panacea. But it does indeed have the important advantage of rec ognizing excellence among empioyM. That s a value local government can’t ig nore any longer G GOVERNING December 19119 13090.6 TOi FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato fi OATS: January 3# 1990 SUBJECT: Police Lieutenant Selection C0U?<CII. MEETING JAN 8 19P0 niTV nr ISSUE - Appointment of the third Lieutenant in the Police Department. INTRODUCTION - Following the process outlined at the Council’s October 2Trd meeting, the six candidates participated in the selection process. Of those, four had a final interview with the Chief and myself. Those participating in the process were: Chip English Mark Tomczyk Bruce Anderson Larry Tomcheck Mark Fritzler James Morowczynski Based on this, it is my recommendation that Mark Fritzler be appointed to the position of third Lieutenant effective 1 February, 1990. (Because of a change in State law the psychological exam, which was for the final two candidates, can not be given until the candidate has been offered the position. This was a requiremented passed by the Legislature at the request of the State Human Rights Department.) PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by to appoint the third Lieutenant position effective 1 February, 1990, contingent on passage of a psychological exam, at a starting salary at a S.40/hr differential higher than his current patrol rate. This is the same rate as when Lt. Moran was appointed. Ayes , Nays _. cc: Chief Kilbo i 122089.12 / : TOt PRO Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato ri DATS: January 5r 1990 SOBJBCT: Telephone System Acquisition Siiso Attachment:A. Chart of Proposals B. Proposals Exceprt of Desired Proposal C. Naab Memo Dated 1/4/90 D. Mabusth Memo Dated 1/4/90 ISSUE - 1. Determination as to whether a new system should be acquired. 2. Determination as to whether the system should be undertaken and if so, to whom it is awarded. INTRODCCTIOM - Because of the City's limited and problematic telephone system particularly noted over the last year the City Council authorised at its May 22, 1989 meeting that the staff sollclte proposals for a telephone system. At the time it was estimated that a new system would cost approximately $10,000. As you will note the proposals received are about the expected cost. Funding for that will come from the city's equipment outlay fund. As you will note in Attachment A, Teri Naab the City s Deputy Clerk, who was Involved in the proposal process has chart d the significant items related to it and contacted current users of those systems. DISCUSSION - The City received the requests for^proposal in December. Following an analysis of the proposals Teri Naab and Jednn6 Mabusth visisted phons Installations of the three lowest (Attachment C and D.) Based on that they requested an upgrade of selected instruments of about $1,500 to make a substantial more usable system. The proposed configuration is for 6 trunks (currently City Hall/Publlc Works has 4) and 18 phone extensions. A move to a new facility could require an additional 10-12 phones for the police for a total of 30 phone extensions using 8-10 trunks. Each system can handle at least double those requirements. The City's growth over 10 years should not exceed that capacity. in addition the City looked at the cost of moving the system which ranges from $l,500-$3,300 depending on the system plus the expansion of system and phones to accomodate the police department as noted on Attachment A. ALTERNATIVES - Issue f2« — Deternlnatlon as to whether the City should go ahead* A. Agree to go ahead. B. Table for further discussion. C. Take no further action. Selection of Provider A. Interior Communications. B. Telephone Specialists C. US west D. Communication World RECOMMENDATION Issue ♦ 1 - It is recommended that the City undertake a new telephone system as there is a need for additional trunks and features which the present system cannot accomodate. It is anticipated that a cost to wire a new facility would be about $1,500 - $2,000 and the ‘cost of acquisition of additional phones to serve the Police Department in that new facility would be about $2,300. It is felt that the current systems maximum has been reached so many times that the need for better customer service outweights the expenditure. Issue £2 - It is recommended that the City have the Premier System proposed by Telephone Specialists be installed. While Interior's initial price is lower, the cost of move and expansion more than negates the difference. Additionally the phone instruments of the Premier system are more "user friendly* and useful instruments than either Interiors "Telrad” or Communications World "Toshiba.* As this is proposals and not bids and the price is below $15,000, the City is not required to take the lowest bidder. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , that the Council direct staff to enter into a contract with Telephone Specialists to install a new phone system* Ayes _, Nays _. cc: All Department Heads Teri Naab, Deputy Clerk turn n tmlnd mfi t f» P«U « Umlf ti4.t4S.00* ill.it <A«tM itt ft) MO.OO fl.ot/ftr m.tso.oo fS.OO (•TM M f*l sio.oo TS.OO (•■ VMS mm,i tr.oo IftO T»1 sst.xa 140.00 •lO.Hf.OO 14.n iBO yvi to&tui 0 0 tmlti 04 • »a ts OM mt m 1 ffV/OMtO 4 all ■■to 90 to f Vo/fw«o • oU 14 04 2 rr/tora o ■0 14 01*ol*-’Uoo to 00 } Tr/PoftO 4 ■0 toiiootioo ■Ot SMll •rttoo OvoiloMo loo cou oo nttif ••oioo OtlllOf Oiol Oiototioo ■toil OOftllity CUoo of BtooUf noltl<MO Ota Oiftfi i■itAJ■ l(0t OMoior OMtllr tiwllo* ^ toot* mxmm at «/SootallotA«a 10 —lai Ot Natali tit so Mat 4t latoUtit 10 t 40 to 0 u 10 •01.00 im.oo laoo^ioe.oo •1.000.00 11.009.00 •1.001.00 •110.00 •211.00 MIS. 00 mi •i.m.oo MM.OO S910.00 •00.00 •100.00 oxti.oo •2.000.00 •4M.OO tato.oo day t oust I. lO/n it. Oty of Ut Oit atftinf. list trlla Otaor. la ft tt. oaraa City mf . fit 1 t.. mt Cariaat ya oty ao • /Of. M fat aya. 2 yia* t aaty •100.00 •tol.oo 0 Mat tm.oo It M%- Mio.oo It itat ■/■••Olay ffMOe aoo t ooooiay il.tto.oe foio) •rvo.oo a« 0 •040.00 fft%« 4f« Jtit OlfO I ?*•• ■itaOla •aUaflaO. 1 Oa. •V eiioia MM CraOlt ayaat. taoa . 9 It Oaal ■a alt to ■it> aa mi t aitla Ut Otai •1.000.00 •i.too.oo •4.900.00 . • attt. •2.071.00 •l.Ul.OO 04.100.00 VtaTaarrlt 9 ■ la 1 y*< •1.900.00 •2.900.00 •1.000.00 •1.100.00 •1.700.00 •I.100.00 • atar*a t all alatU lim aata.alatfftia taa aiafla lit aaaa. CITY OF QROIK) Box 6€ Crystal Bay, MM 55323 REOtlFST FOR PROPOSALS etF 3 CITY TEtBCOMMONICATIOM SYSTEM Accepting Proposals Until 4:30 p.ffl. - December 15, 1989 Proposals will be received and opened after the deadline for proposal submission. Please mark proposals: TSLBCOIMinilCATIOM STSTBM/OBOHO CITY HALL ProDOsals should be addressed to the City Administrator, City of Orono, P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, 55323, and may ^ mailed or submitted personally tc the City Admin^istrator. Proposals received by the City Administrator, either through the mall or by personal submission, after the time set for receiving than may ba xaturned unopenad. Jr^po.^\^‘^o7 ”an“p«ror«^ propoMl, and proposal that is deemed to be in the best interest of the City. BY ORDER OP THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL Dorothy N. Hallln, City Clerk Page 1 of 17 I RSQUHU TBLBC'.rfl0ICiaxakTI01l8 8T8TBI CZT7 OF (AONO This request for proposal Is being made to obtain quotations for telecommunications systems as the cost of a system is expected to be under $15,000.00 in total and therefore not required to be bid. This request for proposals is not to be construed as a competitive bid. The City mill select a system that it determines to be in its best interest. It is the intent of these requirements to outline in detail the minimum requirements for installation of a PBX telephone system that, in addition to the specified touch tone peripheral phone instruments and attendant console, performs its pitching capabilities through the use of a software controlled stored pfogr?m. The capacity of the equipment must have a minimum cap-city for 45 to 50 stations (system to serve new facility neras) and 12 trunk lines (In/out). All equipment must be new (current products, not discontinued items) and prices must include all equipment, labor, supplies, fees and all other costs Incident to make the system functional. Each proposal may propose an alternative design, but such proposals must be submitted on a separate set of proposal sheets. All material exceptions to the proposal that are at or below the minimum must be listed on a separate sheet specifically entitled •Exceptions". The attached general requirements shall apply except where specifically in contradiction to balance of the requirements. Installation must be done by March 16, 1990. Page 2 of 17 IWHRB TSRMSf COBDITIOWS AMD IMSxfcUCTIOIISTO THB RSQUHtBIBRS 1, ConsldTatlon of Proposal: The proposer shall submit the proposal on the form turnished“By the City of Orono. a) The City reserves the right to accept or reject all proposals or any part of the proposal# to waive mino defects or technicalities, or to request new proposals as it may deem best for its interests. b) The City of Orono shall hereinafter be referred to os the City. c) The proposal shall be in ink or typed, //ices submitted in the proposal by the proposer for a particular identified City department shall be construed as prices submitted for all City departments using like items. d) In case of difference between writtei* words and fibres in a proposal, the amount stated in written words shall govern. e) In case of unit price dif.*erence from extended figure, the unit price shall govern. f) Alterations or erasures must be crossed out and the corrections thereof printed in ink or typewritten adjacent thereto. The corrections must be initialed in ink by each person signing the proposal. g) All proposals shall list any deviations from the requirements set forth herein. h) Revisions or interpretations made by the City shall be by addendtim issued prior to the date set for proposal submission. i) Changes to the proposal may be cause for rejection of said proposal. 2. execution of Contract: The successful proposer(s) is reouired to execute a contract and furnish security in the full cSSrwt p?i^r with sureties satisfactory to the City Attorney. Said contract and said security mustacceptable to the City. The contract shall *^9ned by the successful proposer(s) and returned, together wi^ any security, within ten (10) days after the contract has been mailed to the proposer(s). Page 3 of 17 3. Withholding; On any contract raquiring tha enployraant of employaaa for wages by tha proposed, final settlement ^mada until satisfactory showing is made of * completed by tha Commissioner of Taxation (State of Minnesota, Depirtmant of Taxation, Form 134) indicating compliance with tha pj^ovisions of Soction 290e92# 4. Tima for Receiving Proposals; Proposals the time of opening will be securely kept unopened. The city employee whose duty it is to open them will ^®<=^*^® specified time has arrived and no proposal received thereafter Jill be considered. Proposals received after ^^® opening will be returned to the proposal unopened. No respons^ibility will be attached to a City employae for the premature opening of a proposal not properly addressed and identified. 5. Minnesota State Sales Tax Exemptiojn *iiJiMota the State"‘orTiInne8otaarr^iorTub3ecFTo^he State of Sales Tax. Pursuant to Minnesota Laws of exemptions), Subd. 1. Para. (J) provides fp?; taxes imposed by Articles XIII as follows: -The ^ross receipts from all sales of tangible personal property to, and all storage use or consumption of such property by, the United States and its agencies and instrumentalities of the State of Minnesota and it agencies, instrumentalities and political subdivisions. 5, Collusion of Proposers; Collusion between proposers is cause for rejection of all proposals thus involved. 7. Guarantee; The successful proposer(s) «9r®e(s) to guarwtee a’l materials, parts and supplies «9ainst inferiority as to requirements, such guarantee to be unconditional. neglect of the City to require compliance with any ?®™ condition of the contract or requirements shall not be deemed a walv0r of auch torm or condition. a. Deliverv: Cost of delivery to the location of said na^®^ and supplies is included in said prices and f made only as called for in the contract. It is «;he citv shall be under no obligation for payment lulplill o ‘r material except on the basis of responsible for damages caused by delay or failure d.Solt. c.«.«d by lubXic earti.r., or act. Sovarimont In tine o£ war or national anargancy. Da^.oriaa Shall be made inside where applicable and when so directed. Page 4 of 17 Legal Rights of Material? The successful proposer(s) hereby guarantee that they will have full legal right of material delivered under this agreementr and agree(s) to pay all rents and royalties of every description on any and all patents or patent rights covering said material, or covering any process or machinery used in its construction and agree(s) to indemnify and save the City entirely harmless from any and all claims, demands, damages, actions, or causes of action, arising, or to arise, against said City by reason of the construction or delivery of said material or the use of any process, machinery or material in the construction of same. 10. Payment; The City hereby agrees, in consideration of the covenants and agreements specified to be kept and performed by the successful proposer(s), to pay to the successful proposer(s) when the terms and conditions of the contract and specifications have been fully completed and fulfilled on the part of the proposer(s) to the satisfaction of the City, the sum of the contract price. If said amount is indicated to be an estimate, the estimate will be based on experience and no representation as to quantity shall be construed therefrom. No guarantee of minimum or maxim\im quantity or amount is either made or implied. The City shall neither be compelled to order any quantity or any time nor limited in the total quantity ordered on any item unless so specified. In addition, in case the successful proposer(s) shall proceed properly to perform and complete the terms and conditions of the specifications and contract. City at its discretion, from time to time as deliveries are made, grant to the successful proposer(s) an estimate of the amount already earned, which shall entitle the holder thereof to receive the amount due thereon, when the condition, if any annexed to such estimate shall have been complied with. The granting of such estimate shall not be construed as an acceptance of the materials or any portion thereof. No increase above said contract price will be allowed to the successful proposer(s) during the term of the contract xmless and except as provided by the specifications. Payment under the contract will be made in the manner provided by law for payment of claims against the Purchasers. Page 5 of 17 PHOWB STATlOil LISTIIIG t ^ baIow is listed ths configuration that bast fits City's needs. Alternative configurations (unless minor changes) will be considered as alternatives to full specifications. Switching Equipment Exchange 6 Trunks (two-way touch tone trunks) 12 Trunk capability 45-50 Extension line capacity at a minimum 1 Attendant console In-Oser Lines 1 18 2 1 * 20 Button set for back-up receptionist/switch board position Single line phones Night answer chimes Kev^SYStem line*cards (specify number required for syst«) ?!asS^S^ iwJtch/flash buttons - installed (or alternate acceptable to City) Off-Premise Extensions Public Works office - 2 Maintenance Garage - 1 Council Chambers - 1 6BHBBAL COMMENT ON KEY SYSTEM LINE CJ«DS: ? correct number on -'our proposal and cost to add line cards. Additions c. ieletions from this proposed be done using the unit prices listed on the expansion section”. •Present configuration at 6 trunks, 6 electronic terminals and 24 single line devices: 1 4 EKT Card ■ SLT Cards EKT Card (6 ports) SLT Card (6 ports) $335.00 each $270.00 each Page 6 of 17 I i I sTSMi arriRoi equlpiB#nt must be able to function in an environment where the temperature range is from 50 to 105 d«9reea and the humidity range i» from 25% to 85%. Separately indicate the specific range for the specific software controlled switching eguipment. Also indicate all other environmental conditions found in a building environment which would adversely impact system operation. Indicate all utility requirements to raalce system function properly. Operational Range of Equipment Software Control System Temperature 32* - 104*F_____ Humidity lOZ - 85Z (non-condensing) Utility Requirements: lio v. Dedicated Outlet Proposal Meets vas No IBSTMJATIOg Existing conduit must be used whenever possible. work must be in confomance with all local and national electrical codes . It shall be the vendor’s responsibility to obtain and pay fees for all certificates and permits required by local and state laws and all City ordinances including the Fxre Underwriters Certificate of Inspection. S.r»le. ot th. City telephone sy.te« mast be oalntelned S^'co"nSS«ton ne«’.Uiy"* Vervi/e”.h;*r be restored promptly and efficiently* All work shall be performed in a workmanlike manner and *hall Present a Selt appearance upon completion. All system installers shall be experienced in the installation of similar component? and shall have installation of the equipment proposed to be installed. Ths vendor must have experience installing 3 similar systras with ^e proposed switch in the local 7 county metropolitan area. Tf will he necessary for all workers to work within a business environment. Distractions and work disruptions Tn the case of an unavoidable disturbance, the tenant shall be given at least two days notice so that work schedules and disruptions may be minimized. All necessary craft tools and instruments efficient Installation shall be supplied and maintained by the vendor. Comolete public telephone service starting e^on c*rri«'. line, on interior well et th. City', otfioe. e. well as other remote locations. Prom this starting point, connect all telephone instruments and switching equipment so as to permit; 1. In-plant station dialing; •2. Public network dialing . _hv3. Selectively restrict either dialing capability y individual telephone; 4. Tone address touch dialing; 5. Toll restriction. 2. Prom distribution panel to 3. Prom switching equipment to lines where ^switching equipment to console, via leased lin applicable. page 8 of 17 Proposal Meets Yes No Wire and cables: Types of wires that are in confomity with all local regulations that may be in etfect must be selected: 1. wire and cables may be manufactured by one of the fcllowing approved companies or equivalent: General Cable Company Suttle Equipment Corporation Allen Telephone Productsr Inc. U.S. Cable Company Western Electric Eastern Electric 2. Hires shall be color coded according to Western Electric color code for each identification. 3. All low voltage wires shall be #24 B s S gauge or equivalent. Interconnection telephone decouplers (if applicable): 1. Registered with the F.C.C.; 2. Certified installers must do installation. Switch Over The switch over from the existing system to the new system must be completed during other than the normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.« Monday through Friday) to insure uninterrupted service to all City offices and systems. Insofar as humanly possible, the system shall be maintained on a continuous basis to avoid interruptions of service and inconvenience to the public and City offices. The contractor shall work with a diligent effort to ensure rapid installation system changeover. Should equipment be selected other than the existing vendor, the City will expe't the successful vendor to work cooperatively with the present company to avoid unnecessary cut-offs and cosununi cat ions interruptions. Training Prior to award, the vendor upon request and at his/her expense shall provide City representatives with a "hands on" operating demonstration of the specific system being offered. Upon installation completion, the vendor shall provide Initial training to all City personnel, including the receptionists. A repeat instruction period shall be made available six months following the initial installation. All training shall be conducted to the satisfaction of the city at no additional expense. Page 9 of 17 Proposal Meets Yes No Porformence Security . ScV .L“i,ur/.n?u*x pf"U«° V“* installation ot the system and ®| ?«ditAcceptable security includes a perforaance bond letter of credit or amount escrowed in a manner acceptable to the City. Warranty The successful vendor mu nish a written warranty, _• and guaranteed by him/her. nSSlSr t’h"« a^^*^.y.tV.“'=^=n.•nt.■■p;ovid.d, .uppli.d and installed with be free from defects .in worJonanship and equipmen for a period of one (1) calendar year computed from M2 « hv the city# If any portion of the installation is”not performing satisfactorily, equipment shall be replaced or malfunction corrected at the City's request. During a ninety (90) day period immediately prece bi the said one year warranty period, all equit -nt ® operating to the full satisfaction of the lurl ^ol normal maintenance. In the event malfunction occurring at any time during that ninety (90) y fn? v./eV V, s:xVr«r.': The successful vendor shall further agree that he/she ho ths Cl^v# rspsir snd Toplscs to ths City s .atlaf.ctlon, all d.f.etive talecommanication. work “d k^rboildlng dam.?, oaua. th.r.by duria? the guaranty- warranty period, or installation. Sarvi-je and Parts Guarantee equipment manufacturer must agree to enter binding a^eement with the City guaranteeing such availability. Such agreement shall state that the to the City of Orono for the sum of one hundred dollars I9iuu.uw/ p« calenJar day for aaoh and .wary day which n° authorized aerwiee/oaintenanca - epreaentative is ej** cite MikSeapolis/St. Paul ar.a, upon service require by the City. said agreement shall beShall be binding for a period of five (5) years f^io installation and acceptance by the City. Said agr signed prior to contact execution. Page 10 of 1? roposal Nsets fa No rnrfy^mmmmntL .hall further guarantee that any and all componen^ to do ao may be grounds for rejection. Inaurance & of Inaurance of the vendor shall be provided with^ s^oo OQO/S500*000 standard $100,000/$100»000. vender Qualification Th. v.ndor »»« b. Phy«i«lly vendor must trained in servicin^nd maintaining tb. -.or ba, “? providing service to at least aust be »a '’bo‘d‘’”‘’v.lid writ«n certification to that effect. Proposal Contracts ¥.‘.\^ :!i-‘.a£.sr.s JK/is n^^0ndttnt docuiii€ntSe Page 11 of 17 CITY OF OROnORBSFORSS PB0P08ALirono t 55323 Proposal Acceptance Closes Orono City Hall 4:30 p.n.December 15r 1989TELECOMBIDWICATIOWS SYSTEMundersigned has examined the contract documents* r the request for proposals, general contract conditions .led specifications, and hereby proposed to furnish the g equipment, in accordance with the contract documents rices listed below.9,120.00TWO YEAR HARRARTT Oil $ PARTS ARP LABOR MAIRTEHAHCB AGIEEMERT 8 FOR TEARS 3-5 2.020.00 T Total cost to be paid upon completion and acceptance5 year full service agreement/monthly tal service for 5 years (billed monthly) 3ES ite' on-going cost of k lines and other lease lines to make iction on a per month MAO,00 6 Trunk Lines Other lease lines including off- premise extensions SPECIALISTS. IHC. CEVTER DRIVE AutlliOrised Signabore V.P. OPERATIOHS IS. MH 55428 State Zip Title *TBLEPB0WE SPECIALISTS, IRC. IS AH ADIBORIZBD AGBHT OF V.S. WEST. RECORDS UDICAZB THAT CITY HAS CABLE IH PLACE FOR DETACHED EZIEHSIORS A» ARE HOT BILLED AS OPE. Page 15 of 17 ■termea (all aiiiilnsant sust ba o*w and currant, not dlscontlnoad).■ceranea taxi a^pa»n^ ■ • CAPABILITY INSTALLBO BOTPROPOSAL ntCLODBS NOT PONCTIONAL EXCEPT AT YSS NO ADDITIONAL COSTliaeb Tonaisd-Part Add-onitaaetle Station Caap-on a Call Backtil Pocvardins without Attendant (all ealla)iill Bold (all calls) ill park lial Call Pick-up raetad Call Pick-up atlon Consultation a Transfer (all calls) .ract Outward Olallnv udlbla Call waiting/indication 'ctlva Audible Incopdng Call Signal ■tandant Braak-ln/Buay Trunks zandant Direct Trunk Access utandant Exclusion .',11 Splitting \ap-on with Indication a AutoMtic Recall ill Service a Type of Call/Class of Service Oisp YES ay YES exible Night Connections aa Busy Laap Piald ght Aaswar Control rlas Calling cation a Potnal Station Trunk Nuaber Displays .aad Recall on Bold and leeall on No-Aaswar uak Busy Laap Field txibla Station Bunting Feature :ess Attendant r« In-line Trunks on Selected Lines sic/’Announceaents or Bold a Caap—on Capacity (COS IS HOY DISPLAYED) FIFO (SOURCE REQUIRED IF HDSIC) Page 12 of 17 sssas-s^s^ •h«ueUl- in t»* -111-"'gwoPOSAL TWCLOPlg. }j}OlTXOMAI> COSTrtS "® -----—i Call Back;«d«« 1.11 c.ll«l __ ;ni.r Ull «•“•’ cation inq call SlqP^ rmnlca seaaa —----- I xES (COS IS wn oisriATP) FIFO IMPbar OUpl*y* Faatnra ^ Salactad , BOIS • Ca.p-o» capacity (SOOaCE MQOIB® W PROPOSAL IWCLUDBS YES NO CAPABILITY INSTALLED BOT HOT FUNCTIONAL EXCEPT AT ADDITIONAL COSTF0M«r Failure Tranafar/Back-up Syatan tSSroll Baatpictiona/Foll Station/Selactlve CapabllityTESmmk Call Qualaq fronk Rottta Salaetionrnmk-to-Trimk capability Xaaeta Accasa to PBXFaqlnq AccaaaGroup Paqinq Confaranca Callinqlatamal Coafaranciaqkeeaaa Dial oietatioa Equipnaat Saaeutiva Ovar^Rlda 3ff Pramiaa Capacity Statioa Maaaaqa DaUail Racordiaq Capability kttaadaat Alartiaq of Syatan Malfunctioa Must ba aalf-noaitoriaq for fuactiona i Ja^fraa Calliaq Spaad Dialiaq [aaaaaqa waitiaq Liqht |j^tar*Boura Aaawarlaq Machiaa/Add-on Capability kttaadaot Baadaat M Raaarra laaaqa ladicatera 'rlvacy Ralaaaa liaqla Buttoa lataccooa »llity to latarfaea with Police Radio ir laatallad Paaturaa (Plaasa Liat) TBS DISA & RMAT INCLDDEDgrTKRlIAL PiyxtUfG EQUIP. ADDITIONALPRITACT RELEASE REQUIRES PRINTER MULTI-BUTTON TERMINALS ONI MULTI-BUTTON TERMUIALS ONLY headset OPTIONAL DISPLAY ONLY REQUIRES TRUNK PORT COST Aca :C REPORTS COST ROUTING ATTENDANT SOFTVARE DISTlIBUnOH SOFTWARE f&SSn - C.O. 4 TRANSFER LB r.ai.t. FORWARDING CLASSES OF SERVICB (SAGE CENTER DISPLAY AT CONSOLE EETENSIONS MAINTENANCE. ADMINSTRATION 4 TESTING PLEASE SEE PREMIER ESP "FEATURES 4 BENEFITS" Page 13 of 17 page 12 of «4. 1 further quarante« that any and all componentslo so may be grounds for rejection. trance.rtifict. of it; tVsto *oiihiSo?SSo^B^nat^),000/$100,000, tor Qualification’rotVi .7sV. V. "So i‘s?"iding, installing and v.ndoV"in thS rop ’siiin'issi^^ t^o^t ^1a.rtq3;t% in^tt. loc.l «« of ./a“SrSr-VraiSS:« »d ITo'd'’ a «lid written certification to t effect. Bosal 11 proposals should separately ViVen*the currentli trunk lines and necessary lease lines, given tne curre acts ns.^,T:usi" su srtss.“.rs^s,“^ dent documents. Page 11 of 17 PROPOSAL cmAll proposals submitted must Include all of the below listed documents. Failure to do so may result in rejection of the entire proposal. Please file in the order listed.1. Completed and signed proposal and specifications on forms provided. (Proposal requirements are a part of the proposal package.)2. List Of deviations and exceptions (if any; with appropriate explanation.3. System environment description statement.4. Listing of equipment to be installed. 5. Listing of current installations in Metropolitan area which utilize proposed system. List of installers and similar installations they have worked to install. 6. Copy of proposed warranty/guarantee agreement. 7. Copy of proposed service contract. 8. Descriptive literature on system together with proposed training program and user instruments. 9. Listing of names of personnel certified for maintenance as outline in specifications. 10. Certification from the manufacturer that they agree to provide service and parts for the period as outlined in the bid specifications. 11. Listing of expansion costs. 12. Alternative bid proposals. ROTBi City retains option to require current financial information about both contractor and manufacturer# including a certified audit for the last two (2) years showing assets and net worth and attesting to the financial stability of each. Page 14 of 17 ciTT OP (momim b«low listed lection of the;ifications on a part of theif any} withropolitan area istallers and ;all.tent. with proposed or maintenance they agree to lit lined in the HSSPONSB PSOFOSALCity of Orono Oronor MN 55323 Proposal Acceptance Closes Orono City Hall 4t30 p.m.December 15» 1989TELECQMMDNICATIONS SYSTEMThe undersigned has examined the contract documentSr including the request for proposals, general contract conditions and detailed specifications, and hereby proposed to furnish the following equipment, in accordance with the contract documents for the prices listed below.PURCHASE 9.120.00THO TEAR HARIARTT OH PARTS AID LABOR Total cost to be paid upon completion and acceptance5 year full service agreement/monthlyMAHTEHAlfCB AGROMEIT fi wns TXABS 3-S 2.020.00 T LIMB CHARGES The estimate! on-^going cost of 6 trunk lines and other necessary lease lines to make system function on a per month basis. _tal service for 5 years (billed monthly) SIAII.OO $ Trunk Lines Other lease lines including off- premise extensions Dt financial ', including a assets and net tach. TBLBPBOME SPECIALISTS. IRC. Firm Name 9401 SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE Address lEAPOLIS. Ml 55428 City 533-7556 Teiepnone State Zip Aut^rised signabore T.P. OPERATIONS Title *TELEPB0IE SPECIALISTS, INC. IS AN AOIBORIZID ACER OF U.S. WEST. BBCMDS INDICATE THAT CRT HAS CABIJ Di PLACE FOR DBIACHED EITBISiaMS AID ARE NOT BILLED AS OPX. Page 15 of 17 rr LIST1 Premier ESP 24/60 Hybrid RSU; Power Supplies; Conmon Equipaenc (#431583)1 Premier MF-Raced Software including Call Cost Accounting, Traffic Reports, Least Cost Routing, Automated Attendant, Uniform Call Distribution^Directory (#436022) 1 Premier ESP 60 Button DSS/BLF Console w/12 Button Liquid Crystal Display Terminal (#475331, #475324) - Flash Key 1 Premier ESP 24 Button LCD Speakerphone (#475327) - Secondary Attendant Position - Flash Key 18 Premier 2500 Sets w/Flash (#471759) - 4 for detached locations 1 Premier ESP COU Trunk Card - 6 ports (#436003) 1 Premier ESP STA-A EKT Card - 6 ports (#436004) 4 Premier ESP STA-B SLT Cards - 6 ports each (#436005) 2 Might Answer Chimes w/swltch Installation Includes teflon cable; 4 circuit automatic power failure transfer; power surge and c.o. gas tube protection; and Remote Maintanence. Administration and Testing. Configured for 6 trunks, 6 electronic terminals, & 24 single-line devices. TWO YEAR warranty ON PARTS AND LABOR TET.RPHONB SPBCIAUSTS, INC. SYSTEM USER LOT PREMIER ESP CUSTOMER CONTACT PHONE AmeristdT Financial Sally Lee 612-893-0865 Ameristar Financial Kathy Horejsi 612-546-6892 Ameristar Financial Diane Sallen 612-693-0789 Ameristar Financial Mike Slager 612-483-0450 Amex, Inc.Mr. Nouri 612-375-9191 Astrocom Circuit Board Steve Brown 612-448-1989 Bloomington Assembly of God Mary Jo Van Slykc 612-854-1100 Brooklyn Junior High Benny Clifton 612-566-6893 Burlington Air Freight Gary Haendel 612-726-1800 C. Noblett A Assoc.Vickey Noblett 714-261-6431 City of Chanhassen Karen Engelhardt 612-937-1900 Comedy Gallery, Inc.Michelle Hanson 612-331-3565 CP America Kirk Wyttenbach 612-455-1118 Creative Promotions Char Schmuck 612-450-4444 Dean Fleming Company Dean Fleming 612-471-8919 Dundee Nursery Jerry Theis 612-559-4004 Edina Country Club Kim Delaney 612-927-7151 Educational Opportunities Patti San 612-944-1959 J. Edwards LTD Galen O'Brien 612-377-0333 Farmstead Foods Les Dunsmore 612-933-1810 Financial Alternatives Howard Dettloff 612-473-6535 First Bank Systems Barbara Miska 612-291-5480 FBS Ro^ester FB8 Lake 0 Bloomington FBS Eden Prairie FBS Eagan FBS Plymouth FBS Ply-4 Seasons FBS Little Canada FBS Minnetonka FBS St. Louis Park FBS Battle Creek FBS Blmgtn. on Lyndale FBS Shoreview FBS Coon Rapids FBS Apache FBS Highland FBS Mortgage FBS Lakewood FBS West Broadway FBS St, Anthony PBS Brooklyn Park First Protection Jim Beltz 612-473-0114 First World Travel Molly Seals 612-370-1313 Games By James James Welbourn 612-553-9237 Gittleman Corporation Phil Durand 612-831-2505 Government Training Service Heleen Johnson 612-222-7409 Group Design Ginna Copley 612-338-1353 Guy Metals Roger Young 612-780-0857 HAH Knitwear John Ryan 612-333-3314 Hamilton Sales Gary Hamilton 612-925-9737 Heavy Duty Air Karon Smith 612-496-3227 Heartland Mortgage Doug Ward 612-553-1278 HMU Management Carolyn Kronlokken 612-922-3418 Homestead Creek Interiors Greg Mertents 612-770-8718 1 B C A Cheryl Upton 612-871-7878 James A. Balough Jim Balough 612-332-2700 John A. Dalsin A Sons, Inc.Georgene Johnson 812-729-9334 Klrsch Fabrics Dean Ruhberg 612-544-9111 Lead's Precision Instruments Julie Engle 612-546-8575 Legend Technology Lori Frank 612-338-5430 1 Li tin Paper Lord Fletchers of the Lake Love Lines, Inc. Lund Industries Maratech Communications Mar print McCombs, Frank, Roose Med-Diet Laboratories Metal Craft Engineering Midwest Wholesale Tire Minnesota Intrusion Alarm Mirror Technology Old Northwest Agents, Inc. Osseo Lumber Pacesetter Systems Park Nursery Perkins Motor Transport Plywood Industries Pomeroy Tool Inc. Powell Lincoln Mercury Product Development Quality Business Forms RJM Dental Reentry West Reinsurance Alternatives, Inc. RTC Inc. Rogers Body Shop Sage Company Ken Fletcher 612-333-4331 Allan Bell 612-471-8513 Dan Morstad 612-379-1199 Bill McMann 612-780-2520 Garfield Anderson Jr.612-541-0012 George Buys 612-429-7722 Willi n McCombs 612-476-6010 Don Tymchuck 612-S46-328S Jack .Mowry 612-441-1855 Peter Yanthul 612-452-4433 Julie Marshiil 612-522-0882 Ron Nel'X)n 612-633-4450 Jim B<;lligan, Jr.612-884-8044 Bruce Kosin 612-425-2107 Ron Buerkle 612-574-1013 Gary Kuper 612-770-5700 Jane McCt.^612-432-4600 Bob Foster 612-378-2223 Kathy Pomeroy 612-141-3010 Glen Lieder 612-559-7200 Bob Hinckle 612-332-5273 Tom Lyngdal 612-559-4330 Dick Mrocek 612-588-0781 Tom Gothmann 612-227-6291 Russ Funk 612-832-3366 Mark Nelson 612-222-7488 Brian Stetter 612-881-4252 Denise Schmitz 612-591-1200 I Security Computer Sales Vincent O’Connell 612-227-6683 Southwest Suburban Publishing Jtan Rolfsnid 612-445-3333 Spectro Alloys Sherman Horiowitz 612-437-2815 St. Vincent dePaul Church Robert Hayden 612^25-2210 Terry Feldmann's Imports Kathy La Mere 612-831-5828 Title Wave Corp. HDQ Jean Kennedy 612-536-1428 Tronnes Railing & Assoc.Hans Tronnes 612-546-2333 Uniglobe Valet Travel Bill Coffee 612^52-8952 Water Heater Innovations Denny Schultz 612-688-8827 Weisman Enterprises Michelle Price 612-872-1000 Zenith Products Pete Runquist 612-425-4111 Zeos International Bill Bartley 312-633-4591 Pr^SMISr^ SSP application FtATURES (STANDARD AND OPTIONAU Off-Premise CaU Foiwaitlin? c Account Aaxxintmg System —Station Ntes^ Detnil Aoco*intm^ (SMDA) -^Station Message Detail RecDfding (SNIDR) Coetuf Caiin Progress (DispUv Rione) Least-O}^ Routing (Multiple Gasses) Une Restxictson SewMjneSets TcO RestnciRedKtion (Multipte Oasses-^txligit) ^todaOMty Enhanocmcnls AutomatECI Attendant Automatic Answer Automatic Inteitom Automatic Line Selection Music Busv Line Callback Busy Station Callback Calf Fonvorc£ng —All Calls —If Busy —If Busv/No Answer —tf No Answer CaU Splitting OinWksfer Conferenong Simultaneous VoiceData Calls Direct Inward Svstem Aixess (DISA) Direct Station SelectnuyBusy Ump Reid (DSSBLR —Operator Station —Ki^vset Staoon Diiecited Call Pkk-Up (Reverse Tnnsler) Diiectoiy Dialing —Intercom —Outside Numbers Disatminating Stabon Ringing Do-Not-Dbtuib woth Advanced Messaging Exclusive Hold Flexible Night Ring FleJdble Rinj? Assignments Group Can m-Lp Fiaiviibee Answeiback Headset Capafcdity Hooktlash in Sfwki Dial Numbfrs House Phones Hunt Groups Iden&bed Inoxning Calls -^Forwards —intercom _Queue Callbacks —Recalls —Ring-ins —Tmnsfers Immediate Station Ringing IntemalExtemal losing Last Number RedidSave Liquid Cn'stal Chspia>*s Message Centeris) Messaw Waiting Indkation Micnoprione Mute Multiple Attendant Answering Musicon-Hold aS“'mi Ofreef SbiMoR Sefadtr Bu^ LampFidii 24-Butm Kiysit ^ ^viTvJM •***'^" Otf-Premiscs Transfer On-Hook Dialing (Dtf-Hook VoiOB Announce OPX Stations Page Zones (6) Pooled Line Groups Private Line Assignment Programmable SA Ke\^ Remove^Keplace born Pj^S Remov^^Replaoe bom UCD' Hunt Group Seaetahal Intercept Speakerphone Operation Speed Dialing, Stobon Interoom —Outside Numtere Speed Diakng System Station Monitonhg Stadon-to-Stition Messagng Talkback Sfwakers Transfer to Hold Transfer to Park Uniform Cafl Distribution (LCD) Viw Mail Reiuhilily Database Battery Protection Remote Diagnoistics Remote Semoe Capability Svstem Battey Baoc-Up Svstem Condition Reports Some features fTuy require addibonai equipmoit Features subject to change without nodes. ' * » ; • £i P^cMIsR: Premier Telecom Products,’Inc. 600 Industrial Parkway Industrial Airport, KS 66031 24-Su/tpn Kystt with Dapht^ a. i>4 6ux<ii>-W o <1 rrrfT»*rf fVMutTi tnc % ‘">i(■i-h- . ■ *'■■ */■. . ■¥ ■> ‘♦ V ^ <; '»•' - ‘’ll• llil:-.m ’J1&' i V*’i % ’*<«h i-o^y ■i.*A'«Tl . v> .- . . • •p?~r-’'j |?|• T--'«KL-^ -'.i ' ■- • ->'k *1 ■: :- 4v«. • «» -*• 'f ♦T.i*.*.• -o^ 4«Vw “- *••• f- •■* ^ ■ *».- **-1 .»■ •’mM X. - ."i* ’'••■ *' • 'O’ • -• ^' V » A •7m 1^•)t^ *. .WA ♦ . %«»•' *Tr ca. • f. .•■'•• ;i- 'v. \,*;. ■ Ihrv'. : $. V .. .•:J :/ >1 aji ' ,. * 1 i/’' ■ .. • ■ ■ l'L<!»- ..t • -v,*: L ■;> • » :sa ' - ‘vt r:rp?v^--‘ tlif'H. **'j>'- - i.»‘ • ifesT^ ‘ V r n' ir* • .Tti-. r*.- *>^“r»**> \ * • ^i,'.sfVA« r '"‘1 '. fv A ' V t». > , -^, -. - - I, «x-»r • v'--/ *.?*v v%S .V ‘ ..',.■ , z* : 1 v; ■:- -*v4rtS?l^af:a^ \'ii .^1 ^ ■ '';■•? 5='&‘■'T' .. * ; . VI ■2^' t^.,4 .II: ^w^«£■* / 'i'-U V'- '^^>i•:^=^,.^•■... _-^ • ■■ '^■1k ,.: ■ ■ Vi; ■ .V>w ■ ■^r'• V . ■%-'^i-r.‘ '.^-'feiWW*;':. m I:. INTRODUCING THE PREMIER ESP. THE PHONE SYSTEM THAT SENSES THE NEEDS C OF BUSINESS TODAY...AND TOMORROW. Todav it isn't enoui^ a teleph«.inf s\ stem to smipK be "stat^f-the-art." In order to deli\ er peak pnx.luoi\it\', it must aL^' tunctii>n ettioentJy in yi'or busint~"> environment. It must become a part ot your busine^'^ team .And letter vnu the cap>abilit\- to better ^erv e \ our clients a.nd better rruinage your business operation. We know that. "V ou know that .\ow there's a phone that knows. The new Premier ESP is among the most sophisticated communioition systems avaibble hxlav It contains a powerful computer thut 'knows and lust as importantly, reacts to your business needs. The Premier ESP has unaimmon busmess savvy. .And you'll be impni.’ssed at what this added dimension can do for you THE PREMIER ESP KNOWS WHAT A HIGH PRIORITT YOU PUT ON YOUR BOTTOM LINE. The Premier ESP knows... the importance ot yc ‘ ■ company's bottom line, so it's Itoded with features that save you money. Day after day. Phone call after phone call. Least Cost Routing (LCR) The Premier ESP huni^... the lowest-cost way to route your long distance calls. That"s because the Premier ESP is programmed with vour companv s long distance use patterns in mind. The Premier ESP knows how to optimize the rate structures of a vanety of long Jistana* carriere like U.S. Sprint, .AT&T, and NIQ. Depending on the time of day and the destinatioi . LCR routes eac±i cafl throu^ the lea.si expensive avaibble route, "rhe bottom line: at the end of the month you've saved considerable money. Unifbnn Call Distribution (UC J) The Premier ESP knacvs... the .vay to handle incoming calls to increase productivity. The ESPs Unifbnn Call Distribution feature pmavides a piofer.<=ional V\ 5?^ • . » • . •’ f ^ - r-••• • : fTi'fi m'jiM I j. (It I •♦ t— ••• re^pi'iYM.* to callers via nvorded mevvige, then help>s vli.'-mbute the work K vid ev enlv among vour employee^ With LCD you never k'v.* important business because phone lines am busy The sv'stem iinswers, automabcallv pbces customers on hi>ld, then routes callers to the first a\ aibble person In the meantime, instead ot a busv sigrcil, your callers listen to ple.isant Kickgmund music. W'hen if s their turn to pbce an order, that's music ti’ yuur ears' Station-to-Station Messaging The Prenuer ESP huras... how trustratirg it can be to call people in vour ottice and find tliem away trom theT desk. Your onlv ruvourso used to be to deliv er mes.s.igt's by hand. But now them's a better way. 'vVith the ^Tnier ESP phcme system, vou can leave messages tor anyone and ev eryone in your otfice. ^ our messages are deaiiv visible on the ESPs eas\’-to-read dispbv screen. Think ot the time you'll say^f Integrated Voice Mail '' The l^hvmier ESP knaivs... how to get the message through loud and dear. The Integrated V'oice Mail feature lets you leave recorded messages in an electronic "mailbox." You communicate more effidently, withcnit an actual voice ainversation. And you can ev’en get your message across while cx>-workers are using the phone. .\'ow there's a breakfiirough! Directory Dialing The Premier ESP knows... the people vou call most frequently, and it stores their names ancf numbers in its memory E)ialing is as simple as entering the firet one car two lettm of a name. Automated Attendant . . The Premier ESP knows...how to take good care of your receptionist. The system can be programmed to automaticallv answ'er the phone and announce a menu of opitions. Carters then either dial clirectly to the person or department they want, or get your receptionisf s j —oersonal assistance. — \ Vte Prrrmer ESPv tht to dkiits and i.T4sUyruTS. The p[mrr bdmid tht Prvrmrr ESP phtnie is a f/asirt miTPrnitfNT lt\ thn aditxru\d Out u’ts i/a* L'5r •if Telephone Specialists, Inc TheB PhoM Company 1 3 2 8 Traffic R Dslfora Pramlar E yraaler E t i,'*>rler E and Profr IT LIST 5 5 2 Pramler EiT 24/60 Hybrid KSD; Powar Suppllaa; Comon Equipment Px'agiiar EiP K-t Eatad Softmara iacludlnf Call Coat Accounting, ports. Least Cost touting. Automated /ttandant, 11 Distribution, Directory P COD Trunk Card - 6 ports P STA-A sn Cards - 6 ports each P STA-B SLT Card - 6 ports IP 12 Button LCD Speakerphones w/DSS BLF, OHVA/HFR ana Ksys Premier ESP 8 Button Speakerphones w/Pre|raonable Kays Premier 2S00 Sets v/Tap night Anseer Chimes w/Switch Installat .on includes teflon cable; 4 circuit automatic power fei ure transfer; power eurge end c.o. gsa tubs protactlei; and Rsmots Maintsnance, Administration and Testing. Conflguret for 6 trunks. 18 slsctronic terminals, and 12 slngle-llia davlces (1 for fax, 1 for RMAT) TWO TEAR JARRASTT ON PARTS AND LABOR 110,895.0] 3//> 9401 Science Center Drim I • Minneapolis. MinneioU 55428 • TeUphone (612) 533-7556 COMMUMICATIONS WORLD OF MiriMEAPOLIS January 4.1969 Tar< Naab CITY OF ORONO Orono. MN Dear Tort, Thank you for tfila opportunity to proposa a telecommunications solution for CENTURY COMPANIES OF AMERICA. Communications World Is a ten year old company with 64 sales offices across the nation. We have over 3,400 business clients In the Twin City area and are ranked as the 7th larQMt company nationally in the small to medium sized system market Our success has been the result of the following: 1) High quality ftjll featu'od systems tailored to the client needa 2) Prompt courteous service provided by highly skilled factory trained technicians. 3) Unsurpassed service and support after the sale. Teri, we are recommending the Toshiba OK Digital Key System for CENTURY COMPANIES OF AMERICA Toshiba Is over 100 years old with annual sales In excess of 26 billion dollars. The technological leadership and advanced manufacturing techniques of Toshiba brings you the Strata, rated as the most reliable key telephone system In the Industry. The Information on the following pages should help In the evaluation of our proposal. Sincerely, John J. Pupkee 4640 WeM 77th 5tr«t • Suite 2X • .Minneapolis. Mfl 5MJ3 (612t 944-SISI Service 612t HJSOSns Sales . . J • • • ALTCRNATIVt C0WI6URATI0N USOW FUU FCATUS HECTRONIC TELEPHONES C0HMUNICATI0N8 WORLD PROPOSAL FOR saw Oi joiroNo, TOSHIBA STRATA DKSS D16ITAL XEY TELEPHONE 8VSTB1 SYSTEM CAPACITY OF 20 C O. LINES ft, 64 STATIONS EXPANDABLE TO 36 C O. LINES & 96 STATIONS SYSTEM CONFI6URATION • 2 PCOU 4 CIRCUIT LINE CARDS FOR 8 LINE CAPACITY • 1 PSTU 8 CIRCUIT STANDARD TELEPHONE STATION CARDS • 3 PE<U 8 CIRCUIT ELECTRONIC TELEPHONE STATION CARO FOR 24 CAPACITY • 12 STRATA FULL FEATURED ELECTRONIC KEY TELEPHONE (10 BUTTON W/ HANDSFREE ANSWERBACK ON INTERCOM AND ONEWAY SPEAKERPHONE) • 6 ITT SINGLE LINE TELEPHONES WITH FLASH BUTTON • 1 D'RECT STATION SELECTOR CONSOLE FOR RECEPT'CNIST' • 2 STRATA FULL FEATURED ELECTRONIC KEY TELEPHONE (20 BUTTON W/ LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY AND SPEAKERPHONE FOR RECEPTIONIST AND BACK-UP) • 1 COMPLETE SYSTEM BATTERY BACK-UP • 2 NIGHT ANSWER BELLS INCLUDING SWITCH TWO YEARS PARTS V LABQIl WABBANTY. ALL COORDINATION WITH TELCO, ALL PVC CABLE. HARDWARE S, LABOR NECESSARY TO INSTALL TOTAL SYSTEM COST WITH OUT TAX 110.938.00 phonal suBMirrto pmONIA7*^-71S7 ____1/4/90—----------------------ifliyV riF C iR ljNlj___________________________________Tfiti ioa NA^ 1------------------------------------------- T1 ROY Rfi _________ -1 CITY STATE ANO ZIP COOCi ^ CC'iOT .06 .jCA^'ON Hii1; AUCHlTtCTi ] 3ATt <jf P« ANSI i JOB r *ot Mark E. Bai.iiiardson, City Administrator Teri L. Naab, Deputy Clerk January 4, 1990 i (L Subject( New Phone System AttedMeata - Amended Proposal from each Company (Interior Communications* will be forthcoming) After reviewing the Request for Proposals received and going out to actually see the three lowest priced systems* I would like to make the following comments. Some of the features have been explained to give a better idea on what they do* or what the system cannot do. 1. Interior ComMinieetioiia - Bob Rigenhagen The single line sets proposed for this system: * Need to dial 9 for an outside line. If all lines are busy, a multi-line set will ring back when a line is available* the single line set will not. * Cannot answer and direct incoming calls and therefore cannot be used as a back-up console (receptionist). * Cannot camp-on a call. This feature allows a call to be held on an intercom when that phone is in use. When the first call is disconnected* the phone would ring with the second call. This feature helps with those important phone calls. * All features must be implemented by the use of a code. The single line sets do not tell you which features are on or off (ex. Do Not Disturb). The representative was not sure if some of the features could even be accessed by code. * Single line station cards have 7 stations per card, the multi-line cards have 8. When the system is xaximised* the single line sets would allow about 8 ess stations overall. * There are no speaker phone/hands free calling options on the single line sets. All calls must be answered or initiated by using the hand set. The representative showed us a multi-lined set and pointed out that in addition to the features noted above* the multi- lined set could included the following features: * Zone paging and over-all paging. We could have certain phones on a zone and be able to pick a zone to page a particular person. '•‘•“■“■’•on, cuy Adml„l.tr,torreri L, Naaby Deputy Cleric ranuary 4, 1990Phone System w'u S.*'?o?tran„??•?:?«• r.c.iv«, .„a ,oi„, following commenta. Some tf ^■0 ,ly. . ,.et„ „ “'‘t t*h.y*Vo?"'’vV.*t\*;S Si^vr"" •• ’"Portant phona call,. f««tnre haXp, »“Jh •^^ "^■^*“*91^“'i„V a«V*d*"‘*'’ *'• “•• of auraa are on or off («« Do fell you ehlch ^a*Vv;‘*U7ocr.e"/V£;“ ■"«M-l"ne ‘*cVrtJ hVve* ’ •“‘lone per card. " t'a'tl'onro'vlia'fi.* ‘•‘- ''-"■’ ‘•'i*l«i''rb*o"utS* ^liere apA eiA _ ona on the single-line*a!»fr*'^***"‘*® free calling -- or l.ltlat2d^V«!«rt ‘h'; ha*„V.::“‘ • *f|‘f*on**tT^he “fe«™i,'VoV^ •"<» pointed could included the fol l^m^ltSl “/,»•' "“«* end oveir^eii 4 » P“Mc«ar%\rVo"! TiclV,%.^‘U /frTKCHMwrtJr CL Hew Phone Syatem January 4p 1990 Page 2 of 4* All multi-button sets have a message waiting light. The person at the main console or any other intercom may light up message light. When the person returns* he can immediately call back. I think this would help us immensely in-house.* If all multi-button sets are used* all phone lines are compatible* as well as the station cards. To upgrade to multi-lined sets would cost less.The Telrad system offered the ability to conference with up to 5 different people* 3 in-house and 2 off-premise callers.A separate non-published nusiber could be assigned to allow persons to call after-hours.The total cost of the system proposed is $6*425.00. To upgrade and go with a 4-button set for everyone but the 2 main consoles* it would cost approximately $9,289.00. 2. Tmiepbooe Speelellsts - Ken Simmons This system has a feature called “Remote Maintenance Administration and Testing" (R MAT) which basically means that all data about a system is stored on a computer at their office. Many problems can be solved right at their service center through this program and eliminates the waiting time of repair. They are also able to upgrade current software in-house through this system and therefore upgrades cost less. All their phone systems have a self- diagnostics test and alarms are sounded at the console for simple and complex problems in the system. The single line sets can access all features through codes. They do not and cannot be equiped with speaker phones and there is no type of display for any of the features. There is also no paging on these sets. The station cards come in multiples of 6 for either single line or multi-lined sets. The single line seta require a ringer card for an additional cost of $250.00. They will do all major programming. All changes to that are done free of charge for 30 days after installation. The Premier system allows up to 5 persons conferencing and there is no limit on number of in-house vs. off-premise callers. It also allows unsupervised conferencing. If an in-house person has a conference with 2 outside people* the in-house person can hang up without cutting them off. N««f Phone Systeoi January 4, 1990 Page 3 of 4 They have the ability to program hunt groups within departments. Uniform distribution of calls can be set up between persons, departments, etc. This system allows a person to access an intercom from any phone by dialing a number, then the Intercom number. The console has an answer button which automatically determines first caller and connects to that line. The same holds true when returning to those lines, the caller on hold the longest, gets answered first. The mu I**!-button sets have the capability to have prograsnned dual purpose speed dialing - both Intercom and outside numbers at the same time. The console proposed has one 12-button set with display, a second component which has the 60 intercom buttons. Because of the ease of use of this system and all the features available on this set, I would suggest, if we went with this system, to not purchase the second component set for now and add it on later. This would be a savings of $400.00. I would also suggest getting multi-button sets with displays for those persons who are away from their desk a lot of the time, multi-buttons sets for others and single line sets for the least used phones (ex. by the copier, postage meter and off-premise extension). The Fax machine could also take the lest port on the station card for single line sets and be dedicated for incoming/outgoing fax and emergency use only outgoing. Pre-arranged password numbers can be assiged to allow after hour calls without adding a special number. The proposal for the single line sets came to $9,120.00. the cost of the system with mixed multi-button sets and single line sets would be approximately $10,895.00. iCfj 3. rciiinii' Btione Norks Ninneapolls - John Pupkes This system was very comparable with the Premier system. Once again, the single lined sets are very limited and require using codes for every feature you wish to use. They also do not have the speaker option and therefore eliminate the paging system. ^ % W«w Phon« SystMi January 4, 1990 Pag* 4 of 4 Tha phonaa tha raprasantatlva proposaa ara multi-button aats with 1-way apaakar ayataas. This allows a callar to dial without picking up tha handsat but to talk aust pick up tha handsat. I faal that it would b* banaficial to go with 2- way spaakar phonas right away. This coi^ny's policy is Praa Prograaaing and Praa Training for tha lifa of tha syataar which could aaan slot to us whan wa ara considaring a aova in a copy of yaars. This systaa has a faatur* cal lad Autosiatic Busy Radial. Xf a callar calls a busy lina, initiatas tha ABR button, and hangs up, tha phona autonatically ratrias avary 30-60 saconds for 10-15 ainutas to gat through to this lina. Tha Diract Inward Station Calling faatura allows night callars to raach parsons working lata, without adding a spac lina or nuinbar. Tha consola buttons can ba prograaaad for spaad dialing or any othar faatura. Othar systams wara not abla to do this. Tha systaa was proposad with all singla lina sats at $10,528.00, all alectronic sats at $11,708.00, and a mixtura of aulti-button phonas and singla lina phonas at approxinataly $10,938.00. Tha main raaaon for upgrading tha currant systam is to naka tha liaitad staff wa hava mora afficiant. Bacausa wa do not hava a ”dadicatad* racaptionist and do not hava rooa for ona right now, I faal it is inparativa to go with a aystan that is usar friandly to all stations, not just tha main consola. I faal that if wa put in singla linas sats as raquastad, w* ara only putting in somathing that is compatibla with tha inafficiant systam wa hava today. If wa wish to naka our staCt mora productiva, w«. naad to bring tha pho; a systam up to datw with tha tachnology availabia today. isrcsMsudatioo - I would strongly racMsiand getting a mixtura of multi-lina and singla-lina phonas, as suggested above. Thera is vary little diffaranc* in price between tha systams but I faal that the Premier and Toshiba systems are of a batter quality and seam to ba mora advanced in currant phone technology and tharafora can ba easily updated by simply adding cus^utar chips. An appointment could ba tat up for you to go and view the systams to gat a batter idea of how they function. Tot Mark E. Barnhardson, City Administrator Jeanna A. Mabusth, Building k Zoning Administrator January 4, 1990 Sobjacts Racommandation Concarning Acquisition of Maw Talaphona System for Administrative Building After reviewing the demonstrations of the single line systems by the Interior Communications (Telr« I) and Telephone Specialists Inc. (Premier)* I trould strongly encourage that our original proposal be amended to include either all electronic phones or a coobinatlon of single line and electronic phones. I was not present at the demonstration by Communication world of the Toshiba system* but Terl has advised that the Toshiba system is comparable to the Premier system. The Telrad system limits a users choice to either a single line or electronic phone by the nature of the power supply system. If one chooses a cosd>ination of both* one must purchase both forms of power supply. The Premier and Toshiba systems are iiot sourced in that manner. Both Premier and Toshiba's technology are based on computer programming* each phone functions as a personnal computer. As far as the future and current state of the arts* it would appear that Premier and Toshiba are considerably ahead of the Telrad system. All venders will provide quick maintenance response within 2 hours and all have an immediate inventory supply* either in the maintenance van or at the home office base. The more advanced systems of Premier and Toshiba will provide the necessary receptionist backup so lacking in our current office make~up* With the Premier system* persons such as yourself* John and my staff* who are not permanently stationed at their desk throughout the day* are provided with an immediate notice via a visual display at the phone. Each message electrically signaled based on the time they are received by the syste”<. All electronic phones contain speakers rather than staff pe pie having to constantly walk back and forth. To communicate* contact can be made via the speaker systems of each phone. In addition the hands free ability will also provide greater efficiency for staff members who operate in limited office areas. Each of the venders has been asked to provl n amended estimate including mixed single and electronic ph. for the City's consideration. Second bids are all considerably under the original $15*000 limit. Teri's memo wi. 1 provide the amended bid statements. R«coMi«nd«tion Concerning Acquisition of New Telephone Systen January 4, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Once again, I strongly recommend that you consider electronic phones for the use of the City and I would recommend that you arrange for demonstrations by both Telephone Specialists of the Premier system and Communications World of the Toshiba systaai. Although I understand Interior Coanunlc.?tions has cone through with the lowest bid In the revised estimates, I strongly recommend either the Premier or the Toshiba systems because they provide greater versatility, are user friendly, technology ^wflwcts a greater state of the arts and a program of continuous programming upgrades and additional benefits to consumer. I should also note that the City of Chanhassen, in acquiring their Premier system from Telephone Specialists also sought single line phones and after a month of use changed from single line to all electronic phones with combinations of the 12 button <Si*plny and 6 button urits without display. The representatives of the Premier system have also advised that the City of Mound is also considering the system. 1 DATE;January 5» 1990 :-CJu.iCll MEETING TO:Mark Bernhardson, City Adr'inistrator JAN 8 FROM:Melvin Kilbo, Chief of Police ;mtv n.*: rQnmn SUBJECT: Longevity Pay Step - Officer James Cornick Oft^cer Cornick has completed his 4th year with the Orono Police Department. He has progressed in the department first as "Officer Friendly", then on assignment as the department's DARE •• ^ ^ ^er. I re hour gevity - ’■ pay, 1989 contract, be raised from $16.2^ per contract $16,727 per hour as determined by Ion in the L.E.L.S. contract. TO: FROM; Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate Forwarded recommending approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by secondec oy to increase Officer James Cornick's salary from $16.24 per hour to $16,722 per hour based on the 1989 labor contract, effective January 2, 1990. Ayes , Nayr _. i 11390.1 I TO: FROM: DATE: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk January 3, 1990 COUNCIL MEETING JAII 81390 ciTV ftp SUBJECT: Tax Forfeited Property Attachments:A. Hennepin County Property Tax and Public Records Letter Dated 12/4/89 B. Proposed Resolution Released for Public Sale C. Proposed Resolution Conveyance of Tax Forfeit Lands for Public Use by the City of Orono ISSUE - Adoption of resolutions for Hennepin County indicating City of Orono's desire regarding tax forfeited properties. INTRODUCTION - As noted in Attachment A the City of Orono roust indicate th'eTr desired settleroent of these tax forfeited parcels. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the attached resolutions be passed as presented. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adroinistrato Forwarded recommending approval. The two recommended for public sale (Parcels. A & B) are lots in the Crystal Bay area which are to be legally combined for sale. Of the four parcels to be retained; Parcels C and D are either part of Lake Minnetonka or wetlands adjacent to it. Parcel E is a parcel that is substantially wet in a normal /ear. Parcel F is also partially wet and is appropriate to retain at this time. If deemed appropriate any of these can be released in the future. None of these last four have any assessments pending against them. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by _, that the council adopt resolution I_ releasing tax forfeit parcel for public sale and resolution «_ requesting conveyance of parcel for public use by the City of Orono. Ayes _, Nays _. 1390.1Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Dorothy Hallin, city Clerk January 3, 1990 Tax Forfeited Propertynts:CmCIL MEETW6Mil 8 1990CfTY OFLands £ot Public Use by the city of o?Jno Oror.s“Setlre"re^a “rd 1°:/ taY £o"fe?tiS prop:?tle"l"=“‘"^ r^fresenJl th® attached resolutions Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, city Administrato^^^^ recommending approval, JlTav^'^rof ^K- (Parcels A & B) are lots inal Bay area which are to be legally combined for sale. ‘ jr parcels to be retained; :o^*it.^ either part of Lake Minnetonka or wetlands il alll ’^oaltiaVi substantially vet in a normal year. Tf appropriate to retain at , Nnnr«? can be released in i*era. ^ these last four have any assessments pending lOTION - Moved by seconded by , that the council itioJi°i *— tax forfeit parcel for public sale y of 0iHn"’“lyls"l.‘;°SaJf "“"t Dorothy M, Hallin, City Clerk City of Orono 1335 Brown Rd, S,P. 0, Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 IRequest for Approval for Sale of Tax Forfeited Land Parcelsi L—Enclosed is a classification list of non-conservation property located In’your'" municipality. The described parcels forfeited to the State of Minnesota for non-payment of property taxes. The parcels on this list were included on Non-Conservation List 741-NC, approved by the Board of Hennepin County Camnissioners on November 21, 1989, by Resolution No. 89-11-0932.As provided in Minnesota Statutes 282, we request that you:1. Approve the parcel(s) for public auction, or2. Approve the parcel(s) for adjacent owner auction if M.S. 282.01.Subd. 7a is applic^le. Please state in your resolution that the parcel of land is not buildable because of either minimum area, shape, frontage or access. 3. Request a conveyance to your municipality for public use without monetary consideration. We also require that the form "^plication by a Governmental Subdivision for Conveyeuice of Tax Forfeited Land" be conpleted and returned to qjr office with a copy of the City Council Resolution requesting conveyance, or 4. You may also make a written request that certain parcels be withheld from public auction for one year. Please provide City Council Certification which addresses both types of special assessments listed below: 1. Attached is a conputer run showing the balance of any unpaid cancelled special assessments at the time of forfeiture emd that may be reassessed. Please certify that these are the correct amounts, if there is a discrepeuicy, please contact our office. It would also be helpful when selling the property if you could tell us, at this time, how long any reassessment would run and at what interest rate it would be con^AJited. We apply approximately 90% of the sale price, and any interest we receive on contract payments, towards paying off the special assessments. 2. Any new specials assessed during 1989 for first year payable in 1990. We need both the sale approval and special assessment information included in the City Council Resolution. We have enclosed samples of both. Although state law deems the sale automatically approved if the City Council fails to respond within ninety (90) days of this notice, we ask that you do respond. If you have any questions, please call our office at 348-3734. '-'vr,-’ r-py, U' •■■•4-;hV • ^rJw«7 * '*.1W m»*. •a® -.e-S?r-4'!' *^*^a?2* • K'-iJA' .• .,^#r*- *''A-v*-.% laiv I i- ■ ;j i'-' * •• 4 ip; 6^ . vT ' ^ ■ . •r^.^VK:r^?r^"C.'« ,HVi —”r^ i WTiJI f K«@i HSfe 11 •. .* .. v*’...*MiV. V — *i*. IS . 4^iiv^ ls.5i i' >*• Si ^j. II T Jpi J *rl I tO !S3Z a ‘Zll 1 ........ I :sr-i:ii-:-~*t??r,f••*•••••« ^ ‘9 j • V .• I ■ ■ ’■f-.'iKr^f ?•>>••/■■ '(■•^•'//■•■//'■ A.’ ftCi 3a? : )i M3lA^S3U3__ ■cT-r > - . »f * Ffr.w1 . Ue>BC h —: o>« I 'j i\ * 1 V-•*.I ‘ ^ (5 •' ■ ^^ jf;’‘ \m^: mm \j :T—‘VS*- ! •“> i f?\ ir =i^“' f’jJ' .'•■• /I &i Q^"~av9 j fYifj"*!?' -t y.V- V > ;^-r : ’ • . ># *^'- n m ‘^2^* Z. v-^J: -r^r.;. r'rr •L .‘vj JT'r^ -t^Tm <!.•.»*:> ^ ; r •.» \ |?s-'o-;i^r-;^':-.v..;-; =iy',:■•'■■ r • •~"‘ •••^*- < . s“ • *' »>. ■ ■ '■ •*:' Q. {^<w f- • '^\'5>v-- spm^^ /,. Til ' I L l.ZPfOO^ i iicsi ‘ ••V '• • OtV ^fZSZU. ...^ ,«'«&» *.j... lo ■ ^1 1A! •- -* -I*, i l*i*i.c(;r* V' - k?"*-* l^is !,-:?> 'S ?.#•#• y/.<7A^ u .“t » ''KIM.,*'*. '••^‘ I |i^V; il«.-\:‘^A^-\v ___ f;;: s: :* is^v . fV-:v-'*».' ■ .'Jt.-'r.f-SMj t-:* ■ •“"V. Kn: * ".‘I I , • . •,',...... *... , 0.-f ; *-.-r - ■'-'s, • i .^ > ,-^rc^ 1 •4’* » • - {m.'»5^- . *.• »• ^r* •% i .*• I ^ K\- ‘ * I . •r;i ■ ’ ••••/. •’.•:i7*|.' :!!?? •* *> V C >J ‘c:li i 99e.-ju*:.* . I . • •. ••’■•••■>-if/*'* V- • *•••»■ ' ■in'**’,** - I <*!*.•*> X 1 ’ » i;!, , •••?(■'. • v • ■ f • O j ; ^ < .1 - i“ V •* 5 J n ? *j 5 . ;i 9 *j ?■: 4■J t o u •} .5 »» L li .^. 5 c ^ I 1390.2 TAX FORFEITED LAND RELEASED FOR PUBLIC SALE WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 282, the City has received from Hennepin County a list of lands within the City which have become the property of the State of Minnesota for non payment of real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners have classified said lands as non-conservation land and have authorized the sale of each such parcel of lands subject to review and release by the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said lands for compliance with local zoning ordinances, for the amount of outstanding special assessments remaining unpaid to the City, and/or for possible public use by the City as authorized by the Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 282, hereby approves the classification of each of the following parcels of land as non-conservation land, and furthermore, approves the public sale of each parcel of land as listed below. Release of these lands by the City Council is subject to the condition that the parcels be combined into one tax parcel. The City Council reviewed these parcels on July 8, 1985, as Resolution #1797 and determined construction of one single family residence on the combined parcels, if done according to all zoning performance standards, would not be contrary to the intent of the Community Management Plan. City of ORONO CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________ Release of these lands by the City Council is subject to the condition that all outstanding special assessments shall be paid in full to the City upon return to private ownership. Any amount not recovered at the time of sale shall be subject to reassessment by the City. Parcels Released For Sale District P.I.D.Special Assessments Levy I Amount 38 38 10-117-23 31 0067 10003 $12,506.30 10-117-23 31 0068 -0- Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held the 8th day of January, 1990. James R. Gr^ek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk CITY OF ORONO City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________ requestin; conveyance of tax FORFEIT LANDS FOR PUBLIC USE BY THE CITY OF ORONO WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 282, the City has received from Hennepin County a list of lands within the City which have become the property of the State of Minnesota for non payment of real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners have classified said lands as non-conservation land and have authorized the sale of each such parcel of land subject to review and release by the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said lands for compliance with local zoning ordinances, for the amount of outstanding special assessments remaining unpaid to the City, and/or for possible public use by the City as authorized by the statutes. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that 1 he City Council of the City of Orono, pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 282.01, Subdivision 1, hereby applies to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners and to the Commissioner of Revenue for conveyance of the following tax forfeited land to the City for drainage and conservation purposes. PARCEL RETAINED FOR USE BY THE CITY District 38 38 38 38 P.I.D. 03-117-23 33 0001 05-117-23 24 0105 35- 118 23 41 0010 36- 118-23 33 0016 Public Purpose Drainage & Conservation Drainage & Conservation Drainage & Conservation Drainage & Conservation Specials None None None None Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held the 8th day of January, 1990, by a vote of _ _ ayes and _ _ nays. ATTEST:James R. Grabek, Mayor «-s 1 *r r* r* 1 o V- ir Tos intero'f-fice Memo Date: January 9, 1990 Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator From: Mel Kilbo, Chief of Police tOl.i.'fUIL MEt HNG JAN 81990 CITY OF m'm Rej Authority to purchase squad cars The Police Department budgeted for purchase of three squad cars for 1990 from Hennepin County Contract 1139A9-232 from Farmington Ford-Mercury. □n 12/4/89, I sent a letter of intent to purchase, as the contract required either a purchase order or a letter of intent. Exhibits attached. I request permission to qet a purchase order for the three squad cars for 1990. To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark bernhardson. City Administrato Forwarded, recommending approval as being within the dollars and quantity authorized in the 1990 budget. Proposed motion - moved by _, seconded by _, to approve the purchase of three squad cars as budgeted. Bid award under Hennepin County Contract 1139A9-232 is to Farmington Ford-Mercury with a total purchase price not to CHceed ^39,054.00 less 4?11,500 estimated trade-in- Budgeted figure of ->30,800 includes change over of squads. full size Ford Crown Victoria $12,89.T.00 eaci cloth seats -.?30.00 It engine heaters +18.00 ft 6" LH spot N/C conduit 83.00 tf bonding strap +44.70 II gauges ■f 166.00 If heavy duty battery +45.00 n ^.«atlO>4M.H. KHboChief of PoliceAdministratiotiNon>EmergencyEmergency <73-7710 S44-9SII 911 December 18, 1989Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator Mel Kilbo, Chief of Police Officer Charles Schauss COUNCIL MEETINGJAIi 8i990(liTV OF ei’Os!;Officer Charles Schauss has completed his second year with our department as of October 26, 1989. Chuck has performed well a- bove the expected performance for a second year officer and I would reauest his salary be raised from $12,992 hourly rate 1st year officer, (1989 Salary rate) to <:i^..619, 2nd year officer level ( 1989 Salary rate), effective October 26, 1989.Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator! urchase three (3) eoin Countv contract $12,892.00 eaci - 230.00 If + 18.00 If N/C + 83.00 tf + 44.70 II + 166.00 It + 45.00 It $13,018.00 If Forwarded recommending approval. ts, according to contract, r on all three units. 1 me at 473-7710. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, to approve salary adjustment for Officer Schauss from $12,992 per hour 1st year officer to $14,619 per hour 2nd year officer level (1989 salary rate), effective October 26, 1989. Ayes _, Nays _. ^Jinncfonka Beach and Spring Park 122089.3TO:Mayor and City CouncilMark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratoV^COUNCIL MEETINGFROM:JAH 8B90DATE:December 20, 1989 i,’!TV (IF r-posnSUBJECT: Resignation of Police OfficerAttachment: A. Charles Schauss Letter of Resignation Dated12/19/89ISSUE1* Accept the resignat^'>n of Charles Schauss.2. Authorization to seek replacement.INTRODUCTION - Attached please find the resignation from Officer Schauss who has taken a position with the City of Minnetonka as a Police Officer. It is requested that staff be authorized to seek a replacement with an approval request to be brought back to Council once a candidate has been selected. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council sHhi\Tsl’ resig^tion and authorize staff to employ a replacement to be brought back to Council for an approval request for hiring. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by ^ accept the resignation of Charles Schauss seek*^ a replacement with staff to bring back the nominee for approval to employ. Ayes _# Nays _. cc: Personnel File Chief Kilbo Prepare 3 copiesNAIIE OF EIPLOYEE ^A^», ^ A-POSITION TITLEJ/Cj- tcv—Department Salary Rate Full TimePart Time VILLAGE OF OKONO, IINNESOTA state:lEUT OF RESIGNATIONthl_. resignation be accop^ted^ by the Villaje^Co^cil^«service requesting compensation for personal servicetS th^abive indicated position for accrued annual lea.- d... (Employee* s >^gnature) of Department Head: uld not ( . ) re-hire this employee, ay not be refilled until ^ ~ )f Accrued Leave: Jj^l^ accrued AaministratorT 1490.2 MEETING8 1990c‘!TV OF RPOAinMayor and City Council Mark E, Bernhardson, City Administratc^^*^^ December 13, 1989SUBJECT: Resignation of Part Time Police OfficerAttachment: A. Scott Kuyper Statement of Resignation Dated12/12/89ISSUE 1. Accept the resignation of Scott Kuyper. 2. Authorization to seek replacement. INRODUCTION - Attached please find the resignation from part time Officer Kuyper who has taken a position with i.he City of Edina as a full-time Police Officer. It is requer.ted that staff be authorized to seek a replacement with an approval request to be brought back to Council once a candidate has been sleeted. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council accept Mr. Kuyper"^s resignation and authorize staff to employ a replacement to be brought back to Council for an approval request for hiring. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that the Council accept the resignation of Scott Kuyper and authorizes staff to seek a replacement with staff to bring back the nominee for approval to employ. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: Personnel File Chief Kilbo 1490.2tratm MEETIHG'JAfl 81990t‘iTy OF (mmfficerResignation Dated tignation from part time th ;he City of Edina as quested that staff be approval request to be as been sleeted. the Council accept Mr. to employ a replacement val request for hiring. jy _, that the Council nd authorizes staff to back the nominee for VILLAGE OF ORONO, MINNESOTA STATEIIENT OF RESIGNATIONPrepare 3 copiesNAME OF EilPLOYEE POSITION TITLE/ /DepartmentPo//C'<S.Salary Rate 1 Full Time Part TimeStatement of Resignation:I reauest that this resignation be accepted by the Village Council to become effective on /^ » wiiicii is the las.day of actual servicFI I am requesting compensation for personal service to the Village in tJie above indicated position for accrued annual leave M.i. for _ _ _^days. The reason for this resignation is as follows:/ Date: (Employee’s Sfgiiature) Recommendation of Department Head: I would (?0 would not ( . ) re-hire this employee. This position may not be refilled \r\X,x\ /U:ux Lt.^C.t^ TO: FROM: •^21 CliliJICI!, MEETING JAN 8Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: January 3, 1990 SOBJ: Elimination of Local Well Permitting Authority List of Exhibits ~ Exhibit A - Memo from Minnesota Dept, of Health-11/30/89 Exhibit B - Staff response-12/21/89 Exhibit C - Orono Municipal Code Section 12.50: Water Well Construction and Abandonment Exhibit D - Excerpts from Minnesota Statute Chapter 103(1). "Wells, Borings and Underground Uses (New)". The Minnesota Department of Health in its infinite wisdom convinced the 1989 Legislature to enact groundwater protection legislation to give the State authority to regulate wells, but also prohibiting local units of government from issuing water well construction or abandonment permits. The legislation further prohibits cities from requiring that well drillers notify the City of wells being constructed or abandoned. I am advised by Health Department staff that the majority of out-State counties and cities do not have a well permitting or inspection program, and that even in Hennepin County, Orono is one of the few outer-ring cities with a relatively high degree of control over wells. Please review the letter of December 21st to Raymond W. Thron, Director of the Minnesota Division of Environmental Health. As noted in that letter, staff perceives this legislation as a severe reduction of our ability to control rural development in Orono. While the City of Orono has historically worked closely with well drillers to avoid potential ground water contamination problems due to incorrect well siting, our ability to continue such activity will be eliminated if we don't have a well permit or notification system in place. The new regulations allow for permitting/inspection delegation agreements between the State and local Boards of Health. The City of Orono does not have a local Board of Health. Only a few cities within Hennepin County have one. I am advised by Roger Carlson of the Hennepin County Environmental Health Department that while he is attempting to convince the County Commissioners to fund a County permitting/inspection program, he is getting nowhere. He also informs me that the County does not intend to allow the creation of new local Boards of Health. At the same time this authority is taken away from us, neither the County nor the State have a functional program in place to permit or inspect wells. The State has only a handful Memo-MPG Elimination of Well Permitting Authority January 3, 1990 Page 2 of inspectors and is hiring 20 more, but their goal, as expressed by Jim Nye, head of their Groundwater Quality Control Unit, even at full manpower is to inspect only l/4th of the new well installations. It is unreasonable to expect that the State will do any pre-drilling site inspections, nor can we expect them to stop in the City office for every well that gets drilled in Orono to verify where the well can and can’t be safely located on a given lot in a given subdivision. NinisKUi Needs for Adequate Control - Staff feels that the following procedures must continue in one form or another if the City is to maintain adequate controls over rural residential development in the City: 1. Require that all well drillers call for a site inspection or appear at the office for a site plan verification to insure that wells get drilled in appropriate locations. 2. Well drillers should be required to continue to provide a copy of the State Water Well Record for each well drilled and abandoned (sealed) ’n the City. The City has maintained permanent records of ao.i wells drilled and abandoned in the City since 1978. Well information is often requested by realtors, homeowners, and well drillers and if they have to go to the State for this information, it is doubtful they will be given the same degree of service provided by Orono. Proposed Interim Controls - Until such time that the State or County have a functional inspection program in effect, which may be a period of years, staff is recommending the following interim well control requirements : 1. Although State Statutes appear to expressly prohibit it, require that well drillers call for a site inspection or at a minimum stop in the C..ty office to review on paper the appropriate well locations based on nearby septic system/sewer line locations. Without this authority, the few "problem well drillers whom we normally watch will not have to notify us they are drilling. 2. If a site inspection is needed, we would charge the normal "site inspection" fee of $30.00. 3. Require that well drillers submit a copy of the State Well Record to us for all wells drilled in the City, and all wells abandoned in the City. We propose to withhold Occupancy for new houses until a copy of the State Well Record has been received. Permitting Authorityfye, head'^of ^their^GroLdSater^oLli^^^^^ ConVrol^^Unit manpower is to inspect only l/JJh of--S’hVlnV s“lYe-JJbhe City office for everv welfVh^f expect them tot xn a given subdivision. safely located on aSeeds for Adequate Control -or anothe^r^Yf City^is"to^maint^^^^ continue inil residential development in the City": controlsRequire that all well i , ,pection or appear at the offi call for a site.fication to insure that wells get i*„ aVpl^pr^UteWell drillers should be reouired ^-o py of the State Water Well Record \or k"*^® provide abandoned (sealed) ’n the Cit^^Th o a. drilled anent records of axx wells dr^illed^nd^^K^®^ maintained since 1978. Well informal-abandoned in the o°t"; sra^eTo? th\"f be given the sa„e degree°o7 “rv"lce“pro=vird"^ro^o'n'’o!^ [nteria Controls - n prc'’gr“:\„‘''e%Ve"/t "wh?ch * functional ^^reco..ending the following ^n?erir"we?l°'Jn"“oi ll"Xt wri‘l%fiVl“e'rV c\'lTf%?°a“?r“f'^ lb'ilmue stop in the C tw site inspection or at oprlate tell location, w * w b®''!®" O" Paper the ^^grw^irdi?riUrw=io."i^EuBfSl ‘S^to notxfy us they are drilling. ^ will not t "^lVe‘lnt"plc\^\V-°Ve%n1S?00."' bhe Rtcor" to'“u’s?o “a?[Ven?drilf S “ bhe State abandonel m the wiv the city, and all ancy for new houses propose to withhold I hat been received “"bll a copy of the state Kell Memo-MPG Elimination of Well Permitting Authority January 3r 1990 Page 34. Continue to keep in contact with the well drillers who have historically worked in this area, and maintain a good working relationship with them. We intend to stress to them their liability if a well is placed in a location that doesn't meet minimum sanitary setbacks, or in a location that adversely affects septic system sites on neighboring lots.5. Continue to require a 75' setback between wells and drainfield sites, although the State only requires 50'. The new statutes do not appear to expressly prohibit local adoption of more strict standards.6. continue to specify appropriate and inappropriate locations for well placement for all new houses as part of the building permit plan review process. 7. No longer perform a well test pump inspection. We will continue on an informal basis to review well construction procedures and materials in the City, but will refer all problems to the State. City staff never have been very involved in actual well construction problems, but have always referred to the State Health Department when problems arise. 8. Continue to record the locations of wells on our septic system card file and maintain well records as before, to the greatest extent possible. Council Options - Council may wish to pursue one or more of the following courses of action: 1. Direct staff to send a letter to local legislators asking for further discussion of the new Statute requirements. 2. Direct staff and City Attorney to draft an ordinance incorporating interim controls which continue , to the greatest extent possible, our current controls. 3. Direct staff to comply with the State statutes and relinquish control of well drilling in the City. 4. Other Staff Rec<»Bendatlon - Staff recommends that options 1 and 2 be pursued by the City. nation of Well Permitting Authority.nue to keep in contact with the well drillers who :orically worked in this area, and maintain a goodwith them. We intend to stress to them if a well is placed in a location that leet minimum sanitary setbacks, or in a location jrsely affects septic system sites on neighboring minnesota department of health717s^.d*lawar9st(612) 623-5000 p.o. box 9441 minnoapolis S5440 HiU,^Oiz 1989Crp^Kif^ TTinue to require a 75' setback between wells and d sites, although the State only requires 50*. TheJtes do not appear to expressly prohibit local of more strict standards.inue to specify approp.’ate and inappropriate for well placement for all new houses as part of ing permit plan review process. nger perform a well test pump inspection. We will on an informal basis to review well construction s and materials in the City, but will refer all to the State. City staff never have been very in actual well construction problems, but have cerred to the State Health Department when problems record the locations of wells on our septic d file and maintain well records as before, to the ixtent possible. ay wish to pursue one or more of the following on: ’ t staff to send a letter to local legislators or further discussion of the new Statute ts • ; staff and City Attorney to draft an ordinance ting interim controls which continue , to the xtent possible, our current controls. t staff to comply with the State statutes and control of well drilling in the City. Ktlon - jmmends that options 1 and 2 be pursued by the I ■ MEMORANDUMTO: Local Government Officials and Other Interested Parties FROM: Raymond W. Thron, Ph.D., P.E., Director Division of Environmental Health / DATE: SUBJECT: November 30, 1989 Effect of Article 3 of the 1989 Groundwater Protection Legislation on Local Government Enclosed for your information is a summary of new requirements in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 1031, Wells and Borings, which will have an impact on local regulation of wells and borings. If you would like more information on these requirements or have questions about them, please call 612/623-5338. RWT:JAB:mr Enclosure an equal opportunity employer MINNESOTA 1990 nnesota department of healthp.abo*944l minneapofli 55440.•.delawawa*123-SOOO _ \HkA.i< '■ - ^ 'r-7"? rrtH.Ke^memorandumnfficials and Other Interested Parties i; Local Government Officials ana u" “ES;-K;,'rSi; ;; :r: ”,r...» on Local Government i '?S.r«r iSsr^rifs :M"crwiu“Krvf"“ii;«t «n local ion of wells and borings. ,+,-o„c would like them, please call 612/6Z3 JAB:mr osure •n equal opportunity employef MINNCSOIA 1990 • • • ♦ r EFFECT OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE GROUNDWATER PROTECTION ACT MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 1031 ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTWELLS AND BORINGSREGULATION OF WELLS AND BORINGS1. No local well programs without deleoation aoreement.A ’ocal unit of government may not regulate the permitting, construction, repair, or sealing of wells or elevator shafts unless there is a delegation agreement with the Commissioner of Health. This includes monitoring, water, dewatering, remedial, and irrigation wells. 2. Deleoation Local Boards of Health ,'ay enter into an agreement with the Commissioner of Health to take over .11 or part of the inspection, reporting, and enforcement duties rela.ed to permitting, construction, repair, and sealing of wells. 3. Environmental Bore Hole-; Only licensed well contiactors or monitoring well contractors may construct, repair or seal environmental bore holes. These are defined as: ... a hole or excavation in the ground that enters or goes through a waterbearing layer and is used to monitor or measure physical, chemical, radiological, or biological parameters without extracting water. An environmental bore hole also includes bore holes constructed for vapor recovery or venting systems. An environmental bore hole does not include a well, elevator shaft, exploratory boring, or monitoring well. 4. Variance FeesEFFECT OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE GROUNDWATER PROTECTION ACT MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 1031 ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTWELLS AND BORINGSOF WELLS AND BORINGS:a1 well programs without deleoation aoreeinent«_il unit of flovernment may not regulate the permitting, construction, r, or sealing of wells or elevator shafts unless there is a ition agreement with the Conniissioner of Health. This includes sring, water, dewatering, remedial, and irrigation wells.it ion Boards of Health ’lay enter into an agreement with the Commissioner ilth to take over j11 or part of the inspection, reporting, and rement duties related to permitting, cjnstruction, repair, and ig of wells. inmental Bore Holes licensed well contractors or monitoring well contractors may 'uct, repair or seal environmental bore holes. These are defined . . a hole or excavation in the ground that enters or goes through waterbearino layer and is used to monitor or measure physical,^ lemical, radiological, or biological parameters without extracting Iter. An environmental bore hole also includes bore holes instructed for vapor recovery or venting systems. An environmental ire hole does not include a well, elevator shaft, exploratory iring, or monitoring well. A $150 fee is required for a variance request not related to construction of a well or boring. Variances from minimum isolation distances between wells and contamination sources, hazards, surface water and property lines are included in this category. Construction-related variances require a $50 fee for:A) Wells with a pump capacity less than 50 gallons per minute.B) Monitoring wells.C) Dewatering wells.Construction-related variances require a $100 fee for wells with a pump capacity of 50 gallons per minute or more. All variance fees are nonrefundable.5. Isolation DistancesActual or potential sources of contamination may not be placed any closer to a well than the isolation distances prescribed by the Commissioner in rule unless a variance has been requested and approved.6. Construction Permits and Notifications Effective January 1. 1990. the State will require permits or notifications for all well construction. Unless a local Health Board has a delegation agreement with the Commissioner of Health, the State permit and notification preempt any local permit or notification (Minnesota Statutes, Section 1031.205, Subdivision 1(c). A) Water Wells Prior to construction of a water well, the property owner must notify the Minnesota Department of Health in writing and pay a $50 fee for wells with a pump capacity of less than 50 gallons per minute, or a $100 fee for wells with a pump capacity of greater than or equal to 50 gallons per minute. Monitoring Wells and Oewaterino Wells Monitoring Well—A $50 fee must be paid for each monitoring well constructed except for monitoring wells at motor fuel outlets or bulk storage site, where the fee is $50 per site. Dewatering Well—A $50 fee must be paid for each dewatering well except that dewatering projects with more than 10 wells require a $500 permit fee. nee Fees0 fee is required for a j'5]JJJi‘jsolatiordistan«s*betv.een«11 or boring. Variances Vf™ "J'^J^flce water and property Tre “"SdeSll ?bi! «"gory. Construction-reiated variances re a $50 fee for:*ns with a pusq, capacity less than 50 gallons per minute.lonitoring wells, lewatering wells.InforM JtnonrSe""L«o;™?e!'°All^^•fundable.at inn nistancei it/e .lanuarv ^ —Unless a^local Health Board has rations fo^ all of Health, the State permit tgation al^emit or notification (MinnesotaItif i cat ion preempt any 1 oca _ e^i t u •es Section 1031.205, Subdivision Uc). ter Wells, ior to construction of " “i^wH^^ah5W 'e Minnesota Department of Healt gallons per minute, or a JJ%:r?o? SSTSs';?rh’‘a''p°u;’ra;a^5t; greater ?han or equal to gallons per minute. .itnrinn wells newaterino Weill .atering VIell-A $50 fee must [;*j24°thI “V«lirrequ “e’a cept that dewatering projects with more tnan 00 permit fee. C) firoundwater Thermal Exchange Devices and Vertical Heat Exchangers Require a $50 permit fee.D) After July 1, 1990, A $50 permit fee is required for an excavation for an elevator shaftsMaintenance PermitsAnnual maintenance permits are required for all inoperable wells that are not sealed. A $50 annual fee is required.Annual maintenance permits are requ d for monitoring wells constructed after January 1, 1990. If a monitbf mg well is not sealed within fourteen months after construction, a maintenance permit is required and a $50 fee must be paid. For monitoring wells at motor fuel outlets and petroleum bulk storage sites, the permit fee is $50 per site.Annual maintenance permits are required jjells constr^after January 1, 1990. If a dewatering well is not sealed within 14 months after construction, a maintenance permit is required and a $25 fee must be paid. For dewatering well projects of more than 10 wells, the permit fee is $250 per site. LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS EXEMPT FROM ALL PERMIT, NOTIFICATION, AND VARIANCE FEES BUT MUST COMPLY WITH THE PERMIT AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. 8. Well Sealing A well owner is responsible for having an unused well sealed by a licensed contractor. If a well poses a public health hazard, the Commissioner may order the iell ^0 be^ealed.^ Failure of an owner to seal a well may result in the Commissioner having the well sealed and assessing the cost to the property owner. Counties may declare a well a public health nuisance and have it sealed and assess the cost to the property owner. A cost-share program with limited funds, administered by the './oard tf Water and Soil Resources, provides funds for selected counties to pa.' up to 75% of the cost of sealing a well not to exceed $2,000. 9. County Well Certificate Counties must issue sealed well certificates prescribed by th- Conmiissioner of Health for all wells that are sealed. ) Groundwater Thermal Exchange Devices and Vert-tcAl Heat Exchangers Require a $50 permit fee.) After July 1, 1990, A $50 permit fee is required for an excavation for an elevator shaft.iintenance Permitsinual maintenance permits are required for all inoperable wells that are )t sealed. A $50 annual fee is required.inual maintenance permits are reqL 'd for monitoring wells constructed 'ter January 1, 1990. If a monitoi mg well is not sealed within lurteen months after construction, a maintenance permit is required and $50 fee must be paid. For monitoring wells at motor fuel retail itlets and petroleum bulk storage sites, the permit fee is $50 per site.nual maintenance permits are required for dewatering wells constructed ter January 1, 1990. If a dewatering well is not sealed within months after construction, a maintenance permit is required and a 5 fee must be paid. For dewatering well projects of more than wells, the permit fee is $250 per site. CAL GOVERNMENT IS EXEMPT FROM ALL PERMIT, NOTIFICATION, AND VARIANCE ES BUT MUST COMPLY WITH THE PERMIT AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. 11 Sealing *ell owner is responsible for having an unused well sealed by a :ensed contractor. a well poses a public health hazard, the Commissioner may order the 1 to be sealed. Failure of an owner to seal a well may result in the miissioner having the well sealed and assessing the cost to the iperty owner. nties may declare a well a public health nuisance and have it sealed assess the cost to the property owner. ost-share program with limited funds, administered by the joard tf er and Soil Resources, provides funds for selected countie, to pay up 75% of the cost of sealing a well not to exceed $2,000. ntv Well Certificate fities must issue sealed well certificates prescribed by t^e nissioner of Health for all wells that are sealed. • • •10. Disclosure of Wells on Property at Time of Property TransferBeginning July 1, 1990, at the time of property sale or transfer, all wells on the property must be disclosed to the buyer, and a certificate must be filed with the county recorder. The certificate is forwarded to the Commissioner of Health.11. EnforcementA) County sheriffs may impound the equipment of a well contractor working without a license or registration after a Commissioner of Health's order has been issued.B) Along with the current enforcement authorities of license or registration revocation and criminal prosecution as a gross misdemeanor through the county court system, the law allows the Commissioner of Health to levy fines dgainsc both property owners anu persons licensed or registered.The Commissioner may levy fines of $500 for violations of the law or rules relating to:1) Improper well location with respect to isolation distances. 2) Improper construction techniques or materials. 3) Improper sealing. 4) Improper grouting materials and methods. The Commissioner may levy fines of $250 against contractors who fail to: 1) Obtain required plan review approval. 2) Obtain a permit or file a proper notification before well construction. 3) Register a drilling rig or pump rig, or fail to display a State decal and registration number. 4) Properly disinfect wells. 5) Submit well construction or sealing reports and water samples to the Commissioner. The Commissioner may levy fines of $250 against persons who fail to: 1) Disclose information about wells at the time of property transfer or sale. 2) Provide accurate and correct information on the well certificate.3) File proper notifications.4) Have a wtll properly sealed.Wellhead ProtectionThe law requires the development of rules concerning the protection of surface and subsurface areas supplying water to public water wells. Protective measures will involve State, County and other localgovernments.LicgnsinoA) License categoriesA licensed well contractor may construct, repair, and seal any well including monitoring wells, unconventional wells, excavations for elevator shafts and environmental bore holes.A licensed limited well contractor may 1) install, repair, or seal any unconventional well such as a dewatering well, dug well, or drive-point well; 2) repair the well casing or screen on any well; 3) seal any well; or 4) install a well pump or pumping equipment in any well. A registered mt ring well contractor may construct, repair, or seal monitoring ;ls and environmental bore holes. A licensed elevator shaft contractor or a licensed well contractor may construct, repair, or seal excavations for elevator shafts. An exploratory borer may construct and seal exploratory borings. B) Local units of government may not license or registered w®]] contractors, limited well contractors, monitoring well contractors, elevator shaft contractors, or exploratory borers. Licensing and ri»ni«ttration is a State requirement. C) A State license or registration bond is required contractors, limited well contractors, monitoring well ff^actor., and elevator shaft contractors. The bond preempts logal license bonds (Minnesota Laws, Chapter 1031). 0) Effective July 1, 1990, four categories of limited well contractor licenses are required for; Have a w* II properly sealed.ahead?3w rcQuir&s tha ^'Si;£^'»'iSSS;S^^ -^nST'nnLicense categoriesany uncon vent foijj? install') '.i?iv^''i-"i “e‘^Tc!sinS '4«n,''egfstered m ..• >al monitoring I’ls'^and^i^ contractor may constnir-c environmental bo?e holes O'* y 'S«'t'''renr- «"tr«tor or a H. ' ■ --«<o"sV.T|?^a1oV ‘ may construct ;»r,w . censed elevator y construct, repai ^ ' V. «a, excavations fnraT- *"f" cuntrac exploratory borer mav r„ *X uorer may construct and s-*i - , units of government m» oratory borings. ^UlaU^J_aiuSii^»'-«ory for «„ I (Hfno«o,a «togor.« Of •• • •Installation, repair, and sealing of unconventional wells such as dewatering wells, dug wells, and drive-point wells.Repair of well screens or well casings.Well sealing.Well pump installation or repair.Under the old well law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 156A, a limited license was granted for well repair and installation of unconventional wells. These licenses are still recognized.Effective July 1, 1990, a license is required for elevator shaft contractors to excavate holes for the installatioi; of elevator shafts and hydraulic cylinders for elevator shafts. j , of unconventional wells such asRepair of «.n screeoa or well casings.Hell sealing.pell pusip installation or rapair... statutes Chapter 156A, a limitedi'ective July 1. 19M, a ';c'nse ;5/f;,’;i1atior'J?“e“vaWr shafts CITYOFORONO CITY of ORONOPost Ofric« Box 66*Crysta] Bay, Minnesota 55323• MunidpaJ OfficesOn the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka December 21, 1989Raymond W. ThronDirector, Division of Environmental HealthMinnesota Department of Health717 Delaware Street SoutheastP.O. B' 'i. T441Minni ’.is, MN 55440Re; Article 3, 1989 Ground Water Protection Legislation Dear Mr. Thron; Having received your memorandum regarding local regulation of wells and borings, I am greatly concerned that after January a ^ S *T 1 \T T* O ^ o ^^ ^ ^ # CITY of ORONOPost Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal OfficesOn the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka December 21, 1989W. Thron, Division of Environmental Health a Department of Health ware Street Southeast T441 lis, MN 55440 icle 3, 1989 Ground Water Protection Legislation Thron: ing received your memorandum regarding local regulation and borings, I am greatly concerned that after January the City of Orono will have a drastically reduced to control and monitor well drilling activity. We view a potential threat to effective land use management in • rently, the City of Orono require? permits for water well tion and abandonment. Permits are issued only to state 1 well drillers. The City requires a predrilling site Dn to verify with the driller that isolation distances and more critically, that wells v.'ill be located so as to ct development on adjacent vacant lots by conflicting roved sewage treatment system sites. City requires drillers to call in for a test pump on, although actual test pump inspections are often f the inspector is not available within the time frame d. The City has required since 1978 that the driller copy of the State Water Well Record to the City upon .on of each well. Approximately 80 wells per year are within the City of Orono, virtually all being private Lai wells. rural areas within the City of Orono are developing at a Lnimum lot size density with wells and septic systems. Ltical that in order for such a development plan to work ely, well and septic system location a? •' construction :losely monitored. C-473-7357 ADMINISTRATION & FINANCT - 473-7358 FA\-473-U510 PI BLIC WORKS - 473-7359 Raymond W. Thron, Director Division of Environmental Health Re: Article 3, 1989 Ground Water Protection LegislationDecember 21, 1989 Page 2 of 3Until a delegation agreement between the City of Orono and the Health Department can be effectuated, I have serious doubts about the ability of the Health Depai ‘tment's very minimal inspection staff to provide the level of well location regulation historically provided to the residents of Orono by City staff. Eliminating our permitting authority will greatly diminish our ability to require that well drillers verify with the City the appropriateness of a specific well location.I would also make the following comments and raise the following issues regarding the new requirements:1. If a local government may not regulate wells, can the local government still require more strict isolation distances than required by State Code? 2. Regarding the new permit process, the wording in your memo item 6a suggests that it is the p'-operty owner's responsibility to "notify" the Health Department prior to construction of a well. Item 11 then goes on to provide the ability to lovy fines ugainst contractors who don't follow the proper notification. What is the new process for obtaining well permits? Who is responsible for obtaining a permit, the property owner or the well driller? 3. Since after January 1st the City can no longer issue permits for wells, does the City still have the ability to require well drillers to obtain City approval for a specific well location? If not, it is highly likely that some wells will be placed in inappropriate locations. In a worst case scenario, if a well is placed on Lot A in a location where the isolation radius encroaches into the only feasible sewage treatment system sites on Lot B, Lot B could become unbuildable. Two acre rolling wooded lots in Orono are currently selling in the range of $100,000 to $200,000 per lot. In many cases, these lots have a limited area usable for sewage treatment systems, and elimination of the ability to use those areas would have serious financial consequences. Such nightmares are most easily avoidable when local government regulates where wells are being drilled. Can the City at least continue to regulate well locations, if not construction, under the new requirements? ironmental Health on Legislationthe City of Orono and I have serious doubts rtment's very minimal 11 location regulation f Orono by City staff. . greatly diminish our rify with the City the n.jmments and raise the lents:gulate wells, can the ore strict isolation1, the wording in your the i.’-operty owner's h Department prior to goes on to provide the :tors who don't follow the new process for risible for obtaining a driller? ^ can no longer issue 1 have the ability to pproval for a specific ikely that some wells •ons. s placed on Lot A in a croaches into the only on Lot B, Lot B could wooded lots in Orono f $100,000 to $200,000 have a limited area ind elimination of the ve serious financial voidable when local eing drilled. Can the ill locations, if not ts? Raymond W. Thron, Director Division of Environmental Health Re: Article 3, 1989 Ground Water Protection LegislationDecember 21, 1989 Page 3 of 3If the possibility exists that the City of Orono can enter into a delegation agreement with the Health Department, please advise immediately. For the City of Orono, loss of well regulation ability may have serious consequences.Sincerely,Michael P. Gaffroxt,Asst Planning & Zoning AdministratorMPG/jbcc: Gary L. Englund, Chief, Section of Water Supply & Eng., MNDept of HealthJames Nye, Ground Water Quality Control Unit, MN Dept of Health Roger Carlson, Hennepin County Environmental Health Services i.S893 liegislationOrono can enter"mediately. For thrcTtv ^ department, please ability may have serious cLlequenl«.' ’'®1^• CJ®Pt of Health?«isor“L"„”“S jty^contr^S 12.50SEC. 12.50. WATER WELL CONSTRaCTION; WELL ABANDONMENT.Subd. 1. Water Well Construction Code Adopted. The Water Well Construction Code, 7 MCAR, Sec. 1.217-1.230, adopted by the Minnesota Department of Health is hereby adopted by reference as though set forth verbatim herein. One copy of said Code shall be marked CITY OF ORONO - OFFICIAL COPY and kept on file in the office of the Building Official and open to inspection and use by the public. It is unlawful to construct any private water well except in accordance with said Code.Subd. 2. Wall Abandonment. When a replacement well is constructed or when a building is connected to the City water system, any existing well, the use of which is not intended to continue, shall be properly abandoned in accordance with the requirements of the Water Well Construction Code. It is unlawful to abandon a well without first obtaining a separate permit for each well abandonment. The abandonment shall be performed by a licensed water well contractor. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (Sections 12.51 through 12.98, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) 506 (4-1-84) s 12.50WATER WEI.. COHS.ROCTION, ABAHDOHME-T.Subd 1. Water Well Well construction Cod^ 7 "he^by adopted W r/ferencenesota Department of Health is hereoy Code shallC^'tY °O fV on S^-'OFpfc^AL COPY ^and^k ept^on^ fileaccordance with said Code.c i-.<i 2 Well Abandonment. Ci ty water»d water well contractor.Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 V, 19 qa inclusive, reserved for future Sections 12.51 through 12.98, ion.) 0 CC 506 (4-1-84) li ^-"3IIUH-I la tiIf^ c c35 ia nu.iJ.a3 «-3 •S a. I Is a 9 9 ; ;s Es- t'l S 6 a.^ 5 E C b MSEC ;j£ 1-5-5 • ha • a i O 3 32^ 5 " i -5 - 3 -a •• la i:i 2l -• $ » s i \l— e «3 a.51 5s 1 “U g mvMiiiriiJi si-e. aiRo gilll•o C51 Sr r S w C 5 - 3 2c o i I » s_a -- .5 ^ ^ 3 1 ISzl I 1? Um1 5 ? I A•*«3a IIa ;3' MH5s§4!K5 « »s “ e “§=§l—§88833 111 s I-1 - s»5 Jt s 5 ^ r c 5 £ 9-• 5 !l slsll mi ^ ^ Vhis|* a i I ii i 5o «*5 S S 5 s “ I"*:® i T llSf 8 - C“sS j-s f r-ji’i*- s S8 2 =I is I i * I SI 5 •HI"'PiW-Wri|i •8 2 a & ** i IS 5838 « i II 1111 - » St “ -a i9 w ^ It .l;t iiEltli*• e « 2 ** • ••8 ? a S . 1 s r — ^ S Sg- rt«nrt |ss§ 3 mu S ^s a^s ll^J 1 ii:i11^ f lit |SLa 111 hm11 iUhs m niiii— •* olill ns sflfi^-I si li-^lif slb^f IL ^ ®IlsS ihI i^I? "? r e V M• iJmc ’m lb .9 3 X Ia« Mc 5-1 ‘“S 1al5?;i— :s >• s5 ili•ill k. a. or-51 --os; i^sc iM 111 « ve e 6 a t f - - I1111^5^ ■* - • “ 3 3-s|sll 111 f ^ «» _ » In ^2 S “ It *iS S "» S'"? 5»--a2»2s'c ’* sssBaa;"-*-- J2 V w w w b WWW ^=iiiiiiii£5 wlili • • •l!s5j;iS555i i". . . s 03a c flS tjee bi A z z < OB z Sooa au 2;w wo c ;•^ - s.i w w w*:5 '• li j- a i|5 Jgl ^|3 1 ! Hia * i 5?^ !• 32j^ *?l.i — •§ w> ■^m a a Ce e 9 ea 5 w Cwa a >%a E i ? I ^ a «* a hh!B 5 C.9 Cog33-g. I IJII roo « 73 25-s-■2-=>S.s sills! S8« 3 e< S« m •» Ui Ui i I *5 J; 3ac e Z "a ac e X •5 1s i * * fi S 3 =w w I £•? a§S5 5ic a Ji •I a*® -Il5 3t.- ?: * l=i 1-2^■5 e iw IrII -S 5 z I3 aw ^ ^ w f<| W Swwawwww i-iialEsS 2 H 5 Sl» • 2: :s 11 0 a a a a a a I a il5?s »ils^ . .'S -5 £ » i!H•it • 2 Jill MU s 11 j i Ss ,iV-'zmii mil's f 11 II t 51 »i i«|i SS -gJIS5i hi £f iijjnr-i l|3l|l e a s ,• i h. 9 *< inlfii I-IS? 5i<?l^ 5 *i3 ■ * S= i S a »s 7 9p=5J II If ill h i : ^|ifl 8 a5||<||a|j* 8 ii£i:i ;ii; 2i iiii 1490.1 TO: FRCm Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato Jf\U 81990 np npn^‘n DATE: January 2, 1990 SUBJECT: Adjustments to 1989 Budget Attachments: A. Finance Director's Memo Forwarded recommending approval these budget amendments represent previous Council approvals in 1989 or carryovers from 1988. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , to approve as presented the adjustments to the 1989 GeneraT”Fund department budget. Such adjustments are funded by revenue budget adjustments in 1989 in the General Fund and from use of fund balance and result in an increase in the total 1989 budget of $2^401^890/ bringing the total to $5/122,550. Further to approve adjustments for the Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund and the Building Outlay Fund as presented with the increases to be financed by use of available revenues or fund balances as required. Ayes , Nays ««yor and cUy councilrr""-*^J-t.ones to i,„ 3ud,et*• Diractor-s Meled ^ Memo'5 Coun«r^'^'"9 approval th“ approval! budget a»enda,ente:= M0.10M - , ^?!o-i%||fbese„tthe fn^-t ‘'*°'^ed byand result *=^® General by re-ai^Si Ma7/“f tevtnre!'’ T. nd balances ” c>^'*'’« *tf%81990 nr> ,>''- t'Po^f)Mark E. Bernhardsonp City Administrator Tom Kuehn, Finance Director tDecember 3, 1989 SUBJECT: Adjustments to 1989 Adopted BudgetsGENERAL FUND CompensationWhen the 1989 budget was adopted provision was made in the General Fund Special Projects/Contingency Department to appropriate $18,940 for salary and retirement benefit adjustments in accordance with the adopted 1989 compensation plan. At this time there does not appear to be a need for aunendments to the personal services area as there are no significant differences between the adopted and the actual costs. In 1988 the City participated in a cost sharing with Hennepin County for projects on County Road 15 and Navarre street lighting. Within the City capital budget amounts were estimated for funding of the projects from special acressments, municipal state aid construction revenue and general revenues. As the PIR Fund provided initial funding for the street/storm sewer project a resolution establishing a repayment schedule from the General Fund portion will be presented when the final amounts are known. At this time it is requested that Council approve the second payment transfer of $30,000 from the General Fund to the PIR Fund (principal of $16,800 and interest (at 7%) of $13,200). There have been several unusual events during 1989 which require attention. - In February, 1989 Council approved a special additional $15,000 allocation to the L.M.C.D. for the eurasian milfoil program. - In August the Council approved a special extension of the assessment contract for September thru December 1989 while the City was in the process of finding a replacement, which results in an additional allocation requirement of $18,950. - At the end of 1988 the Street Department was under budget $50,930 in the street maintenance materials and supplies due primarily to street paving projects not done. During 1989 those projects and several other necessary pr^ijects were done and it is requested that the 1988 unexperded allocation of $50,930 be added to the 1989 ori (inal allocation. - During 1989 the City implemented the recycling program and a separate department was created within the General Fund to account for the expenses associated with this program. For 1989 there was not an appropriation or a revenue budget. The estimated 198'^ -'osts for the program are $37,850 and the estimated revenues for 1989 are $43,905. The revenues are from the Hennepin County recycling grant of $20,190 and from the annual $9.00 user fee implemented by Council which created $23,715. - During 1989 two special one time only transfers were authorized by Council resolutions in July which require budget adjustments. The first authorized transfer of the General Fund Emergency Contingency Account to the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund ($344,160.98). The second authorized transfer of $1,905,000.00 from the General Fund to the Building Capital Outlay Fund to help fund the facilities construction costs. Summary of General Fund budget adjustments. EXPENDITURES Lepar traent/Purpose Adopted Budget Amendment Amended Budget Authorized Council $ 52,450 $ 15,000 $ 67,450 2/13/89 Assessing 58,170 18,950 77,120 8/14/89 Streets 444,740 50,930 495,670 — Recycling -0-37,850 37,850 — — Special Projects Transfers To PIR - Co. Rd. 15 Street -0-30,000 30,000 mm M To PIR - Emergency Acct.-0-344,160 344,"60 7/24/89 To Bldg C.O. - Bldg Oonstr.-0-1,905,000 l,905,UO0 7/24/89 TCHAL General Fund $2,720,660 $2,401,890 $5,122,550 all Departments aS92S33SSBSS3 33333333S3 REVENUES County grant recycling $ -0-$ 20,190 $ 20,190 User fees - recycling -0-23,715 23,715 Use of fund balance 100,000 2,357,985 2,457,985 Total General Fund all Revenues SS3S3SSS3S $2,720,660 SS33333S33 $2,401,890 3333333333 $5,122,550 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS The Special Revenue Funds requiring budget adjustments are the Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund and the Building Outlay Fund. Budget amendments are as follows: IMP & EQUIP OUTLAY FUND ADOPTED REQUESTED AMENDED BUDGET AIIENDMENT BUDGET AUTHORIZED Capital Outlay 1989 Budget Computer equip — loan to P.D. Mailing machine TOTALS $112,530 -0- -0- $ -0- 5,140 5,410 $112,530 5,140 5,410 $lli,530 $10,550 $123,080 89 Budget 02/13/89 3/89 purch :3SBaSS 333333SS BUILDING OUTLAY FUND Space Study, Boarman & Assoc $-0-$ 9,750 33 333 $ 9,750 33333 08/24/87 Funding for the adjustments to the Special Revenue Funds is from the following: Imp & Equip Outlay Fund Mai • machine and police department computer equipment to _»lace obsolete or unservicable equipment financed fiom fund balance or revenues as required. Police department has budgeted reimbursement in 1990. Building Outlay Fund Space study financed from fund balance. The original contract amount approved in 1987 was $20,000. 9 -1290.3 ^^3 TOs PROH: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark Bernhardson, City Administratci|j^ January 2, 1990 \ SUBJECT: 1989 Interfund Transfers and Loan Payments Attachment: A. Finance Director's Memo Dated 12/31/89 COliNCU MEtliHG JAH 8 CITY OF i ISSUE Approval of end of the year transfers between funds. INTRODUCTION At the end of each year the Council is requested to formally transfer monies between funds. These transfers fall into two catagories; a. ) Budgeted Transfers - Items designated in that years budget when originally approved. These require formal fund transfer to implement. b. ) Fund Obligations - Loans and payments from one fund to another to reimburse expenses incurred by one fund on behalf of another. This is generally for City portions of special assessments. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt 2. Table for further information. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconoeu by _, that the inter fund operating transfers, loan payments and special assessments payments on City property be approved as proposed, effective Decenber 31, 1989. Ayes , Nays 1390.3 TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator mOH: Tom Kuehn# Finance Director DATS: December 31# 1989 SUBJECT: 1989 Inter fund Transfers anu Loan Payments Kt. An<3 of each vear it is necessary to transfer monies The necessary transactions for 1989 are listed below. FUNDS FROM AMOUNT General Imp & Equip Outlay $49,200.00 General , t General Bldg Cap Project $120,000.00 Permanent Improve $30,000.00 Revolving {PIR) sewer Operating 1966-76 Improvement $15,704.00 Bond Debt Service Water Operating Sewer Operating $ 3,420.00 General 1985 Imp Bond Debt Service $ 6,480.00 PURPOSE Annual operating transfer for capital equipment, new and replacement as budgeted Annual operating transfer for buildings replacement as budgeted Payment 2 of 10 for City share of costs of Co. Rc. 15 street improvement project. (Princ $16,800, int $13,200) Bal o/s 12/31/89 $172,000 Repayment of Metro Waste Control debt credits, final installment. Budgeted loan payment (princ $2,443, int $977 for water tower refurbishing - payment #fc' of 10 - balance o/c 12/31/89 $7,329 Budgeted payment, 4th installment of 15 for special assessments fo^ sanitary sewer on City owned property in Crystal Bay (princ $3,080, int $3,400). Balance o/r. 12/31/89 $33,855 FUNDS FROM AMOUNT PURPOSE Golf Operating General $ 4,840.00 Scheduled payment reimbursement for monier borrowed in Sept 1988 tc replace clubhouse roof Balance o/s 12/31/89 -0-. Golf Operating General $11,624.86 Scheduled reimbursement for monies borrowed tc fund golf course cast deficit in 1988. Balance o/s 12/31/89 -0-. Permanent Improve General Revolving (P.I.R.) $123,840.80 Scheduled reimbursement for monies borrowed tc fund temporarily a portion of the County Road 15 street construction in 1988. Balance o/s 12/31/89 -0-. Permanent Improve General Revolving (P.I.R.) $16,834.48 Transfer of 1989 special assessments collected tc repay monies borrowed for Co. Rd. 15 street light project. Balance o/s 12/31/89 $96,706.46. It is requested that the foregoing transfers, loan and special assessment payments be approved effective December 31, 1989. 1 1390.4 TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate DATE: January 3, 1990 SUBJECT: Public Use of Private Streets !WtST(;,'g 8 i99Q C>TV fiy f Attachment: A. Proposed Ordinance Amendment #_, Second Series ISSUE - Determination as to whether the Council desires to adopt an ordinance to expressly allow for public use of private streets. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's December Hr 1989, Council meeting Council directed staff to have an ordinance amendment drafted that would permit the public use of private streets and still allow for the private maintenance of those streets. The issue involved the Will application, but would have applicability to all the City's private streets. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Adopt. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Take no action. 4. Table. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the proposal be adopted as presented. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, to adopt Ordiance #_, Second Series regarding the public use of private roads as presented. cc: John R. Gerhardson, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator I OROIHANCE NO« AN OSSIMAMCB AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OP ORONO BT COMPELLING PRIVATE OWNERS TO ALLOW PUBLIC PASSAGE OH A PRIVATE ROAD THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OP ORONO ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 6.01, subdivision 2 of the Municipal Code of Orono is hereby amended by adding the addendum sentence described below: All private roads must be opened to all people who own homes on that road and their invitees and to all people who could reasonably be expected to use that road to get to their private residences and their invitees. Section 2. This ordinance shall be published in The Laker and The Pioneer and shall be effective upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of January, 1990. James R. Grabek, Mayor Attest: ZTJB80 Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk 1390.8 TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato January 3, 1990 COLiHClL MEfTIKG JA'I 8 '930 HiTV fir r.^rr^r^ SUBJECT: 1988 Financial Health Pro£ile/State of Minnesota Attachment: A. Financial Health Profile - 1988 - State Auditor Dated December 1989 ISSUE - Providing a profile to the Council. INTHODUCTION - For the past few years the State Auditor has compiled information from the city's financial report together with other information the State has available making comparisons with other cities. DISCUSSION - A cursory review of the profile indicates two items for correction. Number of Employees - We thought we had corrected this previously, but the number of employees is correctly: Full time - 36 Part time - 13 Police Costs - As noted in past years the figure in the City's costs for police protection includes that for the contract cities and gives the City a rather high per capita cost. The City's actual per capita cost is closer to $54 per capita rather than the $120 noted in the report. This compares with approximately the same in 1987. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept as presented. 2. Ask any questions. 3. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the report be accepted as presented. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that the Council accept the 1988 Financial Health Report as presented with the noted changes. Ayes __, Nays __. ARNE H. CARLSON STATE AUDITOR S tate of Minnesota OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR SUITE 400 525 PARK STREET SAINT PAUL 55103 296-2551 December 11, 1989 Hon. James Grabek, Mayor City of Orono 960 Forest Arm Lane Mound, Minnesota 55364 IEC26BS0 Dear Mayor Grabek: Enclosed are ten copies of your city's Financial Health Profile. These profiles review the revenues, expenditures and debt in each city over a five-year period and compare trends in each city with those in similar-size cities. We have made several changes to the profiles which we feel will be helpful to you. If you have any questions or comments, please give me a call. Warmest personal regards. Arne H. Carlson State Auditor AHC;mjb Enclosure Ni '^CAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER .# *" ®r mm%••••«•••*MinnesotaOFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR ARNE H. CARLSOlN A . STATE AUDITOR H ,--4! f. f -to.ft . ■ • . .V':: ./ % . ;>•'. ‘ A , i-iL: _.il5 ■ < .'•• i ■:• ■■ - . • ■ ■ ■t. i.-'t::S " f' ■ ■ '* .- ■>- % ■■ ■■■>■ i .:, . • ; ' •. ■y!>^-V''' <, v < ;>■ r»-- I The Office of the State Auditor is a Constitutional office which provides a post-audit function for local governmental units. The Office attests to the fairness of these financial statements as well as to their compliance with applicable laws and regulations. In general, the Office facilitates improved financial management practices within the State through its oversight programs and contributes to the ongoing economic education of public officials and taxpayers. The State Auditor has financial oversight for over 4400 local units of government. The local units of government include the following: ■ 1800 townships ■ 855 cities ■ 517 educational districts ■ 87 counties ■ 700 police and fire relief association funds ■ 150 housing and redevelopment authorities ■ 22 port authorities ■ 91 soil and water conservation districts ■ 144 (approximate) special districts The State auditor also maintains a data base of financial information on local governments. The data are collected by the Financial Health Program which assesses long-term trends for cities and counties. The State Auditor serves on the Stale ’s Executive Council, Land Exchange Board, Stale Investment Board, State Housing Finance Agency, Rural Finance Administration Board, and the Public Employees Retirement Association Board. } ] j mf ) 9 i9 > 4 FINANCIAL HEALTH PROFILE CITY OF ORONO Years Ended December 31 1984 through 1988 December, 1989 S tate of Minnesota OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR ”''E 400 STREET ?L 55103 ARNE H. CARLSON STATE AUDITOR 296-2551 I I - MINNESOTA FINANCIAL HEALTH PROGRAM - A Synopsis - The problems which create fiscal difficulties seldom emerge overnight; rather, they develop slowly, thus making potential difficulties less obvious.- Is Your City Heading For Financial Difficulty? Municipal Finance Officers Association, 1978 Cities and counties in Minnesota have faced a number of factors in the '80's which necessitated constant monitoring of their financial situations by elected officials and community residents. High inflation in the early '80's gave way to the lower Inflation of the past few years. Intergovernmental revenues for cities (funds from the federal, state and county governments) continue the decline that started in the early '80's. Federal revenue sharing was discon tinued in 1986. In addition to factors that Influence the state as a whole, regional influences have taken their toll. While the 7-county metro area, which includes Minneapolis and St. Paul, has remained strong, the mining- and farm-dependent areas are feeling the stress associated with declining market values, increasing unemployment and great- needs for welfare, health and social service programs. The Office of State Auditor designed the Minnesota Financial Health Program (MFHP) in 1980 to assist city and county government officials and community residents in monitoring statewide and regional fiscal stress influences. The MFHP then provides needed help in resolving financial problems. The IFHP currently Includes all 87 Minnesota counties and 180 cities with populations of 2,500 or more as of the 1980 census. These cities and counties prepare annual financial statements in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and use the Uniform Chart of Accounts, developed by the Office of State Auditor. There are, however, 188 cities with populations of less than 2,500 which, for the lart two years, have elected to prepare annual fir'^rial statements in accordance with GAAP. Ten of these cities have been added to the MHFP database in 1989. They are: Big Lake, Pine City, Rockford, Plainview, Delano, Melrose, St. Charles. Montgomery, Slayton and Cold Spring. Five major fiscal trends have been identified in this program. By analyzing key financial indicators for five-year periods, it is possible to establish trends and patterns. It is from these statistics that interpretations of each local unit's financial health can be determined. I AN EQUAL OPPORTUNm' EMPLOYER I The five major trends ano example Indicators measured by this program are:A. B. C. 0. E. 2. Economic Vitality 1. Population: Is there an Increase or decrease In population? Real estate: Is the taxable valuation of real estate growing too slowly? Retail sales: Does the growth or decline in the number of businesses and retail sales reflect an overall economic recession or an erosion of local economic vitality? Socval welfare: Is unemployment placing greater demands on health, welfare, and social service programs? 3. 4. Revenue Trends 1. Levy limit: Is the actual current levy rate at or approaching the legal levy limit? Earnings on investments: Is the percent of revenues derived from earnings on investments changing? Tax collection rate: Is the trend in property tax collection rates declining? Revenue/expenditure comparisons: Is there a consistent pattern of revenue shortfalls? 2. 3. 4. Expenditure Trends 1. Expenditures: Are the overall expenditures or expenditures by function in line with the current rate of inflation? Per capita expenditures: Are the municipal expenditures per capita growing at a faster rate than the change in population? Interest and fiscal charges: Is the cost for interest and fiscal charges escalating as a percent of total expenditures? 2. Future Solvency 1. Debt: Is future financial flexibility being lost due to a growinq debt burden? Bond rating; Is there a change in the bond rating? Debt service payments: Are debt service payments becoming ‘arger percentage of total revenues? Fund balance: Is there a decline in the general fund balance? 2. 3. 4. 2. Management Practices 1. Auditor's opinion: Is there a consistent failure to obtain an unqualified opinion on financial statements from independent auditors? Municipal employees: Is the number of municipal employees consistent with current population trends? Fringe benefits: Will growth in fringe benefits and employer-paid contributions place undue demands on future revenues? Municipal enterprises: Are the municipal enterprises incurring unplanned for losses or gains? 3. 4. The MFHP was developed as an Index of economic indicators to help elected municipal officials determine fiscal trends. Identifying a negative trend does not automatically spell fiscal decay. Rather, the answers to these and other questions tell muni- ities whether or not a sound fiscal course lies ahead. 9/89 I 11 1 1 , I t * ! PI M MINNESOTA FINANCIAL HEALTH HROi'ILE 1984 THROUGH 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS '•I Page m M M M Graphs Governmental Revenues Governmental Current Expenditures Indicated Market Value Net Property Taxes Collected Profile Indicator 1: Indicator 2: Indicator 3: Indicator 4: Indicator 5: Indicator 6: Indicator 7: Indicator 8: Indicator 9: Indicator 10: Indicator 11: Indicator 12: Indicator 13: Indicator 14: Indicator 15: Indicator 16: Indicator 17: Indicator 18: Indicator 19: Indicator 20: Indicator 21: Indicator 22: Indicator 23: Change in Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Change in Property Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trend in Building Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trend in Retail Sales Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . Trend in Mandated County Welfare Services . . . . . Trend in Consumer Price Index . . . . . . . . . . . . Trend in Revenue Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Change in Property Tax Levy . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trend in Property Tax Collection . . . . . . . . . . . Trend in Earnings on Investments (Governmental Funds). Trend in Expenditures by Function . . . . . . . . . . Trend in Expenditures by Function (Per Capita' . . . . Budget to Actual Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Budget to Actual Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . Trend in Outstanding Bonded Indebtedness . . . . . . Current or Change in Bond Rating . . . . . . . . . . . Trend in Current Debt Service Costs (Governmental Funds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trend in Governmental Fund Liabilities . . . . . . Change in Fund Balances (Unreserved, Undesignated) . . Opinion on Financial Statements . . . . . . . . . . . Trend in Number of Employees Compared to Population (Governmental Funds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trend in Compensation and Employer Paid Fringe Benefits (Governmenta' jnds) ................................... Profit or Loss in Entr ses ...................................... Data Base Content of Indicators for Financial Health Profiles Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendices Statewide and Seminar Analysis Analysis by Class of City Regional Map and Analysis of Selected Indicators 1-1 1-1 1-2 1-2 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-2 2-2 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-4 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-7 2-8 2-8 2-8 2-8 2-9 2-9 2-10 2-10 2-10 3-1 4- 1 5- 1 6- 1 14 ORONO Revenues Millions iiiiini Local Qovarnment Aid [ 1 Ail Othar RevenufS Other Intergov. Rev. ORONO Expenditures Thousands j General Government JS Fire ■I Police ^ Str««t « Highway* 1 - 1 ir ORONO Indicated Market Value $600 Millions ORONO Net Property Taxes Collected $1.4 SI.2 S1.0 SC.8 $0.6 $0.4 $0.2 $0.0 Millions rn Hi!’:! i ► ■* 1984 1905 1906 Year 1987 1988 L_ 1 - 2 n L I S' i i [ 1 CITY: ORONO COUNTY: HENNEPIN MINNESOTA FINANCIAL HEALTH PROGRAM OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR (612) 296-2551 ■■ECONOMIC VITALITY -1. INDICATOR:CHANGE IN POPULATION 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 -Population 6,820 7,020 7.172 7.212 7,284 Percent Change 0.0%2.9%2.2%0.6%1.0X Niinber of Households 2,349 2,462 2,540 2,568 2,629 : Percent Chary*o.ox 4.8X 3.2%1.1X 2.4X Hm 2. INDICATOR:CHANGE IN PROPERTY VALUES 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 __ Indicated Market Value % 408,921,088 1 444.024,716 %442,633,681 S 449.695.073 S 516,884,643 -Percent Change •2.1%8.6%-0.3%1.6%14.9% -Assessed Valuation % 95,064,821 i 101.745,272 %100,331,833 %102.970.459 S 106.617.932 -Percent Change 5.n 7.OX -1.4%2.6%3.5% ••Taa Increment District Captured Assessed Valuation % 0 s 0 $0 %0 %0 Percent Change a a a a a a a a • a a •• • • •• a a a —Sales Ratio 0.883 0.870 0.880 0.896 0.834 3. INDICATOR:TREND IN BUILDING PERMITS - 1984 1985 1986 wt?f 1988 Value of Buildir>g Permits * 13,625,wo S 15,826,755 S 14.145.515 S 22,380,545 %19.756.357 Percent Char>ge 39.8X 16.2%•10.6%58.2%-11.7% - Nijnber of Building Permits Issued 335 322 354 371 353 Percent Change 32.9X NOTE: Asterisks (••.•••.•X) on any page •3.9X 9.9X Indicate that a percentage change was 4.8X -4.9X too large to be nieaningful. 11/08/89 METRO AVERAGE 5 YEAR 5 YEAR X change X chance 1.0X 6.8X 6.9% 2.4% 11.9% 10.5% METRO AVERAGE 5 YEAR 5 YEAR X change % CHANGE U.9X 26.4X 21.IX 3.5X 12.2% 25.2X 142.4X METRO AVERAGE 5 YEAR 5 YEAR % CHANGE X change 5.4X 2 - 1 omCE OP THE STATE AUDITOR CITY: ORONO ECONOMIC VITALITY 4. INDICATOR: TREND IN RETAIL SALES ACTIVITY NETRO AVERAGE 5 YEAR 5 YEAR 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 % CHANGE Gross Retail Sales Percent Change S 6,523*427 • • • • 1 3.658,342 • • • • % 1,113,581 -69.6% 1 1,190,707 1 6.9% NA • • • •a a a a HvjBber of Eusi nesses Percent Change 11 13 -8.3% 18.2% 12 -*^.7% 10 •16.7% NA • a • •a a a a 5. INDICATOR:TREND IN MANDATED COUNTY WELFARE SERVICES COURTY WELFARE COSTS -1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 5 YEAR % change total • Federal 1209.445,528 1221,917.934 1234,386,255 1240,078.447 1 NA • State 200,8v^.. 608 219.029.231 213,322,113 211,552,068 iliA • County 87.626,536 105,106,710 120,501,456 124,642,946 NA - Other 9.274.936 9.423.949 26.973.441 33.291.118 NA TOTAL WELFARE COSTS 507.241.608 555,477,824 595,183,265 609.564.579 NA a a a a Total County Welfare per capita 1 535.19 1 578.26 1 615.21 1 625.40 1 a a • a a a a a Number of AFOC Recipients in County 36,965 37.883 «0,226 42.288 43.448 17.5% AFDC Recipients as a Percent of County Population 3.9%3.9%4.2%4.3%4.4% Unemployment Rate in County •• 4.4%4.1%3.9%M%3.2% ^ I METRO AVERAGE 5 YEAR r 1988 STATEWIDE RATE 4.OX 6. INDICATOR: TREND IN CONSUMER PRICE INDEX 1984 _ _ _1985 1986 1987 1988 5 YEAR X change Mpls-St. Paul CPI X Change ••• 3.6%3.8%1.3%3.0%5.0% 13.7% Rotes: [•) Source: State Department of Mtiran Services. Welfare costs include both state and cojnty payments. The 1988 data is currently unavailable. [**] Source: State Department of Jobs and Training. [•••] Source: U.S. Department of Labor, All Urban Consuners • (CPI-U) 1982*84 « 100. 2 • 2 OFFICE OP THE STATE AUDITOR CITY; OROKO REVENUE TRENDS 11/08789 7. INDICATOR: TREND IN REVENUE SOURCES GOVCRNMEIITAL FUiO)S REVENUES Intergovernmental Revenue* 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 AMOUNT AMCXiNT AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT Federal - Revenue Sharing S 29,099 1.1X S 29.807 0.8% S 19,219 0.6%$522 0.0% $0 0.0% • COBG Federal - All Other State * Local Gov't Aid - Homestead Credit ’ Taconite Aids - Highway • All Other County $ 17,921 0.7% S 125 0.0%$ 99,328 2.8%$ 6,188 0.2%$ 4,734 0.1% $ 9.242 0.4%$ 6.135 0.2% S 4.622 0.1%$ 10.227 0.3%$ 3.425 O.U Local Total Intergovernmental Revenues IiAes Special Assessments Franchise Taxes Sales i Hotel/Motel Taxes Licenses and Permits Charges for Services Fines and Forfeits Miscellaneous Revenues Interest Earnings All Other Revenues Total Revenues Total Revenues Per Capita Annual Percentage Change Per Capita -4.9% 155,876 6.1%165,119 4.6%165,126 4.A 164,904 5.1%164,902 142.658 S.6X 131,206 3.7%143.964 4.1%169,996 5.3%164.359 0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 69,462 2.7%199,955 5.6%172,044 4.9%126,747 3.9%80,301 36.672 1.4%40.055 1.1%44.436 1.3%58,609 1.8%70,611 0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%3.100 460.930 17.9%572.402 16.0%648.739 ic.6%537,193 16.6%491.432 932,760 36.3%892,479 25.0%988.711 28.3%1,106.613 34.3%1.172.795 154,359 6.0%1.037.255 29.0%671.947 19.2%378.567 11. A 332.163 0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 102,958 4.0%102.811 2.9%102.533 2.9%136,420 4.A 124,334 438,643 17.1%473.850 13.3%605,002 17.3%594,424 18.4%643,151 46.400 1.8%61,611 1.7%84.877 2.4%102.058 3.2%140.657 388.373 15.1%383,729 10.A 351.447 10.1%330.093 10.2%370,387 45JB5 1.8%47.757 1.3%39.678 1.1%43.274 1.3%51.881 2,S69,60e K^rsssssssz 100.0% ssssss 3,571.894 •ssssssssss 100.0% ssssss 3,492.934 S3SSSZSSSS8 100.0% SSSSSS 3,228.642 3 ssssssssss 100.ox 3,526,800 ssssss 8SSBSSSSS8S $ 376.78 $ 508.82 S 487.02 i 447.68 $ 456.73 0 0.0% 2.4% 2.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 35.0% 2 • 3 4.3%8.1%2.0% I i ^TE AUDITOR pbvekue trendsSND IN REVENUE SOURCES19841985 1986 1987 1988AMOUNTAMOUNTAMOUNTAMOUNTAMOUNT _JLS%29,099 1 ,u $29,807 O.OX *19,219 0.6X *522 O.OX »0 O.OX17,921 C).7t t 125 O.OX %99,328 2.8X $6,188 0.2X %4,734 0.1X9,242 0.4X »6,135 0.2X t 4,622 0.1XS 10,227 0.3X $3,425 0.1X 155,876 I6.IX 165,119 4.6X 165,126 4.7X 164,904 5.IX 164,902 5.OX 142,658 5.6%131,206 3.7X 143,964 4.IX 169,996 5.3X 164,359 4.9X 0 0.0%0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 69,462 2.7%199,955 5.6X 172,044 4.9X 126,747 3.9X 80,301 2.4X 36,672 1.4%40,055 1.1X 44,436 1.3X 58,609 1.8X 70,611 2.IX 0 o.ox 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX oooA Q OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 3.100 0.1X 0 460,930 o.ox 17,9X U» U • 572,402 16.OX 648,739 16.6X 537,193 16.6X 491,432 14.8X 932,760 36.3X 892,479 25.OX 988,711 28.3X 1,106,613 34.3X 1,172,795 35.3X 154,359 6.0X 1,037,255 29.0X 671,947 19.2X 378,567 11.7X 332,163 10.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 o.ox 102,958 4.OX 102,811 2.9X 102,533 2.9X 136,420 4.2X 124,334 3.7X 438,643 17.IX 473,850 13.3X 605,002 17.3X 594,424 18.4X 643,151 19.iX 46,400 1.8X 61,611 1.7X 84,877 2.4X 102,058 3.2X 140,657 4.2X 388,373 15.IX 383,729 10.7X 351,447 10.IX 330,093 10.2X 370,387 11.IX 45 185 1.8X 47,757 —1^3% 39,678 1.U A3.274 jJX ------ILm ...................................... % 447.68 ' 456.73 S 376.78 CapUa •4.9X S 508.82 35. OX 2 - 3 % 487.02 -4.3X •8.1%2.OX OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR 1 Ithe state auditor OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR CITY: ORONOt %and mit CHANGE IN PROPERTY TAX LEVY198419851986 1987 lOflA 5 YEAR1,021,426 1.001,044 1,089,557 1,206,520 1 TOO1,263,426% CHANGE23.7%46,02?IS 7>40 ISC1,067,448 1,001,059 1,089,634 1,246,674 30,1361,293,562 •34.5421.2%i 444,025 t 375.744 t 462.254 s 555 ITS S ODO mot1,511,471 1,376,803 1.551,888sss2=s=ssrrr=r 1,579.849*SS*SSSSS2—• coy-0i91,582,581sssrsrss •34.9%16.OX -8,9X 12.7X 1.8%0.2X 4.7% 1,050,109 1.155.992 1,288,746 1,389,395 1,263,426 15.9% 93.7X 86.6X 84.5X 86.8%100.OX 18,248 22,927 20,311 26,218 34,255 87.7% CITY: ORONO11/08/89METROAVERAGE R: TREND IN PROPERTY TAX COLLECTION - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1985 1986 1987 1988 I I I I I I 1 3 9i.9X 96.7X 97.4X 97.7X 97.2* n >R: TREND IN EARNINGS ON INVESTMENTS (GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS) ‘•stmeNTS 1984 1985 19C5 1987 1988 388.373 $ 24.4X MET80 AVERAGE 5 year 5 YEAR X CHARGE X change Percent 383,729 S ‘ U2X 10.7X 351,447 $ -8.4% 330,093 S -6.1% 370,387 12.2X -4.6X 30.9X 11.IX •A levy includes the fiscal disparities levy. EXPENDITURE TRENDS 11/08/8911. INDICATOR: TREND IN EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTIONGOVlRN»€liTAL FUHOS CURRENT EXPENDITURESGeneral GovernroentPoliceFireStreets I Highways Refuse t Sanitation Culture and Recreation Urban Reaevelopment I Housing Interest and Fiscal Charges Miscellaneous Expenditures Total Current Expenditures Per Capita Annual Percentage Change Per Capita SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES Total Current Expenditures Total Capital Outlay Debt Service Fund Principal Total Expenditures Total Expenditures Per Capita Annual Percentage Change Per Capita 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988AMOUNT%AMOUNT %AMOUNT %AMOUNT %AMOUNT X% 459,955 23.1%$ 409,659 20.9% $ 458,631 19.1% $535,558 22.0%$ 589.137 23.8%610,885 30.7%652,587 33.2%766,042 31.9%815,482 33.5%878,833 35.5%119,035 6.0%131,569 6.A 142,436 5.9%146.531 6.0%142,350 5.8%360,053 18.1%306,479 15.6%461,855 19.2%385,422 15.8%344,407 13.9%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%C 0.0%37,865 1.9%38,967 2.0%44,817 1.9%61,720 2.5%a. 585 1.8%0 O.OX 0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0% 209,446 10.5%219,050 n.2%223,450 9.3%193,773 8.0%167,595 6.8% 191.860 9.6%205.351 10.5%307.638 12.8%297.900 12.2%306.166 12.4% 1,989,099 SS8SCSSSZSS 100.0% ssssss 1.963,662 SSSSSSSS3S3 100.0% SSSSSS 2,404,869 sssssssssss 100.ox 2,436,386 ssssss sssssssssss 100.0% ssssss 2,473,078 sssssssssss 100.0% ssssss % 291.66 S 279.72 s 335.31 $ 337.82 % 339.52 8.9%1 •4.1%19.9%O.A 0.5% 1,989,09988.1%1,963,66266.8%2,404,86982.9%2,436.38679.1%2.473,0787i.9% 267,97611.9%942,880 32.1%460,274 15.9%157,703 5.1%515,045 15.4% 0 0.0%35.000 1.2%35.000 1.2%485.000 15.8%360.000 10.8% 2,257,0/5 SSS3SS3ZSSS 100.0% ssssss 2,941,542 SSSSSSSSSSS 100.0% ssssss 2,900,143 sssssssssss 100.0% 3.079.089 ssssss sssssssssss 100.0% ssssss 3,348,123 sssssssssss 100.0% ssssss S 330.95 » 419.02 $ 404.37 $ 426.94 $ 459.65 3.3%26.6X •3.5%5.6%7,n I OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR EXPENDITURE TRENDS CITY: ORONO 11/08/8» 12. INDICATOR: TREND IN EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION (PER CAPITA) COVERMMEMTAl FUNDS CURRENT EXPENDITURES 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988(Per Capita)AMOUNT % AMOUNT %AMOUNT %AMOUNT %AMOUNT % General Coverment % 67.44 23.1% $58.36 20.9X t 63.95 19.IX S 74.26 22.0%S 80.88 23.8%*" Police 89.57 30.7%92.96 33.2X 106.81 31.9X 113.07 33.5%120.65 35.5% Fire 17.45 6.0%18.74 6.7%19.86 5.9X 20.32 6.0%19.54 5.8% Streets 1 Highways 52.79 18.1%43.66 15.6X 6.' .40 19.2X 53.44 15.8%47.28 13.9% Refuse 1 Sanitation 0.00 0.0%0.00 o.ox 0.00 O.OX 0.00 0.0%0.00 0.0% Culture & Recreation 5.55 1.9%5.55 2.0%6.25 1.9X 8.56 2.5%6.12 1.8% Urban Redevelopment & Housing 0.00 0.0%0.00 0.0%0.00 O.OX 0.00 0.0%0.00 0.0% Interest and Fiscal Charges 30.71 10.5%31.20 11.2%31.16 9.3X 26.87 8.0%23.01 6.8%_ Miscellaneous Expenditures 28.13 9.6%29.25 10.5%42.89 12.8X ;i.3i 12.2%42.03 12.4%. Total Current Expenditures 291.66 100.0%279.72 100.OX 335.31 100.OX 337.82 100.0%339.52 100.0% - ssssssssrss sssssz sssrszsssss ======================= Annual Percentage Change 8.9%•4.1%19.9%0.7%0.5% summary of expenditures (Per Caoita) Total Current Expenditures 291.66 88.1%279.72 66.8%335.31 82.9%337.82 79.1%339.52 73.9%- Total Capital Outlay 39.29 11.9%134.31 32.1%64.18 15.9%21.87 5.1%70.71 15.4% Debt Service Fund Principal 0.00 0.0%4.99 ^ ^%4.88 1.2%67.25 15.8%49.42 10.8% Total Expenditures 330.95 100.0%•••’.02 100.. X 404.37 IfiO.OX 426.94 100.0%459.65 -100.0% S=:zrsrrsss :cszzss =====ssssss ssszsssssss xszsss sssssseesss iBszzss ; Annual Percentage Change 3.3%26.6%-3,5%5.6%7.7X - 2 • 6 A •'1 ' 1 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR REVENUE/EXPENDITURE COMPARISONS 13. INDICATOR: BUDGET TO ACTUAL REVENUES CITY: ORONO 11/08/89 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 CEMERAl fUMO; Bvxigeted ReyenutB S 1.772.323 %1.876.193 %2.163.193 S 2.322.590 S 2.461,070 k * Actual Revenues 2.061.930 2.129.764 2.343.116 2.567,914 2.751.232 Percent Over/-Under 16.3%13.5%8.3%10.6%11.8% ■ SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS: Budgeted Revenues S 42,000 S 64.595 %161.438 %32.880 S 38.500 m Actual Revenues 96.431 68,347 165.960 48.999 50,168 Percent Over/-Under 129.6%5.8%2.8%49.0%30.3%m Ml m m m m 14. INDICATOR: BUDGET TO ACTUAL EXPENDITURES m 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 GENERAL FUND: Budgeted Expenditures S 1.758.014 $1.853.525 %2.203.383 s 2.257.680 S 2.394,820 m Actual Expenditures 1.786.613 1.781.311 2.126.563 2.246.748 2,311,343 Percent -Over/Under -1.6%3.9%3.5%0.5%3.5% SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS: Budgeted Expenditures %35.PV $55.605 %190.078 s 71.490 $102.790 -Actual Expenditures 97.836 70.656 150.592 86.031 90.764 Percent -Over/Under •173.2%-27.1%20.8%•20.3%11.7% 2 - 7 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR FUTURE 80LVEHCY 15. INDICATOR; TREND IN OUTSTANDING BONDED INDEBTEDNESS CITY; ORONO 19S4 1985 1986 1987 General Obifgat<on Special Assessment Tax Increoient G.O. Revenue Revenue All Other TOTAL BONDED DEBT 0 % 2,785,000 0 0 0 145,000 0 s 5,280,000 0 0 0 110^000 0 % 2,795,000 0 0 0 75,000 0 % 2,350,000 0 0 0 35,000 2,930,000 3,390,000 2,870.000 2,385.000 Per Capita As a X of Assessed Value 429.62 3.U 482.91 3.3X 400.17 2.9X 330.70 2.3% 16. INDICATOR; CURRENT OR CHANGE IN BOND RATING 1984 1085 1986 RATING FIRM Moody'S A1 Aa Ai Standard and Poor's 17. INDICATOR: TREND IN CURRENT DEBT SERVICE COSTS (GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS) 1988 11/08/89 METRO AVERAGE 5 YEAR 5 YEAR X CHANGE X change 16.7X 2,025.000 -27.3X 13.3X t * 202.6X 54.6X 180.5X 0 -100.OX 1,308.8% 2,025,000 -30.9X 73.7X — 278.01 1.9% 1987 re L 1988 ... Aa fmm ku n METRO AVERAGE 5 YEAR 5 YEAR 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 % change Debt Service Payments X Percent Change 609,446 % 3.9X 659,050 % 8.1% 743,450 % 12.8% 678.773 S -8.7% 527.595 -22.3% -13.4% Debt Service as a Percent of Total Revenues 23.7X 18.5%21.3%21.0%15.9% 18. INDICATOR;TREND IN GOVERNMENTAL FUND LIABILITIES 1984 1985 1986 1987 5 YEAR 1988 X change Total Liabilities • % Percent Change 3,043,983 % •9.1% 3,764.026 % 23.7% 1.578,972 I -58.1% 1.404,034 $ -11.1% 1,292,680 •7.9% -5/ 5% Liabilities as a Percent of Current Expenditures 153.0%191.7%65.7%57.6%52 3% METRO AVERAGE 3C.5X NOTE: t*3 Due to a change in accounting principles the 1988 liabilities does not include special assessment bonded debt 2 • 8 J J 1 I I I I OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR FUTURE SOLVENCY CITY: ORONO 19. INDICATOR: CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES (UNRESERVED, UNDESIGNATED) n/08/89 ^ETRO AVERAGE 5 YEAR 5 YEAR •1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 X chance X chance —General Fund S 1,929,125 %2,215,606 %2,227,876 %2,613,610 f 2,845,060 4 Percent Change 13.9%14.8%0.6%17.3X 8.9X 47.5X 30.9X —X of Actual Expenditures 108.OX 124.4X 104.8%116.3X 123.IX mm Special Rt:.<»rje Fvjids %385,978 $427,556 S 472,951 %513,622 %539,276 -•Percent Change 15.7%10.8%10.6%8.6X 5.OX 39.7X 33c X % of Actual Expenditures 394.5X 605.IX 314.IX 597.OX 594.2X - General Fund Balance as iB X of Total Current Expenditures 97.OX ii:.8x 92.6X 107.115.OX —MANAGEMENT PRACTICES -20. INDICATOR:OPINION ON FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ••19S4 1985 1986 1987 1988 Auditor's Opinion GFOA Certificate of Achievement UNQUALIFIED unqualified unqualified unqualified UNQUALIFIED YES 2 • 9 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR CITY: ORONO MANAGE*^e^r PRACTICES I1 21. INDICATOR: TREND IN NUMBER OF EKPX<OYEES COMPARED TO POPULATION (GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS) (As Reported by the city) 11/01/89p I HSTRO AVERAGE 5 YEAR 5 YEAR 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 X change 1 Full-Time Employees 31 31 33 36 32 3.2X Employees per 1,000 Population 4.55 4.42 4.60 4.99 4.39 Part-Time Employees 10 3 9 14 43 330.07 Employees per 1,000 Population 1.47 0.43 1.25 1.94 5.90 22. INDICATOR: TREND IN COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYER PAID FRINGE BENEFITS (GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS) (As Reported by the city) METRO AVERAGE Operating Revenues Operating Expenses Operating Income S 78,20*. 76,497 V’07 S 82,807 76,456 6,351 %79,710 87,931 -8,221 S 89,288 $ 89 203 85 88,867 103,526 -14.659 Net Income ..,049 9,264 -6,126 3,904 -15,091 LIQUOR STORE Operating Revenues Operating Expenses Operating Income %419,509 414,144 5,365 s 431,987 443,419 -11.432 %479,635 467,727 11,908 %184.241 198,822 •14.581 • • • • • • a • • • • Ner Income 9,118 -8,504 15.275 37.884 a a • a SEUER Operating Revenues Operating Expenses Operating Income %313,808 '.19,298 -105,490 s 318,182 404.722 -86,540 %347,536 446,032 •98. %382.352 % 4<^2.494 •80,142 402.337 452,319 •49.982 Net Income -53,566 -35,908 ■••r.272 •28.573 7,753 2 - 10 1 1 1 1 1985 1986 1987 5 YEAR 5 YEAR 1988 X change X C hange Total Payroll S 859,803 %1,075,683 % 1,211,024 %1,300,817 $1,358,081 . *4 Percent Change 22.1%25.U 12.6X 7.4X 4.4X 58.OX 43.OX Employer Paid Fringe Benefits $263,537 $271.671 S 336,518 S 372,208 S 375,857 — Percent Change 10.2X 3.IX 23.9X 10...X 1.0% 42.6X 16.6X Fringe Benefits as a Percent of Payroll 30.7X 25.3X 27.8X 26.6X 27.7X 23. INDICATOR:PROFIT OR -LOSS IN ENTERPRISES 1984 1955 1986 1987 19S8 COLF COURSE 23. INDICATOR: PROFIT OR -LOSS IN ENTERPRISES (Continued)CITY:ORONO19841985198619871988 UATER Operating Revenues % Operating Expenses -ir Operating Income 131,022 % 146,268 •15,246 138,174 $ 153,658 -15,484 136,032 % 158,531 -22,499 148,767 % 154,357 -5,590 185,832 177.618 8,214 Net Income -17,972 -16,687 •22,853 •4,989 12,642 2 - 11 t -4 [I*DATABASE CONTENT OF INDICATORS FOR FINANCIAL HEALTH PROFILES I * I . m m f 4 S tate of Minnesota OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR SUITE 400 625 PARK STREET S\INT PAUL 65103 ARNE H. CARLSON STATE AUDITOR 296-2551 1. 2. DATA BASE SOURCE AND CONTENT OF INDICATORS FOR FINANCIAL HEALTH PROFILES NOTE: UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE FINANCIAL HEALTH PROFILE IS THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT. Population - Source: Minnesota State Demographer; estimate Property Values Source; Minnesota Department of Revenue. Data shown for the "payable" year; e.g., 1987 value Is payable In 1988. Indicated market value, assessed valuation and sales ratios are from the Department of Revenue. 3. Building Permits Source: Data provided by Individual cities 4. Retail Sales Source: Minnesota Department of Revenue's Historical Retail Sales data on ■Gross Retail Sales," showing both taxable and nontaxable sales. Number of businesses equals the number of vendors who filed sales tax returns. Retail Sales are not yet available from the Department of Revenue for 1988. 5. Trend In Mandated County Welfare Services Source: Minnesota Department of Human Services, Financial Management Division. Includes county ^ state payments for human services for the entire county. 6. Consumer Price Index Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 7. Revenue Sources Types of revenue shown by source, such as Federal Grants, State Local Government Aid, and property taxes. 3 - 1 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNm' EMPLOYER 8. Property Tax Levy Limited Levy: Other Local Levy: Source: Department of Revenue Total levy less limited levy Property Tax Levy:Total of limited levy plus other local levy. Source: Department of Revenue Special Assessments:Source: Department of Revenue Levy Total:The sum of the property tax levy and special assessment levy. Levy Limit;Calculated by Department of Revenue pursuant to levy limit law. Fiscal Disparities Levy:Source: Department of Revenue 9. Property Tax Collection Rate This Is current-year data, showing the collection rate on the current year tax levy. Does not reflect delinquent tax collections. 10. Earnings on Investments (Governmental Funds) Interest Income Includes earnings on all governmental fund Investments, such as fund balance which may be temporarily Invested. General fund, special revenue funds and all other governmental funds are Included. 11. Expenditures by Function Types of expenditures shown by function, such as General Government, Police and Fire. Summary of Expenditures Total current expenditures shown above do not Include the following: Capital outlay (as shown In the annual financial reports), debt redemption Oohg term and short term), and operating transfers out (e.g., to special projects or for debt service). Total Capital Outlay Is the sum of annual capital outlay from all governmental funds including capital outlay for general fund types of activities, and also capital outlay for enterprise fund activities where those are financed by governmental funds. Debt Service Fund Principal Is the Principal paid on long-term debt from debt service funds. (Does not Include enterprise fund payments.) Total Expenditures Include current expenditures (as described above), capital outlay, and debt service principal, but excludes debt redemption for 1984. 3-2 I f I V. 1 I * r M M »• 12. Expenditures by Function (Per Capita) Expenditures shown In Indicator 7, divided by the population In Indicator 1 for each year. 13 Budget to Actual Revenues ) 14. Budget to Actual Expenditures )Source: Annual Financial Statement Compares budget to actual figures for two fund types: general fund and special revenue funds. Not shown are debt service funds, capital projects funds, enterprise funds, or fiduciary (trust and agency) funds which are not required to be compared to budget by GAAP. 15. Outstanding Bonded Indebtedness The outstanding principal portion of five types of long-term debt Is shown. The types are: (1) General obligation; (2) special assessment; (3) tax Increment financing; (4) general obligation revenue; (5) revenue, and other. 16. Bond Ratings Source: Moody's and Standard and Poor's bond rating services. Note: Cities are often rated only In years when the city markets an Issue. 17. Current Debt Service Costs Includes the principal and Interest paid during the year on long-term debt by the governmental funds. Total debt redemption plus Interest and fiscal charges 18. Governmental Fund Liabilities Total liabilities of the governmental fund types. Includes accounts payable, outstanding prin'‘'pal of short term debt, certain long-term debt, and other liabilities. Special Assessment bonded debt Is not shown In governmental fund liabilities In 1988. 19. Fund Balances (unreserved, undesignated) Source: Annual Financial Statement 20. Opinion on Financial Report and Certificate of Achievement Unqualified opinion: In the auditor's professional opinion, the financial statements conform to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Qualified opinion: In the auditor's opinion, there Is a material departure from generally accepted accounting principles In the financial statements. A conmon example Is general fixed assets, which may not be accounted for ir a manner prescribed by GAAP. 3-3 1 20. Opinion on Financial Report and Certificate of Achievement (Continued) A "Certificate of Achievement" Is awarded by the Government Finance Officers Association to cities which exhibit excellence In financial reporting. This Is the highest form of recognition In the area of governmental financial reporting, and Its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and Its management. 21. Number of Employees (Governmental Funds) Source: Data provided by Individual cities. Full-time generally Includes full-time only. Part-time Includes part-time and part-time seasonal workers. 22. Compensation and Employer-Paid Fringe Benefits (Governmental Fundsj Source: Reported by city personnel. Compensation covers governmental fund employees. Also reported are fringe benefits Including sick leave, vacation leave; severance pay; employer contributions for retirement; employer payments for health, life and disability Insurance; benefits and Insurance premiums for unemployment compensation and workers compensation; the value of past retirement benefits and any other benefits. Some cities have estimated fringe benefits, while some provide actual dollar amounts. 23. Enterprises - Profit or Loss Includes operating revenues, expenses, operating Income and net Income for enterprises such as water, sewer, and electric. 3 - 4 t. a ] j 1 ] ] I I I I I APPENDIX A STATEWIDE ANALYSIS I 4 This page Intentionally left blank •7 hI This page intentionally left blank.OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR MINNESOTA FINANCIAL HEALTH PROGRAMRevenues Per Capita For the Year Ended December 31, 1988SPECIAL LICENSES FEDERAL STATENAME OF CITY TAXES ASSESSMENTS & PERMITS GRANTS GRANTSAFTON118.12 5.70 4.4 5 0.00 55.40ALBERT LEA 217.68 18.11 6.88 0.00 231.21ALEXANDRIA148.83 29.60 5.07 0.00 204.82ANDOVER61.39 239.00 18.08 2.64 50.16ANOKA110.88 27.65 7.70 0.00 119.54APPLE VALLEY 154.17 125.65 23.27 0.00 66.38ARDEN HILLS 91.86 54.93 13.30 0.00 51.46AURORA146.92 12.79 3.86 0.78 293.22AUSTIN136.08 10.66 4.22 19.01 207.83BAXTER181.68 69.46 13.09 0.00 77.52BAYPORT137.06 10.12 16.14 0.00 89.19BELLE PLAINE 103.27 44.81 7.26 0.00 117.02BEMIOJI97.67 34.50 9.30 3.71 216.65BENSON126.53 11.21 1.40 28.34 209,85 BIG LAKE 155.94 146.46 14.31 0.00 135.15 BLAINE 95.01 127.61 10.38 2.56 79.35 BLOOMINGTON 289.48 27.09 21.32 33.42 86.79 BLUE EARTH 165.02 77.85 3.56 0.23 198.08 BRAINERD 133.08 19.73 8.05 6.05 188.94 BRECKENRIDGE 99.80 42.37 3.78 13.76 207.46 BROOKLYN CENTER 161.53 20.02 11.21 10.82 128.83 BROOKLYN PARK 180.54 132.91 16.26 0.00 90.61 BUFFALO 142.03 107.73 15.10 0.00 93.74 BURNSVILLE 180.41 100.65 26.22 0.00 90.88 CALEDONIA 83.11 62.47 4.16 0.00 155.20 CAMBRIDGE 187.48 48.81 22.71 23.95 263.70 CANNON FALLS 208.26 132.26 5.20 8.13 189.65 CHAMPLIN 100.86 255.11 19.89 5.35 101.17 CHANHASSEN 425.29 241.80 88.11 0.00 152.67 CHASKA 145.22 66.96 20.25 0.00 69.26 CHISHOLM 108.13 2.64 5.30 38.32 406.92 CIRCLE PINES 87.93 111.20 17.56 9.00 82.51CLOQUET186.12 8.92 4.94 1.69 251.89COLD SPRING 138.21 64.51 5.15 0.00 160.49 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 155.54 24.74 8.52 18.38 162.27COON RAPIDS 145.97 150.49 11.35 7.28 108.67 CORCORAN 85.86 15.52 14.82 0.00 48.71 COTTAGE GROVE 115.15 75.59 14.95 C, .90 136.55CROOKSTON176.67 12.60 2.74 55.84 241.18CRYSTAL107.59 18.88 8.93 5.41 108.33DAYTON94.04 8.26 11.29 3.49 55.39DEEPHAVEN202.52 SI. 16 19.28 0.00 76.46DELANO113.15 221.26 14.15 0.00 0.00 DETROIT LAKES 133.04 61.29 3.97 0.00 180.67DILWORTH78.59 35.28 4.35 0.00 127.20DULUTH296.54 8.97 3.50 47.49 271.95EAGAN138.48 239.19 24.15 0.46 56.67EAST BETHEL 40.64 67.45 9.74 5.32 56.06EAST GRAND FOPJ<S 154.39 103.16 5.81 164.70 210.80EDEN PRAIRIE 340.91 164.68 76.51 7.91 61.93EDINA208.12 32.54 13.53 1.37 55.70 09/25/89 4 - 161. £.3 20.02 11.21 10.Bid i<:b . e j 180.54 132.91 16.26 0.00 90.61 142.03 107.73 15.10 0.00 93.74 180.41 100.65 26.22 0.00 90.88 83.11 62.47 4.16 0.00 155.20 187.48 48.81 22.71 23.95 263.70 208.26 132.26 5.20 8.13 189.65 100.86 255.11 19.89 5.35 101.17 425.29 241.80 88.11 0.00 152.67 145.22 66.96 20.25 0.00 69.26 108.13 2.64 5.30 38.32 406.92 87.93 111.20 17.56 9.00 82.51 186.12 8.92 4.94 1.69 251.89 138.21 64.51 5.15 0.00 160.49 155.54 24.74 8.52 18.38 162.27 145.97 150.49 11.35 7.28 108.67 85.86 15.52 14.82 0.00 48.71 115.15 75.59 14.95 ( .90 136.55 176.67 12.60 2.74 55.84 241.18 107.59 18.88 8.93 5.41 108.33 94.04 8.26 11.29 3.49 55.39 202.52 51.16 19.28 0.00 76.46 113.15 221.26 14.15 0.00 0.00 133.04 61.29 3.97 0.00 180.67 78.59 35.28 4.35 0.00 127.20 296.54 8.97 3.50 47.49 271.95 138.48 239.19 24.15 0.46 56.67 40.64 67.45 9.74 5.32 56.06 154.39 103.16 5.81 164.70 210.80 340.91 164.68 76.51 7.91 61.93 208.12 32.54 13.53 1.37 55.70 NAME OF CITY Revenues Per Capita For the Year Ended December 31, 1988SPECIAL LICENSESTAXES ASSESSMENTS & PERMITS FEDERALGRANTS STATEGRANTSELK RIVER 133.13 98.79 23.82 0.00 223.16ELY120.44 0.00 4.76 44.08 325.48EVELETH137.93 2.15 4.12 50.18 360.70EXCELSIOR155.39 21.48 22.33 0.00 114.05FAIRMONT133.17 51.60 4.29 16.64 188.95FALCON HEIGHTS 168.51 10.43 6.56 0.00 67.09FARIBAULT148.36 52.83 8.56 23.17 260.49FARMINGTON186.43 158.97 20.76 0.00 141.96FERGUS FALLS 144.27 34.39 4.42 6o .80 261.40FOREST LAKE 151.19 40.24 26.30 17.92 121.27FRIDLEY151.19 31.32 10.94 5.09 118.63GILBERT119.01 10.66 3.01 0.00 403.08GLENCOE179.03 35.92 6.57 0,00 155.11GLENWOOD185.71 7.16 3.70 28.75 242.47GOLDEN VALLEY 367.26 25.17 13.13 8.52 121.63 GOODVIEW 143.21 55.44 0.68 0.00 98.89 GRAND RAPIDS 168.21 27.81 13.36 0.00 234.32 GRANITE FALLS 129.20 42.32 3.65 0.00 159.46 HAM LAKE 55.47 32.63 6.08 0.72 48.12 HASTINGS 160.45 81.92 15.87 2.97 152.45 HERMANTOWN 97.35 12.54 6.84 0.00 96.82 HIBBING 127.31 7.17 4.31 1.58 589.41 HOPKINS 227.06 16.62 18.49 40.57 202.43 HOYT LAKES 155.71 1.96 2.21 0.00 375.50 HUGO 97.07 19.53 17.20 0.00 58.79 HUTCHINSON 197.37 95.76 11.60 20.15 211.41 INDEPENDENCE 141.68 6.07 13.54 3.83 66.40 INTERNATIONAL FALLS 257.17 0.85 9.60 0.30 429.49 INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 116.64 142.45 15.46 0.19 72.86 JACKSON 132.55 55.04 4.83 38.79 193.93 JORDAN 149.76 32.20 7.05 29.27 139.77 KASSON 150.05 26.02 2.29 4.33 151.05 LA CRESCENT 82.21 30.46 9.39 0.00 100.07 LAKE CITY 143.00 62.72 3.34 0.00 152.73 LAKE EIAIO 73.85 6.94 12.28 12.70 66.05 LAKEVILLE 157.02 171.96 28.28 0.00 99.28 LE SUEUR 141.35 4.68 5.72 4.14 172.75 LINO LAKES 119.19 160.32 30.20 1.53 76.27 LITCHFIELD 101.37 40.93 5.58 49.70 419.84 LITTLE CANADA 129.19 68.55 13.96 0.00 58.32 LITTLE FALLS 127.43 31.91 5.02 47.85 200.86 LONG PRAIRIE 98.72 26.23 3.80 0.00 175.51 LUVERNE 89.81 14.96 2.75 0.00 154.71 MAHTOMEDI 104.37 333.29 42.82 0.00 86.00 MANKATO 205 57 87.93 9.10 0.00 288.15 MAPLE GROVE 129.87 210.08 27.11 0.00 98.57 MAPLEWOOD 150.90 58.01 21.12 0.40 84.82 MARSHALL 191.06 40.40 6.64 0.00 193.67 MEDINA 244.70 177.29 31.04 0.00 168.09 MELROSE 88.99 33.08 4.90 39.53 179.29 MENDOTA HEIGHTS 228.35 214.51 35.31 0.00 138.34 09/25/89 I r, P*' COUNTY & LOCAL GRANTS 55.72 0.00 5.20 3.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 3.50 13.68 37.64 7.04 76.29 0.00 0.00 6.74 0.00 3.17 0.00 0.52 1.21 5.29 21.36 0.00 4.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.43 0.00 5.58 1.97 3.07 22.66 1.07 5.41 0.00 1.13 0.00 0.42 2.07 3.71 0.69 3.27 0.00 37.30 0.00 1.82 36.89 0.00 0.00 8.54 SERVICE CHARGES 58.16 34.09 44.35 97.47 11.38 13.58 19.13 53.93 14.76 6.25 5.46 28.45 2.96 27.36 48.79 0.60 60.94 14.22 0.31 41.03 0.00 24.28 20.83 104.01 1.25 67.56 2.84 27.17 75.82 12.35 54.38 19.38 8.43 26.10 1.66 106.53 62.28 11.32 32.74 7.41 13.90 18.26 31.80 52.84 28.31 35.75 39.98 28.23 140.66 16.82 34.13 FINES & FORFEITS 6.03 3.83 4.42 26.19 2.07 9.84 5.04 2.84 6.13 7.03 9.96 2.04 3.21 7.26 8.80 7.58 10.76 2.06 4.99 3.97 1.54 2.28 13 2 4 51 51 56 4.91 18.98 4.86 7.27 4.37 3.70 2.14 5.42 4.32 2.51 2.72 2.03 9.23 4.68 5.50 5.22 3.49 3.21 3.25 5.84 4.37 4.19 5.60 23.06 3.30 4.05 ALL OTHER REVENUES 43.75 31.61 37.31 77.21 59.03 76.89 84.04 42.18 72.18 72.95 87.28 39.19 62.19 32 158 47 34 17 41 145.59 46.23 27.58 40.06 51.90 20.48 118.32 74 41 63 13 08 47 22 60 105.41 66.78 110.26 16.30 148.35 22.42 119.89 8.21 74.54 45.58 41.95 23.89 146.00 94.97 24.29 57.34 69.91 57.12 73.69 43.63 108.60 53.87 129.99 57.27 TOTAL REVENUES 642.56 564.29 646.34 517.12 467 353 601 610 618 480 426 13 29 64 57 03 79 91 681.75 444.98 534.76 758.21 353 664 397 176 499 272 798 81 15 13 42 92 28 18 657.85 720.26 239.87 671.97 266.95 855.27 497.48 557.70 434.40 506.68 281 513 189 04 15 61 640.33 439.67 450.01 679.13 431.00 530.86 350.99 357.85 692.48 719.33 579.43 404.87 611 838 495 09 72 90 720.49 4 - NAME OF CITY Revenues Per Capita For the Year Ended December 31, 1988SPECIAL LICENSES FEDERALTAXES ASSESSMENTS & PERMITS GRANTS STATEGRANTSMINNEAPOLIS398.12 19.50 19.48 116.25 270.11MINNETONKA241.10 115.50 27.19 3.36 93.68MINNETRISTA168.35 80.78 17.18 3.09 95.67MONTEVIDEO123.52 28.84 4.27 5.99 210.11MONTGOMERY147.22 15.42 5.86 0.00 198.85MONTICELLO467.60 104.40 17.42 0.00 71.20MOORHEAD84.56 48.59 6.17 43.93 204.08MORA118.61 21.49 8.62 0.00 137.97MORRIS121.19 25.13 4.79 31.65 267.47MOUND131.35 99.29 16.45 4.43 102.32MOUNDS VIEW 74.41 21.83 12.04 0.00 75,82MOUNTAIN IRON 155.53 16.21 1.55 0.00 218.79 NEW BRIGHTON 107.33 29.20 11.34 14.04 70.41 NEW HOPE 158.13 13.16 5.85 18.55 101.71 NEW PRAGUE 151.42 30.90 9.12 0.00 145.29 NEW um 128.20 30.23 6.61 0.00 211.31 NEWPORT 254.60 8.68 12.30 0.00 127.53 NORTH MANKATO 128.10 98.72 5.14 0.00 307.76 NORTH OAKS 136.95 0.00 19.46 0.00 19.81 NORTH ST. PAUL 70.39 57.91 9.22 0.00 117.09 NORTHFIELD 125.56 95.80 10.42 2.49 118 18 OAK PARK HEIGHTS 225.09 54.12 6.05 0.00 52.65 OAKDALE 120.31 190.02 20.54 0.00 111.07 OLIVIA 136.04 15.85 2.17 0.00 165.32 ORONO 161.01 45.60 17.07 1.12 65.92 ORTONVILLE 135.83 0.41 0.62 54.64 259.94 OSSEO 129.72 202.19 7.44 7.58 101.39 OWATONNA 189.63 57.12 6.82 0.00 180.81 PARK RAPIDS 95.67 50.72 7.69 511.39 158.33 PINE CITY 96.87 4.50 5.08 6.28 140.98 PIPESTONE 104.19 14.51 3.26 11.94 237.32 PLAINVIEW 94.42 20.98 1.99 0.00 124.05 PLYMOUTH 188.20 167.82 30.01 11.53 59.70 PRINCETON 290.39 17.04 7.89 10.38 140.18 PRIOR LAKE 155.47 123.72 12.99 0.00 75.64 PROCTOR 118.10 21.73 2.64 10.99 130.92 RAMSEY 83.02 103.88 35.75 1.18 67.22 RED WING 523.62 32.68 8.10 0.00 151.11 REDWOOD FALLS 112.53 18.02 1.96 0.00 160.49 RICHFIELD 189.09 28.63 8.63 10.52 146.43 ROBBINSDALE 177.02 4.64 5.25 3.74 162.12 ROCHESTER 298.55 38.90 16.23 43.44 167.21 ROCKFORD 134.99 43.05 7.66 9.68 96.32 ROSEMOUNT 203.18 125.11 38.94 0.00 218.74 ROSEVILLE 169.53 30.66 13.97 0.72 81.02 SARTELL 217.24 152.94 13.61 0.00 113.88 SAUK CENTRE 95.12 22.73 5.17 0.09 162.41 SAUK RAPIDS 137.29 68.03 6.40 52.61 287.93 SAVAGE 205.43 123.88 25.38 0.00 102.52 SHAKOPEE 252.24 116.78 26.55 0.00 146.51 SHOREVIEW 84.96 40.83 11.69 0.00 58.29 09/25/89 t -i r* M M M M M COUNTY & LOCAL GRANTS 29.46 0.00 0.00 7.69 0.00 1.01 3.19 2.08 0.00 1.69 1.85 0.00 1.89 3.30 1.44 0.00 0.00 O.CO 1.45 1.41 1.59 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.43 6.39 25.01 8.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.46 2.55 0.00 3.47 0.00 1.07 5.49 5.34 4.64 29.47 6.91 0.00 0.00 0.81 1.44 1.64 0.50 0.00 8.90 0.68 SERVICE CHARGES 84.27 10.06 11.23 21.26 27.00 41.09 40.68 31.82 47.87 13.24 23.85 21.53 20.54 19.85 20.57 39.83 1.82 16.89 0.00 4.27 27.33 18.04 4.2.23 6.24 88.30 18.47 0.31 37.96 61.37 22.57 56.79 42.66 15.23 16.08 16.15 11.24 0.47 30.95 14.80 29.58 32.19 46.84 10.37 12.71 18.18 5.74 56.04 8.60 82.12 61.04 19.81 FINES & FORFEITS 19.23 6.69 9.77 2.26 4.41 4.70 7.80 10.34 9.26 9.72 3.86 1.29 2.73 6.99 2.92 5.77 2.55 3.66 4.34 4.49 4.85 "».41 5.99 2.34 19.31 2.74 5.74 4.91 5.34 2.07 8.41 2.20 9.90 6.06 3.90 5.62 2.49 4.97 3.97 7.71 11.92 8.67 1.18 4.37 3.28 4.56 4.77 4.34 4.74 6.43 2.86 ALL OTHER REVENUES 201.30 182.57 43.26 28.35 26.78 76.93 54.61 32 29 64 59 02 85 31 35 41.31 125.72 92.52 31.33 66.39 47.64 40.89 11.93 44 104 48 64 28 57 15 19 45 63 90 97 26.38 53.47 63.19 102.28 86.56 49.52 67.88 141.69 45.10 106.20 16.01 69.84 69.96 43.59 60.35 76.27 155.44 19.99 131.42 72.51 96.54 35.83 47.51 96.89 73.77 39.34 TOTAL REVENUES 1,157.74 680.14 429.35 432.30 425.53 784.34 493.62 362.96 537.19 442.80 273.01 456.20 383.20 420.07 392.99 488.34 455.13 601.17 193 308 490 411 93 93 40 81 555.13 356.86 456.73 505.43 532.84 548.96 992.80 364.91 485.93 357.64 626.65 533.13 497.54 317.24 364.92 826.89 355.37 485.58 502.64 782.19 323.25 734.48 390.68 605.96 383.80 613.20 640.97 692.21 258.46 . 4 4-6 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR MINKESOTA FINANCIAL HEALTH PROGRAMRevenues Per Capita For the Year Ended December 31, 1988SPECIALNAME OF CITY TAXES ASSESSMENTSSHOREWOOD213.41 236.53SILVER BAY 95.51 0.00SLAYTON117.75 30.86SLEEPY EYE 105.68 8.10SO. INT'L FALLS 76.78 5.82SOUTH ST. PAUL 186.87 28.49SPRING LAKE PARK 81.87 30.95SPRING VALLEY 135.72 8.78ST. ANTHONY 160.77 5.13ST. CHARLES 130.54 42.76ST. CLOUD 207.05 62.07ST. JAMES 86.59 34.48ST. JOSEPH 44.67 40.72 ST. LOUIS PARK 182.86 33.51 ST. PAUL 328.97 46.50 ST. PAUL PARK 82.43 130.22 ST. PETER 73.84 0.00 STAPLES 74.49 59.37 STEWARTVI T.T.F 98.95 67.06 •Ml •Mil •Hill] LICENSES & PERMITS 64.86 1.60 3.27 11.666.646.078.53 2.20 5.593.53 15.501.588.19 17.89 16.35 13.78 8.80 4.15 3.19 11.10 4.95 2.09 26.22 4.95 20.55 1.32 7.53 2.07 6.45 36.71 2.07 13.39 14.02 5.56 1.65 8.09 28.93 4.61 19.06 88.11 4.45 FEDERAL GRANTS 0.00 114.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.50 0.43 0.95 8.76 0.00 14.57 0.00 0.00 3.91 51.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 254.15 2.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,214.15 3.51 4.58 0.00 0.84 8.47 5.02 0.00 9.75 0.00 24.99 31.02 116.25 0.00 STATEGRANTS663232232141552078118682941608483587384098210.36232.16149.62130.62 108.45 263 121 145 241 217 129 184 260 36 463 136 121 102 220.54 177.27 06 86 42 22 47 77 53 01 89 65 97 01 84 83 1,311 148 94 142 154 212 62 203 84 07 67 43 99 39 48 05 34 147.62 270.11 19.81 7.50 24.64 224.85 23.82 1,214.15 1,311.07 0.62 0.00 0.00 15.64 29.13 170.48 88.11 1,214.15 1,311.07 0.62 0.00 0.00 11 N M m «« m m M \ COUNTY & LOCAL GRANTS SERVICE CHARGES FINES & FORFEITS 5.36 63.88 1.40 0.00 0.00 12.12 2.34 2.57 1.06 6.25 103.47 0.55 0.00 173.71 13.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.86 1.64 3.48 32.22 0.00 0.16 0.00 5.57 0.00 0.00 4.02 16.58 13.02 2.47 4,27 5.18 0.00 3.04 0.18 1.14 ALL OTHER REVENUES TOTAL REVENUES 21.52 17.94 49.08 675.64 59.27 2.42 48.35 708.93 14.00 2.30 25.61 418.27 37.13 2.03 68.73 448.81 0.00 0.87 14.77 260.22 28.10 3.22 55.42 560.65 8.42 7.52 37.51 258.95 25.88 7.12 85.16 454.79 0.54 10.30 66.60 341.73 33.18 2.59 33.64 462.86 4.57 9.40 138.57 787.36 23.25 4.13 52.05 352.26 27.55 8.70 48.81 309.26 13.96 7.81 40.54 582.64 47.44 6.89 89.97 864.04 5.68 4.13 33.35 391.45 31.30 5.15 30.69 295.20 16.10 7.57 97.46 500.37 13.20 0.59 91.65 763.12 27.07 8.54 42.27 458.95 19.83 5.57 50.45 421.62 69.06 2.19 153,75 599.60 60.29 2.87 127.65 427.63 121.15 6.79 90.59 990.34 20.82 1.58 118.21 702.41 17.55 5.14 24.58 265.95 3.12 10.46 49.52 358.88 51.28 4.82 338.55 1,905.73 4.10 4.93 22.78 384.04 22.29 18.76 70.16 634.85 23.73 2.53 48.13 1,535.75 12.72 4.12 49.26 428.33 40.97 2.78 57.56 369.04 10.89 6.92 67.74 385.10 25.46 2.27 40.40 434.29 29.08 5.72 41.98 530.19 52.53 4.10 82.11 659.35 21.37 6.10 72.53 544.33 12.46 41.25 8.59 108.54 671.01 173.71 140.66 26.19 277.36 1,157.74 0.00 0.00 1.54 7.53 176.42 12.88 30.19 5.99 75.45 602.05 108.12 121.15 13.96 338.55 1,905.73 0.00 0.00 0.59 14.77 260.22 12.58 37.98 7.82 98.75 650.60 —173.71 140.66 26.19 338.55 1,905.73 0.00 0.00 0.59 7.53 176.42 4 - 8 09/25/89 I* I OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR MINNESOTA FINANCIAL HEALTH PROGRAM Current Expenditures Per Capita For the Year Ended December 31, 1988 NAME OF CITY AFTON ALBERT LEA ALEXANDRIA ANDOVER ANOKA APPLE VALLEY ARDEN HILLS AURORA AUSTIN BAXTER BAYPORT BELLE PLAINE BEMIDJI BENSON BIG LAKE BLAINE BLOOMINGTON BLUE EARTH BRAINERD BRECKENRIDGE BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK BUFFALO BURNSVILLE CALEDONIA CAMBRIDGE CANNON FALLS CHAMPLIN CHANHASSEN CHASKA CHISHOLM CIRCLE PINES CLOQUET COLD SPRING COLUMBIA HEIGHTS COON RAPIDS CORCORAN COTTAGE GROVE CROOKSTON CRYSTAL DAYTON DEEPHAVEN DELANO DETROIT LAKES DILWORTH DULUTH EAGAN EAST BETHEL EAST GRAND FORKS EDEN PRAIRIE EDINA GENERAL GOVERNMENT 31.31 47.40 75.72 35.30 70.68 35.69 37.80 67.80 31.46 33.79 55.33 69.70 58.51 65.03 67.39 33.08 81.83 49.55 69.84 62.40 52.17 49.94 56.95 40.14 52.13 63.09 80.23 50.51 73.63 79.1C 69.34 30.65 44.22 39.66 47.10 53.13 47.93 37.04 57.23 38.61 55.61 38.89 102.32 48.59 45.99 87.97 78.68 27.76 50.76 58.57 41.91 17.04 64.35 29.10 8.44 14.73 9.89 25.89 14.71 68.60 8 23 8 32 15 83 23 62 POLICE FIRE 13.83 95.24 85.45 15.81 107.08 54.91 35.84 97.86 89.44 40.95 61.65 55.95 92.55 55.58 73.26 50.99 76.37 49.13 86.91 93.09 69.61 67.35 62.46 71.69 70.37 74.81 99.71 49.39 34.20 51.62 133.76 64.02 77.24 57.95 70.76 58.27 29.57 68.53 70.94 60.81 19.73 89.17 30.43 72.90 49.30 86.44 57.09 9.05 104.09 60.10 62.01 STREETS & HIGHWAYS 72.54 62.29 56.10 14.75 35.77 50.56 27.04 93.79 15.94 23.05 12.11 24.99 6.78 36.58 7.72 9.57 6.04 15.76 39.82 11.92 13.30 26.37 11.31 13.47 10.48 36.52 15.41 61.46 30.08 29.31 28.05 11.08 24.11 37.34 5.46 12.62 14.80 11.10 23.41 15.89 82.53 9.83 8.47 66.18 9.22 37.3T 83 24 74 43 67 98 49 61 05 45 09 50 05 28 25.99 50.04 71 45 54 52 43 76 94 08 27 19 26.64 34.36 58.01 40.71 81.80 45.75 59.55 43.04 112.68 15.25 76.32 45.66 33.19 32.91 51.53 28.45 58 29 37 82 72 81 01 79 78 63 82 83 56.15 87.56 23.45 16.72 60.61 44.52 52.98 REFUSE AND SANITATION 0.00 0.00 30.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.17 0.01 0.00 28.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.80 0.72 0.00 3.36 2.41 0.00 24 .O^ 1.93 0.39 0.72 5.04 39.67 0.00 0.18 23.69 25.01 0.66 1.42 4.71 0.00 0.13 0.00 20.75 0.73 3.06 3.68 26.69 5.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 40.47 0.00 0.00 PI 4-9 CULTURE & RECREATION URBANREDEVEI^PMENT AND HOUSING INTEREST AND FISCAL CHARGES MISCELLANEOUSEXPENDITURES TOTAL CURRElexpenditure;0.00 0.00 6.61 11.21 152.54MM.75.12 12.61 24.69 20.97 402.6747.68 0.00 12.85 21.37 358.96--10.53 0.85 110.24 17.96 213.8966. J3 6.71 28.91 8.21 339.0131.52 6.69 56.09 15.71 261.0626.04 0.00 10.89 5.96 169.47♦ ^28.66 0.56 6.15 8.77 330.4860.40 20.69 19.19 17.52 390.92pm9.88 0.00 99.40 19.17 235.4059.57 0.00 0.00 15.93 319.1238.36 0.00 31.87 9.77 256.97 39.98 7.18 34.37 18.52 351.23 i ’45.28 28.58 27.89 37.76 374.11 9.76 7.87 120.06 8.06 358.74 !27.34 8.31 51.51 9.79 219.11i36.12 47.40 175.62 20.18 515.36 ■58.94 23.76 137.93 5.81 404.37 25.99 3.53 36.49 22.07 327.35 56.64 29.53 62.95 28.11 397.89 60.24 28.32 23.46 22.75 320.91 32.38 0.32 30.51 2.39 232.12 19.93 116.08 92.94 14.62 429.46 30.22 0.00 142.25 13.83 374.25 1 26.49 0.00 97.09 20.26 336.65 tm 10.16 0.00 104.59 57.71 365.09 50.72 10.87 139.79 33.36 527.91 urn 41.86 5.30 142.94 45.93 432.65 31.63 40.51 193.59 85.62 532.20 31.80 40.34 61.12 76.76 394.44 46.83 2.74 0.30 49.05 474.92 18.68 0.00 31.33 13.67 214.02 I 52.10 3.60 24.45 12.81 352.87 1 ^ M 8.25 0.00 59.21 1.73 243.97 79.56 30.75 65.01 11.77 372.15131.84 10.46 53.35 29.28 297.30 M 2.92 2.65 5.13 17.78 168.73 38.92 1.30 28.22 124.82 351.39 104.09 0.00 22.61 66.61 437.57 32.49 4.73 22.76 55.41 250.791 "*9.62 0.00 6.21 17.26 161.89 13.75 0.00 20.66 43.43 307.02113.23 0.00 97.25 10.09 363.93 52.31 131.06 53.54 17.67 487.241 ***8.46 0.00 34.66 0.47 210.92 1 )48.97 70.78 57.81 74.93 596.99II29.92 0.00 77.44 0.00 276.40 1:3.42 0.98 34.98 8.93 110.41 liII 84.34 96.24 79.55 62.44 644.69 51.51 0.49 139.80 70.87 435.08 i 31.93 10.89 47.08 21.96 306.09 I OFFICE OP THE STATE AUDITOR MINKESOTA FINANCIAL HEALTH PROGRAM Current Expenditures Per Capita For the Year Ended December 31, 1988 NAME OF CITY ELK RIVER ELY EVELETH EXCELSIOR FAIRMONT FALCON HEIGHTS FARIBAULT FARMINGTON FERGUS FALLS FOREST LAKE FRIDLEY GILBERT GLENCOE GLENWOOD GOLDEN VALLEY GOODVIEW GRAND RAPIDS GRANITE FALLS HAM LAKE HASTINGS HERMANTOWN HIBBING HOPKINS HOYT LAKES HUGO HUTCHINSON INDEPENDENCE INTERNATIONAL FALLS INVER GROVE HEIGHTS JACKSON JORDAN KASSON LA CRESCENT LAKE CITY LAKE ELMO LAKEVILLE LE SUEUR LINO LAKES LITCHFIELD LITTLE CANADA LITTLE FALLS LONG PRAIRIE LUVERNE MAHTOMEDI MANKATO MAPLE GROVE MAPLEWOOD marshall MEDINA MELROSE MENDOTA HEIGHTS GENERAL GOVERNMENT POLICE FIRE 48.26 100.95 44.72 84.78 42.61 48.28 33.35 86.29 64.45 37.43 83.85 87.55 51.53 73.96 131.18 66.23 67.28 64.33 25.57 42.56 36.44 49.96 69.65 359.99 41.33 54.37 47.34 106.15 57.21 85.96 54.54 49.60 25.93 53.90 44.67 55.67 60.74 80.96 57.06 30.43 41.87 56.38 63.06 66.77 8.54 36.78 38.97 71.44 90.23 97.50 76.86 65.50 104.07 72.79 88.01 64.40 47.58 89.01 60.41 68.83 82.45 73.10 115.73 64.25 74 61 54 72 69 80 53 44 56.32 16.91 62.12 49.75 61.43 101.18 106.29 41.73 80.97 82.54 93.98 61.90 61.40 55.77 41.37 49.51 85.17 15.46 73.72 53.11 54.37 68.74 33.29 65.51 60.13 67.63 30.42 77.21 42.10 87.81 88.14 75.74 67.63 89.35 11.82 47.33 55.72 84.90 12.28 15.95 63.65 14.45 11.78 29.01 18.57 13.40 6.73 24.26 12.82 5.72 24.22 12.72 8.10 39.03 19.99 67.71 20.74 13.59 13.00 9.36 17.54 43.64 13.57 20.32 20.56 7.38 6.29 11.69 12.93 10.78 19.50 16.30 12.39 13.76 21.01 13.37 12.52 17.08 69.59 8.30 28.90 16.13 24.04 17.52 16.93 STREETS & HIGHWAYS 83 126 89 65 66 29 53 66 49 43 57 110 73 106 93 38 90 59 83 97 25 22 91 34 32 04 92 74 61 00 64 75 58 81 50 98 20.26 50.09 22.54 58.26 69.48 123.08 35.96 64.05 94.83 121.37 39.19 87.24 29.64 50.62 31.52 31.29 26.93 39.43 72.03 34.62 64.51 21.81 55.77 72.56 41 28 63 35 41 91 91 52 31 76 42 77 48 81 18 57 55 76 REFUSE AND SANITATION 4.11 0.00 18.74 0.31 0.34 0.07 0.15 0.00 1.69 11.39 0.00 17.29 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.60 0.17 1.51 0.07 2.50 22.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.29 2.86 19.53 0.27 0.00 6.08 4.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.34 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 1.49 I I I ] 1 1 1 4-11 09/22/89 ‘'4 CULTURE & RECREATION 16.60 48.04 45.62 31.53 65.81 8.49 49.82 42.40 74.56 22.63 20.10 51.84 27.20 68.00 37.07 7.80 106.79 48.14 0.00 24.92 2.49 52.18 27.93 135.57 0.40 95.24 0.66 41.61 25.04 43.11 14.77 46.89 16.38 42.86 7.02 31.06 82.02 11.98 57.79 13.81 25.66 8.41 80.37 13.00 50.62 29.55 33.15 116.09 3.68 9.25 16.15 URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING INTEREST AND FISCAL CHARGES MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES TOTAL CURRENT EXPENDITURES 6.73 9.93 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 79.62 18.56 46.05 0.00 14.93 2.53 15.06 3.05 9.61 0.00 12.76 23.23 0.00 1.91 0.00 12.49 18.00 33.27 0.00 36.26 0.00 2.02 0.00 0.00 29.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.31 0.00 0.17 1.20 2.00 0.00 4.36 0.00 17.39 13.57 14.05 65.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.63 15.42 7.48 18.09 63.74 60.28 56.50 81.70 44.58 54.83 48.51 14.25 55.08 13.09 105.00 67.88 71.94 34.02 11.64 50.64 35.77 25.94 35.15 0.00 15.69 77.64 0.00 30.56 80.30 76.09 24.38 18.89 30.11 102.27 3.52 93.05 28.47 33.80 24.81 64.01 103.06 47.96 23.06 53.95 72.15 78.27 40.18 69.35 93.26 38.00 112.33 4-12 20.66 35.54 186.20 33.04 25.55 22.85 39.78 1.75 26.75 47.27 1.79 41.08 11.99 19.08 29.94 0.34 30.97 10.56 10.87 23.22 16.44 89.45 44.69 35.53 22.61 54.92 2.32 117.44 11.93 64.60 21.04 15.14 12.56 15.19 1.45 12.40 37.29 6.02 18.31 7.53 38.80 4.38 8.29 12.07 79.64 2.44 11.42 9.86 103.19 2.12 5.68 307.14 488.24 520.52 405.87 349.65 232.83 465.21 371.61 388.62 328.75 318.45 453.68 305.47 383. 4 481.01 241.31 476.91 309.60 93.94 294.66 184.93 417.49 389.31 629.73 170.72 472.82 245.22 556.94 289.44 441.57 269.76 230.17 172.30 348.44 116.02 316.11 356.48 238.06 308.11 185.84 353.80 263.20 301.04 221.71 438.92 247.12 296.29 527.72 481.71 285.03 350.54 I [•wmw*] [•HtJil LfMtiil ISjf!u I [•Mtltl [•jwn H tW:^•Kiltr:tHi r:HVtTt1 riHiiii •Wtlll tlvllll [•Kiltl I. r i U4 CULTURE t RECREATION 110.73 25.73 0.88 35.51 17.77 41.34 44.04 13 34 18 69 14 57 25.15 36.64 31.05 32.55 31.35 81.50 35.22 48.63 0.00 25.35 38.09 27.79 20.47 42.32 6.12 63.94 2.87 78.85 14.66 14.46 68.78 41.13 32.70 21.63 37.37 21.30 9.45 65.32 55.79 63.42 61.17 101.31 5.04 22.19 30.27 11.88 31.08 12.14 12.04 40.01 29.71 09/22/89 URBAf. REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING INTEREST AND FISCAL CHARGES 74.48 0.00 0.00 1.98 0.00 12.75 53.87 3.89 24.97 4.09 0.00 6.40 25.05 27.02 0.00 20.49 0.00 51.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.72 0.00 47.91 29.49 1.04 309.64 0.26 36.54 0.00 12.02 5.07 3.45 0.86 0.00 26.34 11.32 20.71 75.56 20.75 0.23 15.12 5.77 0.00 5.39 10.01 0.00 9.45 10.64 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES 110.38 107.56 42.81 43.54 23.67 143.94 39.16 32.83 28.65 64.05 27.07 33.68 91.02 35.51 38.76 50.98 46.48 60.90 0.00 19.64 59.11 25.74 82.41 67.91 23.01 89.47 19.00 45.09 73.96 12.14 20.90 53.45 72.27 135.13 97.51 15.48 46.80 72.92 22.48 76.17 38.69 36.00 45.84 80.07 87.52 100.70 19.16 72.22 119.68 60.86 19.18 4-14 96.75 45.14 27.23 75.98 35.32 12.40 72.39 59.29 36.78 19.53 2.96 12.17 11.43 27.58 14.83 11.75 7.16 11.98 48.77 10.66 36.67 1.29 8.01 4.62 42.03 41.69 32.65 39.06 13.12 39.57 48.31 9.46 23.12 28.56 19.75 35.51 6.72 21.84 10.30 9.76 18.89 37.54 1.36 0.51 16.43 12.23 38.01 1.30 8.80 33.54 6.73 TOTAL CURREN’T EXPENDITURES 868.48 338.04 323.20 337.90 285.23 442.16 420.15 278.49 354.90 288.41 198.85 369.67 272.11 283.68 281.78 396.96 329.49 351.43 160.26 173.87 307.80 275.50 268.84 306.18 339.52 490.18 227.68 334.87 622.66 264.46 408.21 291.94 286.05 405.82 337.39 245.53 182.20 572.52 318.65 369.18 415.62 467.05 224.36 362.12 274.30 269.18 309.32 257.97 344.60 402.34 161.03 A OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR MINNESOTA FINANCIAL HEALTH PROGRAM Current Expenditures Per Capita For the Year Ended December 31, 1988 NAME OF CITY SHOREWOOD SILVER BAY SLAYTON SLEEPY EYE SO, INT'L FALLS SOUTH ST. PAUL SPRING LAKE PARK SPRING VALLEY ST. ANTHONY ST. CHARLES ST. CLOUD ST. JAMES ST. JOSEPH ST. LOUIS PARK ST. PAUL ST. PAUL PARK ST. PETER STAPLES STEWARTVILLE STILLWATER THIEF RIVER FALLS TWO HARBORS VADNAIS HEIGHTS VIRGINIA WACONIA WADENA WAITE PARK WARROAD WASECA WAYZATA WELLS WEST ST. PAUL WHITE BEAR LAKE WILLMAR WINDOM WINONA WOODBURY WORTHINGTON METRO - AVERAGE - MAXIMUM - MINIMUM NON-METRO - AVERAGE - MAXIMUM - MINIMUM STATEWIDE - AVERAGE - MAXIMUM - MINIMUM GENERAL GOVERNMENT 93.43 78.47 47.33 52.72 24.34 42.38 49.33 51.43 56.96 36.11 46.81 44.36 43.97 53.28 57.58 55.16 49.70 69.03 32.11 45.18 60.86 49.03 44.15 73.73 89.41 33.12 21.72 85.06 36.25 122.28 72.12 34.70 42.51 51.31 35.96 43.51 35.09 41.51 63.08 131.18 15.21 53.42 159.99 8.54 60.22 159.99 8.54 POLICE FIRE 67.37 94.54 59.96 42.56 68.45 91.44 66.76 51.56 68.44 60.24 76.22 71.13 45.20 84.21 100.47 72.07 52 81 29 67 65 47 84 05 79.89 88.79 26.80 112.76 31.43 64.17 47.05 92.60 39.65 114.83 55.66 68.11 71.88 70.60 64.72 88.32 54.10 76.76 83.31 150.66 9.05 13.43 8.93 21.07 14.96 7.41 61.78 12.32 9.93 43.21 10.60 56.94 13.14 19.76 40.34 80.85 17.49 8.55 25.60 22.89 29.28 30.24 22.41 9.67 123.87 18.85 13.09 5.62 12.74 16.95 16.35 6.10 54.24 15.99 15.33 9.88 81.88 12.33 11.71 40.59 96.59 4.28 75.29 42.63 133.76 123.87 23.70 5.62 80.94 41.19 150.66 123.87 9.05 4.28 STREETS & HIGHWAYS 57.93 106.91 59.30 54.44 50.65 52.56 16.20 51.69 39.67 45.45 51.60 73 34 43 63 38 61 81 45 48 30 19 23 87 49 36.88 56.93 57.65 92.63 21.74 106.49 62.63 45.97 30.35 52.66 60 76 93 60 28 42 63 60.94 43.14 72.92 REFUSE AND SANITATION 3.22 39.01 0.16 9.90 0.17 4.78 0.00 2.28 2.34 0.00 0.00 9.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.47 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 5.22 1.55 37 27 89 74 45 55 83 50.05 94.83 5.39 66.47 126.97 22.54 27 0 9 27 63 00 57 59 0.00 2.02 5.00 0.00 1.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 1.06 3.65 6.09 40.20 0.00 4.13 40.47 0.00 I • I CULTURE & RECREATION 16.29 106.34 35.31 45.87 9.03 43.27 35.31 57.08 3.74 46.12 40.68 21.22 10.66 40.85 78.60 22.09 65.40 18.61 36.14 46.24 59.25 77.51 15.48 124.78 7.50 29.84 5.17 74.96 43.75 39.23 46.41 26.79 13.20 41.53 41.47 60.24 21.92 29.62 09/22/89 URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING INTEREST AND FISCAL CHARGES MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES TOTAL CURRENT EXPENDITURES 0.00 123.09 0.00 3.02 0.00 0.29 0.00 1.33 1.73 0.00 10.72 16.92 0.00 3.34 108.29 2.15 5.71 14.86 1.18 0.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 45.25 37.70 9.96 0.00 94.06 0.00 0.00 0.93 1.83 12.13 20.40 18.65 9.08 2.97 49.72 53.91 1.34 37.49 22.43 11.26 39.91 12.57 81.40 24.21 42.30 71.46 46.42 33.34 ..22 68.80 45.96 8.40 17.21 57.40 80.14 39.54 7.34 76.78 87.63 119.05 16.97 59.36 224.94 11.08 65.71 22.67 14.89 31.63 46.90 92.84 27.85 64.50 60.45 21.47 95.56 19.41 71.25 19.10 13.49 8.63 3.81 7.68 0.06 75.25 24.35 3.53 27.65 121.10 6.43 15.48 5.97 0.69 49.42 36.34 123.75 35.86 206.01 38.88 38.05 33.19 25.87 31.07 127.33 21.77 25.12 0.28 49.24 9.21 43.04 21.01 4.12 4-16 327.05 654.18 280.03 317.16 190.41 349.89 201.11 310.51 247.98 240.88 429.68 320.96 190.93 323.19 678.87 259.59 285.22 314.24 217.87 374.25 365.44 466.69 232.02 908.16 406.24 260.74 230.04 662.89 241.13 567.00 319.56 287.73 216.06 337.87 336.56 415.21 256.12 350.46 51.35 34.09 75.o6 47.56 453.77 110.73 108.29 193.59 127.33 868.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 93.94 54.40 25.88 49.84 43.31 415.37 135.57 309.64 224.94 206.01 908.16 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.06 172.30 _ 52.25 31.66 68.02 46.30 442.40 135.57 309.64 224.94 206.01 908.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 93.94 "I'1 I APPENDIX B ANALYSIS BY CLASS OF CITY u i" ^ Wi M M <« 4 . OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR FINANCIAL HEALTH PROFILE SDNMAnJ BY CLASS OF CITY For tb« Yoar Endad Dacaabar 31, 1988 CLASS 1 (Graatar than 90,000 la Population) 09/25/89 Indicttor Total Itvcnutt - 5 Year Percent Change State Intergovernaiental tevenuea • 5 Year Percent Change Paderal Intergoverrwental Revenyet • 5 Year Percent Chr Local lnter«^ verrvaental Revenues • 5 Year Percent Change Total Intergovernwental Revenues • 5 Year Percent Change Property Taaes as a Percent of Total Revenues Special Assessments as a Percent of Total Revenues Total Intergovernmental Revenues as a Percent of Total Revenues Limited Levy as a Percent of the Total Levy Total Current Ispenditures Per Capita Total Revenues Per Capita Total EKptnditures Per Capita General Obligation Indebtedness Per Capita General Obligation Debt as a Percent of Assessed Valuation Special Assessment Indebtedness Per Capita Special Assessment Debt as a Percent of Assessed Valuation Total Liabilities (Governmental Fields) as a X of Total Revenues Total fund Balance as a Percent of Total Current Expenditures Interest Income as a Percent of Total Revenues Debt Service as a Percent of Total Revenue*' full*time Employees Per 1,000 in Population (Governmental Fuids) Part*tiitt EJiployeet Per 1,000 in Population (Governmental fields) fringe Benefits as a Percent Total Payroll (Governmental Funds) General Government Current Expenedituret Per Capita Police Current Expeneditures Per Capita fire Current Expeneditures Per Capita Streets B Nighuays Current Expeneditures Per Capita Average U.OX S.4X -33.9% 131.4X -5.IX 31.OX 2.8X 37.2X 71.5X Waximun 1S.8X 27. IX O.OX 338.4X O.OX 31.9X S.4;. 43. IX 77.8X WinimLTi 10.ax •8.2X •55.9X •36.7X •7.1X 26.4X 1.2X 35.9X 63. OX S 765.08 S 868.48 S 596.99 S 999.69 S 1.157.74 S 755.13 SI.152.92 S 1.391.22 S 789.65 S 307.04 S 476.10 S 150.24 3.9X 6.8X 0.9X 34.OX 3.6X 5.7X 15.4X 11.1 1.1 21.4X 2.3X 46.IX 5.6X 6.2X U.OX 11.4 4.2 31.2X 2.3X S 67.41 S 89.62 S 32.06 0.5X 27.6X 0.0% 3.9X 14.IX 9.3 1.1 19.8X Culture S Recreation Current Expeneditures Per Capita S 87.64 S 109.96 S 57.58 S 124.19 S 150.66 S 86.44 S 89.00 S 96.59 S 80.85 S 73.92 S 87.56 S 63.19 S 91.35 S 110.73 S 48.97 5 • 1 /.rPTCB OF THE STATE,ot th. ;«S“S«.« D.e«b« W< ‘»»» ci*8S 1 «.r«t.r t»» ..,••• i»Average Maxini^^>nM% • 5 tear Percent Change ,rgov.r««nt.l ««v.nu.s - 5 T.T P.rcent Ch-oge rttrgoverrwenttl Revenue* • 5 tear Percent Chr •«.verr«ntel Revenue. • 5 Year Percent Ch«^e ergover^eentel Revenue. • 5 Ye.r Percent Chr^e T»ie> a. e Percent of Total Revenues U...««ent. es e Percent of Total Revenues tergoverrwental Revenues as e Percent of Tot.l Revenue, levy as a Percent of the Tot.l Levy ,rrr^t Expenditures Per Capita rvenue. Per Capita xpenditures Per Capita Obligation indebtedness Per Capita 1 o.t. .. . »'■“'> •' I A.sesueent Indebtedness Per Cepite , .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . •' .. . . . . . . .. ■" S„.iC. •> . WCOT •' „ .. . .. ice current Expeneditore. Per Capita • current Expenediture. Per Capita eet. t HlRhuaya Current Expenediture. Per Capita Mininun10.8X 2.8X 5.4:.1.2% 37.2X 43 IX 35.9% 71.5X 77.8X 63.0% 8 765.08 8 868.48 8 596.99 $ 999.69 8 1,157.74 8 755.13 81.152.92 8 1,391.22 8 789.65 t 307.04 8 476.10 8 150.2^ 3.9X 6.8X 2.3% $ 67.41 8 89.62 8 32.06 0.9X 2.3X 0.5% 34.OX 46. IX 27.6% 3.6X 5.6X 0.0% 5.7X 6.2X 3.9% 15.4X 16.0X 14.1% 11.1 11.4 9.3 1.1 4.2 1.1 21.4X 31.2X 19.81 t 87.64 8 109.96 8 124.19 8 150.66 t 89.00 8 96.59 % 73.92 8 87.56 8 91.35 8 110.73 8 48.97 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR FINANCIAL HEALTH PROFILE SUMMARY BY CLASS OF CITYFor the y«ar End«d December 31, 1988 CLASS 2 (20,000 to 90,000 in Population)09/25/85IndicatorAverageMaximunMini rnjrTotal tavenues • 5 Year Percent Change 34.3%78.8%•0.8%State Intergovernriental Kevenues • 5 Year Percent Change 26.6%63.7%-3.9%federal Intergovernmental Revenues - 5 Year Percent Change -39.3%107.7%-100.0%iLocal Intergovernmental Revenues - 5 Year Percent Change 264.3%7,478.5%-100.0%Total Intergovernmental Revenues - 5 Year Percent Change 23.7%124.0%-25.2%Property Taxes as a Percent of Total Revenues 30.8% 57.8%17.1%Special Assessments as a Percent of Total Revenues 14.2%39.5%2.1%k ^ . Total Intergovernmental Revenues as a Percent of Total Revenues 25.1%50.9%9.4%fmm Limited Levy as a Percent of the Total Levy 66.1%89.1%49.8%» ■* Total Current Expenditures Per Capita % 342.06 S 515.36 %161.03 MBf *. Total Revenues Per Capita S 559.90 S 823.44 %258.46 i Total Expenditures Per Capita S 641.28 %991.88 %268.15 General Obligation Indebtedness Per Capita % 116.86 S 328.84 %0.00 General Obligation Debt as a Percent of Assessed Valuation 1.3%4.8%0.0% r- ♦ ' kat Special Assessment Indebtedness Per Capita i 461.16 %1,454.47 %13.37 r- Special Assessment Debt as a Percent of Assessed Valuation 5.3%19.3%0.2% Total Liabilities (Governmental Fcexis) as a % of Total Revenues 64.7%172.6% 7.1% ^ ■ Total fxrd Balance as a Percent of Total Current Expenditures 25.5%58.7%0.0% Interest Income as a Percent of Total Revenues 11.2%23.9%3.2%RP- Debt Service as a Percent of Total Revenues 28.6%131.2%9.3%... Full-time Eaployees Per 1,000 in Population (Governmental Funds)4.2 6.8 1.5 Part-time Employees Per 1,000 in Population (Governmental Fuids)4.3 13.2 0.3 Fringe Benefits as a Percent Total Payroll (Governmental Funds)18.6%35.5%1.3% General Government Current Expeneditures Per Capita $ 48.00 %131.18 %8.54 ■ Police Current Expeneditures Per Capita % 68.38 S 92.78 %25.78 Fire Current Expeneditures Per Capita S 29.42 %81.88 %5.46 Streets I Highways Current Expeneditures Per Capita % 44.07 S 93.58 1 23.45 Culture i Recreation Current Expeneditures Per Capita % 40.22 %101.31 %13.20 5 • 2 b ^eraae Maximin Minimum27.3X 136.9X -33.2X28.5X 111.OX -34.IX-65.7X 314.OX •100.OX12.5X 521.9X •100.OX16.1X 107.8X •36.5X28.OX 63.3X 13.3XU.2X 51.7X 0.9X54.2X 76.7X 9.4X 67. OX 96.8X 34.4X 357.27 S 908.16 %173.87 546.65 %990.34 %273.01 677.70 %1.345.17 %333.78 96.93 %345.93 %0.00 1.7X 8.9X O.OX 470.61 %1.872.93 %0.00 8.2X 40.4X O.OX 67.1X 207.5X 11.8X 31.9X 74.2X O.OX 7.9X 17.7X 1.2X 29. OX 93. IX 7.4X 4.9 13.5 1.5 6.6 26.1 0.0 31.7X 11.3X %76.39 %18.85 71.59 %112.76 %15.81 28.69 %123.87 %6.81 52.63 %106.49 %14.75 47.59 %124.78 %9.45 Average Mam'rnLvn Ninimjm27.3X 136.9%-33.2%28.5%111.0%•34.1%•65.7%314.0%•100.0%12.5%521.9%•100.0%16.1%107.8%•56.5%26.0%63.5%13.3%14.2%51.7%0.9%54.2%76.7%9.4% 67.0%96.6%34.4% 557.27 S 908.16 %173.87 546.65 %990.54 S 273.01 677.70 S 1,345.17 %333.78 ^.93 S 545.93 8 0.00 1.7%8.9%0.0% 470.61 S 1,872.93 %0.00 6.2%40.4%0.0% 67.1%207.5%11.8% 51.9%74.2%0.0% 7.9%17.7%1.2% 29.0%93.1%7.4% 4.9 13.5 1.5 6.6 26.1 0.0 •y .51.7%11.3% APPENDIX C REGIONAL ANALYSIS !■ p p n m Minnesota County Outline Ey Region », W*u 1 At: t>*i r k'>t» •k . sa ' CMS*00. ;^s stutss »c.n 7W S«l**J**»t s«» M •••a C**.A#(«^a •>s: •: 6E IMS*. •- MiC Mticcr CAAVCA WC*^ I DaaOT* USCG*.»»CT0>» AtOwrOOC >»i;ov.ii’ It wit * :t •'•t* S?CKl CO’^ONWOOC waTONwas Lut u*’H wAStol S'UkC OOOCl ru •co^ No«ai jAc»w-« ttAtuH a • N C»>k •» s;j c ! MTfcfi s;s lA f.s'.a, \ ->E «»ataS*«a Ot*«SHO wi*«0*«* riuMDAt ••DvS ’C- 6 - 1 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR Minn«sot« Financial laalth Program Analysis of Population 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1 Ytif 5 Year % ChaoQe X Change ifflJofi 1 25,121 24,869 24.910 24,681 24,812 0.5%•1.2% -legion 2 14,410 14.245 13.944 13,827 13.943 0.8%-3.2% legion 3 186.627 182,325 179,640 177.727 177,324 -0.2%-5.0% legion 4 72,261 72,246 72.067 72.280 72,861 0.8%o.n legion 5 51,504 51,695 31,761 31.738 31,981 0.8%1.5% legion 6£59,604 39.904 40,009 40.267 40,686 1.0%2.7% legion 6y 15,644 15,431 15,379 15,271 15,247 -0.2%-2.5% legion 7E 11,767 12,017 11.946 12,094 12,351 2.1%5.0% Region 7W 91,905 93,684 95,234 98,859 101,651 2.8%10.6% •legion 8 47.242 47.310 46.989 47.087 47.511 0.9% 0.6% legion 9 101,824 102.879 102.596 102,761 103,730 0.9%1.9% !legion 10 219,034 221,360 221,961 223,962 226,136 1.0%3.2% leoion 11 1.936.734 1.964.982 1.993.568 2,026.109 2.069.680 2.2%6.9% Total 2,793,677 2,822.947 2,849,804 2,686,663 2.937.913 1.8%5.2% •1 Analysis of Number 1984 of Households 1985 1986 1987 1988 1 Year % Change 5 Year % Change legion 1 9,640 9.570 9.623 9,616 9.695 0.8%0.6% legion 2 5,355 5,308 5,331 5.345 5.408 1.2% 1.0% legion 3 70,790 69,556 68.779 68,070 68.246 0.3%-3.6% -legion 4 27,213 27,273 27.399 27.598 27.992 1.4%2.9% ♦ 1 legion S 12,761 12,835 12,894 13,001 13.1d1 1.4%3.3% 1 legion 6C 15,431 15,551 15,662 15,993 16,241 1.6%5.2% -legion 6U 6,687 6,620 6,603 6,611 6,618 0.1%•1.0% “legion 7E 4,925 5.039 5,065 5.142 5,287 2.8%7.4% 1 legion TV 31,053 31,885 32,660 34,298 35,631 3.9%14.7% legion 8 19,030 19,083 19,085 19,194 19.411 1.1%2.0% 1 legion 9 38,055 38,083 38,211 38.489 39.019 1.4%2.5% i legion 10 83,270 84,430 85.087 86,312 87.472 1.3%5.0% legion 11 730.207 750.155 767.745 78\522 807.079 2.5%10.5% i Total 1,054,417 1,075,388 1,094.144 1,117,191 1,141.280 2.2%8.2% 1 '6 • 2 I OFFICE OP THE STATE AUDITOR Ninnsaots Financial Health Prograa Analysis of Indicated Market Value t«9ior> 1 198-1985 19^1987 1968 1 Year 5 Year 1L Charvsfk % TMarMi* 591,707,071 383,799,766 402.rS0.9a3 372,473.254 393,677.762 5.7%O.SX legion 2 235,276,539 232,528,982 231,333,184 232.132.304 226,527,540 •1.6X -2.9X legion 3 3,335,893,024 3,036,220,506 2,909,806,721 2,668,570.852 2,715,636,019 1.8X •18.6X legion 4 1,293,243,075 1.302,002.964 1,346,448,831 1.232,010,551 1,300,687,209 S.6X 0.6X legion 5 556,901,256 561,930,868 559,186,812 548,142,321 554.047.332 1.1X •0.5% legion 6£817,330,649 863,577,008 879,640,782 807,789,100 851,749,471 5.4X 4.2X legion 6W 261,619,273 253,686,888 256,218,943 236.928,006 232,075,726 •2.OX •11.3X legion 7E 25S.840.S95 270,269,719 280,784,148 269,851.890 276,947,992 2.6X 8.3X legion 7W 2,029,915,449 2,138,396,241 2,270,040,598 2.285,049,860 2.458.320.304 7.6X 21.IX legion 8 894,745,468 922,158,896 934,415,488 814,573.006 825,095.479 1.3X •7.8X legion 9 2,045,648,030 2,048,036,347 2,127.577,635 1,953,126,272 2.024,276,132 3.6X -1.0X legion 10 4,971,438,039 5,272,272,217 5,586,463,878 5,211,766,723 5.502.521.080 5.6X 10.n legion 61.790,347,592 63.643.609.626 65,807.841.976 67.734.013.642 74 843 206 585 10.5X 9.3X Total 78,879,906.060 80,928,490,028 83,592,539,979 84,366,427,781 92,206,768,631 « 1 . 16.9X Analysis of Net Property Taxes Collected legion 1 1984 1985 19S6 1987 1988 1 Year S Year 2,597,129 2,857,837 2,991,598 3,371,861 3.506,130 4.OX 35. ox legion 2 1,008,860 986,583 956,408 1,294,497 1.356,161 4.8X 34.4k legion 3 22,724,048 24,887,224 26,050,049 27.193.238 31.047.118 14.2X 36.6k legion 4 6,997,717 7,444,544 7,515.453 7.844,616 8,234,568 S.OX 17.7k legion 5 2,079,335 2,U7,285 2,986,868 3,585.385 3,816,680 6.5X 83.6k legion 6€3,878,114 4,973,623 5.883 258 6.944,843 5.73^,178 •17.1X 48.4k legion 6u 1,543,708 1,622,664 1.881,586 1,835,818 1.94'.,718 S.9X 26.0k legion 7l 1,343,548 1.411,384 1.833,432 2,031,077 2,238,004 10.2X 66.6k legion 7W 10,695,898 11,523,892 12.862,104 14,376,183 16,489,300 14.7X 54.2k legion 8 4,45’,028 4,834,577 6,081,699 6,551,673 6,738.235 2.6X 51.2k legion 9 11,805,406 12,381,956 13,588,^3 13,731.446 14,817.383 7.9X 25.5k legion 10 27,981,395 30,275,041 33,651,689 38,325,185 40.935,-98 6.8X 46.3k legion 11 295.469.430 320.402.562 356.516.537 389.273.718 439.117.631 12 61Total392,581,616 426,049.172 472,799,414 516,359,540 575.995.303 11.5X **c. oi 46.7X II I I I I 1 ] ] a a 6 • 3 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR Misnssota Financial Health Program — Analysis of Value of Building Permits Issued 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1 Tear 5 Year X C6ar>ge X Cha'^ae ic9ion 1 5,860,773 8.397.452 6.862.540 7.042.032 9.505.764 35. OX 62.2% «* 1 2 7.698 765 10,598.112 11,258.705 9,004.705 19.676.522 118.5X 155.6X 4 ♦ ,»on 3 63.096,814 32,U2,063 82.241.551 75.676.349 106.494.580 40.7X 68.8% *Kt9ion 4 27.057.589 38.371.799 30.241.050 36.509.263 35.737.957 •2.IX 32.1% •egion S 28,951,594 17,676,81*1».263.786 23.047.025 24,765,412 7.5%•14.5% • ^ legion 6€20.295.333 32.224.538 24.735.146 34.509.ai 32.802,857 •4.9X 61.6% legion 6W 3,797,228 2,682,697 2,506,778 2.827.295 3.744.704 32.4X •1.4% legion 7l 9,734,470 10.348.140 9.777.971 13,602,066 15.743.572 15.7X 61.7% legion 7W 77.501.430 94.317.556 100.143.587 137.411.694 131.835.796 -4.IX 70.1% legion 8 18.236.205 15.875.069 15.470.653 22,093.608 21.274,551 •3.7X 16.7% legion 9 46.025.865 41.355.892 52.538.603 48.954.863 52.272.249 6.8X 13.6% ■ legion 10 190.485,112 161.824.816 182,726,46*197.398.727 298.151.746 51. OX 56.5% legion 11 ^.140.679.152 iJ.589.939.878 2 t,104,9*8.*41 3.397.662.433 2 » 873.805.253 •15.4X 3*. 2% Total 2,639,*20,350 3,056,054,826 3,638,715,275 *,005,759,541 3,625,810,965 -9.5\37.4% Anal ’ &is of Number of Building Permits Issued 1 Year 5 Year 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 X Change X Cha'^ge legion 1 514 501 489 499 484 •3.OX •5.OX legion 2 289 282 288 328 344 4.9X 19.OX legion 3 3.888 3.323 3.396 3.943 4,152 5.3X 6.8X legion 4 1.199 1,209 1.475 \365 1,160 •15.OX •3.3X *-legion S 642 748 689 784 693 •11.6X 7.9X —legion 6E 613 918 897 774 745 -3.7%21.5% legion 6W 321 282 229 236 281 19.1%•12.5X legion 7E 249 236 369 396 375 •5.3%50.6% legion 7W 1,594 1.8H 2,129 2,713 2.376 -12.4%49. IX legion 8 965 807 895 837 916 9.4%•5.1% legion 9 2.478 2.444 2.451 2.544 1,683 •33.8%•32.IX *•« legion 10 4.688 4.698 4.865 4.824 5.273 9.3X 12.5X legion 11 47.728 48.945 54.145 59.752 58.693 •1.8X 23. C\ Totel 65,168 66,266 72.317 78,995 77.175 •2.3X 18.4X OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR Minnasota Financial Haaltb Prograa Analysis of Total Revenues 19Si Region 1 Region Z 13.177.533 7,027,ZOO 1985 12.428.624 6.895.555 1986 1987 12.800.707 10.270.581 13.502.552 7.951.889 1988 14.895.241 7.878.610 1 Yeer 5 Year % Change X Change 10.3X 13.OX Regions 110.26C.733 114.241.994 123.117,860 116.696.877 123.683.536 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6€ Region 6W Region n Region 7W Region 8 Region 9 32.556.836 14.912.633 17.045.737 6,859.680 6.143.723 45.619.892 20.217.155 51.831,096 Region 10 112.826.869 36.535.572 16.406.355 18.826.099 6,710.951 4,492.470 46.211.007 21.894.284 49.690.467 118.556.318 39,106 863 13,030.869 18.438.109 6.197,290 4,952.251 51.173.861 23.177,449 50.259,891 139.781.222 36.239,163 12.348,722 21,138.956 7,467.505 6.230,975 54.556,482 23.597.749 48.451.119 138.704.283 37,351.086 13,538.234 20.521.206 6,966.514 6.057,068 65,655.126 23.805.029 58.289.394 141.498,428 Rtgion 11 1,095.925.829 1,144.971.323 1,210,193.559 1,277.488,803 1,388.778.496 Total 1.534.404,916 1.597,861,019 1.702.502.512 1.764.375.075 1.908.917.968 •0.9X 6.OX 3.IX 9.6X •2.9X -6.7X •2.8X 20.3X 0.9X 20.3X 2.OX 8.7X 12.IX 12.2X 14. A -9.2X 20.4X 1.6X •1.4X 43.9X 17.A 12.5X 25.4X 26.A 8.2X 24.4X Analysis of Total Current Expenditures 1 Year 5 Year 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 X Change X Change Region 1 9.625,755 10.575.775 11.284,650 11,820,285 12,021,900 1.A 24.9X Maa Region 2 4.144.951 4.219.657 4.339.171 4.374,336 5.668.555 29.6X 36.8X Region 3 80.290.798 85,160,838 82.947.285 87,594,661 93.317,061 6.5X 16.2X Region 4 23,810.703 24.517.911 25.109,742 24.377.310 29.101.231 19.4X 22.2X Region 5 8.033.852 8,165,666 8.980,787 9.406.047 9,837,824 4.6X 22.5X Region 68 12,081,720 12,828,799 13,041,074 14,217.662 14.692,371 3.3X 21.6X Region 6W 4,865,840 5,278,996 5,265,585 5,193.377 5,589.205 7.6X 14.9X Region 7E 3.380,000 3.713.369 3.659,326 3,656,853 4,142,229 13.3X 22.6X - - Region 7W 28,101,328 31.506,628 31,536,980 33.170,335 36,745.569 10.8X 30.8X Region 8 15,682,669 16.207,040 16.207,284 16,900,655 18.743.632 10.9X 19.5X .... Region 9 29,784,799 31,671,571 32.942,443 34,100,502 37,833.161 10.9X 27.OX — Region 10 72.166,439 78.444.164 84.929.135 91,239.378 92.453.823 1.3X 28. IX — Region 11 740.904,416 798.945.912 867.055.506 930.348.574 939.154.640 0.9X 26.8X » * Total 1,032.873.270 1.111.236.326 1.187,298.968 1.266.399.975 1.299.301.201 2.6X 25.8X 6 • 5 m OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR Minnssota Fiaaacial Health Prograa Analysis of Total Bonded Indebtedness 1 Ytir 5 Y#»r itflfon 1 legion 2 legion 3 legion 4 legion 5 legion 6€ legion 6w legion 71 legion 7W legion 6 legion 9 legion 10 legion 11 Total 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 % C^t'^ee % 26.$48.000 25,451,781 23.804.564 22.622.947 21.204.729 •6.3X •20.1% 10,047,400 10.210.000 7.909.100 9,253.200 8.550,300 -7.6X •14.9% 120.377.796 127,758,352 132.884.876 180.008.536 174.238.000 •3.2X 44. A $6,028,342 60,497,401 59,502.632 57.309,551 58,849.814 2.7%5.0% 17,957.900 22,213,400 21,552.900 19,309.900 19.927.500 3.2X 11.0% 67,590,000 69,555,000 73.590.000 87,930,000 90.190.000 2.6X 33.4% 16,403,000 16,548,000 17.400.000 19,505,000 19,060,000 •2.3%16.2% 14,841,249 14.520,000 14.368.000 13,877,000 13.937.000 0.4%•6.1% 80,026,000 106,083,000 121.534.000 129,858,273 148.637.546 14.5%85.7% 49,602,000 56,942,007 58.306,106 59.234,838 61,288.536 3.5%23.6% 77.824,710 93,311.546 102,105.923 100,268,494 103.283.643 3.0%32.A 132.643,600 146,281,008 164.009.864 165,999,067 164.052,755 •1.2%23.A 1.583.949.384 2.253,839.381 1.958.799.223 2.708.-.7:,718 2.345,081.163 3,142.051.128 2.464.069.340 3,329,246,146 2.755,690.540 3.638.910.363 11.8% 9.3% 74.0% 61.5% Analysis of Undesignated, Unreserved General Fund Balance k«1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1 Ye#r X Chanoe 5 Year % C^B'^'oe M legion 1 2.112.273 2.215.0U 2.467.101 2.759.584 2.811.805 1.9%33.1% N legion 2 2,095,549 2.546.753 2.A8.777 2.758.227 2.985,033 8.2%42.4% H legion 3 15.771.128 14,527.731 16,156,001 15.586,701 19.214,276 23.3%21.8% M legion 4 6,270.381 7.520.540 8.205.006 9.655.712 8.660.604 •10.3%38.1% M 5 2.964.188 3,601.942 3,782,856 4,406,954 4,701,394 6.A 58.6% M legion 6€2.048.550 1,808,121 2,348,402 2,725,886 2.406.908 •11.A 17.5% M legion 6U 1,105,382 903.702 1.162.373 1,230.973 1,280,266 4.0%15.8% M legion 7E 424.260 U0.549 818,364 1,172,844 1,375.519 17.3%224.2% legion 7W 9,116.871 11,594,156 13.890,345 15.429.171 17.279.853 12.0%89.5% legion 8 5.000.392 5,139.714 5,228.201 5.369.724 5,352,600 •0.3%7.0% 'legion 9 7,601.605 8,683,008 10.063.321 10.610.868 11,093.919 4.6%45.9% legion 10 27.288.213 27,857.995 30,125.914 31,554,462 30.503.254 •3.3%11.8% legion 11 106.895.718 116.049.883 131.385.935 132.370.835 139.907.313 5.A _30.9% Total 188.694.510 202.889.108 228.372.596 235.631.941 247,572.744 5.1%31.2% 6 • 6 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR Mlnnasota Financial Health Program Analysis of Total Bonded Indebtedness 1 Tear i Tta'- 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 X C^anQe % change i^fon 1 26,548.000 25.451.781 23.804.564 22,622,947 21,204,729 •6.3t -20.1% 2 10.047,400 10,210,000 7,909,100 9,253,200 0,550,300 •7.6X •14.9% legion 3 120.377.796 127,758,352 132.884.876 180.008.536 174,230,000 •3.2%44.7% —legion i 56,028.342 60.497.401 59.502.632 57,309,551 50,049,014 2.7%5.0% legion 5 17,957,900 22,213,400 21,552,900 19,309.900 19.927.500 S.2% 11.0% legion 6€67,590.000 69,555,000 73.590.000 87.930.000 90.190.000 2.6%33.4% • 1 tt«ion M 16.403.000 16,548,000 17.400.000 19.505.000 19.060.000 •2.3%16.2% legion 7E 14.641.249 14.520,000 14,368.000 13.877.000 13.937.000 0.4%•6.1% m legion 7W 80.026.000 106,083.000 121.534.000 129,858.273 148.637.546 14.5%85.7% legion 6 49,602,000 56,942,007 58.308.106 59.234.838 61.288.536 3.5%23.6% m legion 9 77.824,710 93,311,546 102.105,923 100.268.494 103.283.643 3.0%32.7% legion 10 13;,643,600 146,281,008 164.009.864 165.999.067 164.052.755 •1.2%23.7% legion 11 1.583,949,384 1.958.799.223 2.345.081.163 2.464.069,340 2.755,690.540 11.8%74.0% M m Total 2,253,839,581 2,708, TO, 718 3,142,051,128 3,329,246,146 3,630,910,363 9.3%61.5% Analysis of Undesignated,Unreserved General Fund Balance 1 Uir 5 Tearn19841985198619871988% Chanoe % Chanap> M legion 1 2.112.273 2,215.OU 2.467.101 2.759.584 2.811.805 1.9%33.1% N legion 2 2,095.549 2,546,753 2.738.777 2.758.227 2.985.033 8.2%42.4% ■legion 3 15,771.128 14.527.731 16.156.001 15.586.701 19.214.276 23.3%21.8% M legion 4 6.270.381 7,520.540 8,205.006 9.655,712 8.660.604 -10.3%38.1% M 5 2,964.188 3.601.942 3,782.856 4,406.954 4.701.394 6.7%58.6% M legion 6€2,048.550 1,808.121 2,348,402 2,725,066 2.406.908 •11.7%17.5% m legion 6W 1,105,382 903.702 1,162.373 1,230,973 1.280.266 4.0%15.8% M legion 7E 424,260 U0.549 818,364 1,172,044 1.375.519 17.3%224.2% !-•legion 7W 9,116,871 11,594.156 13,890,345 15,429,171 17.279.853 12.0%89.5% legion 8 5,000,392 5,139.714 5.228.201 5,369,724 5.352.600 •0.3%7.0% ‘ •legion 9 7,601,605 8,683,008 10.063.321 10,610,060 11.093.919 4.6%45.9% legion 10 27,288,213 27,857.995 30.125.914 31,554,462 30.503.254 •3.3%11.8% T legion 11 106.895,718 116.049.883 131.385.935 132.370.035 139.907,313 5.7%50.9% Total 188,694,510 202,889.108 228.372.596 235,631,941 247.572.744 5.n 31.2X 6 • 6 1- TO;Mayor and City Council Thomas M. Kuehn, Finance Director DATE SUBJECT: 1390.9 « /I tuunuiL MkEliNG JAN 81990 CITY OF GPfWn January 3, 1990 Request From First Trust N.A. for Authorization to Re-issue a Certificate for Registered Bonds, 1985 G.O. Bond Issue Attachment:A. Proposed Resolution to Authorize Issuance of a Duplicate Certificate and etc for Bond No. R-113 of G.O. Imp. Bonds of 1985 DISCUSSION - We have been notified by First Trust, N.A., the registrar and paying agent for the City of Orono G.O. Imp. Bonds of 1985, that a registered bond certificate has been reported lost by its owner and a replacement duplicate certificate is requested. As per State law an indemnity bond for twice the face amount of the certificate has been issued to the City of Orono and First Trust, N.A. jointly. I have asked the City's fiscal consultant, Ehlers and Assoc, to review the bond and to direct the City how to proceed with this request. They have advised that we should adopt a resolution to authorize the issuance of a duplicate certificate for the lost original registered bond certificate and have submitted a proposed resolution to that effect. RECOMMENDATION - That the Council adopt the proposed resolution as presented. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by __, to adopt Resolution #__ Authorizing "tHe Issuance of a Duplicate Certificate and Payment of Interest on for Bond Numbered R-113 of the City's General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1985. Ayes __, Nays __. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat Forwarded recommending adoption. CITY OF ^RONO 1390.10 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO._________ h re5olotion authosizihg the issuance of a duplicate certificate AND PA7NENT OF INTEREST ON FOR BOND NUHBERED R-113 OF THE CITY'S GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1985 WHEREAS: A. The City Council of the City of Orono, by resolution authorized the issuance of General Obligation Bonds of 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bonds"). B. Bond Numbered R-113 was sold to Paine Webber Incorporated, 100 Harbor Boulevard, Weehawken, New Jersey 07087. Said Bond was in the denomination of $45,000, bearing interest at the rate of eight and twenty hundredths percent (8.20%) per annum and maturing on January 1, 1999. C. Paine Webber Incorporated has given to the City of a certain surety bond dated September 12, 1989, of Chubb Group of Insurance Companies in the principal amount of $90,000, said amount being double the amount of the lost Bonds and being conditioned to save the City of harmless as to the results of its issuance of the additional bonds and coupons. HOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono as follows: 1. The Finance Director is hereby directed to send letter to the Bond P.-gistrar of the G.O. Improvement Bonds of 1985, First Trust Co.ipany, authorizing the Bond Registrar to issue a Duplicate Cer.ificate and to pay interest due on said Certificate. 2. The costs of the surety bond and any costs relating to the reissuance of Certificate R-113 shall be paid by Paine Webber Incorporated. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held January 8, 1990. ATTEST: James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Halim, city Clerk TO: FRO 1390.5 Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistrat DATE: January 3, 1990 SUBJECT: Stubb's Bay Sewer Meeting / C0u.'«!;ll M£[; iNG JAN 81990 ciTv fiF cmm \If ; t 1 Attachment: A. Stubbs Bay Memo Dated 12/1/09 ISSUE - Updated information regarding nieeting to be held on Stubb's Bay sewer. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's December 11, 1989, Council meeting they established January 30th as a possible date for a Stubb's Bay sewer meeting. DISCUSSION - The staff has contacted the school, where the previous meeting was held, and they have indicated that the ‘t usable space, the theater, is available for that date. If you desire this to be rescheduled please indicate at the meeting. If acceptable a notice will be sent to the property owners within the next 10 days. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Select a new date. 2. Select a different location. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that it be schedjiled^at the Orono"School fHeater at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday. January 30, 1990. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, reschedule the Stubb's Bay sewer meeting for January 30, 1990, at 7:00 P.M. at the High School Theater. Ayes __, Nays —. cc:John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning it Zoning Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Planning Commission Members ^ • I 12189.5 TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate OUNCIL MEETING DATE December 1, 1989 SUBJECT: Stubbs Bay Sewer Consideration DEC 111989 CITY OF ORONO ISSUE - Establishment of a d^te that the Council would like to meet~~in a public forum with the residents of the Stubbs Bay area. January/February timeframe# DISUCSSION - The following represents potential QP early February that could be used for such a meeting. They are as follows: January 10th and 11th January 24th and 25th January 29th, 30th, 31st/February 1st February 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th ALTERNATIVES - 1. Select a date. 2. Table until January 8th. 3. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - Is is recommended that 1_9J0 established as a ioint meeting date to be held at the Ocono High SchSol Audi tor urn at 7:00 P.M. Notification of this nesting will be sent to all residents and property owners in s'®? approximately 2 1/2 weeks in advance of the maeting. A special letter will be sent to those on Oxford Poad to determine what, if any, interest they have in being included in such a project. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , that adopt _ _ as the date for a joint meeUng _w_it_h_ the^ residents^ the Stubbs Bay area regarding Stubbs Bay sewer. Ayes Nays cc:John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building S Zoning Administrator Planning Commission Members % H 1390.7 c TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistratorr^ January 3, 1990 JAN 8(990 r«Ty pf! SUBJECT: Administrator's Information HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR SELECTION STUDY - The City has been apprised oc the fact that He ifard Neddies, a consulting firm that has offices nationally, has been selected as the consulting engineer for the corridor study. The selection was based on the experience they have had working with Minnesota Department of Transportation together with their availability to undertake the task duiing the next year. It is expected that during the next month MnDOT will be in contact with each of the cities to establish an initial meeting with the consultant. 1950 SHORELINE DRIVE - The final documents are expected to be signed on this during the next two weeks. The Attorney for the property owner was out of town during the holidays, but is expected to have this completed by January 15th. The final date for removal remains June 1, 1991, as it was when the 18 months was agreed upon. 1972 GHADYWOOD ROAD - The initial part 't the winter had little eVjdence of the ducks, however, observations by neighbors, the media and CounciImembers together with staff indicate that there is continued feeding on the property and during the next month or so staff will be seeking an injunction regarding this matter. LAKE MINNETONKA/HENNEPIN PARKS LAWSUIT - As you may have noted the lawsuit between Hennepin Parks and Minnetrista on the constitutionality of the "garbage bill" was found in Hennepin Parks favor by the Minnesota Supreme Court during the latter part of December. 3536 LYRIC AVENUE - The trial which had been scheduled in December had to be rescheduled because of previous commitments by the Judge. On January 2, 1990, the resident failed to appear although his attorney was present. The Judge revoked his suspended sentence from last February and scheduled a hearing for later this month to allow him to contest the revocation. DARE PROGRAM - Attachment is the schedule for the pilot DARE program in the Orono Schools starting January 23rd. OCTOBER/NOVEMBER TRANSFERS AND DISBURSEMENTS - (See attached) WIRE TRANSFERS - (See attached) GOALS AND OBJECTIVES - (See attached) D.A.R.E. Jan 23 - Tuesday March 15 In the sche as follows: 5 - 9:40 Kristen Peterson- room 1150 - 10:23 - Mike Schwarze - room 1165 - 2:45 - Mike Schwarze - room 116 9:40 -10:20 -Rebekah Hanson -room 1211:55 -2:45 -Rebekah Hanson -room 121 8:54 -9:40 -Cheryl Blonigen -room 1131:55 -2:45 -Kristen Peterson - room 115 March 5,1990 only an adjustment must be made Monday -8:54 1:55 9:40 2:45 Cheryl Blonigen Kristen Peterson Tuesday - same as other weeks Wednesday - same as other weeks 1 Ito I I I li Q i s I I S IM I Q Is i ot 00 s M § M I ft I i-t lO rxi <N to o» % « CD to m oO0to^^H«n<^®»H^•r^loot^• <or^^tf>^0Or»o«*>r ‘Otto ®*vmr'r^c^ioovo®®*-tot »»«%«««%«•«** <^l^iO<o®^r^c•ol^n®^o® MO p»®to^(M»H^.-im in - to r* r% r* iH Ooo% o A ® Ar*A A A A O O A A AAA HAM • • • A ®tc CM O A r* O O A A r-l A A A O H A O m m 1 O Gi OOOO OOO 4Vfti 4«k 1^1 t#ft Alft <dl k4% 1 1 1 ooU 1 ^ 1 ^1 #Vft i W A f*TI W> V' d" I m i-t H m m aa ® f 11 Wr m%C7' 1sas!I O Mr*% ^p ^ CM m r-4 ® ® M* •-! m m hm AO HAO m rM (M •-• M «n M 1 1 1 11 M 9 A• A9 1 A 11 Cf 1111O A >4% 14% 0^*A0AAAAAA^-IHM ’• PM #sa 4^ ^ iA 49ft Aft ^ M lA M O 1 a 4 1 A A«1 § ! A A M m f" f ft A W1 V* 4r 1 •• dr ■ ” •ha mAAAMHHAHO O 1 % 1 M%A M 1 A 1 a A4^ A ® m m A m ® A m m M 4w ^ 4d • A M m i/% A O 1 m 1 A cn%v« 1 M 1 P* A p4 «H pM pM MP M 9 11 o •H m Q 1 1 a % A 1 1 1 9 s 1 1 1 1 A 1 M A 1 H 1 n 1 H oiH 1 ® Q 1 M iJ I 1-4 t % 1 O 1 %ooa a!9 1 A 1 M MaM 1 1 « 1 m 1 »ma1 m 1 1 M fi 1 1 O M 1 1 M S B k t O A ^ ft mA 11 A &w 1 X Z 1 % %11 • A1^ M 1a 1a wf O A A A 1 1I m 9% a 1 1 1 m f 1 1 A H 1 1 1 1 8 1 # ft a o o k A AS OO OOOO OOO 1 11 o f<kH K U 1a ^ o> 1 W W A O % « ft,jj wi V« va *^ w* MA ® A A m AAM««»« *•»1 1 9» a sas 1 O H M <H A M ®A M A m «H iH m M aa ®AMA AAA •H m ^ 1 1 1 1 1 ® A ®« m A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 11•1 1 A A #M iVft OAOOAAAAAMOAOA 44% pMft 4^ JHft 4^ 49% ftn» Mft MA 1 O 1 1 A CO*o 1L 1 CD CD A ® IV Wf iM r*f ftM "M wi ftw ®®0®MMHmmA*HHA o 1 A 1 %»M 1s % % A m A00m0A®AAAH«0 4^ 4%p 49ft JM% 4^ 4^ >4% 4^ 49ft 49ft 4M O 1 0> 1 l41 11m CMo Hi OI C7> CD iM pi SD AA V* Pf ▼ Pft M A 9 M A M 1 ■ i ^ 1 1 dr ®n M 1 « 1 % A m CO ® M o r-4 ® ot r-4 mo ® M *-l O m 'T «H M to O I A I ® r1 ® »-l r> m fo ot ® ^ «r M i-l r4 O m m r-« moo M O o« ® c* M to O O to m» « » » » * Ot m m ® mm O M O' m m ^ ® 'T m IH «-i ^ M o A o • I3S U o M m ® ® o T3 I i'i >« 4i O;;s<o *< -H _ 90>i<l4 . !os>lll!lt M m V*g-:s 3 A U M A X M A 0 M M M M A ao 3 u M M • f A♦i 5 »H « • o X A u M O m » to II •om *»mi •%z A H in r- I o I • I to I A m I A • • • IK I I* • to I ^ I I^ i :s i » im A ® m ® A M O m% A I«N IA IA • * I m A O A A A I m I m ■ • I A I Ot ■ A O A • ® I o' i ot I m I I I I • I I • I • I I • Sf A • !A I « I in I A ■ o •> • A • I Ir* • A Ir* ■ A • ^ • «r • • o A ® O CM «-4 O r' •H%mM KO Am o ® A% A A M O Am a 2 A IA I M I'll r* I I m A A MP m A S I « A <0* A A m r^♦ in o A m A m m m M A r» oooooooo A o ^ A O p O O o A A A o A• ««**« % M o o m A A m •H A n M A A «H M '» A m mM>*-4A^AO® IM o r4 ® A « r-( M A A A m m tr««%«»» % A M A A CM ♦ A ® M rM A A ® A A m A A r-t O A A% O M A 3! r* « Jis- 11 ^ A W m > u• o o • A %4 • CM •• • • • • M U M A C • C A *H |« iJ M U ft* I i M M32 M 8^ • M • e • M • jC a M M MHO •j U M ^ Iio I Q ! I I Hi §! s I i 1 ::! I 8 M SM 3 EI m 3 §s 1 « \ I : ^ I 9 i ^ O' m o % % « r% » 'T r« «-4 »»*«»«•«««»»• eD«r'«Otficomr>r>aDmr''^ or*r*o « (O r-« • o» »» M» CH «r<#• m 0» O •O to* on r* ooo*o O' o o m m « « <o « m m m O O ot ^ ^ O) <v• • • • • • • r* o O' r» Q f't «> o o O' r« 9 rt o 8So o o to O' <-i r* n n « « * • f*y flo 00 f* €'• to O o o o ^ ^ irt m M (D r* to o ^ n M^OOr-tO^^^tOrtm^tOr^r^ MOt «oBin0iaDiHr*><-i^ao tnrt «Mr* in«nor*r>*r*r*r*r**^ O' 00 r* ^ o to ^ CD iH « ^ n to r* O' o tn f*> (M «n 8 rt m 1 1 9 1 o o 2S % ^ ss CM tn • » O O O O o O m m m 9 9 04 • • » » 0 1 O' 1 o r* CM 04 9 90 CM CM 0 m ^ m 9 04 9 SS *-• n f'l O' to O' I *: tOCDO—•\oor*(r'ir*or*ir>r<tmoo r^ot ^oOf-tr^oOf^f^rntomr* coo f*ttftor^moi^<*toocoo'mo' »» *»«*%«*»•%»»» ^mor>«m^«otoaor*^^ n n nrt0'Or<r‘C0*-»r*0'»^v0»n M r4 O' ^ *-i O »“• CDC'iO'^flOO'M omin*i4 «noO lO tN r-« 00 r«vO('«M0 <*< r* » m o 00 <n ^ ^ to i>4 M m o »»«« «»%• rt m rt O' ottrttnto ii> V 'T o o» « r« ^ rHI 4 Y «-« «-i ft n r*r»to»MCMm n to« rc CM tn « ! rt r* iri>« *« u s« r* ► • I O' CO in r* r* r* o 00 cn r* m r* f* CM O 09 odtoorctn -tO^MOtOODCD* s. t»iljll!is!!55! • cJCOI^Ot I 8 S8&Si8 8 ^8fr»88 S?|S m* m CM o «H s r*CM «CM CMm I 0 CM ^ I = iI 1 I I w4 I *-t » •rs I ^ I r» •• • • I O' I n ■ ^ ■ • ■ CM f I I■ a■■ ■ I I o Io ■to • • •tya I I"'S " 1 (tf> o to » n CO (M o CD rt r* ot n or*» 9 tO« O'm r* o to s m « ot CM O ooot»m00 to 'T r* «n 8 • I S i r> I • I 2 It O I O' to <r 5 tn I n» I •-I I I o r> O 7, i 2 ! " { !l 2: • I 'O I I I I O I ^ I • I O Ift I CD I • I 2 I S j • I m I CM I ••4 I I• I S ! •-« I CD t to 00 •H <n 9 9 'T to* to m CM O toft & 3 ^3 Ir* Ifn#nr* O' CD\o ft \ s O' •J< z: i ti) MM »• O 9 14 Oi Gb 14 «« £ »• 8 *» Ms • m -H • u<o • 9 M rt U • 5g O • “8 Cl «i « i •u m V. • O* <0 • « O V 9 «« a 4) U • • ^ ^ o 0^0 9 O u%* u 04 O' M « O • V ^ 44 O 4i 44 o • U • 44 f ^ o J: “ I ^ »4 8 "**• %4 -4 O « 5;o • a u m hi 9m 44u i 3 04 ao •u > • • u 58 • G • « 4< C 04 II u 8 & G O' 4-1 GSi * §u b • O U M• • ki Xt . 8 S G S'* 88U f-4 04 9 ^ G 28• > to 9 tM 8 04 u 6 44 o o o 9 m k« • %« ■ cmu 44 mo 04 a 8 8 8 44 C '•C S J 88 -28 w O & 44 «*4 S88a 5> u u 6 • «4 •• s 44 *41 !im o 44 U 8.“ 8:m m 9 u • eSis SS88S|°SI o O m O' tn O tO I %»*««« *1 m p o rt m in ml •H p CM CM ot «0 *^1 CM « p <-4 I •-iCMi-ictcnftOf* CM CD CM CD r* 0 CM CM CM O' r* O' O' O»»%«*• m m ft »-4 iH r* 0 rt >H r* o 0 ct m ^ ft 0 (M <-4 • •2.- mm ^' SI" v» ^ 1 ^<3QKi SKTilfiS••7 OTO - *ta 9to - •at 9fD -*90 990-1908 Short OhjactiiCl^sctii mSK E. BBmSKKBOEcm owniiSTHflORI mcc 1989 - 30 APRIL 1990 Draft 5/19/09 Reviasd «/30/09 7/31/89 9/05/89 9/29/89 10/31/89 12/04/89 12/27/89ABBAGOAL AREA cBJiarr^DATES mTDS!• CXmDNm OESVELOPMEHr A. HigtMay 12 1. Utilities Sewer - Part I InstaU 09/01/89 Sewer - Part II Water System Main Install Install Well (6 months) 07/01/90 09/01/89 04/01/90 Bids dose 6/30/89 Project Ordered 7/^4/89 Negotiating Asnnt TenDs/t)evelop Agnnnt Oonnenced Oonstructicn 10/27/89 6 11/13/89 Project Ordered 7/24/89 OoPBienced Oonstruction 10/27/89 & 11/13/89 2/1/90 Need available water 9/11/89 Table Test Well to 9/25/89 9/25/89 Awarded Test Wells 11/1/89 Oonnenoe Test Drillings 11/6/89 Test drilling found adequate aquifer 11/13/89 Interim production well drilled ■ • Tower (9-12 nmths) Plans Specs - Order Award 07/01/90 09/89 U/89 Financing Negotiation on Utilities (Long Lake - Madina) 09/11/89 10/04/89 8A4/89 Bond Resolution adopted Requested to negotiate with Medina 10/23/89 Bond Sale Aweurded/AAl Rating/6.57% Bond Closing Ooranenced water discussion 10/25/89 with Medina - Medina to meet with affected residents 1/90 to discuss i ; V^! .‘.f. •/i. - Kg, **• • \ JuMif * •• '•• •>k'- %y**.. yiM S* . v_, _ I Am GOAL Am CBJHL'l'IVE OATES STATTS •90 STD •87 STO •88 STO•89 STO •90 STO•2. Long Term Corridor Upgradereaslbility study 7WOT Initiationot 09/01/8907/07/89 16/30/89-AMaiting Rtsponse tcm tVDotCentral Off loa on Ocnsultant •f«[tm. uv»/»11/15/89 ODsmlssloner Levine annoumoee coneultant/MnDOT corridor selection studyUndertake corridor selection study with MnDOT consultant & surrounding cities 02/9010/90Take appropriate planning steps if needed in potential corridors 12/90 A * *90 STO 3. 1992 S^^ety Improvement Preliminary planapproval 10/01/89 info msetlng held 7/24/89. hwitlng Long Lata response to ^eiDOT 10/3/89 Hold meeting with MnDOT - Discussed with Otten 10/11 __^ - Need to Develop Frontage Road Prelim Ooets - Develop %#arrants/Nlllow Drive 12/1/89 Mtg with MnDOT - Antlclpate^Jsct go ahead If traffic signal Installed *. # Adopt if appropriate Work with MnDOT on rlght-of-«y/f tontag* toads Enooucage stoplight WlUw/12 02/90 07/90 •88 STO •89 STO B. Navarre Rsdevelopnent direction 08/01/89 6/01/89-Held JoLit Mtg 6/26/89 Discussed future direction lV18*Oowcil/PC^ea^t^ held n«I. To take to Council in 1-2/90 for further Determine desired direction Determine beautification plan implementation If nay Complete Master Planningr If appropriate Determine need for Tax Increment District 02/90 03/90 07/90 C. County Road 15 Beautificatiofi Plan Project ooepletion Special assessments ___ Determine means to la|>l»>«it 07/01/89 Project completed 09/01/89 8/28/89 Assesawnt adopted ____ 10/01/89 9/89 BtquMt ce9«d}n9to 10/23/89 Council ■•etinq - Requests ptopoeal ftoD staff If detaaeA appcoptiata ll/i5/W Lighting • -a •1 ,5| . H ■0 • f ■.. ( cads MBh -j '■ i«-, Aim1. COtVOMm OOTLCMHT ContinuedD. Oonmunity TranspoctationPlan CBJBCTTVE dates ST^TIS*U7 STO>90 STO 190 STO *87 STO >88 STO •89 STO •88 STD •89 STO U^te capital project guidelinesBridge bonding progri 07/8909/89 10/23/89 I^laed 1990-2000 to OouncU E. County Boed 116 p. SbocB faster Manage^nt Plan G* OoBBunity Develo|*8ent Direction and cogress H. IKJ) Ooipcehenslve Managcnent Plan Pii)Uc/Prlvate street - revlee policyUrriertake capital budget designated projects 02/90 7A0/89 AdoptedNeed to subalt requMt foe plans and specifications to stoiilt to SUte - 11/13/89 Council order pl*« ‘7/24/89 mao Prlvato/Pii>Uc/t)rlvei^/Boii^ 8/28/89 MraD Be: City Attorney Private Bonds Preliminary plan review Monitor action by County as to Its proposed construction Itevlew and If appropriate adopt a preliminary design Review and If appropriate adopt a final design 08/01/89 Set public Info mtg for design review at 7/10 mtg Itesldent review 7/26 Held PxiDllc Info 9/25 - Tabled to 10 /23 _ 10/23/89 Preliminary design approved • Besolutlon adopted 11/13/89 EMI response due by 11/29/89 11/89 Oompleted Currently delayed to 1994 A.) Marina Control Initiate review Complete review 01/90 03/90 B.) ^4ork towards service and results oriented *Ho Surprises" process Review all drafts for Issues and direction Present desired changes to UO 03/90 k '..*T!^ *- w- >' ' V. Am OQAI. APEA2. Esma^wm. pROftscncN*90 A. Stubbs Bsy '89 STD B. Solid Waste Management •90 STO C. Metro Waste Replacement Project Lift Station lOAift Station 43 Repl A -■iiAiOBJECTIVEDA1ES STATUSPublic informational 08/15/89 MMting held 7/27/89Significant Issues Memo Pres^ted at 9/25 latg Tabled to 10/23/8910/23/89 - 7^1^ issue to next meeting U/13/89 - Table to 12/11/89 to set mtg for 1/90 or 2/90Establish policies regarding the projectDetermine assessment area interest Ehgage an appraiser Consider financing options Consider development moratorium 11/89 If Appropriate - InitJLtiate project ^epare Plans a Specifications Project bid - Hold Hearing a if appropriate order project - i3aid for project - Oommenoc project - Complete project - Assess project Review organized collection if needed Review program performance Rebid contract for curbside Review incentives to improve participation Review recycling efforts Determine if further solid vfaste regulation appropriate Review organized oollection if appropriate Oonpletion t Bid award Public informational meeting - Financing Inplement financing - Connection charges r/01/89 " /15/89 y30/89 12/30/89 02/90 03/90 04/90 03/90 05/90 10/90 10/90 09/89 10/89 10/89 02/90 Tb be bid for 1990 Bids due 12/8/89 06/90 12/90 12/90 10/01/89 Delayed to at least 12/31/89 05/22/89 06/89 07/89 5/T/89 Bid awarded 6/22/89 Pre-construction mtg. held 7/18/89 Qsnstruction Connection charges adopted 8/14/89 9/20/89 Const mostly ooepleted pending M40C work t^ .- vsl; t <*. ■ i . ■ I : - ''t -1 t • % T^ ''i v*. AFFA GOAL ABBA OBJBCriVE DAT3 STATOS3. cscAiinjffiaaL oEvnxiwEir*A. W ' ODuncll Goal Setting OoB|>lete 07/89 8/20/89 Prelladnary 1990 Strategic Goalsetting presented09/89•90 STO 1991 Goal Setting B. 1990 Budget Process Assessment Board of •teview Prelisdnary Budget guidelines Capital projects guidelines review Alternate Dates ^08/01 - 08/15 Prelindnary mill levy adoption (Truth in Taxation) 09/15 - 10/15 Hearing Budget adoption •90 STD •90 STO 10/25/89 Final levy adoption 1991 Budget C. 1990 Legislative Program Review 1991 Legislative Plan D. Team Building Staff Oouncil 05/89 06/89 08/89 Bd of Review held 5/11/89 6 5/24/89 Presented Initial Guidelines 6/12/89 Presented Revised Guidelines 6/26/89 Initial revised plan 1990-2000 Present 10/23/89 09/15/89 6/30/89 May require action by 8/1/89 7/24/89 Adopted prelimianry max. levysss ss: s‘i5"S57:!s-.i« Budget Hearing delayed pending results of Special Session 10A5/89 Revised Schedule to Oouncll for U/13/89 Public hearing set for 11/30/89 12/15/89 U/30/89 Levy adopted 06/-10/90 12/89 09/-U/90 12/89 « <•r(f —-II► - ♦ *♦•%’>!# ► * -.y .»'. •• ,1II»ii4r**^<Am4* SEH/ICB PELIVEKf •90 sro GOAL AFEA ODJECnVB STAIUS •87 STD •88 STD •90 SID •90 STD •90 STD •90 STD A. Facilities Upgrade Detentlne If undertaking- Financial- Goats- Site- Pi#ilic InfonMtlon i^tlngts)09/01/89 6/29/89 Dus tour of facilities Meeting set for 11/8/89 11/8/89 Mtg directed developaent of tijoe guidelines to Oouncll 11/27/89 project esti»ates/flnancing to Oouncll 12/U/89If Undertaken Site acquisition. If any Select architect Design Final plans/oosts Plans/^peclfIcationc Financing Bid awards B. Long Rang* Financial Dtvelop balance of policy Policy 12/89 C. aialncOT strategy Plans Police Golf Oocrse 07/01/89 7/10/89 Presented to Oquik’.II 09/01/89 7A0/89 Initial optlona to Oouncll Directed to Ideas to make pcofltaole D. Service Rsvlews Engineering services 09/89 03/90 Legal services 10/89 06/90 B. Assessing Service Rsplacenent 01/90 7/10/89 Oouncll dltactad ttanaltlonal arrangenent plus esploce contract and/cc enploynent 8/15/99 •Ada* auhnitted ^ „ 10/11/89 BFP's tramniittcd - 11/3/89 «)ue back U/3/89 Raoelved 4 BFP’s - Beooa«»Utlon tc 12/11/89 atg .. 1• \f . 1 1 4 ■A V. 1 rrvfx -*. !► .- «*w- • *«-j|"■I •Am5« OMH BESaORCES *90 810 GOAL AmA* OoqpensatioR GBJLCnVEIqpleD»t Oployee nmgriitionFonnilate City employee dev«lopMntExplore performanoe incentive programExplore "Cafeteria Benefits*/ IBS Section 125 Plan DATES STATUS01/9006/9010/8907/01/8902/90Determine Section 89 requiresnents 10/01/89 Anticipate delay in Requirements for untilafter 1/909/28/89 Anticipate Congressional repeal of requirement11/^ Congress repeals 'v VB. Bqploynent Affirmative Action Program adoption 07/01/89 6/89 No longer State requirement > ■ 6. MABKETINO •t • • • V. I • ! i 1 k t f .• ••1 1 % I.<.i/ LIST OP LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR MEETING OP January 8, 19?0 MEETING Jfld 81990 G!TV fii' rPOf,?f; Residential Kennel Licens*9 -Alan Cornelius 37o Leaf Street D. Brian & Cathy Fulmer 3505 Wavzata Blvd. - • r* - Owner KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATICitI Effective January 1, 19 to December 31, 19. Property Address: ^^ ^ ^ ^ (include city and zip) /0 /Ud^ /a c / Mailing Address (if different):_ Phone: (home) ^7S' O^^(wor)c) RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Information: $25.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time: (over 6 months of age) rTTV nr r.r.m-) Ly A t t U** U’f «U**V nccrrcI X irni^x. u ut t xi.1. fi w'lw'w^W'WVM rr*/ .v*(over b monrns OI. age; Principal Breed: r ■ A’ U’’ V*n. Purpose for more than 2 does: ’/^ /!fS________________ \/^ inside _ _Dogs normally kept:kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Information: $150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business: Business Activities:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __— (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.; uormal Business Hours:_ _ _ _ After'Hours Contact: (name)» »k •« » < (phone) Dog runs/exercise areas are: - * ^ * m inside outside t' both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that - a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion to inspect the premises orior to license approval and at any other reas -nable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide ^^'^f^J^Dofed by of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed oy the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1, 19to December 31, 19*^0 Owner; (5(24/(illt—^ FlNLjvg^f?_ Property Address.* ~ 30^ A'h•ZjQc TP> l~A^.g (Include city au^ zip) Mailing Address (if different) Phone: (home) A “^C d -(wor)c) - ‘^OZ.Co ’^RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Information: C|^.00 (payment must accompany application) ^ Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time: ^ (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed: CtLJ^3c-Aw /SiVtM-.^kywOri^'S_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Purpose for more than 2 J-x-’s: v>\Ac c i2:ei£jrT>>yr/r:^25Srv.l.*^ 9 Dogs normally kept: _ _ _inside X kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Information: $150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business: • -siness Activities:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ vk.^X2unple: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ After Hours Contact: (naune)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (phone)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Dog runs/exercise areas are: _ _inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. Applicant Date Por City Use Only y . Kennel inspected by Recommends Approval_^_ Denial_ _ Date 12/10/89 PR CB PRREGOR NAME ANDERSON. BRUCE I BERNHARDSON. MARK E BERNHARDSON. MARK E BOBZIEN. SUE A BOSMA. JAMIE L BRINKHAUS. JOHN F CHESWICK, GARY B CHRISTIANSON. SALLY CORNICK. JAMES L ENGLISHIII. IRVING ERICKSON. KURT R FISCHENICH. OAN T FRITZLER. JOHN M GAFFRON. MICHAEL P GERHAROSON. JOHN R GREGORY. JAMES 0 HALLIN. DOROTHY M HANSEN. STEVEN C HANSING. CAROL J JOHNSON. BRADLEY P KILBO. MELVIN H KNUTSON. CHARLOTTE KUEHN. THOMAS M KUYPER. SCOTT E MABUSTH. JEANNE A MORAN. MARK F MOROWCZYNSKI. NAAB. THERESA OBRIEN. RANDY OMAN. LYLE E QUAST. WAYNE A RATHBUN. BARRY J SASS. JOHN J SCHAUSS. CHARLES R SCHEFFLER. LAURIE K SKREEN. DALE S JAMES L L THOMTON. MARK R TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F TOMCZYK. MARK W VANG. BRUCE L WALSH. KEVIN L WALTERS. LINDA G YTO CURRENT DPT GROSS GROSS 31 40979 76 1492.05 12 53130 74 250.00 12 55246 34 2115.60 31 22253 25 886 40 12 13042.24 520 06 42 33881 25 1308 00 31 37031 03 1468.00 31 4627 10 186.93 31 39858.85 1402.73 1 31 40526.54 1417 62 31 36750.82 1446.01 31 36227 70 1648 36 31 39210.81 1564.53 33 31738 89 1287 20 42 42305 46 1693 37 42 30329 80 1175.52 12 27701 22 1108.80 42 24919 32 1130.46 31 12813.75 480.32 31 37825.47 1440 89 31 46282.64 1888.88 k 15 22156 75 886.40 15 43789.64 1798.96 31 11619.72 645.31 33 38252.23 2158.72 31 36229.33 1337 28 31 43101 83 1517.63 12 21884.83 886.40 92 24888 27 898.40 33 26933 96 1078 21 92 29350 84 1383.96 92 25107 51 1033 16 42 26333 39 1120 75 31 31326 99 1211 50 12 19383 51 792 78 42 26218.81 1130 65 > 93 27739.23 1110 32 31 33184.47 1344 67 • 31 37307.85 1494 08 31 36219 76 1428.96 33 3634.40 1038.40 35 1704 48 288.90 15 14249.08 841.11 51.338.28 01/31/90 PR: CM PRPEGOR a o< ^..1 ( P/ i NAME YTD CURRENTOPTGROSSGROSS CALLAHAN, EDWARD J 11 241 67 241.67GOETTEN. J.DIANN 11 241 67 241.67GRABEK. JAMES 11 300.00 300.00NETTLES. ALAN R 11 241.67 241 67PETERSON, BARBARA A 11 241.67 241 67 1.266.68 .V F'a lO ^ Ca AJCan EDWARD j N J.DIANN . JAMES S. ALAN R ;0N BARBARA A DPT YTDGROSS CURRENTGROSS1111111111241.67 241 67 300.00 241.67 241.67 241.67 241.67 300.00 241 67 241.67S s 8 1.266.68 1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE363030363030363030363030363030363030363034363064363073 363114 363127 01/04/9001/04/9001/04/9001/04/9001/04/9001/04/9001/04/9001/04/9001/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 AMOUNT36300601/04/90 21.1536300601/04/90 15.9536300601/04/90 15.9536300601/04/90 93.0436300601/04/90 15.9536300601/04/90 15.95 177 9936301201/04/90 37,689.2136301201/04/90 21,729.38 59,418 598 * a a 8 •363014 01/04/90 78 47 78 4719.43 19.43 19.43 32.50 19 43 19 43 129.65423 00 423.00 *17.48 17 48 -2.08-.00 2.064.00 " 55.00 55.00 - 187 V 187.50 CHECK REGISTERVENDORACRO-MINNESOTA INC ACRO-MINNESOTA INC ACRO-MINNESOTA INC ACRO-MINNESOTA INC ACRO-MINNESOTA INC ACRO-MINNESOTA INCALBRECHT EXCAVATING ALBRECHT EXCAVATINGALL STAR ELECTRIC ITEM DESCRIPTIONOFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICESUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSEWER PYMNT2 WATER PYMNT2REPLACE TIMERANCHOR PAPERBLITZ ONE HR FOTOBOYUM EQUIP INC CITYVIEW PLMBG & HTG COFFIN GRONBERG COPY PAPERPHOTO FINSHFRINK ARM HITCH PO FURNACE REPAIR .TAKE EASEMNT 01-08-90 PAGE 1ACCOUNT NO INV • P 0. i MESSAGE01-4210-039-1201-4210-059-1401-4210-069-1501-4210-129-3101-4210-174-3301-4210-249-4226-4531-434-8226-4531-436-8401-4342-290-61AT&T INFO SYSTEM MAINT DP LINE 01-4340-039-12AT&T INFO SYSTEM MAINT DP LINE 01-4340-059-14AT&T INFO SYSTEM MAINT DP LINE 01-4340-069-15AT&T INFO SYSTEM MAINT DP LINE 01-4340-129-31AT&T INFO SYSTEM MAINT DP LINE 01-4340-174-33AT&T INFO SYSTEM MAINT DP LINE 01-4340-249-4201-1261-000-0001-4210-129-3114-4550-633-00 01-4343-099-17 01-4306-249-42 •••-CKS"••-CKS•**-CKS--•-CKS•••-CKS•‘--CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS .tumf 1*19 CITV OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT CHECK REGISTERVENDOR item DESCRIPTION !- 363154363154363154363154 353226 363228 363247 363251 363256 363266 363291 363303 363301 363308 363308 01-08-90 PAGE 2 ACCOUNT NO. INV 8 P.O I MESSAGE01/14/90 167.62167.62 m COPY DUP PR INC MAIN! AGREEMT 01-4210-129-3101/04/9001/04/9001/04/9001/04/90 46 95 114.95 74.10 46.80 282 80 ■ CVS UNIFORMS CYS UNIFORMS CYS UNIFORMS CYS UNIFORMS BOOTSSHOESINIFORMS UNIFORMS 01-4221-126-3101-4221-126-3101-4221-129-31 01-4221-129-31 •••-CKS 01/04/90 1.50 1.50 ■ FIRST BPNK MPLS BANK CHRG 01-3810-000-00 •••-CKS 01/04/90 675 00 675.00 A FIRST TRUST CO INC AGENT FEE 89 45-4630-908-00 •••-CKS 01/04/90 12 24 12 24 •CAFFRON/MIKE MILEAGE 01-4381-174-33 •••-CKS 01/04/90 01/04/90 133.40 29.25 162.65 A GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD CUPS WATER 01-4231-099-17 01-4231-099-17 ■••-CKS 01/04/90 115.20 115.20 A GOPHER OIL CO 1 DRUM OIL 01-4220-249-42 •••-CKS 01/04/90 2.18 2 18 A HALLIN/DOROTHY MILEAGE 01-4381-020-11 •••-CKS 01/04/90 2.269.73 2.269.73 A HENN CTV FIN DIV NOV ROOM/BOARD 01-4358-080-16 •••-CK* 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 34 00 6.811 30 495 54 7.340 84 A HENN CTY SHERIFF OPT HENN CTY SHERIFF DPI HENN CTY SHERIFF DPT BELT LOOPS RADIO RENTAL NOV BOOKING FEE 01-4221-129-31 01-4330-129-31 01-4358-080-16 •••-CKS k ■ t*' ^ -CKS I'm,,,. -i V ' : I't1980 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTERCHECK NO . DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV36331636331601/04/9001/04/90 2.000.00 2.220.00 4.220 00 •HERMAN APPRAISAL HERMAN APPRAISAL APPRAISAL SITE C APPRAISE ORONO PLAZA 15-4306-651-0026-4306-434-8236333001/04/90 94 78 94 78 •ICMA RETIREMNT TRUST ICMA 12/11-12/24 01-4140-039-12 363355 363355 01/04/90 01/04/90 53 95 155.80 209 75 • INTERSTATE BATTERIES INTERSTATE BATTERIES BATTERY BATTERIES 01-4341-174-33 01-4341-249-42 363372 01/04/90 68 40 68 40 • JOHNS AUTO SUPPLY MISC PARTS 01-4232-249-42 363397 363397 363397 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 58 77 16 49 5 50 80 76 • KUEHN-THOMAS KUEHN-THOMAS KUEHN-THOMAS MILEAGE DEC MILEAGE DEC MILEAGE DEC 01-4381-069-15 01-4381-174-33 73-4381-569-92 363404 363404 363404 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 153 09 12 15 12 15 177 39 • THE LAKER THE LAKER THE LAKER ADS ADS ADS 01 -4322-039-12 Ul-4322-295-65 01-4322-299-72 363437 363437 01/04/90 01/04/90 17 92 58 64 76 56 • CITY OF LONG LAKE CITY OF LONG LAKE DEC FLASHER DEC LIFT 01-4325-249-42 73-4344-569-92 363462 01/04/90 624 33 624 33 • MARTINS NAVARRE 66 SOD REPAIRS 01-4341-129-31 363469 01/04/90 440 00 440 00 • METRO W INSP SERV OCT/NOV INSPEC 01-4306-174-33 363498 01/04/90 190 20 190 20 • MN CELLULAR TELE TELEPHONE 01-4320-129-31 01-08-90 PAGE "••-CKS ■••-CKS ^ ■■<.’• •••-CKS •-•-CKS •••-CKS M'1919 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTERCHECK NO.DATE AMOUNT VENDOR36350001/04/90 34.00 34.00 •MINN COMM36350501/04/90 142.70 142.70 •K*’ FIRE & SAFETY 363532 01/04/00 4.80 4.80 • MOROWCZYNSKI/JAMES 363545 01/04/90 66.80 66.80 • NAVARRE AUTO REPAIR 363562 363562 363562 363562 363562 363562 363562 363562 363562 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 370 57 213.23 105.86 155 71 9 27 13.26 139.63 170.57 66.60 1.244.70 • NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP 363597 01/04/90 4.061 11 4.061 11 * PUBLIC EMPL RET ASSN 363609 363609 363609 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 15.00 1.50 1.50- 15.00 • PACE LABORATORIES PACE LABORATORIES PACE LABORATORIES 363628 01/04/90 200 00 200.00 • POPHAM HAIK 4. ASSOC 363631 01/04/90 1.617.00 1.617.00 • POLKA DOT RECYCLING ITEM DESCRIPTIONCONVERT PAGERREFILL EXTG MILEAGE REPAIR UTILITIES UTLIITIES UTILITIES UTLIITIES UTILITIES UTLIITIES UTLIITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES PERA 12/11-24/89 TEST TEST TEST TRAINING DEC RECYL 01-08-90 PAGE 4 ACCOUNT NO INV • P O • MESSAGE01-4342-129-3101-4232-129-31 01-4381-129-31 01-4341-249-42 01-4324 01-4324 01-4324 01-4324 01-4324 01-4324 73-4324 73- 4324 74- 4324 099-17 129-31 249-42 249-42 290-61 290-61 569-92 •569-92 -590-93 01-2031-000-00 01-4305-174-33 01-4305-174-33 01-4305-174-33 U1 4356-129-31 01-4392-295-65 •••-CKS•"•-CKS•• CKS • M H -CKS •••-CKS « a •-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS 1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE363638363638 363683 363751 363751 01/04/9001/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 CHECK REGISTERAMOUNTVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION112.70102,25214.95 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRAIRIE OFFSET B&Z CARDS BUS CARDS 303.80 303.80 • PUFFRIDGE-JOHNSON SWEEPER BRUSHES 407.70 282.60 690.30 " SUNDIAL BLDG SERVICE SUNDIAL BLDG SERVICE DEC JANITOR DEC JANITOR 01-08-90 PAGE S ACCOUNT NO. INV. • P.O. • MESSAGE01-4322-174-3301-4322-249-42 01-4232-249-42 01-4349-099-17 01-4349-129-31 363779 01/04/90 216.51 TRACY OIL CO FUEL OIL 74-4324-590-93 216.51 • 363783 01/04/90 13 92 TOMCHECK LARRY MILEAGE 01-4381-129-31 13 92 • 363815 01/04/90 53 41 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-039-12 363815 01/04/90 53.41 US WEST COMMUN TEIEPHONE 01-4320-059-14 363815 01/04/90 26 71 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-069-15 363815 01/04/90 174 04 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-129-31 363815 01/04/90 53 41 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-174-33 363815 01/04/90 54 88 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-175-34 363815 01/04/90 53 41 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-249-42 363815 01/04/90 8.01 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 72-4320-549-91 363815 01/04/90 18.69 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 73-4320-569-92 363815 01/04/90 4.75-US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 74-4320-590-93 063815 01/04/90 46.17 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 74-4320-590-93 363815 01/04/90 108.90 US WEST COMMUN ADV 74-4323-590-93 646.29 • 363875 01/04/93 8 25 WRIGHT HENN ElC^TRIc UTILITIES 01-4324-249-42 8 25 • 363901 01/04/90 37.50 DONNA GANGELHOFF PICKUP DEER 01-4360-185-35 37 50 • 363902 01/04/90 120 00 DCTC ADULT EXT CLASS 01-4 29-31 -CKS A•1•••-CKS •••-CKS -CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS • - "-CKS •••-CKS 198a CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE363903363904363905363906 HC856/ HC856 ; 01/04/9001/04/9001/04/9001/04/90 Cl/04/90 01/04/90 AMOUNT120 00277.50277.50250.00 250 00150 00 150 0030.00 30.00 9 10 9 10- CHECK REGISTERVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTIONCITY OF MEDINAMN DEPT OF HEALTHMN DEPT OF HEALTHPERSONNEL DECISIONS 1ST NATL 1ST NATL HC8SL4 01/04/90 9.10 1ST NAIL HC8S64 01/0 V90 20.72 1ST NATL HC8564 01/04/90 37.30 67.12 • 1ST NATL ft a ft t 4 . HC8S86 01/04/90 89 98 89 98 * CHAMPION AUTO HC8567 01/04/90 150.00 150.00 • PARKVIEW GOLF HC8^68 01/U4/90 90C 00 900.00 • PO .MASTER SEWER EASEMNTREVIEW FEE WELLREVIEW FEE PUMPQUESTIONIAPES MEDCR MEDCR MEDCR MEDCR MEDCR RADIO SPEAKERS PULL CARTS POSTAGE ACCOUNT NO INV73-4383-569-9226-4306-437-8526-4306-437-8501-4210-129-31 01-4142-111-31 01-4142-111-37 01-4142-111-37 01-4142-121-31 01-4142-126-31 01-4232-2^.^-42 74-4232-590-93 01-1252-000-00 01-08-90 PAGE H • P 0 8 MESSACR "•^-CKS MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL •••-CKS MANUAL MANUAL :iANUAL • ft a -CKS HC8570 01/04/90 14 00 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 01-4142-020-11 MANUAL HC8570 01/04/90 159.18 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 01-4142-039-12 MANUAL HC8570 01/04/90 2.08 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 01-4142-040-13 MANUAL HC8570 0*/04/90 5 08 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 01-4142-059-14 MANUAL >IC8570 01/04/90 251 53 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 01-4142-069-15 MANUAL HC8570 01/04/90 33 17 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 01-4142-099-17 MANUAL »»C85/0 01/04/90 28 75 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 01-4142-111-31 MANUAL KC8570 01/04/90 105 35 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 01-4142-115-31 MANUAL HC8570 01/04/90 23.90 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 01-4142-121-31 MANUAL HC8570 01/04/90 39 23 1ST NATL F ICA 12/12 01-4142-126-31 MANUAL HC8570 01/04/90 497.32 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 01-4142-174-33 MANUAL HC8570 01/04/90 21.70 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 01-4142-185-35 MANUAL HC8570 01/04/90 435.92 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 01-4142-249-42 MANUAL HC8570 01/04/90 62.34 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 01-4142-290-61 MANUAL HC8570 01/04/90 107.14 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 72-4142-549-91 MANUAL HC8570 01/04/90 18121 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 73-4142-569-92 MANUAL HC8570 01/04/90 96 10 2,064 00 • 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 74-4142-590-93 MANUAL •••-CKS «»«-CKSkUTORADIO SPEAKERS 01-4232-2:>'^-A2 MANUALSOLFPULL CARTS 74-4232-590-93 MANUALRPOSTAGE01-1262-000-00 {MANUAL ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-039-12ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-059-14ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-069-15ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-129-31ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-174-33ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-249-42ACRO-MINNESOTA INC FILE CABINET 14-4560-633-00 12/21/8912/21/8912/21/89 1,105.65 544.57 455.52 6.364.21 •BONESTROO ROSENE ASN BONESTROO ROSENE ASN BONESTROO ROSENE ASN12/21/89 274.65 274.65 •CONCEPT MICROFILM12/21/8912/21/8912/21/89 17.00 83.49 105.33 205.82 •COLONIAL LIFE INS CO COLONIAL LIFE INS CO COLONIAL LIFE INS CO MAILING TAPES 01-4321-039*12MAILINGTAPES01-4321-069-15MAILINGTAPES01-4321-174-33MAILINGTAPES01-4321-174-33MAILINGTAPES01-4321-174-33MAILINGTAPES01-4321-249-42MAILINGTAPES73-4321-569-92BOOKS01-4240-174-33 o1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE CHECK REGISTERAMOUNTVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 12-26-89 PAGEACCOUNT NO. INV. • P.O. • MESSAGE12-26-89 PAGE 3 ACCOUNT NO. INV. • P.O. • MESSAGE01-4321-040-1301-4140-039-1201-432101-432101-432101-432101-432101-432173-4321 039-12069-15174-33174-33174-33249-42569-9201-4240-174-3301-4356-129-3101-4381-129-3101-4341-129-3101-4381-129-3101-134001-434001-4340 01-4340 1-4340 01-4340 01-4340 01-4340 01-4352 01-4352 174-33039-12174-33 174-33 174-33 174-33 174-33 174-33 069-15 129-31 -CKS«**-CKS-••-CKS 360435 12/21/89 218.39 LOGIS - SUITE 300 APL SUPPORT NOV 01-4352-174-3336043512/21/89 566.10 LOGIS - SUITE 300 DATA PROC NOV 01-4355-069-1536043512/21/89 677.00 LOGIS - SUITE 300 DATA PROC NOV 01-4355-129-3136043512/21/89 279.86 LOGIS - SUITE 300 DATA PROC NOV 01-4355-174-3336043512/21/89 144.13 LOGIS - SUITE 300 APL SUPPORT NOV 72-4352-549-9136043512/21/89 292.63 LOGIS - SUITE 300 APL SUPPORT NOV 73-4352-569-9236043512/21/89 8.40 LOGIS - SUITE 300 COURIER DP OCT 73-4353-569-9236043512/21/89 46.133.612.89 A LOGIS - SUITE 300 DATA PROC NOV 73-4355-569-9236043912/21/89 35.2035.20 A LONG LK FORD TRACTOR PART 01-4342-249-4236047412/21/89 10.715.3510.715.35 A METRO WASTE MWCC JAN 73-1282-000-0036048212/21/89 128.60128.60 A MPLS HEALTH DEPT LAB TESTS 01-4306-129-31A A A • A A360485 12/21/89 13.5013.50 A MPLS OXYGEN CO DEMURRAGE 01-4232-129-3136049012/21/89 588.76 MINNEGASCO UTILITIES 01-4324-099-1736049012/21/89 57.35 MINNEGASCO UTILITIES 01-4324-129-3136049012/21/89 594.50 MINNEGASCO UTILITIES 72-4324-549-9136049012/21/89 21.331.261.94 A MINNEGASCO UTILITIES 73-4324-569-9236050012/21/89 275.48275.48 A MINN COMM TELEPHONE 01-4320-129-3136052212/21/89 60.00 MTI DIST CO STAPLES 74-4232-590-9336052212/21/89 252.50312.50 A MTI DIST CO MISC SUPPLIES 74-4232-590-9336054512/21/89 149.50149.50 A NAVARRE AUTO REPAIR CAR WASH TICKETS 01-4341-129-31 1989 CITY OF CHECK NO. D^•••-CKS 9^1548 360548 3^48 360V8 3605\8 360541 360548' 360548•••-CKS • A <1 • H H360559•••-CKS * A Ik * * *360564•••-CKS 360597« A A A A A•••-CKS 360613360613360613360629•••-CKS 360638•••-CKS 360675 i:•••-CKS 360699 i:360719 n o u e CHECK NO.DATE AMOUNT VENDOR^054S 12/21/89 84.00 NAVARRE HARDWARE3M54812/21/89 84.50 NAVARRE HARDWARE36^48 12/21/89 36.94 NAVARRE HARDWARE360VS12/21/89 47.83 NAVARRE HARDWARE360SV12/21/89 5.89 NAVARRE HARDWARE3605^12/21/89 70.76 NAVARRE HARDWARE360548\12/21/89 1.09 NAVARRE HARDWARE360548 \12/21/89 1.19332.20 •NAVARRE HARDWAREHHAIIIIfl36055912/21/89 987.42 987.42 •NSP366S6412/21/89 106 05 106.05 •NORTHERN HYDRAUOLICS36059712/21/89 3.896.313.896.31 •PUBLIC EMPL RET ASSN36061312/21/89 290.25 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR36061312/21/89 5.735.71 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR36061312/21/89 214.65 6.240.61 •PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR36062912/21/89 17.00 17.00 -POSTMASTER• • H ft * *360638 12/21/89 «o oi m nPRAIRIE OFFSET36067512/21/89 4.236.60 4.236.60 •ROLLINS OIL CO36069912/21/89 59.43 59.43 •ROAD RESCUE INC36071912/21/89 15.00 DIXIE PETRO-CHEM 12-26-89 PAGE S ACCOUNT NO. INV. • P.O. « MESSAGE01-423101-423201-423201-434372-423272- 423473- 4232 73-4234 099-17129-31249-42099-17549-91549-91569-92569-9201-4325-249-4201-4232-249-4201-2031-000-0001-4341-129-3101-4341-129-3101-4341-249-4201-1262-000-0001-4322-174-3301-1260-000-0001-4232-129-31 72-4234-549-91 •••-CKS"••-CKS•••-CKS O1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT CHECK REGISTERvendor item description 12-26-89 PAGE 6 ACCOUNT NO. INV. t P.O. • MESSAGE15.00 •360740 12/21/89 8.45 8.45 *SYREICHERS KEY HOLDER 01-4221-126-3136077936077936077912/21/8912/21/8912/21/89 299.49- 299.49 299.49 299.49 *TRACY OIL CO TRACY OIL CO TRACY OIL CO FUEL OIL FUEL OIL FUEL OIL 74-4234-590-9374-4234-590-9374-4324-590-9336081536081536081536081536081512/21/8912/21/8912/21/8912/21/8912/21/89 48.7029.6227.4122.42 33.22161.37 US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE TELEPHONE DATA PROC DATA PROC DATA PROC 01-4320-129-3101-4320-249-4201-4355-069-1572- 4355-549-9173- 4355-569-9236083112/21/89 10.06 10.06 •WALTERS LINDA MILEAGE 01-4381-069-1536083512/21/89 45.00 45.00 •WARNING LITES OF MN FLASHERS 01-4331-249-42* «i ft ft tt «360901360901 12/21/8912/21/89 17.9474.9992.93 ft BEST BUY BEST BUY TAPESRADIO 01-4210-129-3101-4232-129-3136090236090236090212/21/8912/21/8912/21/89 4.73-2.5129.3727.15 m SMITH & WESSON SMITH & WESSON SMITH & WESSON CREDIT GUN PARTS GUN PARTS 01-4232-129-31 01-4232 .29-31 01-4232-;29-3136090312/21/89 117.00117.00 ft HEALY RUFF CO SIREN REPAIR 01-4342-175-3436090412/21/89 30.0030.00 ft LAKE COUNTRY CHAPTR DUES 01-4380-174-3336090512/21/89 269.00269.00 ft NATL FIRE CODE SUBSCRIPTION 01-4240-174-3336090612/21/89 104.00104.00 ft SUBURAN LAW ENFORCE MEMBERSHIPS 01-4380-129-31 1 > 1989 CITY OF C CHECK NO. DAI3609073609081212 12-26-89 PAGE 6 ACCOUNT NO. INV. • P.O. • MESSAGE01-4221-126-3174-4234-590-9374-4234-590-9374-4324-590-9301-4320-129-3101-4320-249-4201-4355-069-1572- 4355-549-9173- 4355-569-9201-4381-069-1501-4331-249-4201-4210-129-3101-4232-129-3101-4232-129-31 01-4232-:’9-31 01-4232-l-’9-3101-4342-175-3401-4380-174-3301-4240-174-3301-4380-129-31 'T r -f' ^£3■m -Vf-.'i COliNOII. MEO !N(i P" Vi ^i JAM 8'9?0 CITY (;F y' . : y :h ite&Inc. lEAOERS IN PUBLIC MNAHCE NEwsimm iA Bl MONTHLY PUBLICATION OFFICES IN MINNEAPOLIS AND WA'JKESHA VOLUME 35. NUMBERJ FILE: Financtal SpecidUsts: EMera aid Associates. Inc. Please distfwule to governing body nieniben JANUARY. 1990 CURRENT INTEREST RATES Interest rate.s on tax-exempt bontls have unproved with the BBl at 7.40% in early October dropping to 7.00% in early December, an improvement of 40 basi.s points. Taxable interest rates gyrated in the last quarter with the U.S. government bond yields moving from tite usual ascending curve (liiglier rates for longer maturities) to inverted, humped and sagging. Bond Indaxaa Jwury 1966 to 0«c«iter 1969 T St Mlir .Saniart^ ■aFoist t* »P| 01/86 01/8/01/88 01/89 12/89 Sometimes thirty year yields were lower than those on Treasury bills, with intermediate maturity yields higher than either. Because of Federal Reserve Board uncertainties all interest rates may be higher than tliey should be. given a 4% inflation laie. DISCLOSURE State and municipal offerings have been brought within the Federal Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and its tiew disclosure Rules 15c 2-12 . TIuough overuse of tax-exempt Fmancings, the trade aroused the attention of the U.S. Treasury Department, the courts. Congress and the bureaucracy. The famous WPPSS bonti default featured the lack of adequate disclosure. In addition, a court case changetl the Constitution, as previously .•uteqireted. to take auay State's rights to finance their needs, free of federal interference and taxation. Effective January I. 1990 Governmental borrowers are subject to SEC regulation governing disclosure. While our clients and most borrowers have c.irefully disclosed economic and financial data for years, issuers now, by federal rule, must furnish a near final official statement to bkUlers before receiving bids. Seven days after award, the underwriter must disnibute a final official statement to investors. Issuers mu.st notify successhil bidders of significant changes within a certain period after the sale Excepted arc securities sold in denominations of $1()0,(MM) or mote sold to 35 or fewer sophisticated investors, or mature in 9 montlis or less, luid issues under $ 1.00().()(M). Needless to say these regulations incteast the complexity and cost of borrowing F«*r thirty-five years Elders and As.sociates have been leaders in assisting borrowers in disclosure of infomiation and have earned a reputation for presenting bond issues simply and completely. None of our clients have suffered a tiefault. "Di-sclosure" is nothing new here. 2950 Noo^est Cenic,- • 90 South Seventh Stieet • Minneapolis MN 55402 4100 • 61? 339 8291 • FAX 612-339 0854 I f *! DISCLOSURE TO ISSUERS The SEC ami its Municipid Setuiilirs Rule NEiking Boiu^d (MSRB) niles tr\ to protect investors (except sophisticatetl investors) from hoiul dealers, iuul iitulenvrilers frmn one ;uiother But few niles protect issuikis of Kmds. especially in tiegotiated sales Nothing reijuires disclosute of utuleiwriters* associations with itivestors (their other clients) who seek securities at the highest possible interest rate Without a public sale, issuers have no way of detemiining if an interest rate quoted is the lowest possible in the market place. JUNK BONDS Reportedly, devalued or defaulted junk bonds have resulted in great losses to individual i: estors and financial institutions. What are junk botuls and how ilo they affect local govemmetits? Are unrated tax-exempts considered junk”? Junk bonds ore corporalC bonds issued to fund lever;iged buyouts (LBOs), arc not rated or are rated less than investment grade by rating agencies. Tire issuer may e.xpect the debt to be long tenn but. more them likely, expects to pay them off from the proceeds of a "break up” of the business. When such sales do not come off a corporatioii becomes saddled with huge debt which it may be unable to service. MON RATED MUMCIPALBQMPS Municipal br.nds are not tire same and. in fact, many unrateil Kinds are of gootl investment quality and attract very strong buying intere.st. A lack of a rating may be because of the size of an issue or because the i.ssuer was arlvised not to seek a rating and pay the rating fees. Such bonds are never based on a "breakup" of the issuer. Wlule not junk, they often do carry higher interest rates. CONTINGENT COMPENSATION Perhaps issuers, such as WPPSS. are themselves victims of non disclosure in that underwriters, designers and sMivisors often stand to be paid only if bonds arc issued. They are thus motivated to "get the job done" whether or not it makes economic sence for the issuer. AU-gedly the bad WPPSS bonds were sold well alter the cost and feasibility of the projects were in doubt. Foi sonw pipjects someone should lie on board who will be compensated adequately whether or not ,i project IS fmaiiccd. Some projects should nat be financed even if their bonds arc salable, and borrowers need someone m a fudiciary capacity to advise tbem. We wish you another successful solar orbit ami looking forward to seeing you at the various conventions iuid meetings. Sincerely, EULERS AND ASSOCIATES. INC. Robert L. Elders l^nKipat ill Dale Sl'MMAKV UF AREA BOND SALES fjrne 9* Io'ijIs Amounl Hjllui'i’l BondNpt Buyfr Rale Inde* RaUoQ CiNlar R«pid% CHar Rapids Raokuli Siou> City w^tl Moines Osceola CoraK i 11# Ankeny Ankeny 0riettin9tr Clinton Stato Board ValUy Coaw Hinntsola laCresrent of Re9ents nity S/0 Waconia Otlrolt lakes Shakopee SKakope# Backer County Becker County Tine County Stearns County St. loots County St. Louis County 51. Louis County fortsl Lake ISO #1i8 North Branch ISO #118 North Branch lakashore HarshaM Apple Valley Apple Valley Apple Valley Nendota Heights Nicollet County Owatonna Ooatonna Ovatonna Stanton .’.i»aler Naplenood Maplewood Naplewood Lindstroa Wadena Wadena Joint Roiyers Oist. §6046^2 Green Isle Hennepin County Hennepin County Edina Mk River Elk River forest Lake Glencoe Plyowuth PI ya«uth Board of Western lake Superior Sanitary Oist. Olusted County Swift County l.S.O. 0787 Browerville last Central Solid Waste fn«nission H.inkato Hankaln Sauk Rapids White Rear 10/04/09 10/04/09 I0/0S/B9 IO/lf>/09 10/lh/R9 10/17/B9 10/24/09 11/06/09 I1/06/B9 11/08/09 11/14/09 ll/IS/89 1I/21/B9 10/02/09 10/02/09 10/02/B9 10/03/09 10/03/09 IO/OV09 10/10/09 10/10/09 10/10/09 10/10/89 10/10/89 10/10/89 10/10/09 10/11/89 10/12/09 10/12/89 10/16/89 10/16/89 10/17/89 10/17/89 10/17/89 10/17/89 10/17/89 10/17/09 10/17/89 10/17/09 10/17/09 10/16/09 10/19/89 10/19/89 10/19/89 10/24/89 10/25/89 10/25/89 18/31/89 11/02/89 11/02/89 11/02/89 11/06/89 II/B6/89 11/86/89 11/06/89 1I/06/B9 11/06/89 11/06/69 11/06/09 11/07/89 11/07/09 n/n/89 11/1 1/89 n/n/09 11/1 1/09 11/1 1/09 ii/n/B9 Parking System Revenue Bonds G.O. Bonds 00. Improvement Bonds G n. Improvement Ronds (i 0. Improvement Bonds Sewer Revenue Bonds G.O. Bonds G.O. Improvement Bonds Snwer Revenue Bonds Electric Revenue Bonds GO. Storm Sewer Bonds Utility System Rev. Bonds G.O School Bonds Wastewater Treatment Bonds Equipment Certificates Improvement Bonds Improvement Bonds Ta« Increment Bonds la> Increment Bonds Capital Notes Jail Revenue Bonds G.O Bonds Capital Improvement Bonds Bonds Horsing Hoom Revenue Bonds Taiablf Refunding Rev. Ronds favable Increment Bonds School Bjilding Bonds Aid Anticipation Certificates Grant Anticipation Bonds Improvement Bonds G.O. Equipment Certificates G.O. lav Increment Bonds Improvement Bonds Improvfment Bonds Capital Improvment Bonds Tan Increment Bonds Improvement Bonds Tan Increment Bonds Improvement Bonds Hunicipal Building Bonds Tarable GO. Tea Increment Bonds G.O. Improvement Bonds Tan Increment Bonds Improvement Bonds Grant Anticipation Bonds Sewer Revenue Bonds School Building Bonds G.O G.O GO. G.O. GO, G.O GO G.O. G.O. GO. GO. G.O. G.O. GO. GO CO. G.O. GO. GO. GO GO. GO. GO. GO. G.O. G.O. 6.0. GO C 0. G.O. Improvement Bonds G.O Capital Notes G.O. Improvement Bonds G.O. laa Increment Refund. Bonds G.O. laaable fas Increment Bonds G.O. fire Equipment Bends G.O. laprovement Bonds G.O. Water Revenue Bonds G.O. Improvement Bonds G.O. Water Revenue Bonds G.O. Wastewater Ireatoent Bonds G.O Resource '.ecovery Revenue Refunding Bonds GO Solid Waste Rev Bonds GO School Building Bonds Solid Waste Resource Recovery Qi>«enue Bonds Tatable 0 0 Inc. Bonds GO. Refunding Bonds GO. Bonds G 0 favable fa* Increment Bonds S 4.2S0H 1991-2005 f 24%7.40X A 9.400H 1992-2002 6 7 It 7 40t Aaa 1.900H 1991-2005 b 96t 7.d0t Al 4.70OH 1991-2002 6.4St 7 I9t Aa 4.900H 1990-1999 6. lot 7 I9t Aa 570N 1990-2000 6.59X 7 I9X NR 699M 1992-1999 6.15t 7. m Al 2.I75M 1990-1999 6 IhX 7 24%Al 2.57SM 1990-2005 b T7t f 241 A .ISOM 1990-1979 b 52t i 24t IM 4.120M 1992-2003 b 34X 7 20t AA 9.660N 1991-1999 5 6lt 7.20X Al 1.695M 1993-2009 7,04*.7 12X NR 57«^^H 1992-2001 6.95X 7 40X Baal 2 70H 1991-1994 6.60X 7 40X Baal 2.200H 1991-1999 6.B2t 7 40X Baal 560M 1991-2005 7.03X 7.40X Baal 1.635M 1991-2001 6.92X 7.40X A 1.965M 1991-2003 6.92t 7.40X A 1.2QON 1991-1994 6 45X 7 ?7X A 2.020M 1991-2010 7.06X 7.27X A 520M 1991-1993 6.58X 7.27X Baal 7.3IOM 1991-2009 7.00X 7.271 A 3.BI5M 1990-2004 7.03X 7.271 A 2.665M 1991-1995 6.57X 7 27X A I.015N 1990-2009 9.49X 7.27X A 27SM 1992-2009 9.55X 7.27X m 330H 1992-1995 6.49X 7.27X Baa 1.080M 1990 6.53X 7.27X NR SOON 1992 6.49X 7.19X NR 31SM 1991-1998 6.57X 7.19X A 165N 199U1994 6.31X 7.19X A 2.100M 1992-1999 6.411 7 19X A 2.375M 1990-2005 6.46X 7.19X A 1.6S0N 1991-2006 6 58X 7. I9X Al 1.740H 1990-194')6 5IX 7 ITZ A 2.500H 1993-2004 6 72"7 I9X Al 1.400N 1991-2000 h MX 7 I9X Al 755H 1992-1999 6.52X 7 IQX Al 5QM 1991-2000 7.00X t Dr.NR 305N 1992-2010 7.13X 7. I9X NR 350M 1992-2001 8.74X 7 I9X Aa 1.470M 1990-2009 6.7fX 7. m Aa 1.385M 1991-2009 6.05X 7. 19X Aa 42SM 1991-2000 6.67X 7.19X Baa 395M 1992 6.-8X 7.19*NR 730M 1991-2001 6.59X 7.19*Baa 5.000M 1992-2014 7.29X 7.22*NR 9BM 1991-2000 7.25*7.22*NR B.80BN 1990-1994 6.30X 7.22*Aaa/AAA 27.325M 1990-2089 6.75*7.22*Aaa/AAA 12.970M 1991-2006 6.86*7.24*Aal 410M 1997-2007 9.30*7.24*Baal 400N 1992-2001 6.69*7.24X Baal 20ON 1992-2001 6.84*7.24*Baal 1.620M 1990-2004 6.93*7.241 Baal 715M 1992-1996 6.17X 7.24X Aa 4.2B5M 1991-2000 6.33*7.24*Aa 935M 1993-2004 7.0IX 7.24X A 19.480P 1996-2007 6.94X 7 241 Aa I.QOON 1990-2004 6 B7X 7 24X Baal 760M 1997-2000 6 00X 7 20X HR 4.200H 1992-2006 t 14X 7.20X Aaa 900M 1993-2009 9 02X 7 2 OX Al 1.I50M 1991-1994 6 21X 7 /OX Al I.230M 1991-2006 6 b4X 7 .'OX A 590H 1992-1999 0.79X y 20X Baal Bond liitU Star MkUo Umr CBUofO Countf Noottof mi ■tdtofloB. AolBorltjr Cofon Cofoo •ocBooUr MiOto «rM Niplo Liko«nio lofttvOlt Clofoot Joclitoo 4ock«ot» HliiM Cfooty IHiiOfii Coootf i.s.o. « mil cuf t.s.0. it31 So. MitBinftoo Coooty BOMOf twoy •vtB citr lOOf froino toof frolrit loof Brolrlo loof Br»1r*o M Lot* Bi.i£lQlL0 B#1oU Bfl0«t NtdUon Ntfirot Gro««* Boy Oroi ^50 ImB Art* S/f> Rofmsho OroonIiold 0oriO9t County Oconto UnUod S/0 HonwfKl Co^kortor Co^rbor Chlpfowo rolU ChHton S/0 Suporior Hartlond Gri»on Boy HflropoUton So«*0i‘09f OUtrfct BoyfioH County Boyfiold County Honitonoc County Hor%Mio1d Nilwoiiko# Nilwouoto Nt twoukoo North Protrto Arcadia Btacli Ri«or ra11« Wottorn W! V?AC lako Oolton S/0 Minto rarqo PSO 01 Mondon Soulhoast Cast Nator Bosourtos District CavaMot farqo P.S.O. 0f> Host Faroe Mahpoton Wost Faroo Qilt 11/I3/B9 1I/I3/B9 1l/l4/t9 n/td/tf 11/14/Bf II/I4/B9 I1/l4/0f l1/1S/Bf IIAM/tf n/3f/t9 n/21/Bf II/21/B9 11/21/tB n/21/B9 n/2i;^ }U27m wmm n/2i/if II/2B/89 U/2B/B9 1I/2B/B9 I1/29/B9 1I/29/B9 11/29/89 11/29/89 11/3B/89 10/02/89 10/02/89 10/03/89 10/03/89 10/04/89 10/M/89 10/16/89 10/17/89 10/17/89 10/23/89 10/25/89 10/30/89 10/30/89 10/31/89 11/01/89 11/07/89 11/00/89 11/13/89 11/14/89 11/14/89 11/14/89 11/14/89 11/14/89 11/14/89 11/14/89 11/15/89 11/16/89 11/20/89 11/21/89 11/27/89 I0/02/R9 10/IF/89 10/1//89 n/OI/89 11/06/89 n/06/89 11/13/89 11/20/09 11/20/89 G.O. Wattr ftrrtnwt Banda 0.0. iMpravfMnt Laata Bavanwa Bandt G.O. Coal G.O. la* G.O. I^r G.O. Coat it Cartificatat It t >t Cart, af IndaOt. G.O. layianaaiit Banda G.O. Coalomt Cart, at IndfOt. G.O. taoravaatnt tanda Pabllc inti tty Ravanat tanda G.O. City Balldtnf Banda G.O. Starai Saaar Btat. Oatand. Banda G.O. la- Incranant tatandtnf tanda G.O. Saltd Malta fact1*ty iwdi G.O. Capital li^raranant Banda G.O. Bafandtnf tanda G.O. ScNaal Outldtnf tanda St Banda G.O. la- Incranant TaaaBla 0.0. it- Inert G.O. lapro-awt Banda la- tncraaant Bafandtnf tanda Ta- Incraaant Balandlnf Banda li^ravmnt Rafandtnf Banda la- Incranant tafundtnf Banda Sfwar Ravanift Bands Siata-Aid Hi9hway 0.0. G.O. 6.0. G.O. GO. G.O. 6.0. Pronissory Notrs G.O. la-abl# Prontisory Notaa G.O. Promissory Notts G.O. Statraft Systtn Rtfundinq Bonds G.O. Promissory Notrs G.O. School Buildinq Bonds Tib i Rrvrnut Antic. Notts G.''. RrFundinq lnpro«mtnt Bonds GO. Promissory Notts G.O. School Bonds GO- Promissory Notts G.O. Promissory Notts Stwtr Systtn Rtwtnut Bonds G.O. Promissory Notts G.U. Inprowtntnt Bonds G.O. Corporatt Purpost Bonds GO. Promissory Notts G.O. |mprovt-.^nt Bonds b.O RtFunding Promissory Notts 0.0. fa-tbit Promissory Notts GO. County Building Bonds Nattr Systtm Rt-tnut Bonds GO Short Ttrm Promissory Notts G.O. Corporatt Purpost Imp, Bonds G.O. laprovtmtnt Bonds G.O. Promissory Notts Stwtragt Systtm Rfvtnut Bonds G O. School Building Oods G.O. Promissory Notts G.O Prom>ssory Notts RrFundinq fmprovtmtnt Bonds Ctrtifitatts of Indtbttdntss GO. Rtf unding Improvtmtnt Bonds GO. tmprowtmtnt Bonds Solid Wastt Rt-tnut Bonds R#funding I-iprovtmtnt Bonds la- Antic. Ctrt. of Indtbl. Rtf unding Improwtmtnt Bonds G.O. Rtf unding Bonds Ntl Buyer S1SM 1991-2005 6.on 7.228 iaal M5in 1991-20M 6.BI1 7.208 Oaal 2.0MN 1991-2095 6.751 7.208 MAC 29BM 1091-1904 6.108 7.208 Al 9.S23II 1991-2010 6.428 7.208 At 4.90iN 1999-1999 6.BI8 7.208 Aaa 549N 19N 6.228 7.208 n 3.959M 1992-2992 6.208 7.208 A' I.475M 1999-1994 6.108 7.128 A 1992-2991 6.368 7.f»A 4.975M 1999-2999 6.761 7.128 Al U999N 1991-2994 6.498 7.128 A 769N 1995-2995 6.B38 7.121 iaa I.499N 1992-2995 6.0B8 7.128 Oaa 2.n9N 1991-1993 6.808 7.128 Aa I.0I9N 1991-2995 6.298 7.128 Aa mm 1994-2999 6.608 7.001 m 9.999M 1993-2919 6.158 7.M8 A 235M 1991-1999 6.35X 7.088 A 235« 1991-1999 B.44X 7.008 A S39N 1991-2000 6..138 7.188 A 1.055M 1991-1999 6.508 7.B08 Oaa I20N I99V19%6.42%7.088 Baal 230N 1991-1995 6.42X 7.BB8 Baal 360N 1995-2004 6.748 7.008 Oaal 509N 1991-2000 6.748 7.008 •ail 2.350H 1991-2000 6.398 7.008 A 1.000N 1990-1999 6 918 7.408 A 710N 1990-1999 9.068 7.408 A O.OOON 1990-1999 6.648 7.401 Aaa 3.04SM 1996-2002 6.978 7.408 miA 4.150H 1991-1999 6.628 7.408 Aa I.900N 1990-1999 6.598 7,278 A 6.000N 1990 6.358 7.198 NIG 5. ISON 199R-I999 6.508 7.198 Aaa 9.490H 1990-1998 6.138 7.198 Aa 4.ICON 1991-2009 7.048 7.198 mik 170N 1990-1999 7.008 7.198 m 1J40H 1990-1999 6.708 7.228 NR 2.700M 1990-2009 7.228 7.228 NR I.SOON 1990-1999 6.518 7.228 A 2.990N 1990-2009 7.008 7.228 A 3.40«^ 1999-2009 7.078 7.248 A 390M 1991-1995 6.268 7.248 A S.OOON 1992-2001 6.118 7.208 Aa SION 199U2000 6 688 7 208 NR 40H 1990 10.758 7.208 NR S.OOON 1990-2009 6.618 ;,20t Al 2.BOON 1991-2009 6.9S8 7.208 A 5.100N 1990-1999 6.S4X 7.208 Aa 7.325N 1990-2004 6.778 7.208 Aa 9.400N 1990-2009 6.988 7 208 Aa 6S0N 1991-1999 6.468 7.208 Baal 1.475N 1990-2010 7.628 7.208 NR l.FOON 1991-2009 6 7B8 7.128 Aaa I.GOON 1990-1999 6.118 7.128 Aa 1.2S0N 1991-1999 6.5«*t 7 088 NR m 415H 1991-2005 7.238 7 408 NR 4.300H 1990 6.478 7.198 NR 95SN 1990-2004 6.778 7.198 Baa 4.70ON 1993-2007 6.658 7.228 A 225N 1991-2001 7.018 7,248 NR S.38SN 1990-2007 6 908 7 248 Aa 1.6B5H 1990 6 128 7.208 NR 1,100M i99?-/nnf.6 h28 7 128 A I,S25H 199I-200S h S4'.7 128 A i I •! • l ;u MmiTBS or TBB PLMmillG C0MMI8SI0II MBBTIV6 MOVSNBBR 20, 1989 ATTUDMICB 7s00 P.M. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley and Planning Commissioners Brown, Hanson and Bellows. The following represented the City staff: Building and.Zoning Administrator Mabdsth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative Edward Callahan, Jr. attended and CounciImember Nettles was also present. •1475 JOHN NCDONBLL 4045, 4105 Jyn> 4135 BAT8IDB ROAD PKBLXNZHMIT 80BD1V18I0B PUBLIC BBAKIBG 7t00 P.M. TO 7i35 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Hailing were duly noted. Hr. McDowell and Mr. Hayssen were present for this public hearing. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the proposal of Mr. McDowell and Mr. Hayssen. Gaffron said that the City Attorney has preliminarily reviewed this application and has suggested that the City not file the subdivision until the issue involving an existing easement is resolved. Chairman Kelley noted that if it were not for the issue of the easement, this application would be straight forward. Mr. Tom Owens, Attorney for Robert White, provided a brief history of the White property and adjacent properties. He said that he had discovered that the attempt to create an easement back in 1950/1960 resulted in an ineffective easement. He said that the title company that has insured the easement for the benefit of McDowell, Hayssen and Alt is trying to find some resolution. Re said that Mr. White's position is that Mr. McDowell's proposed subdivision will not work without access to Bayslde Road. Chairman Kelley asked why Mr. White had approved the construction of the Alt and Hayssen residences? Mr. Owens said that Mr. White was not aware of the extent of the easement at that time. He said that a prominent Law Firm and Title Company had opined that there was a proper easement, when in fact the easement was not properly established. He said that Hayssen, Alt and McDowell were placed on notice of this October 11, 1988. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Owens whether access would be cut off if Mr. McDowell decided not to go through with the subdivision? Page 2 was omitted from the person placing the documents on Microfiche mmiTBs OP m PUonmK ooimzssiom mwG wovi 20, IMO ZOnVG PIU «1475-MCD0NILL COWTiBDBU Code would require the upgrade based on the potential density of the properties in that area? Kelley agreed that Mr. Jabbour raised an interesting question that was an issue in and of itself. Hr. Alt questioned how the road width as discussed had gone froB 24* to 50*7 Gaffron explained that a 50* corridor is defined for private roads in Orono and within that 50* corridor is a 24* paved roadway. Mr. Alt asked what the City would require of the property currently at a 4-residence density if the new subdivision were to access froai County Road 84» rather than using the existing driveway? Chairman Kelley replied that was a policy question beyond the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission at this time. Gaffron noted that the existing lots in questions were created prioi to the current private road policy being adopted. Mr. McDowell hoped that the City would not ask him to put in a blacktop road and a cul-de-sac. He said that the City ;rould have to condeoin the land needed to do so. Kelley asked whether it would be possible to proceed with only the lot line rearrangement portion of this application? Gaffron said that a revision of the application would be necessary if Mr. Hayssen and Mr. McDowell agreed to proceed that way. Mr. Owen suggested the use of Tonkawa Road (to the east) as an access. Mr. McDowell said that he no longer owned property on Tonkawa. Mr. Allan Resebek, 4185 Bayside Road# said that he objected to the upgrade of the existing driveway and the construction of a cul-de-sac. Be said that the cul-de-sac would destroy existing trees and eliminate his privacy. Mr. Rezebek noted that a ravine existed in the area that was not shown on the sketch. Mr. McDowell said that his subdivision has nothing to do with the property beyond the White property. He said that he wants to come out at the end of the Rezebek property and get out to Bayside Road if he and Hr. White can agree. Planning Commissioner Brown asked whether# in light of the problems Involved with access# if Bayside Road could be used? I ^ 1 ! NIVDTSS or THE PIAIOIISG COMMISSIOH MBBTING RQVBliBn 20« 19S9 XOHIH6 PILE 91475-MCDONELL COMTIEDED Planning Commissioner Bellows suggested that Mr. McDowell's existing homestead lot access be used rather than making an additional curb cut. Mr. Chip Hayssen, 4135 Bayside Road, asked if there was a specific reason that the lot line rearrangement and subdivision had to be a combined effort? He questioned whether it would be possible to proceed with the lot line rearrangement to Council? Gaffron and Mabusth said that was something that would need to be looked into further and that it would be necessary to have such a request in writing from Mr. McDowell and Mr. Hayssen. Mr. McDowell indicated that he would rather keep the subdivision and lot line rearrangement together. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this application, pending the outcome of easement and a possible revision of the subdivision if Mr. McDowell wished to do so. Kelley said that he would prefer to see the existing driveway (shown on the survey as "Bayside Ridge”) used for access. Planning Commissioners Bellows and Brown indicated that they too would prefer to see "Bayside Ridge” used, but were not certain whether it would be possible in this case. Planning Commissioner Hanson was uncertain of whether "Bayside Ridge” was the best access. Motion, Ayes*4, Hay8**0, Motion passed. fl2S9 SOBBRT NILL 115 OLD CETSTJU; BAT BOKO EOBTB PBEUMIHAET BOBOIVISKNI - REVIEW OP ANBHDED PLJUl REBOTIPICATIOE BY MAIL Mr. and Mrs. Hill were present for the review of the amended plan for this preliminary subdivision. Chairman Kelley confirmed that renotification by mall had in fact occurred. Mabusth Indicated that it had. Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided a brief history of this application for a 3-lot subdivision. She said that the issue of the use of private property over which the City has an underlying easement was reviewed by the City Attorney. Mabusth said that the City could provide a developer with the authority to construct a roadway through Rolling Meadows due to an existing easement. Mabusth said that in light of this, Mr. Hill is now able to proceed with his subdivision, with a specific directive that the existing private road be extended through his property to a newly defined cul-de-sac. Mabusth clarified that the road would be public, rather than private, and could be maintained by the private homeowners association. t,I » * i I I i! f ( res PLMmillG COHMISSIOB IIESniiG HOVBMBBB 20» 1989 Mimms OP TBB PLMinPG C0MU88I0M VnKS HOVEMBBR 20, 198981475-MCDOIfBLL COHTIHUBDig Comnissloner Bellows suggested that Mr. McDowell s inestead lot access be used rather than making an;urb cut.Lp Hayssen, 4135 Bayside Road, asked if there was a ison that the lot line rearrangement and subdivision combined effort? He questioned whether it would be proceed with the lot line rearrangement to Council?i and Habusth said that was something that would need 3 into further and that it would be necessary to have •St in writing from Mr. McDowell and Mr. Bayssen.sDowell indicated that he would rather keep the 1 and lot line rearrangement together. no further comments from the public regarding and the public hearing was closed. ; moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning iz Hanson, to table this application, pending the casement and a possible revision of the subdivision if 1 wished to do so. Kelley said that he would prefer existing driveway (shown on the survey as "Bayside id for access. Planning Commissioners Bellows and sted that they too would prefer to see "Bayside Ridge" ere not certain whether it would be possible in this nning Commissioner Hanson was uncertain of whether [<jg®" was the best access. Motion, Ayes*4, Hays*0, ied. T WILL 8TAL BAT SOLD WORTH ___ 80B0IVIS10H - RBVIBH OP ANBHDBD PLAH lOH BY NAIL ^ ^ d Mrs. will were present for the review of the amended is preliminary subdivision. an Kelley confirmed that renotification by mail had in ed. Mabusth indicated that it had. 1 Administrator Mabusth provided a brief history of cation for a 3-lot subdivision. She said that the le use of private property over which the City has an easement was reviewed by the City Attorney. Mabusth the City could provide a developer with the authority It a roadway through Rolling Meadows due to an existing Mabusth said that in light of this, Mr. Will is now oceed with his subdivision, with a specific directive xisting private road be extended through his property defined cul-de-sac. Mabusth clarified that the road iiblic, rather than private, and could be maintained by t homeowners association. S0HIW6 PILB 11289-WILL OOWTIWOBDChairman Kelley noted that the homeowners association may not wish to maintain the road.Mabusth said that there were many unanswered questions pertaining to the implementation and realities of this process.Planning Commissioner Bellows did not understand how the City could enforce the requirement that the homeowners association maintain a public road, constructed to meet City standards.Chairman Kelley asked for confirmation that Mr. Will had approached the developer of the Rolling Meadows subdivision regarding access.Mabusth indicated that a letter had been included in the information given to the Planning Commission confirming that. Mr. Wear said that he had offered, on a "one time only basis" to sell the property needed for access to Mr. Will for $10,000.00 per lot. He said that Mr. Will did not take advantage of this offer. Mr. Wear said that he was not trying to be unreasonable. Mr. Wear noted that it would be necessary to use Old Crystal Bay Road to access the front lot. Planning Commissioner Bellows believed that the entire subdivision should be served with one access. Mabusth clarified that the existing residence, which will be removed, was allowed to use the existing access. Mabusth said that the applicant is proposing an easement over the north 30* of Lot 2, Block 2. The City is asking for an out lot at least 25* in width along the northern border to provide access to the most eastern lot. Mabusth advised that the City Engineer had initially recommended that the southern access for Lot 1 be maintained off Old Crystal Bay Road. The revised recommendation is that access for all 3 lots should come from extension of the roadway. Mabusth said that the original septic test sites shown for Lot 2, Block 2, will be encroached by the out lot and the required 20* setback. Additional septic testing will be required and any kind of approval recommendation should be conditioned on the existing septic system being updated. The City will need to have written confirmation from the on-site evaluator that there is enough area to move the mound system south. Mabusth said that additional septic testing has been done for the most eastern lot now that a new residence will replace existing residence. Planning Commissioner Brown asked why the outlot could not be located along the south side of the property? Mabusth said that the access road for the Carlson subdivision had been revised so to be located further north. Mabusth said that it may not be necessary to take another access for the Will property. ^ i\ . IDHi.-:i:K*«:»^4i Oil* V. 0 lO «•]• •ll« TTTMyiK rrKOTsiu F7»»C-L»J •1^0 «J tlCi itrerrr# ,*j .■<.!:< .H; V'Ji •r T* » P «• H •! 11 •1»PV« •liPViH*] •1 •!• • lOU 11) • ir^ il« H. 1 o 4^* r^liP V* H • l4t*l« • H*<« I ll«i MmOTBS OP THE PLMmiHG COMMISSIOH MEBTIHG NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE •1289-HILL CONTINUED ramifications to Mr. Wear's subdivision homeowners as a result of turning the road into a public road? Mabusth said that the homeowner's association would still maintain Wear Circle. Mabusth asked for specific reasons as to why the Planning Commission wanted the public road publicly maintained. Kelley replied that the Planning Commission had a difficulty with the concept of a public road that is privately maintained. Kelley asked how the City could mandate the homeowner's association to maintain the public road. Mabusth said that the City Attorney's opinion is that the City could make such a requirement. Hanson said that such a proposal is poor planning. Bellows said that such an arrangement was virtually unenforceable. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays»0, Motion passed. •1465 GERALD MCCOORTHET 1055 PBRNDALB ROAD WEST VARIAHCB8 CONTINIIATION OP PUBLIC BEARING 8:10 P.N. TO 8:40 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. McCourtney was present for this matter, as was Mr. Gerry Wenkus, Mr. McCourtney's contractor. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained Mr. McCourtney's proposal and the history of the property. Mr. McCourtney said that the basis of this project was the need to add a closet. He said that their intentions had gotten out of hand, but they had not set out with the idea that they would get approval for hardcover increases every other month. Be said that the proposal being presented was the best plan to service the property the way that it is set up. He said that the purpose of the driveway proposal is just to get the cars off of the road. Mr. Wenkus said that he had come into this matter after the initial building permit had been issued. He said that he had tried to work with the City in preparing the landscape plan and trying to resolve this natter in a way beneficial to both Mr. McCourtney and the City. He said that the hardship is the size and shape of the property and the fact that over half of the property is located in the 0-75' zone. He said he has cut back on the width of the sidewalk areas and the size of the patio areas from what they had initially proposed. Be said that what is being proposed is appropriate for the neighborhood. Mr. Wenkus noted that there had been a 6' fence existing in the right-of-way which had recently been removed. The fence being proposed is less obtrusive and would be located within the boundary lines of the property. Mr. Wenkus said that the replacement terrace will encroach no closer to the lake than the pre-existing deck. He also said that he had taken into consideration the sight lines of the two neighboring properties 8 Wlir:M lOC-TSTSl •1 C«1 •J •!•. •1 «♦! •: L*iiI«X«J^iT5T^ M it v: :i • a*J - K>,-<•H#1«)i>im • lip • ttl* • 1 ■ ■ • I • ^ «■ • H • t*• l«»l«PPUi • •lar. l»l • PPif«H l • • r- f • • ■•I-I* V. NlNUnS OF THE PIMOmK COMNISSIOH MBBTIH6 MOVBMBBK 20, lf09 SOBIEG PILE «1465-MCCOOimRT COBTIMOED Planning Commissioner Bellows said that the house was nicely done, but the issue is hardcover. She said that the Planning Comission had been through this with Mr. McCourtney before. She said that it would be difficult to approve a 10% increase in hardcover, especially due to the fact that the lot is small. Chairsian Kelley said that he would be inclined to recommend that hardcover remain at 3.5% and 36.8% as required as part of the approval for Mr. McCourtney’s 1988 application. Kelley questioned whether it would be possible for the applicant to obtain adjacent property? Mr. Wenkus replied that acquiring adjacent land was a possibility but he could not answer that question at this time. Mr. Wenkus reiterated that there was a definite hardship and that the square footages were appropriate. He said that if the Planning Commission recommends maintaining hardcover at the current percentage, he could not even put in a reasonable driveway, not to mention the patios and sidewalks. He said that the maximum allowed width of the driveway would be 16’, not adequate to serve a triple width garage. Planning Commissioner Bellows asked Gaffron how this plan differed from what was approved so that only that much driveway would be permitted. Gaffron replied that the addition of sidewalks was a factor as is the fact that the terrace is a bit larger than the pre existing deck. Gaffron said that the applicant in the previous application had "traded away" hardcover that he should not reasonably have traded away”. There were no comments from the p»iblic regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Bellows, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to deny the hardcover variance and that the current hardcover percentages of 3.5% and 36.8% should remain. Motion, Ayes>3, Brown, Nay due to his concern for safety vith the cars being parked along Ferndalee Motion passed. The portion of this application pertaining to the fence was then discussed. Gsffron asked the applicant if he would still require the fence, in light of the denial for the circular driveway? Mr. Wenkus said that they would still like the fence as proposed as it is more aesthetic than anything else. Bellows asked where the fence would be located now that there is no circular driveway? Mr. Wenkus replied that it would be approximately in the )F THB PLiUmilKS CONNISSIOM MBBTIH6 WOVBMBBR 20, 1909SSing^CoLiSSiS!«*BeirS^ saidt the Issue is hardcover. She said that>n had been through this with Mr. McCourtney J®t it would be difficult to approve a 10% increase inr, especially due to the fact that the lot is small.Lrman Kelley said that he would be inclineddcover remlin at 3.5% and 36.8% as required a« P«rt of•oval for Mr. McCourtney's 1988iSd whether it would be possible for the applicant to djacent property?Wenkus replied that acquiring adjacent * lity but he could not answer us reiterated that there was A ^thefnot^aaes were appropriate* He said that ir rne g Commission recommends maintaining *oercentage, he could not even P«t in ® r.^not to mention the patios and sidewalks. He said that Imum allowed width of the driveway would be 16 , not 1 to serve a triple width garage. inning Commissioner Bellows asked G«ffron I from what was approved so that only that much drive ay » permitted. ffron replied that the addition of sidewalks was « «®ctor ^ tha tsrraca is a bit largar than tha pra I deck.^ ^;affron said that the applicant in the P'^^®“® ftion had "traded away" hardcover that he should not aly have traded away". ire were no comments from the p«Mic regarding this matter public hearing was closed. was moved by Planning Commissioner Bellows, ®*®®"^®^^J , ".^..ion.r to deny the h«dc<,«r «rle«e. »„d e current hardcover percentages of 3.5% and 36.8% sncmio Motion, Ayes-3, Brown, Nay due to his concern for safety e cars being parked along Perndale. Motion passed. e portion of this application pertaining to the fence was iscussed. «ron e.ked th. eppllc.nt if he «ould •till require the in light of the denial for the circular driveway? r. Menkus said that they would »till like the fence as td as it is more aesthetic than anything else. kllows asked where the fence would be located now that l8 no circular driveway? c. Wenkus replied that it would be approximately in the *nms OP TBB PLMOilliG COMUSSIOII NBBTIM6 NOVBMBBR 20, 1989XOKCMG PILB tlXeS-MCCOORmT COMTIWJBDsame location as proposed but it would have a straight configuration rather than curved.Chairman Kelley asked whether the applicant had explored the possibility of a 3.5' high fence?Mr. Wenkus indicated that it would be more appropriate to construct the iron fence at the height proposed.Chairman Kelley asked whether it was the applicant's intention to plant arborvitae along the fence?Mr. Wenkus said that they would be planting shrubbery and trees in the entire front yard and on either side of the fence. Mr. Wenkus said that the fence would also limit trespassing.There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Brown said that normally he would not look favorably at a 6' fence and would prefer to see the standard 3.5' height. Brown said that a 6' fence had previously existed in this location and the proposed fence would be less obtrusive. Planning Commissioner Hanson indicated that he did not object to the height of the fence. Planning Commissioner Bellows said that the Planning Commission normally does not vote favorably for such request. She felt that this proposal was appropriate however due to the openess of the fence. It was moved by Plannir.-^ Commission Brown, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hani'on, to recommend approval of this height variance for a fenct as proposed. Hanson requested that the motion be amended to reflect the new location of the fence due to the denial of the turn-around driveway, Brovm amended his motion, Hanson seconded. Kelley said that it was important to note that there was a pre-existing 6' fence on this property. Motion, Ayes-3, Kelley, Nay due to his preference to see a 3.5* fence. Motion passed. •1481 6BK8LD MCCOUHTIUT 1055 PBRNDAU KOAD WB8T APTBR-m-PACT COHDITIOHAL QSB PBRNIT/VARIAMCB PUBLIC BBARIB6 8i40 P.N. TO 8s55 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr, McCourtney was present for this matter, as was Mr. Gerry Wenkus, Mr. McCourtney's contractor. Assistant Planning and zoning Administrator Gaffron explained how staff had discovered the construction of a basement MINUTBS OP THE PIANHING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1481-MCCOORTNEy CONTINUED access door and the consequent grading needed to direct drainage away from the door. Gaffron said that the building plans did show a basement door, but did not show any landscaping plan. Gaffron sai'’ that the pre-existing swale, required as part of the 1975 subdivision, was constructed when the house was built to construct another swale near the property line to facilitate runoff draxiil'^g to the lake. Gaffron explained that the applicant has i egraded the swale in the 0-75'zone, not • ly in connection with ^he riprap of the shoreline, but also exco.ation to provided gravity flow runoff away from the basement access door. Ms. Chris Lindstrom, 1065 North Ferndale Road, said that not allowing the drainage to continue to the lake would be similar to a "cork in a bottle". She said that not only would water back up to the McCourtney basement door, but all the way back to the property line, if maintenance grading near the shoreline was not allowed. Ms. Lindstrom said that she does not believe the contractors are through with the work in that area because there is still quite a trench near the lake. She said that she would like to see the old swale restored as it was because she has quite a few trees in that area that will rot if there is no proper drainage. Chairman Kelley asked whether the City Engineer had taken a look at this project? Kelley did not know whether it would be preferable to have the swale continuing to the lake or the pipe/culvert. Gaffron said that the City Engineer had not looked at the project, but the pipe through the rip-rap has always existed and is necessary. Gaffron said that staff is comfortable with what the applicant is doing in that area within 20* of the shoreline. Planning Commissioner Brown said that it is hard to visualize what was there before the walkout was constructed. Planning Commissioner Hanson said that he had looked at the work done and could not see any problems, especially if you look at the west property line. Bellows asked whether or not the walkout was included on the original building plans? Gaffron said that it was, but there was no grading plan shown. Hanson had no problem with the application, though he hated to see such variances after the fact. Gaffron said that the exact depth of the pre-existing swale was unknown. Kelley asked the applicant if any of the work was done to MIVOTBS OF THB PIAHMIllG COMIIISSIOB MBBTIFG ■OF]20, 1989 XOHISG FILE 11481-MCCOORTIIBT COaTIVOB) relieve drainage 9oin9 into the house? Mr. wenkus replied that ultimately it would be due to the fact that they were putting in a walkout. He said that he had not applied for the building permit and just assumed that dirt would be excavated away from the foundation and the swale be used for drainage. He said that a reading with a transit indicated the need to cut an additional 6" to 12* nearer the house to enable drainage to occur. It was necessary to take that same additional cut near the lake. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley* seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson* to recommend approval of the after-the-fact conditional use permit, the hardship being the need to relieve runoff concerns on the other side of the house. Chairman Kelley questioned whether the City should take a drainage easement across this property? Gaff ton said that he could look into aspect. Kelley amended his motion to include direction to staff to look into the dedication of a drainage easement and make a recommendation to the City Council* Hanson seconded. Motion* Ayes*4* Nays*0* Motion passed. #1470 Dial « ROTH PARTBM 4300 BAT8IDB ROJO) PRBLINIHART SOBDIVISIOa * ** « „ CORTTaUATIOH OF PUBLIC HBARIHG 8tS5 P.N. TO 9:40 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Parten were present for this public hearing. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron provided a brief history regarding this application for a 3-lot subdivision. Chairman Kelley questioned whether it would be possible to split Outlot A into two outlets. One portion would end in the northeast corner with a cul-de-sac and Outlot B would serve the two lots in the back. Because Outlot B would serve only two lots* it could remain a dirt road. Kelley said that the issue to him is serving the lots to the east as well. Mr. Parten asked Gaffron to show the Planning Commission the proposal for a 2—Lot subdivision. Planning Commissioner Bellows asked where the septic system is located for Lot 1? Gaffri»> indicated that the alternate site is st. 11 located in Outlot »nd the 60’ easemenr cxal^a a configuration for Lot 1 so that s not contiguous with Outlot A. S' MnniTBS OP THE PIAinilK: COIMISSIOP MBETIIIG NOVBIBBR 20, 1909 11.0,X0HIB6 PILB *1470-PARTBa COMTim Kelley observed that if Outlet A were put in with only a 50* easement, Outlet A and Lot 1 will be contiguous. Gaffron suggested creating a more narrow Outlot A. Hanson noted that such a configuation would create "the ultimate flag lot". Bellows indicated that she did not approve of this configuration. Hanson indicated that the land would lend itself well to development with the adjacent property. Bellows suggested the property be developed as a 3-lot PRD with the houses clustered. She said that what the Partens are proposing more closely resembles a conventional subdivision. Mabusth interjected that the Planning Commission's directive to have the septic systems included in the homestead pad with a PRD proposal made it very difficult. Bellows indicated that she would not object to the septic systems being located in a commons area. She said that the septic system location is an item that had to give in order to not have this application be a typical subdivision. Ms. Parten explained that the PRD being propos..d is the best that can be done due to the topography oi e land. Bellows suggested that perhaps the City has reached a degree of development where a certain amount of acreage no longer guarantees a certain amount of lots. Ms. Parten said that she was frustrated because she could not understand how there could be 50 acres in an area that will not sustain 4 lots. Chairman Kelley asked Bellows for her opinion regarding the 2>lot subdivision proposal be suggested with the 2 outlets. Bellows replied that she was uncomfortable with the overall shape of the subdivision and the location of the alternate septic site for Lot 2. Planning Commissioner Brown observed that lot area variances would be required for two of the three lots being proposed. Mabusth suggested that it would not be difficult to make unique findings that would still allow denial of other less unique applications seeking lot area variances for newly created lots. Mabusth said that the extension of the road and the inclusion of the Styles property placed restrictions on the development of the parcel. Mabusth said that an area variance I B8 OP THB VUMim C0MU88I0H !TXHG aOVl 20. 1M9 X0HIH6 PILE «1470 PABTBI COBTIHOBD would not be necessary with the 2-lot subdivision. Mabusth noted that proceeding with the 2-lot subdivision would leave the issue of accessing the northern properties unresolved. Bellows indicated that she would prefer to see a PRD if there is to be a subdivision of this property. She said that the PRO should not resemble a conventional 3-lot subdivision and that it sMy be impossible to accomplish that. Kelley asked Bellows if she would accept a PRD that would have the 3 pads on Lot 1 and the septic systems on Lot 2? Bellows said yes she would accept that. Gaffron advised the Planning Commission that there is an existing drainageway running through the property over which it may be necessary for the City to take an easement. Gaffron said that the area for the drainageway would not have to be excluded from the total area if developed as a PRD. Ms. Parten said that she has tried very hard to meet the intentions and directions of the Planning Commission. She said that there are not any big flat areas for clustering homes* but rather there are three separate building areas. Bellows said that the Partens may not be able to do all that they want to do with this property. Ms. Parten said that they would be willing to clean up some of the City's problems with access* She noted that when making this application she had felt confident that due to the fact there are 50 acres with the parcel and surrounding property that will yield no more than 4 lots* approval would not be this difficult. Ms. Parten said that it does not make sense that this parcel cannot be subdivided. Planning Commissioner Brown asked if a determination has been made as to whether easements exist for the northwest lots to cross the Luce Line? Mr. Asao said that he and the Dieters have an easement in thc> form of a right-of-way from the ONR. Planning Commissioner Drown suggested leaving the Styles' property undeveloped. Mr. Asao said that he had looked at the possibility of purchasing the Styles' property which would bring his property up to City standards. Kelley said that would be favorable not only to the City* but it would also require the Partens to put in only a private driveway to serve two houses. Kelley asked for input from the Planning Commission as to the Partens proceeding with a 2-lot II : W 7 I MimiTBS OP THE PIAlOmiG COiOaSSIOB MBBTIM6 EOVl 20, 1989 S0n«6 riLB #1470-PMtTB« COMTIHUBD subdivision of the 12 acres, out the acre^^^ dedicated to the 60* easement that runs the whole »outh Kelley suggested putting in a 50» outlet that follows the southerly lot line all the way around to the east lot line. Gaffron observed that such a configuration would create two flag lots. Brown said that he would favor the 2-lot subdivision. Mabusth advised that tha flag lot would vatlanca. Mabuath auggastad putting a 25' outlot tha axtanda up to Lot 1 on the east side. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. It was moved by Chairm. .elley to recommend nrAlimlnarv 2-lot subdivision of 12+ acres, less Outlot A which will run 50* from the southerly boundary to ^**® Outlot B will run on the eastern boundary to the south up to the lot line of Lot 1 at a width of 25 . xt was suggested by the applicant's surveyor that the outlot will ^Ud wIdVr than 25- to contain a arlvaway. that he did not want to create substandard lots. Mabusth iSwestld that it may be better to have the property owners work out the details. Kelley suggested tabling the application until l«th.r in?«iitlon 1.’'available regarding 1<>‘ ««*: Bellows said the issue of drainage easements had not yet been addressed. Kelley withdrew his motion. It was moved by Planning Commisslc.ier Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this *PP^j^®*^^®® transmittal of a plan addressing the issue ®®®®®*“J^he; outlot. site drainage and subdivision of the 12+ acres ratner than 17+ acres. Mr. Parten asked for clarification of what drainage information they needed to submit? ?£rt the City may require a 20' to 30' ®«w^ over the existing drainageway. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays 0, Motion passed . •1471 PAKTU OFBOFF 2899 KILLT AYBRIB COBDXnOHAL 08B PKIMIT ^'***'*The*AffldaVit*of*Pub 11 cation and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Uphoff was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided a f^ application for a conditional use permit to repair a sea wall. Mabusth said that the City Engineer had reviewed the ®PP^^®®^^®" and found the proposal acceptable and recommended that tne I •! '1 NXS0TB8 OP THB PIAIMXMG CCMMISSIOM NBRIHC MVBIBSB 20, 1909 X0HXM6 PILS «1470-PAKRa COTIWID proposed plantings be placed below the existing water lines, which will be approxiaately 6', rather than the 4* as indicated. The joists on the planking should be staggered. Mabusth said that the City Engineer also called to the attention of the applicant the question of where the spoils would be disposed. Mr. Ophoff advised that the spoils would be placed off site. There were no connents from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Banson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit, subject to the observations of the City Engineer and subject to approval of issuance of permits by both MCWD and DNIR and the applicant obtaining a building permit. Motion, Ayes»4, Mays>0, Motion passed. *1472 DlkVB CaUlfJOB 1940 SBOBBLm OBZVB GOWXTXOHa 08B PBRMIT PUBLIC BBBBXBB 9t45 F.N. TO lOsOO P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Dave Carlson was present for the review of this conditional use permit application. Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided a history of the previous uses of this property and the present application for a fishing boat sales operation. Mabusth said that the applicant does not intend to store the fishing boats outside. Chairman Kelley asked if the landscaping requirements that were part of the approval of the previous application for this property would now be completed? Mr. Carlson indicated that the work would be done. Mabusth noted that Mr. Carlson has been the manager of the Stillwater Marina for 5 years. Kelley asked Mr. Carlson if he intended to tie the boat sales business in with the Smith Bay Marina across County Boad 157 Mr. Carlson said that was a possibility. Kelley asked whether he anticipated any problems with pedestrians crossing from one business to the other? Mr. Carlson said that he did not believe that would be a problem because the marina will rent sail boats and his business involves the sale of fishing boats. riMmiK cowos"**VOVBtiBBRriK il470-PM««* the\ *"'"• “’* ‘^ .„„w b. pl.c- °“ *^“-, pphoff .-vl.«» th.t rt. . MWSfSSw SSS^.W-. *0 «*•• ';S-Certlfic.f «*SattW »;t*JJ-5;bXlcatloi. and carti ,. Mfidavlt ot » of thl. ^ ^*^®«;*^be completed? r.i .1-»»r:“ r. .“-.■••■ •• -h»t Mt. Carleoft has d«« usth 5 years. boatr:; 1Asiness in . carlaon .aid that «a. a J probl — ’>1“' v.d »h.tb.r h. •“V.'a tS ?b. other? ^^•’'«MMln9 boalnoa ,Una croaal P f. Carlson snijfl^^^^ viH rent sail B because the «» boats. eft the sale ot MXVOTBS OF ns PIAmiHG C0MMI88I0H MBBTIM6 ROVMBR 20, 1989SOMHMS PILE «1472-CMILSOa COHTIHPlanning Commissioner Brown asked about the status of thecrosswalk being proposed.Mabusth said that Public Works Director Gerhardson had received word from Hennepin County that a crosswalk would be acceptable.Xelley suggested that the City may wish to continue monitoring crossing of County Road 15 to see if it will warrant a crosswalk.Brown suggested going ahead with the crosswalk now since approval and funding was no problem.Xelley asked whether boats would be stored on the property in the winter?Mr. Carlson said that he had no intention of storing boats in the parking lot, with the exception of one vessel that may be displayed for sale. Planning Commissioner Bellows observed that it will be necessary to make sure there is ample room for parking cars with boat trailers that may stop to buy bait. Kelley recommended using Spates Avenue for parking such vehicles. Mr. Dan Crear, 1980 Spates Avenue, advised the Planning Commission that parking was not allowed on Spates Avenue. Mr. Tourangeau, 2060 Spates Avenue, said that County Road 15 would be used for parking rather than Spates Avenue. Bellows questioned whether an additional curb cut would be a more safe approach to the parking. Brown questioned whether the situation has changed to a (iegree that parking on Spates could be allowed and restrict parking on County Road 15. Mr. Crear believes that the use proposed for this location is much more intensified than what had previously existed. Be was also concerned about the potential sale of jet skis. Mr. Crear also noted that due to changes in the design of the County Road 51 4 15 intersection, large trucks cannot use the Intersection. Be said the trucks use Spates Avenue, as do the Police and morning traffic trying to get onto County Road 15. Ho said that the business proposed for this building would only add to what is now a bad situation for traffic. Mabusth recollected that at one ulme there had been discussion about placing a cul-*'de*'sac at the end of Spates. t PLMmXNG C0MM188I0V VZV6 ROVBIBBR 20, 1989472-«ML80B COMTimiBDConinlssioner Brown asked about the status of the 19 proposed.said that Public Works Director Gerhardson had 1 from Hennepin County that a crosswalk would besuggested that the City nay wish to continue ossing of County Road 15 to see if it will warrant aggested going ahead with the crosswalk now since 'unding was no problem.Bked whether boats would be stored on the propertyion said that he had no intention of storing boats [ lotr with the exception of one vessel that may be sale. Commissioner Bellows observed that it will be make sure there is ample room for parking cars lers that may stop to buy bait. ecommended using Spates Avenue for parking such Crear# 1980 Spates Avenue^ advised the Planning it parking was not allowed on Spates Avenue. ngeaur 2060 Spates Avenue# said that County Road 15 for parking rather than Spates Avenue. tuestloned whether an additional curb cut would be a oach to the parking. astioned whether the situation has changed to a tarking on Spates could be allowed and restrict nty Read IS. r believes that the use proposed for this location Intensified than what had previously existed. Be erned about the potential sale of jet skis. Mr. ^ed that due to changes in the design of the County 5 intersection, large trucks cannot use the Be said the trucks use Spates Avenue, as do the -nlng traffic trying to get onto County Road 15. He business proposed for this building would only add a bad situation for traffic. rscollected that at one time there had been ut placing a cul-de-sac at the end of Spates. MIIIDTBS OP THE PLAMMIHG C f SSIOH TIH6 MOVBMBIR 20, 1989 R ZOHIHG PILE 81472-CARLSOH COHTIinCity Council Representative Callahan recollected that a use very similar to this use had been previously proposed and denied.Mr. Tourangeau asked what would happen to the water from the bait tanks?Gaffron said that he did not believe there would be any problem with running the water in the sewer, but he would have to check further.Mabusth recalled that the reason the previous similar use was denied was due to sewer being unavailable.Chairman Kelley opined that the sale of power boats was an intensification in use than the sale of sail boats. Re also said that safety on County Road 15 was a major concern. Mr. Gabriel Jabbour indicated that he did not see a hardship for the variance. Mr. Crear did not believe that placing a crosswalk on County Road 15 would be practical. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Bellows, seconded by Planning Commission Hanson, to recommend denial of the conditional use permit application due to the intensification of use this proposal represents. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays>0, Motion passed. 11473 JACQOELnm KELLY 2056 SHADIIIOCM) ROAD APTBR-nB-PACT VARIAHCBS PUBLIC BBARIBG COHTIHUBD TO JAMUART 16, 1990 PLAMMIIIG C0MMIS8I0M NBETIIIG It was moved by Chairperson Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown to table this application. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays>0, Motion passed. 41474 DOHAID BBLANSXl 1695 COHOORDIA 8TRBBT VARIABCB PUBLIC BBARIBG 10:17 P.M. TO 10:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Belawski were present for this public hearing. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained this application for a hardcover variance to construct a garage. NIMUTBS OP TBB PLlUnilllG COMNISSIOI MBBTIliG HOVBMBBR 20, 1989 lOaiMS PILE il474-BBIAHSKI COHTimiBD Mr. Balawski said that he had built a house and sold it to his son and would like to build another house, renove the existing garage and move the garage across the way to his property. Kelley asked Mr. Belawski about the deck on the front of the house? Mr. Belawski said that the steps to the house had been removed by the neighbor's pontoon boat that flow into the steps in the 1987 "super storm*. Chairman Kelley asked why hardcover was increasing when there was basically a trade-off, one garage for another. Gaffron said that the replacement garage was slightly larger that the existing garage. Th#*ie were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Bellows, seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown, to recommend approval of the hardcover variance to relocate a detached garage closer to the principal structure, reguiring removal of the existing garage on the property within 6 months. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1478 DAVID 4 SDSAIUn PlUiSS 1085 LZaDBI IAMB VAIIZAMCB PUBLIC BBARIBG 10sl7 P.N. TO 10:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Prass were present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided the Planning Commission with the details of this application for a variance. She said that she did not believe the applicants were notified of the need to remove the accessory structure once the principal structure was removed. The fence required around the pool has been installed. Prass said that he had no specific time frame for rebuilding the principal structure. Chairman Kelley said that the pool seemed to be in such a state of disrepair that it was unlikely it could be used again. Br. Prass said that the condition of the pool was such that it would only take cosmetic repairs to bring it back to a usable state. Be said that structurally it was sound. J. Mzamss or ns ruoMiiiG coimissiov nbbtikg hovcmbbr 20, 1§S9 sorno piu #147«-pbass comtimjbd Kelley said that restoring the pool was fine but that he 0 specific tisie frame for the building of a principal structure. Kelley was skeptical that the fence would prevent children from getting near the fence. Mabusth informed Mr. Press that the variance, if approved, will expire one year from the date of Council approval. Mabusth said that a building permit must be issued by that deadline date. She said that she realised that is not in keeping with the applicant's schedule as they are proposing a much longer period of time before construction on the principal structure begins. Mabusth suggested that the applicants come back to the City at least 30 days prior to the expiration date to apply for a renewal application. Mrs. Press said that she and her husband had owned the property 19 years and it means a lot to the family. She said that they are very serious about rebuilding. Planning Conaiissioner Bellows asked if the adjacent property also owned by the applicants could not be combined? Mabusth noted that the City will ask for a combination of the parcels, but that there is no structure on the adjacent property. Kelley said that ho was concerned about children playing in the area and the safety risk of having an open, unattended pool. Mr. Press said that the neighbors keep an eye on the property and call if there are any problems. Bellows concurred that the pool is a real safety hazard. She said that a standard in the construction business is to disallow a pool to be filled unless the mechanical equipment is working to keep the pool clear. She said without it, someone could fall in the pool without being detected. Mabusth asked if there would be a way to cover the pool? Mr. Press said that would be an option. Bellows said that she had a problem with the apparent fact that a house will not be ronatmeted within the one year period as the City consistently enforces. Planning Commissioner Hanson asked Mr. Press if he was able to maintain any kind of liability Insurance without living on the property? Mr. Prass said that he has property liability. Mabusth said that the City would like to see an up-to-date binder showing such a policy is in effect. f ns PIMBMS6 C0MMI8SI0S >nS6 SOVSKBSR 20» IMPa tl476>PBA88 ^^3 fine but that he•y said that testoring the p ^ principal*.»<=. «ouia pr.v.nttro. sittln, near the fane.8th informed Mr. Press that ^^*ncil^approval.***Mabu8th .re oie yr by thS: deadline datea building permit „ot in keeping with ythat she realised that ie n® ^ longer period;;\oV.“=cnVt ”jr,rp%*roVt*’o‘thV':x*p??U"sv.t. t. .ppiy f«r •. Praa. eaia thnt aha nnd^hat^hnab.^^^^^^ She eaid ; er^cua about rabuUdin,. 11 . «<tk«d if the adjacent property iVlt "SSrtfaV tt.*ra“l‘J “n‘o‘i«ul^tlV. *o.”rh.^'‘a*dla%V.t i a‘.*?‘Ay‘“rm o'r.Tvi’S? .ro’^n? n«tt:,5i*d’' Praaa aatd that the *" *’'* ®" * * ; an”caU if that. ar. any problena. XXowa =<.»-«•/. «“i‘n‘JJa'^roiate‘ctro“n^It ?,xV in*tha*^p«®l without einp detactad. 1^ vm> A wav to cover the pool? Ibuath aakad if there would be a way r. Praa. aaid that would be an option. •i-• w-i-i‘? srb:‘'^si^‘iT^hVn-thronV'^^^^^^^^^^ Sru, enaiat«.tly anforcaa. ■ty? tt. Praaa .aid that h. ha. property liability. iA 4-hAt the City would like to see an up Habusth said tha^he City r showing such a policy is m Hmns OP TBS PUamiHG COMUSSIOH MBBTIIIG MOgSMBSS 20# 1989S0SIS6 FILS 81476-PlASS COSTIMUBDHanson said that if there is no policy in effect, the liability then falls upon the City of Orono and that he would be inclined to recommend denial of this application.Mrs. Prass asked about the use of a mesh pool covering to cover the pool.Kelley suggested that if the Planning Commission recommends denial, that the applicants bring Insurance information to the City Council meeting. Kelley said that without the facts pertaining to liability, it is difficult to recommend approval.Mr. Prass said that he was unaware of the need to have such information.Mabusth agreed that the discussion of liability had not been discussed until Planning Commissioner Hanson's comments at this meeting. Mr. Prass said that he preferred not to go to the Council with a recommendation for denial. Kelley asked how long this situation has existed? Mabusth replied that the structure was removed in October, 1988. Mrs. Prass said that they were informed of the problem with the accessory structure in September of 1989. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning CcMmissloner Hanson said that the best he could do under these circumstances was move to table. Mabusth said that the application would be tabled pending the receipt of Insurance Information and a recommendation from the applicant as to how he wishes to provide a secure covering over the pool. Bellows added that she would like to see a specific time frame as to when a principal structure will be constructed. Bellows said that the applicant should be aware that the Planning Cosmission is going to limit the time to re-build and there will be no extension. She said that she was disinclined to allow more than the standard one year period. Council Representative Callahan questioned whether the Planning Commission really wanted to table this and allow the problem of liability to remain for another two or three months? Planning Commissioner Brown asked if it would be possible to recommend approval subject to the proof of satisfactory liability MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE fl476-PRASS CONTINUED coverage and have the applicants proceed to Council? Mabusth said that was possible and that the Planning Commission could stipulate how they would like to have the pool covered. Hanson asked what the size of the pool is? Mr. Prass replied that it is 15' x 30'. Chairman Kelley asked if the boat on the property belonged to Mr. Prass? Mr. Prass said that it does belong to him. It was moved by Planning Commission Brown, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to recommend approval of the variances, subject to having satisfactory property liability insurance and also a plan to cover the pool that the City Engineer has approved. Council Representative Callahan suggested that perhaps the pool could be filled with sand. Mr. Prass said that he would prefer to explore that option before being obligated to proceed in that manner. Hanson asked how it will be determined if the proof of liability is sufficient? Kelley said that the City Attorney will have to verify it. Planning Commission Bellows asked if there is a date of completion included with this motion. Brown amended his motion to include that a building permit must be issued one year from the date of Council approval if approved, Kelley seconded. Motion, Ayes>>5, Nays^O, Motion passed. tl477 DR. BOB WHITESEL OF VINEYARD OF THE LAKE, INC. 850 WEST HAYZATA BLVD. CONDITIONAL DSE PERMIT APPLICATION WITHDRAWN *1478 ROBERT RITCHIE 3572 SHORELINE DRIVE OniDITIONAL USE PERMIT/COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING 10:35 P.M. TO 11:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Robert Ritchie and Dr. Janet Roshar were present for this matter, as was Mr. Harry Masset, Mr. Ritchie’s real estate agent. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained the present application and the history of uses of this property. Mabusth said that the c^'^ditiona 1 use permit suggests a need to review the parking needs, signage, and overall layout. Chairman Kelley asked how many veterinarians would be practicing in this building? f ' PIANNING COMMISSIOS meeting NOVEMBER 20,1989proceed to Council- . 1[\avts ------“'tti\oUtrh%w"rhefwould"ut‘e« tte"piS?ted what the ei« of the pool is?replied that it is 15' x 30 ’•Kelley asked if the boat on the property belonged said that it does belong to him. oved by of the variances, subject !y, to “''Suability insurance and also a isfactory Pr°p'‘’'.“r,Vv Engineer has approved, r the pool that the ^ perhaps the pool sentative Callahan that he would prefer ,ed with sand. Mr. iaated to proceed in that,t option before berng obUgated^^M P^ p„„f of on asked how .n ^^-t the City Attorney will sufficient? Kelley Hols asked if there is Y it. Planning _ motion. Brown amended^letion included with tWs motron.^^B^^ L^”d=ie”":f‘«lnc?ratl«va*l if approved, Kelley lion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. mbitesbi. op vibbyw® op THB LMCE, »c- ,TA BLVD. ;b permit :tbdrawn itchie U5H'^SiKL"iertificate of Mailing were - r lV.%-^y'’Mas^l??'Mr'°fi" hTe-is ?nr^stife administrator Qf®thVs*property! Mabusth eds, signage, and overall layout. Kelley asked how many veterinarians would be ‘his building? MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989ZONING PILE il478-RITCHIE CONTINUEDDr. Roshar said that she would be the only veterinarian and that she normally scheduled appointments 40 minutes apart.Mabusth reminded Kelley that should the use should be expanded by the addition of another veterinarian, or change in floor plan, another conditional use permit review will be necessary to review parking needs.Kelley said that he would like to see the site brought up to the condition of other businesses in Navarre that have upgraded the appearance of their buildings. Kelley referenced Lowell's Auto Parts in particular. Kelley said that he would like to see the garage and the shed on the property removed. He said that he had no objections to the veterinarian use. Planning Commissioner Bellows concurred and added that she would be willing to compromise on the number of parking stalls if decent landscaping is provided. She said that she would like to subject the building to a rigorous site plan review, showing a proposal for the exterior of the structure, lighting, signage and landscaping. Kelley said that the Planning Commission should let the applicants know how they stand on the use. The concensus of the Planning Commission is that the use is agreeable and appropriate for the site. Mabusth asked the applicants if there would be a problem tabling so that a conunercial site plan review can be scheduled at the January Planning Commission meeting. The applicants indicated that they would prefer to move along due to the need to occupy the building and be ready for business by January 15. Dr. Roshar indicated that she has a client following and would risk losing them if she delays too long. She added that the closing for the property was scheduled for November 30, 1989 which is contingent upon approval. Mr. Nicholas Dohmen, 3551 Lyric Avenue, was concerned about noise from any barking dogs. Dr. Rcihar said that noise should not be a problem because there will only be a possible one or two dogs that may need to remain overnight following a surgical procedure. She said in that case they would be sedated and there will be no outside kennels. Mabusth noted that a group of neighbors on Carman Street had also expressed concern about noise. Kelley explained the dilemma of meeting the deadline requested by the applicant and the need to see a site plan review. Ifv •. V wm '-v- ■ '4 '<1mm ...Mrm .'Hi / MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20« 1989 ZONING FILE #1478-RITCBIB CONTINUED Mr. Nasset suggested that the Planning Commission look at the track record Mr. Ritchie has for upgrading properties. He informed the Planning Commission that he had been responsible for the upgrade to the B fi C heating building. Kelley questioned whether approval of the conditional use permit could be recommended with the provision that the applicant come back with a site plan review. Kelley said that he would like to put "a chain" on the approval that if upgrades do not occur to the satisfaction of the City, the conditional use permit can be revoked. Kelley suggested the time frame of a 4~month periond for the submission of the site plan review and a deadline of July, 1990 for completion of the work. Hanson suggested March, 1990 and September, 1990 for the site plan and work completion respectively. Planning Commissioner Brown noted that the Council Meeting for formal approval will not occur until after the scheduled closing date for the property. Mabusth suggested to the applicant that they work on a conceptual site plan to present to the Council to aid in receiving a favorable vote. Mr. Dohmen asked about the adjacent property and the intended use? Mabusth replied that the adji»cent property is also being purchased by the applicant, and a legal combination will be required. Kelley informed Mr. Dohmen that this use would significantly improve the situation for his property. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Bellows said that in light of the adjacent parcel, the applicant could probably meet the required number of parking stalls. Kelley questioned the need to sprinkle the building. Mabusth said that issue would need to be discussed with the City Building Official. Kelley listed the items the Planning Commission would like to see addressed in the site plan review: Signage, lighting (directional lighting), hours of operation, landscaping, parking, drainage, exterior and roofing materials, removal of out buildings in back. Kelley added the provision that there be no outside kennels and suggested that the applicant become familiar with the fire codes. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZOINING PILE #1478-RITCHIE CONTINUED Planning Commissioner Brown suggested that exterior improvements be consistent with the surrounding properties. Kelley asked if the existing curb cut is in the right location? Mabusth answered that the curb cut was defined at the time County Road 15 was improved. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Bellows, seconded by Planning Commissioner Kanson, to recommend approval of the condit-ional use permit, to allow a use as a single veterinarian clinic pending the receipt, no later than the March, 1990 Planning Commission meeting the commercial site plan to include, but not be limited to those items listed above, with a further proviso that the imprcveirents be executed within 6 months of the approval. If these c editions are not met, the conditional use permit may be immediately revoked by the City. The conditional use permit will also allow for the variances to the street setback and side setback provided that the fire code is met. Mabusth asked about the inclusion of a legal combination of the property with the motion. Bellows amended her motion, Hanson seconded. Brown noted that approval was being recommended in this manner to accommodate the applicant's professional time schedule. Motion, ?i .;s*4, Nays*«0, Motion passed. *1479 DOUG WILLIAMS « LECY CONSTRUCTION INC. 1020 TONKAWA ROAD VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 11:10 P.M. TO 12:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Williams was present for this matter, as was Mr. Jurger Stielow, the "*v: r of the property. Gaffron explained this application for an average lakeshore setback variance. Chairman Kelley asked if the owner of the residence on the hill was present? Mr. Ray Hoffman, 1000 Tonkawa Road, was present. Kelley said that he would be basing quite a bit of his opinion of this application on what the Hoffman's had to say. Mr. Hoffman said that the proposed structure would obstruct his view and would leave the door open for the Planning Commission to approve the same variance for a house just north of Mr. Stlelow's. Mr. Hoffman said that this would create a zigzag effect. Mr. Hoffman said that his view would be further obstructed if the house to the north were allowed to proceed in the way Mr. Williams is proposing. Mr. Hoffman also laid that he MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE 11479-WILLIAMS CONTINUED couJJ see no hardship to warrant the approval of this variance. Mr. Williams said that he had met with the Hof::mans when he was looking at this site. He explained that the elevations make it difficult to locate the house. He said that he "flip-flopped" the house plan so that the higher portion of the house would have the least impact on the neighbors. He said that he would prefer to build the house where the original house was located, but placing the house any further back would affect the way the garage is built. Kelley asked what the difference in height is between the proposed building and the original building? Mr. Williams said that the new building will be one story higher. Planning Commissioner Hanson noted that Lecy Construction was known for high-pitched roof construction. Mr. Williams agreed that there would be approximately another 12' for the pitch of the roof. He said that the Hoffmans will be able to see over his house, because it will be under the 30' code requirement. Hanson observed that in the summer the leaves on the trees will be so thick that you could not see Mr. Williams' house from the Hoffman house. Mr. Hoffman said that they could see the Stielow house through the trees. Planning Commissioner Bellows asked what the first floor elevation will be? Gaffron estimated a main floor elevation around 962' Mr. Williams said that the proposed house will not be high enough to clear the top of the trees. Mr. Hoffman presented pictures showing the location oi his house and the location of the houses below and the average lakeshore setback. Mr. Hoffman said he was concerned not only with the height but with the aspect of setting a precedent for the property to the north to obtain an average lakeshore setback variance. Mr. Williams said that the lot for the property to the north is such that it will take excessive hardcover in the form of a driveway to access the property. Kelley said that height is his major concern. Mr. Williams said that his proposal will not block the • • MINUTES or THE PIANNIN6 COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING FILE «1479-WILLIAMS CONTINUED Hoffman's air and li^ht. Bellows told Mr. Williams that he has provided nothing to substantiate that. Kelley noted that if the existing house is tr be torn down# the Planning Commission would consider this to oe a new lot and any buildings must conform to all of the reciuired setbacks. Kelley asked what the hardship exists for a variance? He said that he may be willing to accept that the land elevations are a hardship# but that there may need to be trade-off of the height of the building for the variance. Mr. Williams said that the hardship is that the City Council ruled in 1976 that the house Mr. Williams is removing could be built in the same location of the house pre-existing Mr. Stielow's house. Kelley told Mr. Williams that he was not proposing to construct his house where the existing house is located. Mr. Williams said that he would prefer to build in that location, but was moving his house back. Kelley noted to that if Mr. Williams that he may only be able to construct a single story house in that location. Mr. Williams said that his purchase agreement was contingent upon his ability to build on this property. He said that he would have a difficult time with hardcover if he tried to build a sufficient one-story house. Kelley opined that the exiting house blends in very well with the surroundings# has a low silhouette and is covered with trees. He said that the house he is proposing is ambitious# especially when it adversely affects the neighbors. Hanson said that he was not convinced that elevation is an issue. Planning Commissioner Brown said that he is mainly concerned with the Hoffman's view and if they didn't object to the proposal# he would have been more flexible. Bellows concurred with Kelley that she could not grant a variance for a new building and questioned the hardship. She said that some lots just do not accept what you want to do. Kelley said that he cannot approve the proposal as is. Kelley suggested that the applicant take time to talk with the Hoffmans or re-design the house and come back. Brown said that it would be quite unusual for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of this variance. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1479-WILLIAMS CONTINUED Mr. Williams said that he would like to have an opportunity to talk with the Hoffmans. Bellows informed Mr. Williams that it would be unwise of him to think that the Planning Commission will recommend approval of this application based solely on the Hoffman's acceptance. Bellows said that she was disinclined to approve this unless the height of the building goes down or she is supplied with hard numbers proving that the Hoffman's will not be impacted. Hanson said that he is less inclined to look at the issues in the same light as Bellows because the house is being built in nominally the same site. He thought that it was a terrible waste to tear down the Stielow's house, but that is his opinion. He said that he had serious reservations about the other variances. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown, to table this application. Brown and Hanson indicated they would look favorably upon the proposal if the Hoffman's have no objections, Kelley said that he would approve a lakeshore setback if the house is single-story; Bellows wants to see the facts, the elevation of Hoffman's first floor, elevation of the proposed house and height of various peaks. She said that is the only way she won Id consider granting the average lakeshore setback variance. Ms. Mar<^«^ Gasch, 1030 Tonkawa Road, indicated that the proposed deck will extend beyond the site lines of hei house, but other than that she had no comments. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1480 ED & GERTA TOTH 725 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH VACATION OP DRAINAGE BASEMENTS PUBLIC HEARING 12:00 P.M. TO 12:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Cert.i f >-ate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Toth were not present for this public hearing. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown, to recommend approval of application #1480, per staff's recommendation. Gaffron asked for comments regarding the .9' setback variance for the deck? Hanson said that he had no problem with that. Gaffron noted that the applicants' contractor had indicated if the variance was not approved, they would revise the deck proposal to meet the setbacks. The general consensus of the Planning Commission was change the deck. Hanson incorporated that into his motion. Brown seconded. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. Ll MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 APPROVAL OP 1990 SCHEDULE OP CITY MEETINGS This was not addressed. REMINDER THAT THE DECEMBER 18, 1989 MEETING OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BEEN CANCELLED NAVARRE REDEVELOPMENT MEETING APPROVAL OP PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OP OCTOBER 16, 1989 It was moved by Planning Commisfcioner Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to approve the minutes of the October 16, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays«0, Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE It was agreed that Planning Commissioner, Edward Brown, would represent the Planning Commission at the December 11, 1989 City Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT The November 20, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m. t I « • MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON NOVEMBER 13, 1989 The regular meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent Schoo 278 was held on Monday, November 13, 1989. Present: Dave McKown Don Anderson Kitty Crosby James Franklin John Maresh Thomas Mich William Fenholt Absent: Lucie Taylor UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Jim Franklin, the consent agenda was approved as follows: - approved the minutes of the October 23, 1989 regular meeting; - approved the following variance requests: Jennifer Sjoberg, grade 10, to complete her education at Wayzata Schools, Kelly Cusick, grade 9, to attend Wayzata Schools for the 1989-90 school year, Michael Schmidt, grade 10, Matthew Schmidt, grade 7. Mark Schmidt, grade 4, to attend Orono Schools for the 1989-90 school year; - approved the bills as covered by vouchers 064738 through 064879 and 063878 through 063794; - approved the Treasurer's Report for July, 1989. Or. Mich expressed appreciation to the Board, faculty and staff for their kind expressions of sympathy at the time of his father's death. Or. Mich reported that the Teacher Meet and Confer meeting was held on October 25; that superintendents whose districts are served by HTC are reviewing esca lating special education costs and the Board will be provided with information as this process continues; that he had conducted the Elements of Effective Instruction on November 2 and 3 for about 25 faculty members and that he wanted to express appreciation to Pastor Richard Erickson and Pastor Mark Nelson for the use of Trinity Lutheran Church where the workshop was held; that Dr. Ernest Stachowski was in the District on November 9 and 10 to work with principals on instructional supervision; that on November 14, along with Or. David Landswerk and Father Arnold Weber, he would attend a luncheon with Mr. William Norris the retired chairman of Control Data Corporation for discussion of his ideas/thoughts on education; that on Sunday, November 19, he would be speaking at the Maple Plain Community Church on the purpose of education generally and public education specifically; negotiations with the OEA are in process and progress is being made; that administration is in the process of reviewing the need to issue tax anticipation certificates in January or February of 1990 to offset a potential cash flow problem in February or March, a process which has been done before due to costs and the "lag" in tax collection - a final recom mendation will be made at the December Board meeting; that a sexual harrassment policy is now required by law and a first draft will be brought to the Board at the December meeting and workshop sessions will be held throughout the District. ( £ Or. Mich Informed the Board that November 13 - 17 is American Education Week which provides an opportunity to salute education. He then called on Marlys Burr, chairperson of the communication committee for the OEA, and members of her committee. They provided the Board with information on activities/plans that will take place during the week including an ad in the PIONEER, recognition of support staff on November 15, stand-up brochures put in businesses in the area, etc. Certificates were presented to Board members for their dedication and ser vice to the schools. The OEA had put together a video, under the leadership of Oave Sohn, regarding the Orono School Oistrict and the Board viewed the video at this time. Or. Mich provided the Board with an update on the construction process and the progress that is being made. He stated that the Facilities Committee will meet on November 16 to make determinations regarding cost saving proposals and that he wanted to emphasize that even though cost saving measures need to be taken, the district will have an excellent facility. Information will be provided to the Board in a timely manner. Oave McKown reported that the Superintendent had been evaluated by the School Board at an executive session meeting held on Monday, October 23. He stated that each Board member was given the opportunity to rate the performance of the Superintendent and a composite rating was developed. Board members also had the opportunity to comment on the performance of the Superintendent. In summary, Mr. McKown stated that the Board of Education is well pleas d with the perfor mance of the Superintendent and they acknowledge the excellent leadership Or. Mich provides. He expressed appreciation to Kitty Crosby for her work in the evaluation process. UPON MOTION by Oon Anderson, seconded by Kitty Crosby, the School Board adopted the following proposed property tax levy for 1989, collectible 1990: General Fund (Maintenance) Transportation Community Service Capital Expenditure General Oebt Service $6,836,843.43 635,311.14 165,065.10 590,743.13 354,226.00 $8,582,188.91 Kitty Crosby, MOVED, Oon Anderson SECONDED, that the School Board adopt the hourly fees for use of school facilities, effective January 1, 1990, as presented. Jim Franklin expressed concern regarding the increase as he feels the schools are a central focus point for the community and as they are not overly used, this increase will further discourage use of our facilities. Toni Bergland 1 J SCHOOL FACILITY USE FEES - Approved by the Board of £ Hourly Ch^E *K1tchen charge*is one time charge. Class I is for non-profit local groups :f Education - 11/13/89 Charges Faci1ity CLASS I CLASS II Classrooms $ -0-$ 10 Gymnasiums Middle ft High -0-30 Elementary -0-15 Cafeterias Middle ft High -0-20 Elementary -0-15 Other • Library -0-15 Auditorium -0-35 Kitchen*15* ta . .1 I UPON MOTION b> Don Anderson, seconded by Kitty Crosby, the School Board approved an Increase in the substitute teacher daily pay rate from $60 to $63, com mencing January 1, 1990. Leone MacLean, Elementary Reading Coordinator, provided the Board with an over view of the reading program at the elementary level. She answered questions from the Board for clarification/informational purposes. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by Don Anderson, the meeting was adjourned. Katnerine P. Crosby, Clerky t Approved: M r Dave McKown, Chairman 1 , : * t I HOW THE HENNEPIN COUNTY BUDGET AFFECT THE WEST HENNEPIN AREA The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners passed a 1990 budget that will maintain county funding for virtually all agencies in the West suburban area. Administrators b'd proposed funding eliminations for seven programs in West Hennepin. Five were restored at the 1989 funding level. They were: Relate Counseling Center, Perspectives, Senior Community Services, West Hennepin Community Center and West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board. One program, Vinland National Center, will receive 50% funding. The area will lose it’s Hennepin County Outreach and Referral worker at the end of this year. Commissioners did make some social services cuts that will affect all geographic areas in Hennepin County. First, all community agencies providing services by contract with Hennepin County will be frozen at the 1989 level. Second, outdoor chore service payments such as snow shoveling and lawn mowing for elderly and disabled people will be eliminated. County officials plan to use General Assistance recipients to provide these services. They are also counting on volunteers and city governments to step in and fill in these gaps. The Hennepin County Economic Assistance Department was granted the authority to decide on its own budget cuts. Administrators expect to finalize their cost cutting measures soon. Options include cutting staff, increasing caseload size, eliminating non-Minneapolis staff and cutting back on specialized services. Already eliminated were the "all county funds" for emergency assistance that are directly provided by Hennepin County staff. I r\-ujest herniepin human services planning be 4100 vemon avenue south, st. louis onri. 920-5533 TO: FROM: West Hennepin Municipalities Dale Woodbeck, Chair West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board 55416 We wish to extend our appreciation to the municipal members of West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board. Our member municipalities were very effective in advocating with Hennepin County and we were able to regain all of our Hennepin County funding for 1990. The Hennepin County Commissioners voted to restore our Planning and Coordination and Citizen Participation funds at the 1989 level. This was done as well for all of the other human service councils. Your hard work and support made the difference! We extend our appreciation to Commissioner John Derus for his leadership in authoring both resolutions restoring our funding; to Commissioners Andrew, Derus, Jude, Keefe and Sivanich for supporting our Planning and Coordination funding; and to all the Commissioners for supporting the Citizen Participation funding. Municipalities helped us by passing resolutions of support, calling and writing to Commissioners. This level of support was key in influencing Commissioners of the importance of restoring our funding. Thanks, again. We are grateful for all the support given us and look forward to working with you in the coming year. (Over for update on how the Hennepin County Budget affected agencies in the West Hennepin area.) i» .* W.i'-o* •nvn^} r •»rf.'. V" .; >- •. i^jiu .. ; i-ifitiiifii ; I ■ f&i PILLSBURY RESIDENCE PROPOSED ADDITION p w!u >'ir- -"nr EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS