Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01-08-1990 Council Packet
AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JANUARY 8, 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. COUNCIL MEETING 1.Certificate of Achieveraent/Financial Reporting JAN 8i990 2.Virginia Sweatt Recognition 3.CONSENT AGENDA* CITY OF ORONG APPROVAL OF MINUTES *4. Rey. 'L :iceting of December 11, 1989 PARK COMMIT'TON COMMENTS 5.Park Ded.cation Fee Review PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 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. 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/COUNCIL 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. J AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JANUARY 8, 1990, 7:00 P.M. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Continued * 18. Police Car Acquisition * 19. Compensation Adjustment and Final Pay - Officer Schauss * 20. Resignation - Scott Kuyper and Charles Schauss 21. Well Licenses/Permits 22. Adjustments to 1989 Budget 23. End of Year Transfers and Loan Payments 24. Public Use of Private Roads - Ordinance Amendment 25. 1988 Financial Health Profile 26. Request to Re-Issue Certificate for 1985 G.O. Bond Issue - Resoltuion 27. Stubbs Bay Sewer Area Meeting Date 28. Administrator's Information Art Center 195 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 CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT LICENSES (29*) BILLS (30*) ADJOURNMENT UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 01/08 - Council Meeting 01/15 - Holiday - Martin Luther King, Jr. Day 01/16 - Planning Commission Meeting 01/22 - Council Meeting 01/30 - Stubbs Bay Sewer Area Meeting PUBLIC ATTENDANCE i r\ CITX OF ORONO ^£{\K'tU~.MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE '^FORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) jf 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12- 13- 14. 15. Ifi. 1 7 - 18 - 1 9 20. 122089.5 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistrat DATE: December 20, 1989 # / COUNCIL MEETING JAN 81990 CITY OF ORONO SUBJECT: Certificate of Reporting Excellence - 1988 Financial Report Attachment:A. Government Finance Officer Association Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting Letter Dated 12/1/89 ISSUE - Acceptance and congratulations for receiving this award for the second year. INTRODUCTION - The City of Orono has been awarded the GFOA’s Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting for the second year for its 1988 financial report. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council congratulate particularly‘ the 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 promoting the City to seek this award. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council congratulate Thomas Kuehn, Finance Director, the rest of the Financial staff and the staff as a whole for the City's excellent financial reporting, and Pannell Kerr Forster, its Auditors for their invaluable assistance. Ayes _, Nays _. Thomas Kuehn, Finance Director Pannell Kerr Forster a December 1989 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFRCERS ASSOCIATION 180 NC!7TH MCHGAN AV&JOE The Honorable James R. Grabek chc!go.iu^606oi Mayor mx?S7M806 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Mayor Grabek: We are pleased to notify you that y^'ur comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1988 qualifies for a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest fop of recpnition in governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. Whc-n ? Certificate of Achievement is awarded to a government, an Award of Financial Reporting Achievement is also presented to the individual des ignated b' the government as primarily responsible for its having earned the certificate. Enclosed is an Award of Financial Reporting Achievement for; Thomas M. Kuahn, Finance Director The Certificate cf Achievement plaque will be shipped under separate cover in about ter. weeks. We hope that you will arrange for a formal presenta tion of the Certificate and Award of Financial Reporting Achievement, and that appropriate publicity will be given to this notable achievempt. A sample nev.-s release is enclosed. We suggest that you provide to rhe local newspapers and radio and television stations. In addition, enclosed is the 1988 Certificate Program results representing the most recent statistics available. We hope that your example will encourage other government officials in their efforts to achieve and maintain an appropriate standard of excel lence in financial reportirj. If you have any questions regarding this matter, or if we may be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Frederick G. LantI Assistant Director/Technical Services Center FGL/ds Enclosures co uo Vi C/i < VI Ut n ^ CJ U-i c .1 :: ■v-t cs 5 CO £ ’TJG aV-l .ti G ^ Do O o oj rs rrH o I i 1 H 2 H H W X CJ 2 NM & « W § s §I 3 Ok wu ‘“h: 1 I! {11I.MI1 !s’ <31 1^ ^l«l|i's -11Illil= -s| I, iJlij •a S S, ^ llill H |1? Il|l| flili* }I|HI ir'3|-i1 ^ .3 ® 3 illl!| alia II o >iO o c»eo CQ g5*. O 2: £ & NEWS RELEASE GOVERNMENT RNANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION RE: CITy OF ORONO Is Awarded HIGHEST AWARD IN FINANCIAL REPORTING 180 NCOTH MICHGAN AVENUE SUITE 800 ChCAGO, iLLfNCiS 60601 312/977.07CO &U.312;977-4aC6 (Chicago)—The Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting has been awarded to: CITY OF ORONO by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) for its comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR). The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental 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 designated as primarily responsible for its having earned the certificate. This Award of Financial Reporting Achievement has been presented to: THOMAS M. KDEHN, FINANCE DIRECTOR The CAFR has been judged by an impartial panel to meet the high standards of the program including demonstrating 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 represents 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 Lantz at 312/977-9700. i CITY OF/ CITY of ORONO Post OtTice Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323•Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka January 3, 1990 COUHCIL MfFTWG JAN 81990 GITV OF ORONO Virginia Sweatt 3225 Bohns Point Lane Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Virginia, It is with regret that we accept your resignation from the Orono Park Commission. Since your appointment in October 1980 your input into the Parks and recreation system in Orono has aided the City in being responsive to the recreational needs of the City. You were also instrumental in the construction of an ice skating rink at Hackberry Park, the upgrading of Bederwood Park and Summit Park swimming beach just to name a few. Your assistance in preparing and completing the recent Parks Survey will assist the City in determining present and future recreational needs. For the Orono Council I want to thank you for nearly ten years of community service to the City of Orono. Sincerely, James R. Grabek, Mayor JRG/jb BUILDING A ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD DECEMBER 11, 1989 COUNCIL MEETING-( JAN 81990 CITV OF omo ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Grabek, CounciImembers Goetten, Peterson and Callahan; CounciImember Nettles arrived at 7:45 p.m. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Public Works Director Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Chief Kilbo, City Attorney Barrett, City Engineer Cook end City Recorder Scheffler. C.D.B.G. REALLOCATION OF YEAR XIV FUNDS PUBLIC HEADING 7:00 P.M. TO 7:05 P.M. 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 CounciImember 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 Housing Rehabilitation Program. Motion, Ayes®4, Nays=0, Motion passed. CONSENT AGENDA* City Administrator Bernhardson noted that the summary of fee ordinance changes had been distributed to the Council today and that the Wayzata and Woodhill Country Clubs' applications for liquor licenses had been added to the licenses for approval this evening. Councilmember Callahan requested that items #24 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 Wayzata and Woodhill Country Clubs' applications for liquor licenses. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. APPPROVAL OP MINUTES* Xt was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, co approve the Minutes of the November 27, 1989 Regular Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays~0, Motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES* It was moved by Mayor ‘.'abek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to approve the Minu * of the November 30, 1989, 1990 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP DECEMBER 11, 1989 APPROVAL OF MINUTES CONTINUED Budget Public Hearing. Motion, Ayes=4, N«ys=0, Motion passed. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS PARK DEDICATION POLICY City 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. Councl Imember 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 8, 1990 Council Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commission Representative, Edward Brown, arrived later. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Barbara Hite, 2475 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. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: #1289 ROB'^T WILL 115 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH SUBDIVIS3 ON-RESOLUTION Mr. and Mrs. Will were present for this review. City Administrator Bernhardson gave a brief explanation of this application for subdivision. Zoning Administrator Mabusth advised that the applicant MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING PILE #1289-WILL CONTINUED r . , plans to provide an access corridor along the north side of xiOt i to serve Lot 2 as originally indicated. At the Planning Commission Meeting, the applicant revised his proposal to locate the access corridor along the south side. 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 taxen 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 property owner will increase the further the City vxtends the road. Cook said if the City does extend the ro. 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 whicn 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 precedent would be set by making this a public road to be maintained publicly. KINUTES OP THE ORONO COONCIL MEETING OP DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING PILE #1289-WILL CONTINUED 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. Councilmember Goetten asked whether the City should be addressi.ig the issue 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. City 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 out lots. 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 owns. 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 to homeowners and their invitees who need to cross over the private road in order to get to their residences. Mr. Bob Lorenzen, 2050 Wear Circle, said that he currently has a l/6th interest over Outlot A, which includes both Wear Circle and Wea’. .*ane North. He asked how this public/private issue will affect the maintenance costs he now pays. il 1 I MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING PILE 11289-WILL CONTINUED (CounciImember Nettles arrived at this time) Mabusth replied that the 6 properties in the development will still be responsible for maintaining Wear Circle and Wear Lane North. Mabusth asked who would be responsible for maintaining the portion of the roadway constructed by Mr. Will that exists on Mr. Wear's property as a result of extending the cul-de-sac. Barrett said that his understanding is that Planning Commission's proposal was that, because of problems of enforcing maintenance, that Mr. Will would be responsible for maintaining that portion. Planning 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, constructing the road. Will for Barrett said that the issue might be whether or not Mr. Wear has the right to compensation of that portion of the road by the homeowners and their invitees that would use it. Barrett said that in his opinion, he would not be entitled to such compensation because the would City regulate it. Mr. Wear asked whether or not the Council had approved the covenant filed with his pr^ arty? 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? Mr. 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? Mabusth said that Mrs. White, the owner of the property, joined in the application with the Wills. Mr. Lorenzen asked whether the existing covenants were sufficient in handling what is being proposed. Mabusth said that what now exists is sufficient. MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING FILE 11289-WILL CONTINUED CounciImember Callahan said that the road, 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 Grabek, 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 provide 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. PETERSON 1355 ARBOR STREET VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FURTHER CLARIFICATION OF COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDATION Mr. and Mrs. Peterson were present 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 appij-cant'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 appea1 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 insta 1 ling a 6' fence and that was part of the buiIding 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 tali ing 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 6' around the property. Mr. Peterson said that this was a terminology issue. He MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MELTING OF DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING FILE «1445-PETERSON 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. He 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 5' 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 now 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 replacement of a fence being discussed. he does not recall CounciImember 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. Peterson 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 size 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. CounciImember Callahan asked Mr. Peterson if he discussed the installation of the pool with the City staff? Mr. Peterson said yes, quite a bit. had i MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING FILE #1445-PETBRSON CONTINUED Callahan asked if there was any discussion about the need to fence the swimming 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. Councilmember Goetten said that issue was discussed all 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? Councilmember 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. Councilmember 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. NINUTSS op the ORONO council meeting op DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING PILE «1289-WILL 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. Councilmember 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-in. 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. Mr. Peterson said that he had thought he had already done that. Mayor Grabek 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 out of the right-of-way and come back before the Council with their proposal for the remainder of the fence. Councilmember Peterson said that she understood their hardship about buying the additional 18' of the adjacent property. Councilmember 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. Councilmember 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. MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING PILE «1289-PETERSON CONTINUED 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 Grabek, 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. CounciImember Goetten asked at what height the fence being removed from the right-of- way could be re-installed? Mayor Grabek said 5'. CounciImember 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. CounciImember Callahan said that he does not believe stuctures should be allowed in the public right-of-way. CounciImember Goetten concurred. Motion, Ayes=»3, Goetten, Nettles, Nay. #1471 DARYLB UPHOFF 2699 KELLY AVENUE CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT RESOLUTION #2737 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 CounciImember Callahan, seconded by CounciImember 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 CARLSON 1960 SHORELINE DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE 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 authorizi?.tion 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 DONALD BELAWSKI 1695 CONCORDIA STRET VARIANCE The applicant was not preser*: 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 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING FILE #1474-BELAWSKI CONTINUED garage existing on an adjacent property. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron said that the Planning Commission did not recommend removing any existing hardcover. CounciImember 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 xn favor of hardcover removal, the applicant could come back before them to express his objections. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember 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, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1476 DAVID AND SUZANNE PRASS 1065 LINDEN LANE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2738 Mr. and Mrs. Prass were present for this review. City Administrator Bernhardson explained the brief history of this application. He 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. Counci Imember 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. ■ I - i MIMUTSS OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER Hr 1989 ZONING FILE #1476-PRASS CONTINUED v , ^ u CounciImember 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. Prass clarified that the pumphouse is not a free standing structure, but it is built into a hill, like ® 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 applying for the building permit and giving the Presses 12 months 1 7 MIKUTBS OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING PILE «1476-PRASS CONTINUED to complete the exterior of the building and an additional 12 months for the interior work to be completed. It was moved by Mayor Orabek, seconded by Councilmember 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 ROBERT RITCHIE 3572 SHORELINE DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #2739 Mr. 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. Councilmember 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 reason for the 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«0, Motion passed. #1480 ED AND GERDA TOTH 725 OLD CRYSTAL BAT ROAD SOUTH VACATION - RESOLUTION #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 easement. Gaffron said that the City Engineer has 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. Gaffron briefly explained the request for a side setback MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING FILE I1480-TOTH CONTINUED 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 more without changing the topography. Mr. Toth said the fence wi]l 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 Goetten 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 Nitz, 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 Nitz 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. I MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING FILE #1480-TOTH CONTINUED Gernhardson added that the Toths agreed to that. Mr. 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 defire 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 CounciImember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember 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 Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember 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 Councilmember 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. a-I MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP DECEMBER 11, 1989 ENGINEER'S REPORT: HIGHWAY 12 SEWER AND WATER PAYMENT #1* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember 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 project. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. LIFT STATION #10 PAYMENT #4* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Callahan, to approve payment #4 in the amount of 823,157.33 to Albrecht Excavating, Inc., for the sanitary sewe. mprovements lift station #10 and #43 replacement. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays*0, Motion passed. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT WOODHILL AVENUE 3RD AND FINAL PAYMENT* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Callahan, to approve the third and final payment in the amount of $6600.70 to Hardrives, Inc., for Woodhill Avenue Street Improvements. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays=0, Motion passed. WATER WELL TEST DRILLING PAYMENT #1* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Callahc.i, 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. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT: There was no report from the Mayor or CounciImembers. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT CITY FACILITIES City Administrator Bernhardson said that he was presenting information regarding cost information 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 this 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 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 1989 CITY FACILITIES CONTINUED of definite information being presented to support 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 most 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. CounciImi ber Goetten said that she wanted to be assured that the S8O.O0 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 necessajty information to aid in determining a site for the facilities and to adopt attachment F extending Boarman's contract to underta^Ci the conceptual design. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. WESTONKA POOL - REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE Ms. Lorraine Painter and Mr. Chuck Champine were present as representatives for the Westonka Pool Boosters. City Administrator Bernhardson said that there will be a ' 500 deficit for Lhe Westonka pool. The Westonka Pool ters are requesting concributions from the cities of Orono, d. Spring Park, and Minnetrista in the amount of MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 1989 WESTONKA POOL CONTINUED 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 request 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 l.e 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 funding that will diminish in the future. Mr. Champine said that there should be a reduction in the operation cost of the pool due to the a-^quisition of a pool blanket. He said that with the combination of tie School Board, Pool Boosters and community service funds that it may not be necessary to ask Orono for money next year. He urged the Counc. 1 and Mayor Grabek to consider entering into a joint powers agreement with the other citie^ Mayor Grabek said that he had no objec jns 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 HEALTH INSURANCE It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember 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. MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP DECEMBER 11, 1989 1990 COMPENSATIOH ADJUSTMENT-RESOLOTIOH #2741 It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2741, establishing the compensation schedule for 1990. CounciImersber Peterson said that she still does not understand the proposal for lump sum payments to certain Public Works employees. Bernhardson said that the purpose of lump sum payments is to bring those employees in line with the comparable worth. Bernhardson said that these persons will receive a 3% increase and a 1% lump sum payment payable quarterly. He said that the standard 4% increase could be used if the Council would prefer. CounciImember Goetten indicated that she would prefer to see a merit system used for raises rather than an across-the-board raise. Goetten said that she failed to see where there is any incentive if an employee already knows of his/her raise for the year. Bernhardson said that he has looked into the aspect of merit raises and would bring that information forward at a future meeting. He said that in order for an employee to receive this increase he/she must be performing at an adequate level. He said that the system does not provide a way to reward those that are doing superior performance. Motion, Ayes=3, Peterson, Goetten Nays; Goetten would prefer to see a merit system, Peterson concurred and would like to see the Public Works employees receive 4%, rather than the lump sum payments. Motion passed. STOBBS BAY SEWER - ESTABLISH NEETIllG DATE CounciImember Callahan questioned whether there would be a joint meeting with the Planning Commission every time there is an issue to be discussed? Mayor Grabek said that joint meetings with the Planning Commission are a good idea. He said they don't have to meet with them every time. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to establish January 30, 1990 as the date for a joint meeting with the residents of the Stubbs Bay area regarding Stubbs Bay Sewer. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays=0, Motion passed. CANINE PROGRAM ^ ^ ^ ^ City Administrator Bernhardson presented information to tne Council following up on the meeting earlier this summer. Bernhardson said that he would address any comments or questions the Council may have, but is recommending tabling. It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to table this matter until the January 8, 1990 Council MIMUTBS OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP DECEMBER 11, 1989 CANINE PROGRAM CONTINUED Meeting. CounciImember Goetten did not believe that there is any need for a canine program. CounciImember Peterson thought that a decision had been delayed long enough. Motion, Ayes=4, Peterson, Nay, Motion passed. CONSULTANT SERVICES REVIEW PLAN Councilmember Callahan asked whether just a cursory review of the consultant fees had been performed? Bernhardson said that was correct. Councilmember Goetten said that the 5-year frequency for reviews is a long time. Goetten suggested a 3-year review would be more app' ;^priate. Councilmember Callahan suggested tabling this until more comparative fee information is provided. Bernhardson indicated that he would prefer to have the Council vote this evening that Bonestroo will have a contract by the 1st of January. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to table this matter until the February 12, 1990 Council Meeting to allow staff time to complete their review of the fees. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. 1990 BUDGET*It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to adopt Attachment A as its 1990 Budget. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. 1990 STRATEGIC PLAN*It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to adopt Attachment A Strategic Plan for 1990 with 1990 to be included in the Administrator's Goal Setting. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motioin passed. 1990 PEES - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AND SUMMARY POR PUBLICATION ORDINANCE 76, 2ND SERIES 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 are approximately $1.50 less per round than surrounding golf courses. Gerhardson said that the topography of the golf course is such that it is necessary to draw golfers to the course. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to adopt Ordinance #76, Second Series, as the 1990 Fee Schedule repealing Ordinance Number 62 Second Series, 65 Second Series, 68 Second Series, 70 Second Series, 73 Second Series and 74 Second Series and adopt Attachment B as the Summary Ordinance MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 1989 1990 PEES-ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONTINUED for Publication. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. 1990-91 ASSESSING SERVICES* 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=0, Motion passed. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - SYSTEMS STATEMENTS - RESOLUTION 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 Metro-olitan Council for responses to the systems statement. Motion, 2S=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. DARE PROGRAM - ORONO SCHOOLS 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 Counci Imember 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. RECYCLING BID AWARD - 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 REALLOCATION OP TEAR XIV FUNDS - RESOLUTION #2742* It was moved by Mayor Giabek, 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 Housing Rehabilitation Program. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=»0, Motion passed. 1990 MOUND FIRE CONTRACT* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to adopt its fire service contract with Mound for 1990. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. 1MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 1989 1990 INSURANCE RENBNALS* 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 & Casualty and Western National, effective January 1, 1990, as proposed. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. AUTHORIZATION TO DISBURSE CITY FUNDS FOR CLAIMS RECEIVED* 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. ADMINISTRATOR'S INFORMATION* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember 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 ATTORNEY'S REPORT: There was no report from the City Attorney, however. City Attorney Barrett requested an Executive Session. LICENSES* 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:D. Brian/Cathy L. Fulmer The Dog House Boarding Kennels, Inc. 3505 Wayzata Blvd/Cathy L. Fulmer Residential Kennel:Maxwell E. Alvord 960 North Brown Road Thomas & Ingrid Anderson 3550 North Shore Drive Wayne E. & Gayle D. Carrier 1376 North Arm Drive Frank & Sue Kokesh 4100 Watertown Road Marilyn Pickard 4607 Watertown Road G. James & Judith A. Spinner 940 North Arm Drive I MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP DECEMBER 11, 1989 LICENSES CONTINUED 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 Liquor: Wayzata Country Club 200 Wayzata Blvd. Woodhill Country Club 202 Woodhill Road Motion, Ayes»4, Nays»0, Motion passed. BILLS* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Callahan, to approve payment of the All Funds Accounts. Motion, Ayes®4, Nays=0, Motion passed. EXECUTIVE SESSION - 10:10 P.M. City Attorney Barrett requested that the Covincil go into an executive session at 10:10 p.m. ADJOURNMENT 10:35 P.M. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 10:35 p.m. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays=0, Motion passed. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Ha 11 in. City Cleric James R. Grabek, Mayor 1390.11 TO; Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator;^ DATE: January 3, 1990 SUBJECT: Park Dedication Fees COim. MEETING JAfI 8 1990 GiTv OF omn 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 level the Council desires to achieve should be phased in, the means for phase in. INTRODUCTION - At 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 Density Range .15 or less per acre 1 per 2.00 acres 1 per 5.00 acres $600/Lot 200/Lot 100/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 not less than $500/Lot (Based on their example it could range from $800 to $1800 per lot) 10% of fair market value at time of platting and not less than $300/Unit Commercial Industrial $500/Acre 10% of value PHASE IN - If the Council does not desire an immediate imposition or a certain dollar amount, there is a possibility that it could be phased in over a 3 to 5 year period. ADMINISTRATION - 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 a change however, table for consideration of specifics. 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 12889.3HD To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Prom: Mark il. Bernhardson, City Administrato Date: December 8, 1989 Subject: Park Dedication Fees Attachment A - Park Commission's Memo dated 11/9/8sCITY OF O.RQNO / • i V)?/6 ^COUNCIL MEETING DECl 11989 Issues - Providing Council with Park Commission's proposal regarding alteration of the manner in which City collects Park Dedication Fees. Introduction - As noted, the Park Commission has been reviewing the City's park dedication system. The proposal would bring it more in-line with the practice and fees of area municipalities. Alternatives - Issue #1 - 1. Accept. 2. Discuss. 3. Table. Recommendation - It is recommended that the issue be tabled for further discussion at the Council's January 8, 1990 meeting should the Council desire to amend the present system. A subsequent amandraairt to the general fee ordinance can be done at anytime to be effect upon publication. Proposed Motion - Moved by Council accept the information seconded by the Orono the Park Commission regarding their recommendation regarding alternation of the Park Dedication Fees. Ayes ___, nays ____. MrvnRANDUM TO:Orono Parks Commission and John Gerhardso FROM:Dick Flint DATE:November 9,1989 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 f » TO: FROM: RE: pxTpnpT a?jn RFOOmmENDATION Orono City Council Orono Parks Commission Proposed New Park Ordinances and Park Dedication Fee Schedule DATE: COPY: November S, 1989 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, we 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 wo ;ld accomplish the following: 1. Bring Orono's Pcurk Dedication Fee Schedule and Ordinances in conformity with that of similar Minnesota communities 2. "'' Raise the Park Dedication Fee to a level consistent with that levied by other communiti i 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 adequate funding for parks, playgrou, trails and open space as our community is subjected to inevitable development pressures. 4. Amend 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 used to acquire land for "trails or open space", as well as public parks and playgrounds. SUI4MARY OF PARK DEDICATION FEE SCHEDULE IN ORONO AND OTHER COMMUNITIES The Parks Commission has surveyed the Park Dedication Fee levied in (a) ne2u:by communities and (b) other communities in the metro area which, according to the League of Minnesota Cities, recently have adopted Park Dedication Fee Ordinarces. 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 j ^rger the lot, the smaller the fee) appears to be unusual among tne communities surveyed. 2. The most common approach appears to assess a P2irk Dedication Fee equal to a percentage of the land value, with the percentages varying from 7% 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 that c.harged by other communities. -2- SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF PARK DEDICATION FEE CHARGED BY ORCNO IN RECENT SUBDIVISIONS The following schedule suaunarizes the Pa -’- Dedication Fee charged by Orono in recent subdivisions and cc res that to the fee that would have been charged had a 10% Pa- Dedication Fee been charged. Painters Creek - 5 acre zone r $181,8%.^ 10 $1,000 $18,180 Total Acres (37.69 + 14.97) Lard Value (131,800 + 50,000) Number of Lots (PRD) Park Dedication Fee Actually Charged Using Percentage of Value (10% of 181,800) Golden View - (Peterman Addition) 2 acre zone ratal Acres Land Value Number of Lots Park Dedication Fee Actually Charged Using Percentage of Value (10% of 83,900) Meyer Dairy Addition - 2 acre zone Total Acres Land Value Number of Lots Park Dedication Fee Actually Charged Using Percentage of Value (10% of 115,000) Rolling Meadows - 2 acre zone Total Acres Land Value Number of Lots Park Dedication Fee Actually Charged Using Percentage of Value (10% of 49,000) The foregoing schedule, we believe, demon?crates the woeful inadequacy of the current Orono Park Dedication Fee Schedule when compared w_th the fees charged by other similcir communities. 18.75 $83,900 6 $1,200 $8,390 34.24 $115,000 11 $2,200 $11,500 18;47 $^i;,000 6 $1,200 $4,900 -3- r NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING The 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. Tt also shows the current balance in the fund. PARK FUND Cash and investments balance at 12/31/88 $117,113 Investment Int. Earned Total ExpendituresYear Park Fees 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 Total Major expend!tiires include the following: 1988 - Well at HacJcberry Park 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 $ 7,900 $ 8,923 $ 16,823 $ 16,631 6,440 10,368 16,808 32,394 6,950 10,283 17,233 1,884 2,950 11,125 14,075 5,917 11,830 11,744 23,574 15,888 6.290 11,708 17,998 68,834 17,339 17,664 35,003 6,199 5,480 19,268 24,748 7,661 2,89C 9,258 12,148 7,731 10,140 10,515 20,655 7,316 38,781 5,996 44,777 989 37,964 305 38,269 14,398 29,239 142 29,381 2,535 2 ^4S3 2.4*53 — $186,646 $127,299 $313,945 $188,377 -4- pyHTqiT 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 scnedule be credited to the Park Fund. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED tnat the park dedication fees be used only for the acquisition, development, or maintenance of p’oblic parks, playgrounds, trailsr open space. 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 change is underlined. 7034T -6- 5I lj tt m s »« *? *4 tt I « S O : s 9 ^ ii •H « H lO K I I I I 7S•• o in m i:s *9 V•>u M• IIo mm fM • i» *os s Mm tt m » *9s I o lO o 4J Ck. 9 S IM 8 V V w U > tiM JS a•ee •H a>)■ « A* •H W V C •9 j! ■« JM S «a « 00 00 oo rJ H»n o CITY OF ORONO STATE OF MINNESOTA Ordinance No. _ _ _ _ _ An Ordinance amending Section of the Orono City Code relating to park dedication and casFTor 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 Par)cs, Playgrounds and Open Space. A. Lands for Public Use. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, open space, a given percentage of the land being platted or devel oped as hereinafter specified, said portions Hi Citv. In lieu thereof, the subdivider shall, at the option of the City, pay to the City, for use in the acquisition, development ot maintenance of public parks, playgrounds, and debt retirement in connection with the land previously acqu.-' red for such public purposes, an based upon the fair market value of the land form of contribution (cash or land, or any shall be decided by the City Council based upon the need and con formance with the Comprehensive Plan. B. n.«ile«t.d Land Requlrem.nts. Any land to be dedicated as a requirement of tnis section snailbe reasonably 521 the above public purposes. Factors used in evaluating the a quacy of proposed dedicated areas shall include size, shape, topo graphy, drainage, geology, tree cover, access and location. C. Land Dedication Minimum Area. Subdiyiders shall be required to dedicate to the tity ior"parks, 5!!“!' , open spaces and other public purposes as a minimum that percentag of gross land area as set out below: 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 by the 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 th: i dode shall be the land value to be determined by the City 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. 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) Pair 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 SRSA 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 subdivider. (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 chanter. The time of preliminary plat approval L is utilized because the nature of the subdivision, its probable population, lot size and value, and other rele- Vtint 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 aporoval of that extension. In deterroinin9 "the fair market value as of time of preliminary plat appli 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) Notwithstanding the above, in no event shall the cash contribution per lot be less than $500.00 per lot or $300.00 per dwelling unit. y. Development of Land Previously Platted. If the land has already been previously subdivided and a fee had not been previ ously paid, the requirements of this division shall apply at the time of the issuance s.. a building permit for the primary struc ture . G. Future Subdivision. Any land which is further subdivi ded, divided or repiatted sub. ,uent to __ _r 19 / shall be subject to the requirements of the ordinance then in effect concerning dedication of land for public purposes, and credit shall be given for any charges previously imposed upon thau land if the subdivider can prove that fees were previously paid. in no event shall the City be liable for any payment which may be due because of a subsequent reduction in the application percentage of land or equivalent market value in cash to be dedicated. H. Administrative Procedures. The City Council shall estab lish such administrative procedures as they may deem necessary or appropriate to implement the provisions of this section of tne 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 _____________________1939. Mayor ATTESTi Cierx O Of 2 jJ jj ® w c 2 O' 3 Subd 1a »a r? 6 C 3 o< Id a 5 o n 01 —4 •ou O U O 3 > « f-<% fS VO 3 3 O' V 3 C••rH ^ 3 •H iH C o •H o« 2 iH « «p4 0 . iH rt Xta • rH XI >01 W -4 U -H n K 3 • H CS OJ U Cl U3 » ^ 0 o t, 01 *o 3 XI 3 U •«4 3 r4 > Id S u •o O' 3 3 ca 3 z 0) a 3 J3 ® O’ *0 •H cn JJ O n 0 O 3 C *»O •*4 CO >1 •»4 on fH X)QI C ® • «3 rH *»4 W O 3 O'XI 3 *0 0 <33 U •-4 *-4 Xi to K 0 0 S 3 u «u U u 0 o S «« *w 3 o 3 XI -m* 3 0 MJ=1 •-4 1 » D 3-^i!XI 3 O' ® S »3 3 3 •o 3 •—4 ^ 0*3 E a —4 ra rH rH M = - ° ^ jJ 0 rH 3 C3 3 s en b] •H o n J3 0) QI •• > 3 >1 Q V. Gd 3 3 3 QI rH rH n Cu Z o Ms o M Q 0 a 3 -4 0 U4 O 5° = jj c ^ 3 2 5 o ^ 3 rH XI ® r« e.53 T? 3 * °•X —4 E 3 Cu 3 rH O' *«4 3 u o < 3 N •X CO Dd 0 = g m »H w 1 k O o « a, u 3 0 a UH JJ 0 ^ S~-•tx CS W -4 XI 3 rH <3 3 01 . i U E u »-4 XI oooooooo ooooooooininmor)r**-'in r> n in IT) d) o\ U O' O' O' o f'*O' r» n <y uOCOOOOO ooocininvain ooomnrj^^ m CM •a Ji 9 CO CM\o• iH .. C• o JJ oo CO ou COzo Msu M 04 04< uz zo K COuu b zo M H<u M Q Ua »-l CT» 03 H c i- “do *0 3 US-o s 0 ® "S »d *0 •o ^ 01 Id §°*g ^ u jj > 9 u UJeo -T'oId ^ « 9 ki 0) Id «-i03 •O O Id c jjcoe Ono «M iH O O S2 “S 10 Ml lO Q) rH g •m4 CO XI CO 0 0 u ^ 01 Jj kl m o 9 ® •o O C oM tf, .H Id kl 0 01 u 9 XIo 9ux> CO Id 04 0 U4 o rH Id 01 o Id U kl 0 0 XI XJ .-4 13 e M 0 M ^ XI COu K.-'-Gitv*:' P OF caRancx 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 and action. At that meeti,'.?/ Council accepted the information but requested that the Planning Commission review the proposed aimendment before Council .‘i formal action. The Council will formally act on the park dedication fee amendment at their January 8/ 1990 meeting. The Planning Commission is asked to submit their comments to Jeanne 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 information/ please contact Dick Flint of the Park Commission (473-5585). Sinc^ely. CU^/UL Jeanne A. Mabusth/ Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/tln 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 •L iLuiN<; * zomm; - 473-7357 wstssiNj; ,-»UMlM!>TR.\TION 4 UNANCI - 473-T35* r\\ - 473-051« PI nt IC WORX5 - 473-735* 1 COUHCll. MEETING Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson JAM 81350 Fron: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator December 29, 1989 Subject: #1452 Walter Pemberton, 1720 Shadywood Poad - Variance - 3rd Review List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Letter from Applicants 12/28/89 Staff Letter to Applicants 12/20/89 Existing Hardcover Sketch Proposed Removals Sketch Proposed Final Hardcover Sketch 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 considered whether additional areas of hardcover can be removed, and per Exhibit D, are proposing to remove 375 square feet of hardcover in the 0-75' zone, and remove 844 square feet in the 75-250' 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 Rec tndation - Please review the attached exhibits. 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. L i •: ^.7 *7i! •.DEC 2 919^ -iM • it December 28, 1989 Michael P. Gaffron Ass'c Planning & Zoning Adrainistr tor 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 6*jr r**visec hardcover reduction proposal. The sketches you prepared are an accurate reflection of the agreed upon 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 hav- previously suhoitted. that the windows and openings in the present dining room prohibit effective placement of normally accepted dining room furniture and therefore result in a room inappropriate to the balance if the house. As we have discussed with the city officials, there does not appear to be an alternate solution chat does not conflict with other set-back require ments or substantial architectural modifications which could easily destroy the appearance of the structure. W« respectfully submit this proposal with the hope that the council members will focus on the positive nature of our jo‘'*-'y agreed upon effort. W. H. Pemberton Ma.A.yn E. Pemberton 1 CITY OF ORONQ CITY of ORONO Post Oflice Box 66 •Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lakt Minnetonka December 20, 1989 "*\lter and Marilyn Pemberton - 20 Shadywood Road VNi'ayzata, MN 55391 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Pemberton: As we discussed on December 19, 1989, I have revised the sketches to show the areas of hardcover you are now proposing to remove. The attached exhibits A, B, and C show existing hardcover, proposed removals, and proposed final hardcover, respectively. Per the summary sheet, in the 0-75' zone, hardcover is reduced by 375 s.f., a reduction in percentage in that zone from 26.8% down to 19.9%. In the 75-250' zone, proposed removals totalled 844 s.f., a reduction from 57.5% down to 45.9%. Please advise me as to whether the sketches accurately depict what you are now proposing. A letter describing your proposal and any additional information you wish to have transmitted to the Council, should be received in the City Office by December 29, 1989. Please contact me if you have further questions Assist. Planning & Zoning Admin. MPG/ls Enclosure cc; Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & 7oning Administrator Mr. Ross Thorfinson, Attorney at Law aULDING a ZONING - 473-7M7 • assessing adm;msi*‘ation a finance - 473-7358 PI BLIC WORKS - 473-7359 4 MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1989 #1457 WALTER PEMBERTON .1702 SBADYHOOD ROAD VARIANCE SECOND 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. CounciImember Goetten asked what the size of the dining room Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron said that the dining ror.. 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 Mayor 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 Mi.'netonka 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 cr plastic. She said they were improving the architectual design of the house. CounciImember Goetten said that she as not faulting the Pembertons for the situation that existed w len they bought the property. Goetten said 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? Goetttn said that perhaps there were no others. Mr. Pemberton said that the title to the house should reflect the condition of mi MINUTES OP THE ORONO ^3UNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 27, 1989 ZONING PILE #1452-PEMBEPTON CONTINUED the house. Goetten said that issue would have to be addressed with the sellers of the hoira Pemberton purchased. Mrs. Pemberton asked if they could g.-* ve up more hardcover? Bernhardson requested amending th.s motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial. Councilmember Nettles 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 Callih;n said that he usually .s persuaded by the Planning Commission recommendation and is impressed with applicants' efforts to reduce hardcover. Callahan said that on the other hand he would be inclined to adopt a rigid policy pertaining to covering over decks. Councilmember Peterson said that she concurred with Councilmember Callahan and asked the Pembertons if they had • idered totally removing the deck? Mrs. Pemberton reiterated t her hardship is that the dining room is too small for the si^. 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 OP MINNESOTA TONKAVIEW LANB/COONTY ROAD 19 VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT RESOLUTION #2734 Mr. Milt Seeman, Wayne King and Peter Broziac 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 MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING DELD OCTOBER 23, 1989 ZONING FILE #1441-COPLEY CONTINUED It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2717, approving the hardcover variance and average lakeshore setback variance for Mr. Don Copley, 1185 Tonkawa Road. Motion, Ayes*5, Nay*’"0, Motion passed. #1452 HALTER PEMBERTON 1720 SHADYHOOD ROAD VARIANCE Mr. Pemberton was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained this application to the Council and Mayor Grabek. Councilmember Goetten said that she was surprised that hardcover in the 75-250' zone 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 proposed, if something could be worked out with the staff 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 and closing it in without extending it further toward the lake is not allowable. He 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 area. Grabek said that each application is reviewed 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. He 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. m MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 23, 1989 ZOmNG FILE «1452>PEMBERTON CONTINUED CounciImember Goetten tried to offer Mr. Pemberton a further explanation of the difference between deck and structure. She too informed Mr. Pemberton that she could . ee 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 obtaining a variance to do this addition. City Administrator Bernhardson said that the City has no records pertaining to the existing deck being allowed. Councilmember 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 Cxt> 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 water permeable. He 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. Councilmember 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 0-75* 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*5, Nays*0, Motion passed. cum. MEETING JAM 81930 To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson G!TY OF From:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:January 3, 1990 Subject:#1468 George Pillsbury, 1300 Bracketts Variance/Conditional Use Permit Point Road - 7 Application - Request for hardcover, setback and average l.akeshore setback variances and conditional use permit for idditicn. and minor grading in lakeshore yard. L?.8t of Exhibits - Exhibit A - 12/29/89 Letter of Requef- from Applicant’s Attorney, Draft Resolution (Drafted by Applicant's Attorney’, Hardcover Calculations Memo & Exhibits of 11/22/89 Memo & Exhibits of 11/9/89 Exhibit B Exhibit C Introduction ~ ,The applicants are proposing to construct a greenh^ouse f5‘?^se?bkcr2one^”^Ars“*minor^gradfng“fs’'p%p 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 0-75 250- 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 is aH the information reviewed by the Planning Commission, plus additional supportive info^ation from the applicants' architect (letter of 11/22/89) applicants' attorney (letter of 12/29/89). Applicants y has drafted a resolution detailing possible findings of fact in support of approval of the application. Zoning File #1468 January 3, 1990 Page 2 of 3 Planning Coomission Reconmendatlon - At their October 16, 1989 meeting, Plannii':g 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 indicated that 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 3 ow 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 off from the lakeshore 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 grading 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. Note that the 330 s.f. of pavers proposed for removal were included in the originally noted 1,491 s.f. of existing 0-75' hardcover (confirmed by landscape architect). Paragraph two of the letter f>'om applicant's attorney should not be construed as "recently discovered" hardcover. Sunmary of Variance/Conditional Use Pemit Request - 1. Average lakeshore setback variance. 2. 75' Variance for new structure locatad 58.5' from S; ine, required. 3. Hardcover variance 0-75' zone, ne • hardcover reduction proposed. 4. Conditional use permit and variance t. 0-75' zone. rading work l.n Zoning File #1468 January 3, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Staff Recomendation - 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 the setback variance for additional structure in the 0-75' . /'j is supported by adequate justification and hardships. Can unts addition reasonably be located in a more conforming location? Please carefully review uhe resolution drafted by applicants' attorney. Thit draft summarizes the applicants' stated hardships and justificationc for the proposal. If Council feels that the stated hardships and justifications adequately support granting of the variances and conditional use permit, that resolution is in a format that could be adopted by Council with minor revisions. If Council determines that denial is appropriate, applicant 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. t*U«>C;SS V a Cmman GC^A lO C magnu SON CG^AMO M GlC*4NON MCLVtN I 0»CNS^r -4 •oac»v j SHCOAN IftWACL C HNAWC^Z CUOCNC k Catino JAMCS » MAOTINCAU • lCMA»0 J »iT?OC»AtD JOHN A rOOACSV william c roA JOHN J CONNCLLV jC»aOLO r acaorALk OAvio M Lcacoorr jOHM H fTAQtMMAN GAarO G. MCAIMALI. A GMCCNLCT •oaca^ V A^Moac PATRICK OCLANCT aO««ALOO VANtiNC JQmM a WINSTON CAUWANCr a WA lOCCH Thomas h garrc'^t hi QAartC L. oPHOrr OAVIO J. OAVCNPOar MARK a jO':n SON R iCma PO a ROim j^h a wAL^ca sacmman THOMAS L PASCL jtrrRtT a scmm'D^ tlMO^H^ H aUTLCa aoacat g mitcmcll. ja J. miCmACL OAO'T J KCVIN COSTLCt ROaca^ J hartmah JOStPM G "OHLCa RICHARD 0 MCNC'L DOhalo C SiaCSSON aaucc A aOH^cua JAMtS a McCART ht STCVCN J JOHNSON RiCHARO IHRIG T RiCGCR TICK I MACKCNZ iC •M c rLTNN s w acu^ca m«.hacl S margjl ’CS THOMAS G 1^ Thomas C OlCnnon JOHN a mohstcn DCNNIS M. O'MALLC^ COWARD WCCeaSON LINDQUIST & VENNUM*200 tOS CENTER MINNCAPOUS. MINNESOTA S5402-220S TELEPHONE I6I2I 371-3211 TELE* 20 OOAA KA*. I6I2I 371-3207 CABLE: LINLAW MINNEAPOLIS WAY2ATA OTTiCE 7AO EAST lake S'REET WAVZATA, MINNESOTA S530I writer's direct dial NUMBER 612-473-4208 Dani CL j Smcaan OAVIO A ALLCC-CA TCRACNCC J rtCM'NO ROLF CNGM RIC'I a RO T JJTl JNO OCB^RA m h kcoan MARTIN R RCSCNB ali H Elinor C. ROSCNSTC iN ROSANNC N «IRTM OCBRA M RACE MICHAEL O OlAFSON JOEL H GREEN OAVIO L MALLETT CHARLES R in Cav ER. jR OAVIO L SASSEVILLE OAVIO A OOHNA OENISE O RC'Ll* JONATHAN M B tE MART R McCONNE lL Sally S QROSShan T mOTht R BAER TIMOTHt S MCINTEE jOSERh a Thomson ANN L. IIJIMA Elizabeth g ab » KATHARINE N. HELMS WALLACE G Hli.nt CHARLES R -OORSC RATI JO POFAHL LUKE M TERmaa R MICHAEL J -OUNO KAREN L SCHRC'BER Charles j llOto wAMCS A lOOOEN Susan r monrheve R Ran Ot o olllickson SARAH OUFF HALVCRSON SAHORA KIM Charles E ma ClCan william R miKOS ROBERT E tuum Ei>> ANS'S V. V'KSNINS or CCuna Cl LEONARD E LINDQUIST NORMAN L NEW ha LL RCTiRCO THOMAS VENNUM December / City of Orono 1335 South Brown Road Orono, MN 55391 Re: Mr. and Mrs. George Pillsbury Application No. 1468 Laoies 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 Tom Meyer per his letter of November 22, 1989 and those made by this letter. Noting the concern^ 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 Pillsbu’^s had Tom Meyer and Herb Baldwin reinventory the site during *eek of December 26, 1989. There is a picnic area containing a^, .ut 330 square fent of hardcover consisting of pavers near the dock 25' from the lakeshore. Originally. thxS hardcover was overlooked because the pavers are somewhat widely spaced and have overgrown with grass to a significant degree over the past decades. The applicants herety amend their application by agreeing to the removal of the 33u square feet of pavers which constit’/tes a reduction in existing '‘.ard.cover in the 0-75' iicne frc-;s • 191 square feet to 1,161 squo^i.% feet. The amount of reduc‘d•ca 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 2 ' and practical scenario before the city council compared tc u. vhich was before the planning commission in that the net new c:.c.ax LINDQUIST & VENNUM City of Orono December 29, 1989 Page 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 ini^ide 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, the 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 refjuested. 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 accual house audition 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 has this unusual coincidence of 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 LINDQUIST & VENNUM City 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, LINDQUIST1ST & \gNiyM y / / / .cl.. V- Robert G. Mitchell, Jr. RGM:skr Enc. A RESOLDTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 142, SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PT^^. 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 Tono (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) Secti(»r 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) reguesting 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 lakeshcre 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 will tend to minimize the visual impact of the greenJ* -»use as viewed from the lake. 4. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1468. FINDINGS OP FACT 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'* 25,925 sq.. ft. 75-250'= 62,900 sq.. ft. 250-500'* 40.000 sq.. ft. 128,825 sq.. ft. =2.96 AC Hardcover: Existina Allowed So.Ft.(%)So.Ft. 0- 75'1,491 ( 5.7%)0 ( 0 %) 75-250'11,450 (18.2%)15,725 (25 %) 250-500'2.500 ( ^.1%)12.000 (?o %) Total: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 r 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 Planni , 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 about 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 high humidity in the greenhouse adjacent to the bedroom is beneficial to reduce the impact of arthritis. 12. The existing 1949 house is as close as 57' to Lake Minnetonka which was permitted when the house was constructed. All parts of the new house construction will be further from the shore of Lake Minnetonka than 57' with the closest such new portion being 58V from Lake Minnetonka. Views from adjacent houses are not impacted by the addition. 13. Given the layout of the house and the configuration of the shoreline there is no reasoneUale alternative location for an addition to the master bedroom for additional area for it and for use as a greenhouse since such improvements must be on the southeast side of the house. The applicant did reduce the size of the proposed addition and move it as far to the west to comply with Orono ordinances as best as possible under the circumstances. 14. The house has architectural significance. 15. The findings of the Planning Commission majority set forth at paragraph 3(A)-(D) above are adopted by the Council. 16. The combination of the above factors is justification for the addition applicants wish to make in the zone within 75' of Lake Minnetonka, the placement of the addition 58.5 feet from the lake and installation of requested retaining wall, stairs, paving, grading, and drainage system. The conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district. Granting the variances will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring preperties. The variances are not merely conveniences to the applicants, but are necessary to alleviate the foregoing hardships and difficulties. The variances are necessary to preserve substantial property rights of the applicants and are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. There is a net decrease of hardcover in the 0-75' zone. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER CONDITIONS 17. Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to (a) Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, (b) Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit construction of a greei^ouse addition and retaining walls in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, and further (c) grants a conditional use permit for grading and retaining walls in the 0' to 75' lakeshore setback zone per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19, according to the applicants' application, as aunended, subject to the following conditions: Page 4 of 5 A) Appl.' unt shall provide the City Engineer with a detailed final rading 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 tha 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' zona 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 peoiissive 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 consLitute 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. day of ATTEST: Dorothy M. Ha11in. City Clerk Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 5 of 5 i O r> (M O if» O (No r- CN m iH iH <#(* o I 0 1 e¥> in iH CM in 04r-% 04 +Jo >0)2 4J (1) 2 «» ^r» r> VO 00 r-l ^ ^ o f* r» iH f-« o ^ in iH iH O ON VO 04 00 in >^r r* ^ 04 OJ iH iH VO in fH EhU (U K < Eh< I ^ 0 ■'T 1 + O VO O VOr* ov o r4 r>+ + + + o inn + o o I I OlO 0 O r> n 1 I r> r» 0 n n 1 oc •H 4J U •H u «#4» *»#> r» 04 VO 00 iH O O o in in *<r 04 H H ^ 04 04 04 04 f-4 04 m in r-l OV 04 O* in r» m rH rr in to •H Id • w o \ 3 (0 •• ^4 iH 0 in w « ^mo* ^ troi 04 • c 1 I e .-Hin o C > r- ® 0) Idcu a: a< rH Id O ■U rH Id oE- I Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Frcxi: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffro’- \sst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator November 22, 1989 #1468 George Pillsbury, 1300 Bracketts Point Road - Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Resolution - Additional Exhibits Discussion - This item was tabled a** your November 13th meeting at the applicant's request, in order for applicant to provide additional supportive information. In addition to the attached memo and exhibits of November 9, 1989, applicant has submitted the attached 3-page letter and additional exhibits A, B and C. 4Cc.'.r' .i*• 1 I**-’ c , ■. i. ^ • t » i * ^ b' : 1AT% * -«u . MS&R Architects Meyer, Scherer 5c Rockcnstic, Ltd. txs Second Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 5S401 6!1 375-o»36 22 November 1389 c/o Michael Gaffron City of Orono Building and Zoning Administration 1335 South Brown Road Orono, Minnesota 55J91 Dear 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 a'^ition and sitework to the Pillsbury house. A- 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, fepling 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. •I.IVWOieDM AStAt • rsofOMO AonrKM MSScR 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 the 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 xdeal 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. PROPOSED ADDITIONmm 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 witn 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 embanrment 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 the 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 250'-500' zone is only 6.3%, and in the 75'-250' zone will be only 18.3%.) The following matrix represents existing and proposed changes within the 0'-75' zone (see also exhibit C): Permanent Structure Existing 595 % 2.2 Proposed 765 % 3.0 Difference 170 Retaining Walls/Stairs 325 1.2 421 1.6 96 Paving 571 _6i.;?. 3 49 TOTAL 1,491 5.7 1,797 6.9 306 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 requirements of 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. Sincerely \ Thomas Meyer George and Sally Pillsbury Herb Baldwin S830/Ltlik« I Ps'S I«i5 114 o D e) tA d § < Qa |u)is Q EXMIBI*r B lx NteJVCMBER 8^ TOx Mayor Grabek & Orono Council MembersCity Administrator Bernhardson Froax Michael P, Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: November 9, 1989 Subject: #1468 George Pillsbury, 1300 Bracketts Point Road - Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Resolution Zoning District - LR-lA, Single family lakeshore residential, 2 acre, unsewered Application - Request for hardcover, setback and average lakeshore setback variances and conditional use permit for addition and minor grading in lakeshore yard. List of Bzhibits Exhibit 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. Briefly, 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 survey, the proposed addition will be no closer to the lake than 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. 7 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 justification 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. Zoning File 11468 November 9, 1989 Page 2 of 2 Planning 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 Recomaendatloii * 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 Ia'i most cases been tied to removal of equivalent amounts of hardcover in the 0- 75' zone, resulting in no hardcover increase in the zona. 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. MIHOTBS OF THB PLMMIHG COMMISSIOK MBBTIMG OCTOBBR 16. 1989 ZOmiiG FILE #1466-KOKBSH CONTIIIUBD Gaffron said that in order to construct the 14 x 16 porch a 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. There were 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 re; nded that it was not financially possible at this time. He sai^ that the house was very small and would probably be torn down at such time that he purchased land from his father. yfSiS 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 whet^er 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 / #1468 GEORGS PILLSBURY \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. (j|r. 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 said that the existing hardcover located within the 0-75 setback zone would increase to 7.6%. Gaffron further explained that the 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. Zoning File #1468 Nov^ber 9, 1989 Page 2 of 2 Planning 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, ap~cant 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 Reccmnendatlon * 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 eunounts 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 Commissior recommendation is attached for Council review. ^'1 I MIIIDTES OF THB PLAN1II1I6 COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 16, 1989 ZONING PILE 81468-PlLLSBORT CONTIMDED Planning Conunissioner 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. Mr. Meyer explained the scheme of the existing house in relation 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 Jid not have a problem with the hardcover, even though it is .n 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 1MINUTBS OF THE PLAHHIIIG COMaSSIOH HBBTIMG OCTOBER 16, 19U9 ZOHmG FILE #1468-PILLSBURY CONTINUED screening is usually required. Mr. Baldwin said that plantings would be plar.d 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. 91469 CITY OF OROMO RIGHT-OF-WAY OF WINDJAMMER LANE CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8:53 P.M. TO 8:58 P.N. 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 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ZONIHG PILE HO. 1468 NOTICE OP PLAimniG COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice: 10/20/89 TO: Thomas Meyer COPIES TO: George Pillsbury Meyer, Scherers, Rockcastle Arch. 1300 Bracketts Pt Rd 325 Second Ave N Wayzata, MN 55391 Minneapolis, MN 55401 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance/Conditional Use Permit DATE OP MEETING: 10/16/89 VOTE: 5 For 2 Against Planning CGHBission recoanends the follofwing: nr' 1 subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Motion was to recommend approval of hardcover variance, lakeshore setback and average lakeshcre 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, Noveaber 13, 1989; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minuter, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Mayor Grabek Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardsoi. mOM:Michael P. Gaffronr Assistant Planning 6 Zoning Administrator DATE: October 12, 1989 S0BJ:#1468 George Pillsbury, 1300 Bracketts Point Road Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IA, Single Family L:ikeshore 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 - Property Owners Letter of Request 10/2/89 - Architect's Letter of Explanation 9/28/89 - Plat Map - Property Owners List - Hardcover Calculations - Survey with Topography - Site Plan - Greenhouse Plan View - Greenhouse Elevation View - Proposed Grading Plan - Cross Section View ■pMmTO CsliApU s Pertinent Pacts - 1. 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. B C D E F G H I J K L 2. Hardcover existing and proposed on the property is as follows: 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 EXISTINGTiT ALLOWED PROPOSED S.F.S.F. (%)S.F. (%) I 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 lalceshore banlc. 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 aslced to provide some elevation views and cross sections to help in visualizing the degree of impact the 55* setbac)c will have from the la)ce. 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 la)ceshore 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 suppo ’-t 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 very little additional hardcover which could conceivably be removed to compensate for the proposed addition. There is an existing stairway for lakeshore accessr and thore 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 Recommendation - Staff would recommend approval of the variance for average setback, based on the finding that no lake views currently enjoyed by neighboring properties will be reduced. 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 lakeshore 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 cne 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. I ^1 V USB APPLICATIOHCITY OF OROHO - GF PROPERTY LOCATIOH Site Address I^OOB^aocet-ts point c/ /onoi Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) If1 11 CITY OF DRQi^ Please check one - Property X abstract or_ _ _ _ _torrens? FLiAHC OFFICE (for Conditional Use Applications only)1350200(y\ Please attach legal description to application if net on required survey. pL^pj2/a*K)Gct-<wr op oP^mo poivr Lcrr ^ COOl APPLICAMT Name TVOMA.i; MEYEP^ Phone (home) - H46 Phone (work) S'lS-OViCa a. p-OCiCO^'2TUC ABJCHtreCTS Address avekjoe KjoarM City MiNiisJc^p'^us Zip GB40I OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) N^une <5EopSg PiuLCau<a.Y___________________ Phone __________3S14- Address ISCD B^o<grT: p3«MT- ________ City Zip GS52X Date Property Acquired _ _ _/App-cu |d53 (month/year) I (do) !(do not) also own the adjacent parcels of i^nd. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee $100.00 a)Residential accessory Use $150.00 b)Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 c)Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 d)Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 f)Land Alteration 7T Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading^ seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshoreX ZcmAcf^ t'ACJ/VUCt^ PRD/PID - see fe^ schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS $150.00 Commercial Site Plar ’^^eview (+ consultant fr^es) $250.00 Vacation $150.00 Easement Vacation $ 50.00 Easement Vacation V -ubdivision _ _ _ _ $250.00 R' joning _ _ _ _ $100.00 Appeals _ _ _ _ Other - see fee schedule PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District LP-i A Present Use of Property g-gZ.cgKj'rt/a^ _ Residential Other (specify)^ DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST ^ ^ Describe request in detail: eiagEKjMf jse ^pomoM itJ 4nJ --------- HOME AjiTU L^NC^-^P'KJC,. EX(CrP>Oe MOUC^ <^jN.Q ppopo^en ' .amh ;->^p Kjgf oc>'jj\-tuiSs) IS-o '?ETP*fA^-2^ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SoueMT. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ^ 2: cf/tif?ed :.i3t of owners within 350* (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government 3. st^^pldf^legil^’ sited envelopes (#^0) pre-addressod to each of the names on the above list with no return address, of sur"- iy.4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Certificate ui. auj. -.j. •.x j#Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As^an”addendum to thi - application, please attach a separate list of any other vou 'vi’.h riotified of this application. The aoolicant and Property Cwi.er 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 complex Zoning Officials Signature Date "f^^^^rlLnr^^by agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or th^ :n^fo%rt!rn ^s"uo"p^”it/"iJ^:rre “/ndnor^rc^^To^The^es^ro^f his/her Applicant's signature The^ner^^'r^y acknowledges and agrees to this application and autho^^ized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and ve^ficati^T^^f ^is request- owner's signature ~ AppUcIn7musrhIv4lli?J^^^ offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Arfrtmission Meetings are held on the ?h?rdTonday of each month. Applicants must be Present at a 11 sched 1 d review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant 1 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. Ge OKOE S. PlLLSBl-RY 1300 TCF TOWERMinneapolis, Minnesota 55-*oa-aara .wU/ ocr^ October 2, 1989 Ms Jeanne A Masbusth Zoning Administrator City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay. Mn 55323 Dear Ms Masbusth: Unfortunately, neither Sally nor I can attend your next meeting (we made a commitment i^ast 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 M S 6c R Architects Meyer, Scherer CS: Rockc.istle. l td. ; IS Second .\venue North .Mmne.ipolis, .Minnesma SS401 28 September 1989 Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono Building and Zoning Administration 13 3 5 South Brov;n Read Orono, Minnesota 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-existing 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. II t M S 8c R Jeanne Mabusth 28 September 1989 Page 2 The landscaping plan calls for planting the bank edge to reduce soil erosion and promote the absorption of rain water runoff. Perforated drain tile around the addition will conduct runoff to a wet well with a perforated cover. It is awkward to have to seek a variance in any circumstance but particularly when a code, such as Orono's setback requirement, has been enacted both to preserve natural resources as well as to protect community interests. However, the Pillsbury's proposed addition, because of its nature (being in effect a greenhouse) and size (210 SF) ould have minimal environmental and visual impact. A denial of their application would cause them sufficient hardship in the of their land that we ask that you recommend a granting of their variance request. Yours sincerely. Thomas Meyer 8830/L0928«9.doc CP V jL ___/ Nfl Nl I r K a s l§ lAl > s >• I o ^ S ®«! ac? Ui RS;:i I < a. K 3C .:A «j =.i sliR2« s o «3S t*- “• _ irt ti 5 OK IM Ik M >- M M o5**" S2-ii O M > >^ .^ </i M -i o ^M ►- M aw s§|sr rk a: W Id -» lU _ w -3^ I -i ^ < ^ X X N CM O U ^ > «0 M 1-^ VNI < K» o r r M X S Ui ARRrr Ml § 8|« SI ^ « o §il ^ *i h- M *H M a. & u» _ w <A H iE ii§!2a s “ §2 «n Off* ea h> & >A ^ m til HI IM U ifi CQ ti* rLSSSl^S CM < < O NCM .M ^ CM ^ • ^ ^ CM < O UJ Ul ^ X 2 M ^ UJ ^iii M UJ ^ (/) Ul gu a S J o o o a -i 0,-1 N I- a M I- Ml a m X Ml N u -d ilSi ^ CD -J -g| c£a M O til S « om 2!I_ </i K i Z O </) X o ^ S S 1 2 g ee o > \ < MH< z o ss*- 0 >- >^ <2 ^ a w ^ A 2 <M Ml ^ </> « o w -j ^ u <r N U -i -I S lA 1 < M M O M>r» ce a a ^ i-t C6 w «/)</> M. W Ui Ml I- £ '"SSSocom o o o -i CO w UJ ui w a w o (j) c9 w r g (X o UJ < 5- N s O O b) 0 O. -I O -J «rt M m K a ^ Mb- ac «vl Ml oc 3 a: o rLSSdS-' t-* ta ^ t-t •H a u. 1 2 <-» 5 3!2i§2 CD ^ ^ O ^ a ^ o ui n r-i r Q 9 Of Cl ec <g|ig hWRDCOVEH WLCUU^IIGN WORKSHEET j^fL<ir^cq -^FPuO^rrwKtSETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' ' 250-500'j 500-1000' ExiSTING Hardcover in Zone A. House B. Garage . c. Driveway D. SiDrwALK E. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY . . PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other . X . X . X X X . X , X . LENGTH WIDTH _ _ _ _ _ _ X _ _ _ _ Total Hardcover :n Zone Total Property Area in Zone - - - - - - - - 8e»b« -and A,:rrs^C>^Q Crr^kiSc' S.F. S.F. ^500 _ 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 0 S.F. [3 X 100 - V ■ J f HAR3CQVB CALC ’JLATICfl W3RK3HEE'r -Vrf- 'SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' |75-250V 250-500' 50Q-1CC0* Existing H ardcover in Zone A. H ouse LENGTH B. Garage c. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio / Deck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other - X - X WIDTH Total H ardcover in Zone - Total Property Area in Zone _ S.R. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. _ S.F. S.F. II. 4*^0 S.F, S.F. 0 B S.F. [b X 100 - °^ '-7 I ■gszaigrrr f ;U^3v«.rv^li. •>>>(:£ -^PP'^ 08rT’:Kj HARDCOVES CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500'500-1C00 9 Existing H ardcover in Zone c > rnNj^ A. H ouse X ■ ■S.F. LENGTH width X •S. P X ■S.F.h: . -S X S.F. r X -S.F. 1 B. Garage X ■S.F.1 'W. c. D riveway _ X ■S.F* X ■S.F, D. Sidewalk X •S.F. n*i-**^^ X «S.F. X ■S.F.E. Jatio / D eck X »S.F. F.Landscape X -S.F. AREAS underlain BY X ■S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X «S.F. X «S.F. G. Other X -S.F. Total H ardcover IN Zone - 1^ |S.F.T Total Property Area in Zone 0- - -^0— S.F. X 100 61 S % ■HARDCOVB CALCULATIO N WORKS HEETscT3ACx ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ^0-75'^ 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House B. Garage . c. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio / D eck F.Landscape AREAS underlain BY PLASTIC SHEETING/ ' - G. Other le:igth _ X *.p~EiS./ca<;PC':;c? WIDTH Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone ^S4 ^ ^'VJCL. ____ S.F. . S.F. _ S.F. . S.F. . S.F. . S.F. . S.F. . S.F. . S.F. . S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S * F. S.F. S.F. S .F. [Tj S.F. s B X 100 1. B % 10 — 12-S9 THU BOI4L.ER rtPPRrtlSftL.P . O 1 I . - PILLSBURY RESIDENCE 0-^ 35 'tiv . n ^ il>( ' ^1 ~ ItT 1 - i n > Isas-, ■ .• ••> •■ 3 ';i« C - aq '^2jm r^ ~o? ;i m m ^ ?J. 5S R'A .; i ‘ ■ * ■ ^' ■'im ■ i.-'-1' >m-i m H m f~ i>p m(~ s * r f. z nr SHm 73 0•n -.1 m ->^nm r It '^■•YV"7v2 J '-■:•■•-'jj • -%# ^ ? i*^^V no >'■ ‘V -liV SITE photograph ; REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERM IT/VAR IANCE 12 OCTOBER r>« PILLSBURY RESIDENCE SITE PHOTOGRAPH' REQUEST FOR CONDTIONAI USE PERMIT/ VARIANCE i: OCTOBER I'»S A RBSOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 i 2 AND SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AMD GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE 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 Brac)cett*a 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* laJceshore setbac)c 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. HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1468. 2. The property is located in the LR-IA 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 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 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 d-*fficulty; 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. I Page 2 of 6 6. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the proposed grading and retaining walls in the 0-75' zone will not be detrimental tc 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. COMCLOSIONS, 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 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. 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 niiqht 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 a^^te 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 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )3S.The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of November 1989, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. 6 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 Page 5 of 6 STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) SB. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this before me a Notary Public within and for saicJ county# personalTy appeared _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . known to me to be the person(s) described in ana who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) On this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _,- --,- - - -- - - 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 S2une as his (their) free act and deed. comiL mriHG JAN 81990 6I Mayor Grabek and Council Planning Cc mission Chairman Kelley Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson FROM: DATS: SUBJ: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Admin. January 3, 1990 ♦1480 Edward & Gerda Toth, 2811 Farview Lane Variance Denial Resolution List of Szhibits - 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 ♦_ _ _t denying a 0.9* side setback variance for a proposed deck addition at 2811 Farview Lane. Motion: Ayes-_ _ _, Nays_ _ _ _• I CITY OP OSOKO P*Oa Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 APPLICATION NO. 1480 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 12/13/89 Ed 6 Gerda Toth 2811 Parview Lane Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES: Karla Selseth Dundee Nursery 16800 Highway 55 Plymouth, MN 55446 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variance Administrative Appeal - Pence Easement Vacation/Rededication DATS OF MEETING:12/11/89 COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: A) Easement vacation/rededication - Council voted 5-0 to approve the vacation and rededication of drainage and utility easements as presented. The vacation resolution will be filed with Hennepin County upon receipt from you of signed and notarized easement dedication documents (copies attached - please sign and return all 3 copies). B) Side setback variance for deck extension - Council voted 3-2 for denial of the 0.9* side setback variance. A resolution for denial will be submitted for final Council action at their January 8, 1990 meeting. Your deck contractor should submit a revised plan for the deck extension so that a building permit can be processed for the deck. C) The administrative appeal regarding locating fence in the right-of-way was tabled until January 8, 1990. Please contact John Gerhardson if 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 commencement of deck construction. (The building permit application is a separate application from the easement vacation/rededication application.) I A RBSOLOTION DENYIIIG VARIA1K3S TO mmiCIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6(B) PILE #1480 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal co >oration, 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 the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, Edward and Gerda Toth (hereinafter the "applicants"), are owners of the property located at 7811 Farview Lane within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: Lot 12, Block 1, Farview, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 6(B) to construct a deck addition 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; recommendations of the City staff and Planning Commission, ;o! .uents and written statements submitted by the applicant 'pplicants* landscape contractor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of X, 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 application 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 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 20, 1999, 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 presc vation of the applicants' substantial property rights; and granting of the variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. January, Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of 1990. ATTEST! Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Page 2 of 2 ^ Bones troo Rosene Arderlik & ^\5i^<lates om; a tO’TT'^j^ «0C«^ »/ *f f •! »i’<* r •• O’*** »C Or»- f to »l I 'tC)**! »f lOM't 3 ^ vwvr t }«rvA» »8 vff« A aM»A n 9«««M I^IWf M nnrMiE e MN« *1 A lO^IMn #f V4« A *M(naA *e Vti < ^ A| vu*4» T M »Mft • •ff'lp"# *1 a*vi« d UMT4^ *1 TK,xr^ '* •new. •! Mewc lyAin •€ VUM •C BBAAft* • A'WrWX •! vimi «fv »f BaMR C »uvft. AI A •a#a«| ArfA M MeiMM A ten<M. •• »j«et j l«»rv H vgn A toft ** •^A• ; CMMM H Mart II WUA» AnftrW AiA *' Cjjiv r tyjArtn •e M«n I «« wfi •I I IMMii 0>«M • M C rvinrt A i-nciiw<t I^M •AM«ay HjlIM* M OMfi %j\jr M C M Englnctifs & Architects January 3, 1990 COti.VCtt MECTWG 8 i99Q np emttn City of Orono Box 66 Cryttal Bay. KN 55323 Attn; John Gerhardaon Re: T.U. 112 Sever & Water laiprcvexents Our File No. 13939 Dear Johnt Enclosed please find Request for Faymant No. 2 for the T.H. #12 Sever & Water Ifflprovecents. This portion of the work has bean satisfactorily coopleted and ve recocunend the City make payment. If you have any questions please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIX & ASSOCIATES, INC. diiony H»rUn M. Olson HNOidh End. L4/S6 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT I DATE:JanuarY 3. 1990 FOR PERIOD: PLACE 1 Orono. Ninnetota Front Dec. 1. 1989 Tot Dec. 31. 198^ SPSCIFIID CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE CHANGES 1 Sanltarv Sever Januarv 1. 1990 ACDtXSSi 140S Veat CcuntY Road C Veter Main JanuarY 1. 1890 RoeaYllle. MN 3S119 Lift Station Januarv 1. 1990 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.1 \Restoration Work June 1. 1990 SUHKARYi 1. 0:^lftiaal Contract Amount 9 206.348.00 2.Chaaee Order - ADDITION 3 11.867.75 S.Chanae Order - DEDUCTION S 4.Revidad Contract Amount $218.215.75 S.Value CoiBplcted to Dace $151.885.10 s.Material on Hand $O.CO 7.Amount Earned $151.885.10 8.Lesa Retainaee S Z $7.394.26 9.Sub-Total $144.290.84 10.Lett Amount Paid Previously 8 84.872.25 11.AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.: 2 $59.418.59 Rtcosaended for Approval byi BONESTROO, ROSENS, ANDERLXX k ASSOCIATES. INC. By I fc ^ ^ OVNER APPROVAL I By_ _ _ _ _ By_ _ _ _ _ Datat Approved By> ALBRECHT EXCAVATING. INC, Contractor By«. PR13939 noJECT;Trk Hvy 12 SanittfY 8tvig t Wtt^r M|„4a- r^CZI Orono. Minnesota_ _ _ _ _Xpprovtcenp^ PAYMENT NOs_ _ _ _I FILE NO;_ _ 13939 CONTRACTOR: Albrecht ExcavitlnKi ..IRS- DATE J Jttmarr 3. 199Q jjATSMENT or tfORI tract I teg fAlT I - 8AMITARY SEVER 8* PVC, 8'-10' dtep in place 8* PVC, 10’-12' deep in place 8' PVC, 12'-14’ deep in place 8* PVC, 14'-16’ deep in place 8* PVC, 16’-18' deep in place 8” PVC, 18'-20' deep in place 12* DIP, 14’-16' deep in place Jack eating wr. 12' DIP carrier in pi. 4* PVC, (SDR 26) force i?ain ltd. MH 8' deep, 4' dia., w/1642B catg. Manhole depth greater than 8' deep Cut into exifting manhole 8* X 6" PVC service eye branch 8“ PVC service pipe in place 6* PVC service riser pipe in place Xnproved pipe feundation per 6* increment depth Mechanical trench compaction Lift Station No. 30 TOTAL PART 1 - SANITARY SEWER PR13939 SniR L.F. L.P. L.P. IP L.F. L.F. L.F. L.F. L.F. Each L.F. Each Each L.F. L.F. L.F. L.F. L.S. Wnit $12.00 12.00 14.00 15.00 17.00 23.00 23.00 120.00 6.00 800.00 60.00 300.00 45.00 10.00 12.00 1.50 0.01 36,000.00 Est'd Quantity Amount euintity I9 B»t.. la..S.tU 200 530 450 700 850 100 45 85 1.380 11 SO 1 5 160 15 600 1,600 L $ 230 540 460 710 705 85 85 1,340 11 45 1 6 90 IS 550 1,350 252 $2,760.00 6.480.03 6.440.00 10.630.00 15.515.00 1.935.00 10.200.00 8.040.00 8.800.00 2,700.00 300.OC 270.00 900.00 180.00 825.00 15.50 9.000.00 $83,030.50 Page 1 PAYMENT NO: wHnr.»<iota Iroproveaents PILE NO:13939 CifrAvi.fci.ns. Xnc >DATIi 3. 1990 statement OP WORE Unit Ist'd Quantity Amount Cuntract Item liJLSA QuantitT To Data To Datl FAIT II - WATER MAIN g* DIP. Claat 32 main l.f.$11.00 80 80 $880.00 •" DIP* Class 52 vater main L.P.13.00 2*130 2,090 27,170.00 6* resiUtnt wedga gats valvt and box Each 340.00 8 9 3*060.00 e* rasilient wtdgt gata valva and box Each 450.00 S 5 2*250.00 S' valva hydrant Each 1*200.00 S •7*200.00 C.I. fittings Lbs.1.00 4*309 4,300 4,500.00 Cut into S* plug Each 230.00 1 1 250.00 Machanical tranch compaction L.P.0.01 2,200 2,170 21.70 TOTAL PART II - WATER MAIN $45*331.70 PART III - restoration Com?*oa axcavation C.Y.$1.00 6,000 Bituminous surfacing removal S.Y.2.00 200 100 200.00 Class 5 aggregate base (lOOZ crushed)Ton a.00 400 178 1,408.00 2341 bituminous veering surface Ton 25.00 100 2341 bituminous binder surface Ton 25.00 200 AC-1 bituminous material for mixture Ton 190.00 16 Bituminous material for tafk coat Gals.1.00 50 Erosion control fence L.F.1.50 500 Clear and grub trees Each 73.00 250 138 10*350.00 Faga 2 PR13939 PAmKT no IPTACEt OrOTio. Mln^iesott Improvetaenti FILE NOt 13939 «*AM^4rTOSt Alhraeht ExCAVfttinft.Tnc.DATEi.Januarr 1. 1990 OF VORX Unit Sat’d Quantity Aaouat Gon\rpc^ IRUI ynlt Pgice Ouantitv To Data.TO PART 111 - tlSTORATIQM. CONT'D. io4 vith 4* topioil 8.T.2.20 2.500 S«tRin| v/topeoil, aulch t fertilizer Ac.800.00 5 TOTAL PART 111 - RESTORATION $11,958.00 A TSMP WELL FROM HVY 12_XQ_WELL NO. 3 8* DIP. Clast 52 vatar main L.F.$13.00 390 380 $4,940.00 10* DIP. Class 52 water sain L.F.17.00 50 SO 850.00 •• Resilient wedge gate valve & box Each 450.00 4 4 1,800.00 C.Z. fittings Lbs.1.00 1.200 1.200 1,200.00 Ih' Type K copper L.F.11.00 75 60 660.00 1%* Curb stop A box Each 135.00 1 1 135.00 1%* Corporation stop A saddle Each 100.00 1 1 100.00 Mechanical trench compaction L.F.0.01 1,275 490 4.90 Clear A grub trees Each 75.00 25 25 1,875.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 - ADD $11,564.90 PR13939 PAgt 3 nATT--*-- B"T ” s.r.ittrY «imf t ima— ,------- nrnna. Mlane«Qt«-------------laairyveaifflU. comuco 01 1 lac jS'^AT^NT OF you CQfltract Itta Unit £li££ payment HO;. FILS HO I__13939 3. 19_M_ fjt'4 Quantity Aaount ountitt xajstu- is-Sis« TOTAL PART 1 • SANITAEY SEWEE TOTAL FART XI - WATER MAIM TOTAL PART HI - RESTORATION total change order HO. 1 - date chance only TOTAL CHANCE ORDER HO. 2 - ADD total wore completed to DATE $S3,030.S0 45,331.70 11.95S.00 0.00 11,564.90 $151,965.10 Pagf 4 PR15939 pgQ.TgCl fAyWENT STaTVSCITY: FROJECTi riLI NO.t CONTRACTOR» Orono, MN Trk Hwy 12 Sanitary Saver R Water Main Improveoanta 13939 Albrecht Excavating Inc.i liC8 W Cty Rd C. Roaevllle, MN 53113 ORICINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $209,348.09 TOTAL CHANGE ORPnS $11,867.75 REVISgP CONTRACT AMOUNT $218,215.79 D4TE C.O. NO. DlSCaiPTIM 11-1-89 1 Completion Date Changes 11-22-89 2 Water Main 6 Temp Well From Hwy 12 To Well No. S 3 TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS mm $0.00 11,867.79 $11,867.75 I^ROJECT payment SUMMARY! PAYMENT PSM.25 NO. FROM 12 Start 12-1-89 11- 30-89 12- 51-89 payment THIS VOUCHER $84,872.25 59.418.39 2^ COMPLETED *38,405.00 151,885.10 RETAINAGB $4,466.96 7,594.26 TOTAL PAYMENT TO DATS RETAINACE FOR PAYMENT NO. TOTAL VALUE COMPLETED $144,290.84 7.394,26 $151,883.10 PR13939 1390.3 / TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistrat DATS: January 3, 1990 SUBJECT 1990 Appointments MtETINfi r*. Mir nroNn Attachment:A. 1989 Appointments B. Proposed 1990 Appointments Resolution ISSUE - 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 Commies ion Chair - It is the consensus of the Park Commission tTTey wourJTQke 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 would be the second of a three year term for JoEllen Hurr as its representative. 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. . Table the entire resolution. r I 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 , seconded , that the Council appoint ___ as the Acting Mayor for 1990. Ayes , Nays . Moved by __, seconded , that the Council adopt Resolution #, setting forth the appoTntraents for 1990. Ayes __, Nays __. 122889.1 A RBSOLUTIOli DESIGMATIHG SKLBCTBD APPOINTHBHTS FOR THE TEAR 1990 BE IT RESOL/ED by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, that the appointments and designations for the year 1990 are as follows: APPOIllTNElfT/DES IGNATIOE 1990 Acting Mayor Planning Commission Rep. to Council Park Commission Chairman Park Commission 3 year terra Park Commission 1 year term Representative to Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Representative to Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Legislative Liaison AMM AMM Legislative Contract Lead Attorney City Attorney Firm Alternate Attorney Lead Engineer City Engineering Firm Auditor Fiscal Agents Insurance Agent of Record Official Newspaper Official Depositories/ Investment Vendors Alternate Philip Bradley Bruce Rokal Lee Erger JoEllen Hurr Mark Bernhardson Mark Bernhardson J. Diann Goetten Tom Barrett Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, Kaufamn and Doty William Soth, Dorsey & Whitney Glenn Cook Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates Pannell, Kerr, Forster Ehlers & Associates Duweyn P. Carlson Apple Valley Insurance The Laker and Pioneer Newspaper First National Banks of: The Lakes (Navarre) Wayzata Min.ieapolis St. Paul Wayzata Bank & Trust Company Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc. Marquette Bank, Minneapolis American National Bank & Trust Company of St. Paul First Minnesota FSB, Mound League of MN Cities - 4M Fund Norwest Bank Minneapolis Twin City Federal Savings & Loan Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, Mpls. Dain Bosworth, Inc., Mpls. APPOINTMENT/DESIGHATION 1990 Official Depositories/ Continued Investment Vendors Weed Inspector Assistant Weed Inspector Transportation Committee Emergency Preparedness Director Southwest Sanitary Sewer District Suburban Health Nursing Setvice Cable TV Committee (2 plus Alternate) West Hennepin Recycling Commission Mayor's Association Suburban Rate Authority West Tj: Senior Citizens Miinesoti. Police Recruiting System West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board (2 plus Alternate) Building Code Board of Appeals Colonial Nat'l Bank, Willmington, DE North Fork Bank & Trust Co, New York Nat'l Bank of Washington, D.C. Commerce Bank, Virginia Beach, VA M. H. Novick & Co. Inc., Mpls., MN Bear, Stearns & Co, New York, N.Y. Hon Fed Bank, FSB, Costa Mesa, CA Com Fed Savings Bank, Lowell, MA Western Fed S&L, Marina Del Ray, CA Southwest Savings Assn., Dallas, TX Caprock Savings & Loan, Lubbock, TX Mera Bank, Phoenix, A2 Far West S&L, Newport Beach, CA Capitol Federal S&L, Aurora, CA Topa Thrift & Loan, Los Angeles, CA First Federal S&L, Raleigh, NC Westport Savings Bank, Hanford, CA Sherman Oaks Bank FSB, Sherman Oaks, CA Great American 1st Savings, Scottsdale, A2 St. Edmunds S&L, Philadelphia, PA James R. Grabek John Gerhardson John Gerhardson Melvin Kilbo Mark Bernhardson Mark Bernhardson Barbara Peterson Tim Adams Alan Nettles (Alternate) John Gerhardson James R. Grabek John Gerhardson Mark Bernhardsor: (Alte;:nate) James R. Grabek Melvin Kilbo Gary Cheswick (Altv-^rnal-e) LaDean McWilliams Marc McCabe (..xcernate) Steve Anderson, Mtka Fire Inspec. Tom Anderson, Hopkins Bldg Offic. Maureen Bellows, AIA Architect Jim Hanson, Builder Theodore Paulfranz, Edina Fire Ch. APPOnrEMEHT/bSSIGiiATXOH Development Committee Hennepin Emergency Communications Organization 1990 Public Works Director City Engineer B-’ilding & Zoning Administrator Mark Bernhardson Melvin Kilbo (Alternate) Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono» Minnesota, at a regular meeting held Januay 8, 1990. ATTEST: James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk i 172089.8 /7 TO: FROM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adininistrato January 3, 19i c{;u:icn mf?:ting JAN 81390 onv 0^’ rmm SOBJECT: Canine Program Attachment:A. Canine P* Attachme B. Chief KilL C. Minnesota .. mo Dated 12/7/89 (Plus selected D3ted 12/22/89 Chief Article Excerpt j.2/89 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 o£ a canine program was presented for Council's initial consideration. At that meeting it was indicated that it be tabled until the January 8, 1990 meeting to determine the Council's position on the matter. DISCUS ^ - Requests for financing the costs have been made to ■ side 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). Whi)» not a necessity a canine unit would be beneficial in the foil -wing areas; Officer Friendly/Jchoo 1 Programs - (Currently use Wayzata's on a limited basis) Building/Alarm searches 2u0/year while on duty) Search for persons (3-10/yr) Tracking of suspects (10-30/yr) Large event control (Corn Days) Large teenage parties ^i-6/year) Drug searches (5-10/year) has had to share about $1,000 in forfeiture monies 1989 with Wayzata as we had to use their dog on searching for drugs in a house.) Training for dog and handler are in the areas of Officer protection, suspect pursuit and detention, tracking and drug searching. Not all dogs are equally skilled in a.^ 1 areas and depends on the dog assigned as to capabilities. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Initiate. 2. Table at this time for future consideration. (Tabling at this time would require the City to forgo the tcaning 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 deoartments 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. __ that the Council authorize ^the'implementatioiTlD a canine program. Ayes —, Nays PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by __j cc; Chief Kilbo Q 12189.6 COUNCIL MEETING DEC 111989 •JO; Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato' DATE: December 7/ 1989 SUBJECT: Canine Program . GITYOFORONOAttachment: A. Canine Pr^v ■ im Memo 6/11/89 B. Chief KiTjc Memo/Canine Program Dated 12/6/89 ISSUE - Determine the Council's interest in having a canine program as part of its Volice department. INTRODUCTION - The issue of undertaking a canine program in the Police department was discussed igtg ^ 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 to ^ used - As noted inthe Ltac’Em-ilTt thiti are a number SI cal Is tV these 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 dp£ - This would normally be during the Lu7s“the Officer is on duty and as a dog is only to be utilized with one officer. Initial and ongoing costs - These costs are i" AttachraeltrrB. At present there is no budget for any of these 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 canine^ - . 5H “aTaTF^casion the Police '^®Pa5*i?®,"^*’®Vurrently dogs from Wayzata, Minnetonka, and Mound. Currently Wayzata and Minnetonka do have ^^nine units at the prLent time. Hound is loo^inf its digsThe citv would look to coordinate schedules of its aogs Ifth W^zTta and Mound so that they different schedules which would expand the ajaitiln availability of canine units in the area. In when cooperation is one way wl'" way itprovide it, however, when cooperation is two way benefits all of the communities. r i i Intero-f-fica Memo Date: December 6, 19S9 To: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator From: Mel Kilbo, Chie-f o-f Police Re: Canine Program As the Council directed, I am submitting a proposal -for canine program -for the Orono Police Department. O-f-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 noti-fied by 12/18/89 if we 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 JJlOOO 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. :$375, and a dog house for approx. il25. 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. ^500. 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 S300 yearly and vet charges approx. -f200 per year. The cost of manpower to cover Officer Fischenich's absence while training ranges from a minimum of 4^560 to make sure an officer i s on duty to approx. f200r>, to ensure shift coveraae. We would utilize a part-time officer to some part of Officer Fischenich's slot. COST For dog and training Retrofitting a squad Loss of a trade-in Kennel Dog house Training equipment Manpower Costs (maximum) Start up cost with car Without car f1000. S'*«0. objO. 375 125. 200 2000 #7700. #4200, RECURRING COSTS Food Vet Mi sc. costs Total Recurring #300 yearly 200 500 #1000 In 1989, Waycata Police Department budgeted #150u for recurring costs, however, through November, they have only used *600 o* this budget, so I believe *1000 is relatively secure figure. I would ask the Council to proceed with the . . need to notify the various police departments by 12/20/89 xf we are going to participate in the 1990 program. 1 further request permission to approach the civic groups for funds to cover training costs, equipment coats and perhaps funds toward a dedicated vehicle for canine use. Officer Scott KuTper would assume Fischenich*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. fngfa were apprsjj* i20 c<all= *when e.n oi'Ticer •fou.'id a door coin’on a butildinc; cr house, possibly burgiary in progress. In ail commercial buildings and larger residential homes, a dog would be used. In 19S9, we have had 40 burglaries to date, o-F businesses or houses. In about one-third ot these burglaries, a deg could have been used for tracking purposes. twe could also utilise the dog in large teen drinking parties and crowd control at high school games, and at large events such as Corn Days. Orono Police has had aoprox. 10 drug busts where a warrant had been obtained to go into a house. A dog would have been very use-ful on this type o-f call. We did use Waysata canine at one o-f these calls. There were approx. 20-25 calls where we have assisted other Departments with people that have committed crimes and were running, such as in the case o-f Hillside Drive and Cty. 15 in Waysata this past summer. It should also be noted that when Orono has needed a dog ■from other jurisdictions, there has been very long delays be-fore the dog is available. Sometimes i-f the dog is not available -from Waysata, we have needed to ask Minnetonka or sometimes even Minneapolis Police -for assistance, thus causing long delays. We could arrange schedules with ocher Departments such as Mound and Waysata to have a canine available at all times. Orono Police Department has utilised Minnetonka and Waysata canine cars to this area for presentations and Officer Friendly programs. I believe our own canine would be very useful for public r -'ations 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 bac!<-up unit witn you. 1 It should also be noted that wnen the Orono dog vjoulci assist other jurisdictions in drug related arrests, and monev or goods are for+exteo to the police departments involved, the Gronc Police Department would get a share of the for-feiture. I fi Date: To: From: Re: Interoffice Memo December 22, 1939 Mark Bernhardson, City Administraxor Mel Kilbo, Chief of Police Canine Program - "Discussion' paragraph The 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 $1000 500 375 125 200 TOTAL $2200 F:ecurring Costs for 1990 Food Veterinarian Costs Misc. Costs $ 300 200 500 TOTAL $1000 The Grand Total is $3200 that must be financed from outside 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 permission. 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. J I III '*' lif* '4- ■ :i^ ,^/•||i ^ ■,, ^ ^<9tet ^ IJ^ %=w ^'# «»i* I I -j--.yj',-. ><%-v t'itJ r-^er. ,w ■' < > ^ - si^^aS2S3^^3 SH p-v*r-—^-' '■*'" -rrt „4 -a»»v»^- —' K--*\i.'S .' ' Bsss^^sgs?::-^ c;;:^-r>4:4i:;j^t:4,- -w,-7^ eM • '- - ■ _ ^' ' i ^3mt!roB5W»w r^5g5fe!»T-'^iP.?^ "TL ■ *—, r-<>*^'wV-*l---^ -y-r DECEMBER 1969 31 •VHddSf?*""'’'**"" are the lop^« and^i„e le nation. (Photo by PbuJ ^d Rondo. Greg Majors and Samson. Pat Lyttle and Shadow, and Paul Rhodes and Ma.x Ofn.er Mike O Bnen and his dog RMkv. also compered in the event. The St. Paul team won the top team *n the nation award and the top depart- mem 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 kde Urensonot Ooodhttfclnt/X ’"Tc!. 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 cateuones were obedience, agility, article search, box iemch and criminal apprehension. These Minnesota canine officers have accomplished more than just win- JSXIRSiS-K itce Department seized 6.3 pounds of cocaine, valued at 5286.444: 6.4 pounds of marijuana, valued at S'* 844- and an assortment of LSD. ai^phet-’ nmmes and other drugs—thanks to the eip of Levi and Tonka. In St. Paul, the 19 officer-doe teams ^nicipated in more than 1.500 crimi nal incidents and arrests in the last vear. 32/MINNESOTA POUCE CHIEF I fifes 'mm\-vru 550S3K ,vv>«~rv*-.- .‘f’W'S'ia LJF 1 :-'«iSJ 1 Tim Jones works out with Grey Majors’s dog Samson. (Photo by Kristai Leebrick) i i ^ - t5 ■ -V'" * Below, the St. Paul competitors, from left: Tim Junes and Ninja. Dave Boil and Rondo. Greg Majors and Samson. Paul Rhodes and Max. Mike O’Brien and Rocky, and Pat Lyttle and Shadow (Photo by Kristai Leebrick) •^r •'■vr'.- JC-’• --lir*.. ^•.ri •1': i3>: *i. •. jfe- V • TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistrat<^ip^^ DATE: December 20, 1989 SUBJECT: Employee Recognition Program CUUNUil MEETING JAN 8 1990 CITY OF CmD Attachment: A. Emoployee Recognition Program Dated 6/1/89 B. Copy of City Letterhead ISSUE - 1. Determine if Council in advance of "investment" in an Employee Recognition program desires to develop a new City logo to be incorporated in any of those recognition awards. INTRODUCTION - Several months ago this issue was discussed and tabled . DISCUSSION One of the issues raised by development of some of these items was the issue of the City logo. Currently the City s logo as noted in Attachment A "a sail boat on a tombstone" has been used by the City for approximately 20 years. The sail boat symbol that is not substantially different than many other ones around the lake. In line with the Council's desire to generate more community identity, new water tower and facilities it may be an appropriate time to develop a new logo and do it by one of the following manners: A. Staff, Council, volunteer advisory board competition to develop a logo. B. City wide competition. C. Engage an outside firm for logo development. ALTERNATIVES - City Logo A. Select a competition. B. Direct staff to desind a new logo. C. Leave logo as it is. D. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is reconmiended 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 evei.t if a new logo were introduced the City would phase out its existing stock of letterhead, envelopes, City signs and the new logc would be introduced only as these are exhausted. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council that 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 TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator PROM: Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk DATE: June 1, 1989 SUBJECT: Employee Recognition Program Attachments: A. Employee Recognition Survey B. Breakdown of Employees by 5 year Anniversary Dates 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 of 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 •'•‘de into a lapel pin the length of service could be noted on a special lapel pin and presented to the employee. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. / Tnwim^^-r A u u ‘h wm I ^ a. 5 s >.c2[ S •a s a. 5*'8css® IS 9 a 2 iJ 8 9 «d ia jj f;sii « U £ S o> m isll «!s 4J O U U fl)a li, o m o s Qi 8 *>u Jl^viS Ss ? s'^ <!>S ^ p-4v> </> 2 2 >< 5n *2ssl ss a +&4 III a s H *i 3 3 1u u O •O *0 in w *ou •n 28 2 >1 in I J. J rn 5-8 8^1 dll 8^5 « « 2•s s w >1 s*0 o» —U > o* 0< u C Ti «"u 3 ^ ( o <ii nGS.?! u 1 ^ c u >i l§ si sia it ij g>. I 0) ^isli?*3‘= ® « «M g S?o5S ‘H 3»lo-|P S «3 ”®- - •a 5^0 i-oi-i al88llj ^ (0 u•s. .2 4. Q. g o>g & s ^ ^«> u ot I - 8 it's I gl! |j 8IIS 11 = S §?« i ^*25 T Its III IIM U Om6is III SS «!3 In o in . m 41 n jC uy 4t 0.*J4J Ul >• jj £ o n >0 -<-« u > -»4 a I 4) 'T3 n o m c c u JSo c s u U H u g ^2g £ ^ E •« C3* 0« >iJ4 U lO C 3 U V 0 -H (0 »M I *a 00 u i) vu XI £ >.8 a > Q,*i **o -W H ^ U r>< 2, » u O>M 4> n «o o o M >,o c Xi *M Cl T) • -W 4J ■M o c » >« c o -u (0 (N 10 g u (A u v> a e I i 6189.5BREAKDOWN OP EMPLOYEES BY 5 YEAR ANNIVERSARY DATES Years of 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Theresa L. Naab Service 5 years Hire Date 09/04/84 Charlotte A. Knutson 15 03/11/74 Gary B. Cheswick 20 02/01/69 John M. Fritzler 10 04/02/79 Lyle E. Oman 5 04/23/84 John F. Brinkhaus 10 02/05/79 John J. Sass 10 07/16/79 Ronald E. Steffenhagen 15 03/18/74 Mark E. Bernhardson 5 05/01/85 Dorothy M. Hallin 20 09/14/70 Melvin H. Kilbo 15 01/02/75 Irving H. English III 5 02/11/85 Kurt R. Erickson 10 01/15/80 Carol J. Hansing 10 04/12/80 Mark W. Tomczyk 10 11/17/80 James D. Gregory 15 09/29/75 Jamie L. Bosma 5 02/28/86 Thomas M. Kuehn 15 06/14/76 James L. Cornick 3 01/02/86 Bradley P. Johnson 10 01/01/81 Mark F. Moran 5 08/14/86 James Morowczynski 10 01/01/81 Mark R. Thornton 5 01/27/86 Lawrence F. Tomcheck 5 C4/07/86 John R. Gerhardson 25 05/02/66 Dale S. Skreen 15 10/11/76 Wayne A. Quast 10 03/16/81 Dan T. Fischenich 5 07/01/87 Charles R. Schauss 5 10/26/87 Kevin L Walsh 5 08/10/87 Thomas J. Jacobs 15 05/31/77 Steven C. Hansen 15 11/14/77 Laurie K. Scheffler 5 07/11/88 Bruce L. Anderson 15 03/01/78 Sue A. Bobzien 10 08/18/83 James S. Morrow 5 01/15/88 Peter B. Palmer 5 01/16/88 Michael B. Carlson 5 05/30/88 Jeanne A. Mabusth 15 09/15/78 Michael P. Gaffron 10 10/31/83 Randy L. O'Brien 5 07/13/88 Barry J. Rathbun 5 07/06/88 Linda G. Walters 5 04/03/89 Sally L. Christianson 5 01/10/89 Scott E. Kuyper 5 03/15/89 i»l •i <§ ti:-v,.;-j5fe^ 2i.'^3£?>v:.^‘ ~v' T-r--'" ; ■ ji*. .-rr.-: 122089.14 / TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: December 20, 1989 SUBJECT: Compensation Incentives mm. MEETING JAN 81990 -"V fiF 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. External 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 "learing curve" the person starts at a compensation rate less than the top level for the position. If they demonstrate adequate progression in job growth '■biy can move up eventually to the compensation for fully performing the job. 4. Annual Adjustments - The annual adjus ment was a means to ”hold the position 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 buy 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 their 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 Performance - 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. i,^i.£a^i.ons Attainment - Persons have been rewarded for obtaining certaFn 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. Specific Achievements - Certain organizatFons reward employees either for 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, then 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”l?ear 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 expected 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 indicate any discussion 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 _, that the Coucil table discussion of this item until its March .» 1990 meeting. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: All Department Heads MANAGEMENT ^-nrAQ-MeioT abe Ruth understood pay for performance. In I W 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 describe Barry Stevens, a soft-spoken financial manager in Lansing, Michigan, as the Babe Ruth cf 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 pay. It is also $50,000 more than the salary of the man who hired him. state Treasurer Robert Bowman, and $24,000 more than the salar>’ of the governor. James J. Blanchard, who has not had nearly as bad a year as Hoover did in 1929. Stevens’ superiors hope he does well enough to claim the money "If he outperforms the averages, he’s earned it. ” says Bowman, who initiated the pay-for-performance 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 managei^ will be measured are agreed upon before the fiscal year begins. The better it does, the better they 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 only give out so many framed awards. ” Bowman says. There is no sure way to tell whether the Bowman bonus plan has improved the performance of Michigan’s pension system, but it does 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 Sew York, Los .Angeles or San Francisco but to regional banks. We needed r get more competitive." Since it was implemented in 1987, only one person has left the financial managers’ group. She was not lost to private industry but to motherhood. To ensure such stability Bowman built “golden hand cuffs" into his pay-for-performance plan. If Stevens earns his $65,000 bonus this year, he will see only half of it in ready cash. The other half will be paid out to him in equal quarterly installments over the ne.xt four years. But if he leaves, he forfeits the e.xtra money. Barry Stevens is an atypical state employee in that his performance is easily measured in hard numbers that nobody can really argue about. Even the most passionate advocates of the pay-for-performance approach do not claim that a similarly precise standard can be applied to more than a small number of government employees. I '.at absence of precision inevitably raises the specter of favoritism, which is the single biggest obstacle to an effective pay-for-perioimance system. Many pubUc man agers are nonetheless convinced that such a system is worth trying, even in jobs where measurement is bound to be subjective, and in a number of different places they are developing techniques for dealing with the favoritism issue. The managers who are turning to pay for performance Sugarplums & Lumps Of 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 they want a true merit system in which an employee’s compensation reflects his productiv ity', not his longevity. They feel increasingly confined by so-called merit pay systems, most cf which deteriorate into automatic annual step-and-grade increases for every em ployee. regardless of performance level. ■’The system has bwn stood on its head, ” says Charles .\anry. 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 expected. 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- >L\MASr ue to sav it is both costiv and dbrupme ot iiroiq) morale. But Its time appears to be com-im. brought about by a simple economic iact Financial austentv in must states arul localities now precludes -enerous across-the-board raises for all emplovees in a ssstern. Gisinu each ot them the same annual raise dc^s not allow the best penormers enough of an increase to keep them <atistiea-or even, m tnanv cases, to keep them at all. "Given public hostility to pay raises tor puohc empiov- ees. I don't see how we can win any sort ot across-the- board increase without some sort ot pav-tor-pertormance element." ^avs Norman ]. Ornstein. resident scholar at the .\merican Enterprise Institute and a member of a federal task force on pa\ reform. . i Pav for performance is. m tact, aifficult. e^pensl^•e and controversial. But it mav be the onlv rational solution to the problem. . lot of states are having trouble tunUing across- the-board increases, says FCentuckv compensa tion officer jim Staniev. L .tirnatelv, there s no choice other than pay for performance You can no longer afford to give everyone the same amount. You have to pay ^the o y P s m m Wi m ■ -ir ~ m rj y. ;a mt 'T ■ f '■ ^:SJ^. /' .J ft. WS-■/>' •■i. MANAGEMENT r- -;v-• — t:;ii TAr:^ . - J-^teAy^-gf-yv ;ggir ® .-• ..V •■.:-M-V.SI^:S-.*'' -1 f *1 I 7 I U-.m.m-m ■•V'ts ‘. *7, . ’I I T'i* T/'iflSAA?: MichiKan Treasurer Robert A. Bowman is one of an increasinK number of managers in jjovernment turninK to pay for performance. 'You can only give out so manv framed awards, he says. up SI9 a week from 1987. Si.\ years ago. state employees got an annual raise of S29 per week, a 10 percent increase, compared to this year’s boost of just over 4 percent. This is why there has been a recent flurry of pay-for- performance activity at the state *evel. Michigan and .New Jersey have it in place ^or their senior management services. Colorado’s personnel director is hoping to launch it. North Carolina, which tried such a system early in the 1980s and dropped it. was directed by its legislature this year to try again. Massachusetts has a pay-for-performance system all ready to go, assuming it can convince the legislature, which has already approved it. to fund it. But the real pioneers in this area are local governments. Scottsdale. Arizona, put all 1,060 city workers on pay for performance in 1982. Biloxi. Mississippi’s 365 employees have operated on such a system .'ince 1986. In Hillsborough County. Florida, the county’s top 200 managers are paid for performance. Biloxi’s finance and personnel manager. Steve Held, is cautiously enthusiastic about the success of his citv’s program: ”I think that pay for j^erformance. in some form. 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. E>ow- ers thinks things are work ing well there, although he 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 m Jiiths 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 c“ommunity. Under the old system, “you got exactly the same raise if you met expectations, if you e.xceeded expecta tions or if you made an outstanding contribu tion.’ says Personnel Di rector \. Fred Timmer man. "Where ’s the in centive to do anything more than meet expectatioris if I work outstandingly all year next to someone who ’s just meeting expectations and we get the same raise? Cogent reasons to the contrary, the move to pay foi performance is a shock for many public employees They don’t all like it, says Jay Schuster, a Los Angeles consultant on compensation issues. ‘Tve had managers stand up in meetings. ” Schuster relates, ’’and say. I came into the public sector to avoid having my performance judged. Whv would I want to have you come in and tell me whether I’m a pelican or an eagle?’ It’s a shock for citizens, too. sometimes. Ruth Ann Bramson, assistant county e.vecutive in Florida’s Hillsbor ough Countv', returned from vacation in September to find that her salary was news. Budget realities had cut the expected 3 percent cost-of living increx«ie for countv employees in half. Unhappiness over that fact focused on Bramson’s $22,000 increase m pay over the past two years, the result of a promotion and two pay-for-performance raises. Such raises, saul <’ne critic, ’’are ridiculous when you make over 60 grand for sitting on your duff The furor nOVKR.MNr.December 19H<)Rat^rr Motormni management The Lowerihg'of the Raises^ has died down, but Bramson remains sensitive to the ^'^^We^don ’t claim that the system is in polished form, .he savs "We’re learning every year and improving and changing. It’s bloody at the moment use of local politics. And it’s a philosophical issue, too. We in the ibhc S:tor have put a higher value on ^uity than on performance; it’s an issue of organi^tional culture. The organizational culture m Hillsborough may be changing more than many suspect. A study of county salaries bv an outside consultant is expected to recommei^ diat the -ntire payroll be moved to a performance-based system \t this earlv stage in its life as a management tool for the public sector, puv for performance is generating an array of e.xperimental variations. Biloxi didn’t want to abandon the familiar ground of step increases altogether, so ft kept them as a framework but gave managers permission to award multip e steps for high performance. Scottsdale chose to be bolder: It budgets one lump-sum amount for pay increases and leaves it to managers to allocate that amount among individuals, 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 good work that are completely separate from the regular annual review. Another pro vocative idea is the two-tiered system, in which a government places its newly h.red 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 evaluation system used to justify the disparity in annual compensation. Even where such a sys tem is not loved, it must be accept^ 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 are not doing the sort of measurable work that A Barry Stevens does in Michigan. A manager cannot reasonably evaluate a [ social worker, a clerk at the Depart ment of Motor Vehicles and a public information officer by the number of - clients seen, licenses issued or press releases written. A degree of subjectiv ity is inevitable, even in the fairest , equator, and with it the issue of favoritism always creeps in. Xttortaia (Mart The most devout believers in pay for performance imist they can assess performance in a fair way even where numbers are irrelevant. “I can measure how things are going in the Department of Motor Vehicles by calling up and asking a question.” says New Jersey s Charles N^ry. "Their response to mv question tells me a lot about what s going on over there. Are they helpful? .\re they con cerned? Or do they put me on hold?" But not all employees have quite so much confidence in that type of evaluation. .\nd equally important, not all managers in state and local government feel comfortable making it. , . r. . ^ » When .\urora. Colorado, made its first run at a Annual percentage salary increases for state government employees during the past decade #197? >80 " GOVERNING December 1989 31 manageivient ii '•s pay-for-pWi o/irtance sys tem for Jts 1.500 em- plovees three years ago, it failed. The city's su pervisors weren t trained in making the evalu ations, weren 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, says City Manager Jim Griesemer. The result was an uneven and un acceptable rating system that made people nerv ous. Now Aurora is trying 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 The*'cTy iTworking hard to make the criteria as clw « ^s,,ble and to make sure the employees are mvolved m '''Evra'^Uh the best is checked by additional justification or a change in the rating. To ensure consistency, one person in Timmer man ’s office is responsi ble for reviewing all ques tionable assessments. •'Most designs are fine, ” says Timmerman, "but unless you monitor and assure that it’s being done as designed, they’ll all fall apart. Safeguards are necessary to be sure that the system is being used as it was designed to be.” But pay for perform ance needs more than fairness. It needs manag ers with the courage to send mediocre employ ees horn-.* every year with the bureaucratic equivalent of a lump of coal at Christmas. “It requires a lot of cour age. ” says Mary Cronin, deputy personnel commis sioner in Mas.achusetts. "for a manager to *ay 'Not only do I think you ’re a better employee than this other guy. I’m going to show the world that because I’m going Pay-for-performance money can ’t subetitute for f,Iy,M«-chu.«tt. Deputy Personnel Commisemner Mary Cronm. ^ give one S4.000 bonus and two other S500 bonuses. But 10 S500 bonuses may be a way to evade the enbre^ Thev mav be too many to reward true ment and yet too small to make people work harder in hopes of getting one. 1 iloxi has moved the furthest toward authoriang pi reallv tough management decisions. In its pay^or- JJ performance system, a supervisor can not o^y deny'peii’ormanire system, a supervisor can not o^y deny b choked by section leaders and then *PP'”’'“ ;^la'r^t“'rmurL'3an“n Je Jear".^tt« department head. And before the evaluatton a Mt^le« ^aiy^ ^ it u reviewed by the manager ^ wea^n, showing just how difficult such a decrsion is for a The manager to make even in a niace where he i.as clear system may not be absolutely crony-proof, but it makes liMiC WIUI W system mav not be absolutely crony-proof, but “rnv«TF^ "rilr^Jn charge of implementing that citv s massive new pay-for-i^ nance system, is well aware of employees ’ fear of ‘ m that each evaluation be documents ] • to - office. If the written docua doecn k support the ..ting, the evaluation is reti.«e viperv.sor for 12 r.OVFRNING December a place where he has clear ‘“t"au “u^'’,^d deem^s arc rnadc in Some are made at the very too. where a " Llership h .a ra consider the politir^ i„\^bfv ing the public cmvVs r unions, which oppose a pav-for-performance system. It a no accide cm« tharmoving ahead in this arc. «c m states with relativelv weak public employee unions. Stti fUstm* OtmgrfV * MANAGEiMENT The American Federation of State. County and Munici pal Employees opposes pay for performance as costly and destructive of the teamwork necessary for effective govern ment. AFSCME contends that it fosters individual achieve ment at the expense of cooperative effort. Fred Timmerman, putting the Denver system 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 dwiding the savings among the department employees if the gain is made. In many areas of * jvemment. team and individual performance are often close to inseparable, says Scottsdale s Bowers. "There’s no w ly an individual on a three-man pothole patch crew ca. excel in laying down tons of asphalt unless the guys d *ving the truck and running the roller are going to coopera‘e with him. It’s clearly a team effort, yet it’s often equally cit.->r who’s leading the team. ” ay for performance may be a b«- tter way to run a I government, but it is « « » JL not cheaper. I M V S "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 been offering them under pay-for-performance sys tems generally feel bonuses need to be no smaller than $500 and preferably $1,000 to $5,000. Pay increases have to be at least twice the average percentage increase. Bonuses are reusable dol- lan: They don't increase the employee’s base pay and can be av.'arded to different employees yeai to year. Dou ble-size raises are something else agaia Their impact on m Aurora, Colorado, ia tiving pay for performance another try. ‘It’s not a panacea.' caution* City Manager Jim Grieaemer. a state or local budget varies, depending on how many 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 bwsts 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 employees are 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 ratings. 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 adjustmc’it in place for the ordinary employee, thereby making the lev*.'-budget argument impossible to sustain. "You can’t let pay-for-performance dollars substi tute for cost-of-living increases.” says Mary Cronin in Massachusetts. “If your overall system isn’t in good 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 savings. It comes in productivity. Pay for perfor mance is a long-term invest ment. “We’re not like corporate America.” says Cronin. "O enues do not grow e 'ear. and any increases . immedi ately swallowed by the absolute necessities that citi zens have 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 Griesemer, whose city has been through the unpleasant experience of launching pay for performance, watching it fail and then trying it again, remains convinced t^t it is worth all the trouble. "Pay for perform ance is a lot harder to im plement than it sounds like,” he says. "It has to be done carefully because you’re changing an e.xisting set of values. It’s not a panacea. But it does indeed have the important advantage of rec ognizing excellence among employees. That’s a value local government can’t ig nore any longer." □ imm 1 >/A £nw pin GOVERNING December 19N9 13090.6 /■'/ TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE: January 3, 1990 SUBJECT: Police Lieutenant Selection COUNCIL r^lEFJING JAH 81990 GITV ffP f'priwfi ISSUE - Appointment of the third Lieutenant in the Police Department. INTRODUCTION - Following the process outlined at the Council's October 23rd 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 _j seconded by _, to appoint _ _ to the third Lieutenant position effective 1 February, 1990, contingent on passage of a psychological exam, at a starting salary at a $.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 122089.12 Met TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adininistrato January 5, 1990 ■^TIHg 81990 SUBJECT: Telephone System Arr^uisition 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. INTRODUCTION - Because of the City's limited and problematic telephone system particularly noted over the last year the City Council authorized at its May 22, 1989 meeting that the staff solicite 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 charted the significant items related to it and contacted current users of those systems. DISCUSSION - The City received the requests forproposal in December^ Following an analysis of the proposals Teri Naab and Jeanne Mabusth visisted phone 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/Public 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 #2. - Determination 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 _. All Department Heads Teri Naab, Deputy Clerk CeapMnr ■•pnaMtatlv* ATIT mm JMk« cotwoncATion morlo joha Hjpkm» IIRBUai cofMmcknoM ■Ob Xl9oahofoo Txunon ■ticzAUtn 14 'tfe tUmoa •ratM rropeoodi Ceaaai fetol Sratoo S T t full larrloo »fTiinat/oo C mak Lioos Otbar loaao llnaa lacladlay off-praalM aict. Zoltlal Capoeltyi MbBi«a Capacitri ■krrutri ZbataUatlooi ■yatao raattoraai Doaa Itoc Zaeloda itarUa XX fl4,t4S.OO* ixi.aa (aXtas iBt T»» 3M.00 12.00/qtr par off-praolaa out • Llnoot • mltl-botaoii Xata i 34 Sia«la-LlM MU 13 Ltaoa. 73 MU of aay typo 1 Tr/Varu t tabor aoota all roqnlrooaata rraab^te-Tnaik Capability (71 Attaadant Alartlaf of lyatao half. Aaallabla for latra Cooti EBoaptlonai ■trau M 110,931.00 33.00 lafur 3a0 yr) 3M.00 73.00 (Of Moat oat.) • Uaoa 34 SUtloaa 3« tajiaa 94 Sutlooa 3 TT/rarta 4 tabor Naota all roqalraoaau Call Spllttlaa Mrlaa Calllaf laMU Aeuaa u FBI Aeeaaa Dial DicUtleo bralpout Atuadaat Alartlof of tyataa Mlf. ■Utlea Nooaata Da tall ■aoorOlat Capability Att. ■aa«aat ■eoo Aodlo Coaplar Oaaally Supplla^ ^ Tolrad Ray n •9,389.00 57.00 lafur 2b 4 yr) 339.13 140.00 yraolar •10,399.00 94.11 lafur 2nd yr) 340.00 • tlaoa 34 CUtlooa 34 tlbaa 44 Sutlona 2 Tr/Farta 4 Labor ■o zodleotloo am Fropoaal Claaa of Mmeo Olaplay • Troaka • llaetroole Taimlula 4 34 •iBfla-Ua# fata 34 tloaa •0 •tatlooa 3 Tr/Faru 4 Uber NO Zadleatloo eo Fropoaal Moltl*^ttoe Mta OBtTi Haaaaaa Mltlaf t«« ■aada-Fraa Calllay (aaa pcepoaal) ■adlo Vander Bapaaaloa Coaut •83.00 •110.00 •34.00 •140.00 SlBfla amttom 8at a/leatallatloa •399.00 •393.00 •140.00 •3S3.00 8 batton •339.00 13 ■etua Boa-dlaplay 10 Bnttoa Mt •410.00 12 ■etua W/Dlaplay a/laaullatloB 30 Battoa Mt •440-900.00 M19.00 (34 batua aat) •393.00 •79-40 Add-aa Olaplay ZaauUatlon •3,480.00 •1,373.00 •3,900.00 •1,330.00 (8tTl 18 U 48 BUtlona •270.00 TO Bapaad to 8 tnmkai 12 traaka •1,493.00 •1,803.00 •330.00 •330.00 •490.00 •450.00 tepeadlaf to 8 praaldaa 13 •340.00 14 tnaka ■afar--------- ^ Sa^alllo/., Zyud - toaoa It, 1 ao., urrloa *raat Fhloo laaar. ■o ooa U aaawar 77 GatbaoMM totharaa ■e ooa u aaavar 77 City of tlno takoa ■It eoofoalno. UMa Narllo battar, eo problaoa yat Carlabeb To boay to aaaaar kltehlo tofleaarlofl Co. Mtlaflad. 1 ooeth, food Boralao Maatalaa dlale ■ioa, aot eeefoalbf, food aepport, * aootha, fraat aaraloo St. sarta Oiareb food ayatao, flea ■/■9, BO problau ■a/Naa food aya, oaay, 3 yra. ao preblaM. food aarrloa MlBBO Rloa Credit food ayatao, aorka food. 3 aootba coat of tapa-aloo/oca. Uaad o. 41-,la ■at. coot U Noaa ■yatao ~ ■at. coat of Adda Fbaaao 11,800.00 fOTAt ctmr or txrAMtam/ 84.300.00 M0V8 •3.473.00 •1.313.00 •4.190.00 (3,300.00 •3.390.00 •9.990.00 City of a»anhaaoao Baay profraa. aorka fraat, durable. vary food aaralca Brooklyn Jaalor 8l9t food ayatao, 3 yra, aaullaot aaraloo let 8aak ■yaua Foaall Ueoola narcary KapaaalTa Mrrlca Coow. Zata aarrloa. roplaoad oataa ooaaola 3 a la 1 yr. •1.300.00 (1,790.00 •3.330.00 . __ __ ___ -... ~ -- - - -- - •- CITY OP ORONO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS CITY TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEM Irr^eV'T Accepting Proposals Until 4:30 p.m. - December 15, 1989 Proposals will be received 2md opened after the deadline for proposal submission. Please mark proposals: TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEM/ORONO CITY HALL mailed or submitted personally tc the Proposals received by the City Administrator, either through the mail or by personal submission, after tlie time set for receiving them may be returned unopened. Proposal must be in the minimum requirements sen forth in BY ORDER OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Page 1 of 17 la. REQUIBEMENTS TELECOMBTONICATIONS SYSTEM CITY OF ORONO 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 will 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 switching capabilities through the use of a software controlled stored program. The capacity of the equipment must have a minimum capacity for 45 to 50 stations (system to serve new facility needs) 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. j Page 2 of 17 OTHER TERMS, CONDITIONS AND INSTROCTIONS TO THE REQUIREMENTS 1. Consideration °£ ProDOS?!: The proposal on the torn furnishedTy the Cxty of Orono- a) The Citv reserves the right to accept or reject any or ail proposa^irir any part of the proposal, to waive minor defects or technicalities, or to request new proposals as it may deem beat for its interests. b) The City of Orono shall hereinafter be referred to as the City. c) The proposal shall be in ink or typed. Prices submitted in the proposal by the proposer identified City department shall be construed as prices r.ubraitted for all City departments using like items. d) In case of difference between written words “d figures in a proposal, the amount stated in written words shall govern e; In case of unit price difference from extended figure, the unit price shall govern. f) Alterations or erasures must be «^'^°ssed out and the corrections thereof printed thereto. The corrections must be initialed in ink by eacn 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 addendum issued prior to the date set for proposal submission. i) Changes to the proposal may ta cause for rejection of said proposal. Execution of Contracti The s«==?ssful proposerjsj is required to execute a contFiFt and furnish securitylllVAlt ^?ic%r:nh%ure\\%s satisfactory to the City Attorne selSlity?^within®teii®ao“ day^^ the’contract has been mailed to the proposer(s). Page 3 of 17 .LJ 3. Withholding: On any contract requiring the employment of provisions of Section 290.92. 4. Time for Receiving Proposals; Proposals received prior to the time of opening will be securely kept unopened, ^^e City emploiee whose duty it is to open them will specified time has arrived and no proposal received thereafter will be considered. Proposals received after the time set for opening will be returned to the proposal unopened. No rLponsibility will be attached to a City premature opening of a proposal not properly addressed and identified. 5- Minnesota State Sales Tax Exemption: Instrumentalities of the State of Minnesota are not subject to^he State of Minnesota Sales Tax. Pursuant to Minnesota Laws of 1967, Extra Session, Chapter 32, Article XIII, Section 25 (which deals with exemptions), Subd. 1. Para. (J) provides specific exemption from taxes Imposed by Articles XIII as follows: "The gross receipts from all sales of tangible personal property to, and all storage use or consumption of such property by, the Onited States and its agencies and instrumentalities of the State of Minnesota and its agencies, instrumentalities and political sxibdivisions. 6. Collusion of ProDoser«3: Collusion between proposers is cause for rejection of all proposals thus involved. 7. Guarantee: The successful proposer(s) agree(s) to ,guarantee all materials, parts and supplies requirements, such guarantee to be unconditional, /allure or nealect of the City to require compliance with any term or condition of the contract or requirements shall not be deemed a waiver of such term or condition. 8. Delivery: Cosb of delivery to the locatiori o^f^ said m^t^erials and supplies is included in said prices and made only as called for in the contract. It is the Citv shall be under no obligation for payment for any supplies or material except on the basis of addition, the successful proposer(s) shall not be held responsible for damages caused by delay or f®^jt"’^?-tandY^of“the defaults caused by public carriers, or acts or demands of the Government in time of war or national emergency. Deliveries shall be made inside where applicable and when so directed. Page 4 of 17 Q. T.Paal Riohts of Materials The successful proF°ser(s) hereby machinery used in its construction and agree(s) to indemni y save the City entirely harmless from any and f /^a^isl; i^ATTiACTes actions# or causes of action/ arising# or t aqainst'said City by reason of the construction or delivery o 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 the estimate will be based on experience and no representation to quantity shall be construed therefrom No guarantee of "T^rby^shrifritien^^co^peT^^^^^^^^ sLfl proceed p^rcperly to perform and complete the terms and "r=wM%'h sh^al?VnVit\’e\"he“^^^^^^^^ the/eo" “t^rfcefye th^ ImoSnt'due iSereon, when the condition, if any annexed to such law for payment of claims against the Purchasers. Page 5 of 17 Proposal Meets ves No INSTALLATION Existing conduit must be used whenever possible. All work must be in conformance 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 Fire Underwriters Certificate of Inspection. Service of the existing City telephone system must be maintained throughout the installation process. If a tsmporary disconnection is necessary, service shall be restored promptly and efficiently. All.work shall be performed in a workmanlike manner and shall present a neat appearance upon completion. All system installers shall be experienced in the installation of similar equipment and components and shall have worked on at least one prior installation of the equipment proposed to be installed. The vendor must havo exoerience installing 3 similar systems with the proposed switch in the local 7 county metropolitan area. It will be necessary for all workers to work within a business environment. Distractions and work disruptions shall be minimized. In 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 required for an efficient installation shall be supplied and maintained by the vendor. Complete public telephone service starting at termination of common carrier's lines on interior wall at the City's offices as well as other remote locations. From this starting point, connect all telephone instruments and switching equipment so as to permit: 1. In-plant station dialing; Public network dialing Selectively restrict either dialing capability by individual telephone; Tone address touch dialing; Toll restriction. 2. 3. 4. 5. Telephone cabling complete as follows: 1, From common carrier terminal to distribution panel; From distribution panel to switching equipment; From switching equipment to all telephone Instruments, switching equipment to console, via leased lines where appliczd^le. 2. 3. Page 8 of 17 Li I Proposal Meets Yes No Wire and cables: Types of wires that are in confomity with alllocal regulations that may be in effect must be selected: 1. Wire and cables may be manufactured by one of the following approved companies or equivalent: General Cable Company Subtle Equipment Corporation Allen Telephone Products, Inc. U.S. Cable Company Western Electric Eastern Electric 2. Wires shall be color coded according to Western Electric color code for each identification. 3. All low voltage wires shall be #24 B & S gauge or equivalent. Interconnection telephone decouplers (if applicable): 1. Registered with the P.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 human.y possible, the system shall be maintained on a continuous basis to w?ll^expect the successful vendor to work cooperatively with the present company to avoid unn*:cessary cut-offs and communications interruptions. Training Prior to award, the vendor upon request shall provide City representatives with a hands on opera g demonstration of the specific system being offered. upon installation completion, the vendor “^all prov^ training to all City personnel, including the feceptionists. A «peat 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 li Proposal Meets Yes No ■ Performance Security Security in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the \contract shall be the guarantee that the successful proposer will complete with the contract as specified. Its term shall be from execution of the contract until one year following completion of installation of the system and acceptance by the City of Orono. Acceptable security includes a performance bond, letter ot credit or amount escrowed in a manner acceptable to the City. Warranty The successful vendor must furnish a written ''arranty, countersigned by the manufacturer and guaranteed by aim/her, stating that all system components provided, supi lied and installed with be free from defects in workmanship aa - juipment for a period of one (1) calendar year computed from th . date of final acceptable by 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 preceding the end of the said oris vear warranty period, all equipment must be operating t:’ tne full satisfaction of the City, free from all but normal maincenance. In the event of equipment failure or malfunction occurring at any time during that ninety (90) day period, the City may request the extension of the performance bond for an additional twelve (12) months calendar period at no additional expense to the City. Such request shall be based upon the sev^ .'^•ity, history and nature of the failures of malfunctions. The successful vendor shall further agree that he/she will, at no expense to the City, repair and replace to the City's satisfaction, all defective telecommunications* work and equipment and any building damage cause thereby during the guaranty- warranty period, or installation. Service and Parts Guarantee To nsure, insofar as possible, that local service, maintenance ani. arts facilities will be available to the City 2f Orono the equipment m£mufacturer must agree to enter into a legally binding agreement with the City guaranteeing such availability. Such agreement shall state that the manufacturer shall be liable to the City of Orono for the sum of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day for each and every day which no manufacturer authorized service/maintenance representative is available in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, upon service require by the City. Said agreement shall be drafted by the City Attorney. Agreement shall be binding for a period of five (5) years following the installation and acceptance by the City. Said agreement must be signed prior to contact execution. Pac3 10 of 17 Proposal Meets Yes No of th^s^sre^ shafl havt|JJaranf ed^f of ten (10) yea^j following the last day of manufacture. Each proposer must indicate acceptance of the above terms and conditions in writing and submit same with the proposal. Failure to do so may be grounds for rejection. Insurance A certificate of insurance of the vendor shall be provided with the bid with a general liability to $500,000/$500r000 standard worker's compensation policy and a property damage insurance of $100r000/$100,000. Vendor Qualification The vendor must be physically located in the Metropolitan Minneapolis/St. Paul area and must be solely capable of providing, installing and maintaining the installed system. The Citv will consider past experience of the vendor in the Metropolitan area when considering award of the vendor must certify that it has five full-time employees directly employed and are trained in servicing and ^maintaining the specific model proposed and that the vendor has installed and providing service to at least three systems in the local area of the same model to the one proposed. manufacturer-trained and hold a valid written certification to that effect. Proposal On all proposals should separately list the estimated cost of leasing trunk lines and necessary lease lines, given the current rates• Contracts A contract for installation will be developed between the City and the successful bidder to include all necessary security and attendant docijments. Page 11 of 17 PROPOSAL DOCUMEHTS All 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 projosed system. List of installers ana 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 progreun and user instruments. 9. Listing of names of personnel certified for maintenance as outline in specifications. 10. Certification from the manufacturer that they provide service and parts for the period as outlined in the bid specifications. 11. Listing of expansion costs. 12. Alternative bid proposals. NOTH: City retains option to information about both contractor and manufacturer, 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 CITY OP ORONO RESPONSE PROPOSAL City of Orono Orono, MN 55323 Proposal Acceptance Closes Orono City Hall 4:30 p.m. December 15r 1989 »n?T.Bf!OMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM including rl<^?es^^ ''°*'ish^the for the prices listed below. PURCHASE S 9,120.00 Total cost to be paid upon completion and acceptance 5 year full service agreement/monthly MAIMTENANCE AGREEMENT TOR YEARS 3-5 2.020.Oa TOTgPtal fs^ice for 5 ----- years (billed monthly) TWO TEAR WARRANTY ON PARTS AND LABOR LINE CHARGES The estimated on-going cost of 6 trunk lines and other necessary lease lines to make system function on a per month basis. iifin.oo 6 Trunk Lines Other lease lines including off- premise extensions telephone specialists , INC. Firm Name 'Aut^rized Si^ 9401 SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE Address MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55428 City 533-7556 Telepnone State V.P. OPERATIONS Title *TELEPHONE SPECIALISTS, INC. IS AH AOTHORIZED agent of D.S. WEST. RECORDS INDICATE THAT CITY HAS m PLACE FOR DETACHED EXTENSIONS AND ARE NOT BILLED AS OPX. Page 15 of 17 sisrm FmT0HB3 in rdditlon to the nlnin.ua equlpnent specified in the equipment listing, the system shell hs« -e following cepabilitles installed and functional utilizing current terminology in industry .ference (all equipment must be new and current, not discontinued): ISSTAILED BOT PROPOSAL INCLUDES NOT FUNCTIONAL EXCEPT AT Y2S NO ADDITIONAL COST -)aeh Tone •ird-Part Add-On '■tooatlc Station Camp-on 6 Call BacJc .11 Forwarding Without Attendant (all calls) ill Bold (all calls) all Park ial Call Pick-up rected Call Pick-up ation Consultation & Transfer (all calls) .rect Outward Dialing _dible Call Waiting/Indication -.s*- • -ctive Audible Incoming Call Signal “tendant Break-in/Busy Trunks Cendant Direct Trunk Access utendant Exclusion ■?11 Splitting TES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES^mp-on with Indication 6 Automatic Recall 11 Service 6 Type of Call/Class of Service Display YES :axible Night Connections ne Busy Lamp Field ght Answer Control ries Calling cation 6 Formal Station Trunk Number Displays med Recall on Bold aed Recall on No-Answer I oak Busy Lamp Field jxible Station Bunting Feature :eaa Attendant u In-line Trunks on Selected Lines sic/Announcementa or Bold a Camp-on Capacity YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES (COS IS NOT DISPLAYED) FIFO (SOURCE REQUIRED IF HDSIC) Page 12 of 17 I PROPOSAL INCLUDES YES NO CAPABILITY INSTALLED BUT NOT FUNCTIONAL EXCEPT AT ADDITIONAL COST TPower Failure Tranafer/Back-up System I YES roll Restrictions/Pull Station/Selective Capability YES Trunk Call Queing Trunk Route Selection Trunk-to-Trunk Capability Remote Access to PBX Paging Access Group Paging Conference Calling Internal Conferencing \ccess Dial Dictation Equipment executive Over-Ride 3ff Premise Capacity Station Message Detail Recording Capability attendant Alerting of System Malfunction Must be self-monitoring for functions L is-free Calling .Speed Dialing Hessage W*»l*-ing Light kfter-Hours Answering Machine/Add-on Capability kttendant Headset jine Reserve issage Indicators Privacy Release iingle Button Intercoms )ility to Interface with Police Radio ler Installed Features (Please List) YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES DISA & RMAT INCLUDED EXTERNAL P/^GING EQUIP. ADDITIONAL PRIVACY RELEASE REQUIRES PRINTER MULTI-BUTTON TERMINALS ONL MULTI-BUTTON TERMINALS ONLY HEADSET OPTIONAL DISPLAY ONLY REQUIRES TRUNK PORT COST ACCOUNTING LC REPORTS COST ROUTING ITED ATTENDANT SOFTWARE IBM DISTRIBUTION SOFTWARE 5i5pS - C.O. & TRANSFER BLE CALL FORWARDING glasses of SERVICE SSAGE CENTER DISPLAY AT CONSOLE EXTENSIONS MAINTENANCE, ADMINSTRATION & TESTING PLEASE SEE PREMIER ESP "FEATURES & BENEFITS" Page 13 of 17 SYSTEM BHVIROliMBHT All system equipment must be able to function in an environment where the temperature range is from 50 to 105 degrees and the humidity range is from 25% to 85%. Separately indicate the specific range for the specific software controlled switching equipment. Also indicate all other environmental conditions found in a building environment which would adversely impact system operation. Indicate all utility requirements to make system function properly. Operational Range of Equipment Software Control System Temperature 32° - 104”F______ Humidity 10% - 85% (non-condensing) Utility Requirements; HO V« Dedicated Outlet___________________ Page 7 of 17 1 18 2 1* PHONE STATION LISTING & BOOIPMENT the bid package. Please list proposed equipment will be considered as alternatives to full specifications. Switchincr 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 20 Button set for back-up reception!st/switoh board position Single line phones Night answer chimes Kef sysl^ linf cards (specify ’ 20 FlLh hook switch/flash buttons - installed (or alternate acceptable to City) Off-Premise Extensions Public Works Office - 2 Maintenance Garage - 1 Council Chambers - 1 GENERAL COMMENT ON KEY SYSTEM ’ aVd^fiL^cfrds?®correct number on your proposal and cost to add line caros. Additions or deletions from this proposed be done us?ng the unit prices listed on the -expansion costs section". ★Present configuration at 6 trunks. 6 electronic terminals and 24 single line devices: 1 - EKT Card 4 - SLT Cards EKT Card (6 ports) $335.00 each SLT Card (6 ports) $270.00 each Page 6 of 17 EQUIPMENT LIST 18 1 1 4 2 Premier ESP 24/60 Hybrid KSU; Power Supplies; Common Equipment (#431583) Premier MF-Rated Software including Call Cost Accounting, Traffic Reports, Leact Cost Routing, Automated Attendant, Uniform Call Distribution^ Directory (#436022) Premier ESP 60 Button DSS/BLF Console w/12 Button Liquid Crystal Display Verminal (#475331, #475324) - Flash Key Premier ESP 24 Button LCD Speakerphone (#475327) - Secondary Attendant Position - Flash Key Premier 2500 Sets w/Flash (#471759) - 4 for detached locations Premier ESP COU Trunk Card - 6 ports (#436003) Premier ESP ‘’1. -a EKT Card - 6 ports (#436004) Premier ESP STA-B SLT Cards - 6 ports each (#436005) Night Answer Chimes w/sw' 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 TELEPHONE SPECIALISTS, INC. SYSTEM USER LIST PREMIER ESP CUSTOMER CONTACT PHONE Ameristar Financial Sally Lee 612-893-0865 Ameristar Financial Kathy Horejsi 612-546-6892 Ameristar Financial Diane Sallen 612-893-0789 Ameristar Financial Mike Slager 612^83-0450 Amex, Inc.Mr. Nouri 612-375-9191 Astrocom Circuit Board Steve Brown 612-448-1989 Bloomington Assembly of God Mary Jo Van Slyke 612-854-1100 Brooklyn Junior High Benny Clifton 612-566-6893 Burlington Air Freight Gary Haendel 612-726-1800 C. Noblett & 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 612-450-1444 Dean Fleming Company Dean Fleming 612-471-8919 Dundee Nursery Jerry Theis 612-559-1004 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 DetUoff 612-473-6535 First Bank Systems Barbara Miska 612-291-5480 FBS Rochester FBS Lake ^ 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 FBS 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 H <5c H 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 I B C A Cheryl Upton 612-871-7878 James A. Balough Jim Balough 612-?32-2700 John A. D^n & Sons, Inc.Georgene Johnson 612-729-9334 Kirsch Fabrics Dean Ruhberg 612-544-9111 Leed^s Precision Instruments Julie Engle 612-546-8575 Legend Technology Lori Frank 612-338-5430 Litin Paper Ken Fletcher 612-333-4331 Lord Fletchers of the Lake Allan Bell 612-471-8510 Love Lines, Inc.Dan Morstad 612-379-1139 Lund Industries Bill McMann 612-780-2520 Maratech Communications Garfield Anderson Jr.612-541-0012 Marprint George Buys 612-429-7722 McCombs, Frank, Roose William McCombs 612-476-6010 Med-Diet Laboratories Don Tymchuck 612-546-3285 Metal Craft Engineering Jack Mowry 612-441-1855 Midwest Wholesale Tire Peter Vanthul 612-452-4433 Minnesota Intrusion Alarm Julie Marshall 612-522-0882 Mirror Technology Ron Nelson 612-633-1450 Old Northwest Agents, Inc.Jim Belligan, Jr.612-884-8044 Osseo Lumber Bruce Kosin 612-425-2107 Pacesetter Systems Ron Buerkle 612-574-1013 Park Nursery Gary Kuper 612-770-5700 Perkins Motor Transport Jane McCall 612-432-4600 Plywood Industries Bob Foster 612-378-2223 Pomeroy Tool Inc.Kathy Pomeroy 612-441-3010 Powell Lincoln Mercury Glen Lieder 612-559-7200 Product Development Bob Hinckle 612-332-5273 Quality Business Forms Tom Lyngdal 612-559-4330 RJM Dental Dick Mrocek 612-588-0781 Reentry West Tom Gothmann 612-227-6291 Reinsurance Alternatives, Inc.Russ Funk 612-832-3366 RTC Inc.Mark Nelson 612-222-7488 Rogers Body Shop Brian E-wtter 612-881-4252 Sage Company Denise Schmitz 612-591-1200 Security Computer Sales Vincent O'Connell 612-227-5683 Southwest Suburban Publisui.ig Stan Rolfsrud 612-445-3333 Spectro Alloys Sherman Horiowitz 612^37-2815 SL Vincent dePaul Church Robert Hayden 612-425-2210 Terry Feldmann’s Imports Kathy LaM- a 612-831-5828 Title Wave Corp. HDQ Jean Kennedy 612-536-1428 Tronnes Reiling & Assoc.Hans Tronnes 612-546-2333 Uniglobe Valet Travel Bill Coffee 612-452-8952 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 612-633-4591 MlSr^’ APPLICATION FEATURES (STANDARD AND OPTIONAL) Cost Minagemcnt Account Codes Call Accounting System —Station Messare Detail Acccinting (S\IDA) —Station Message Detail Recording (SMDR) Cost ot Call in Progress (Dirolav Phone) east-CcLeast-Cost Routing (Multiple Classes) Line Restriction Single-Line Sets Toll Restriction (Multiple Classes—Wigit) I Productivi^ Enhancements Autcmatea Attendant Automatx An<nver Automatic Intercom Automatic Line Selection Background Music Busy Line Callback Busy Station Callback Call Forwarding ._AU Calls —If Busy —If Busy/No Ans%ver —If No Answer Cafl Call Conferencing Simultaneous VokeData Calls Direct Invward Sv-stem Access (DISA) Direct Station SelectiorvBusy Lamp Field (DSSBLF) —Operator Station —K».*vset Station Directed Call Pick-Up (Reverse Transfer) Directory Dialing —Intercom —Outside Numbers Discriminating Station Ringing DoNot-Disturb with Advanced Messaging Exclusive Hold Rexibie Night Ring Flexible Ring Assioiments Group Call Pick-L p Hanosfiee .Answerback Headset Capabibty Hookflash in Spe^ Dial Numbers House Phones Hunt Croups Identified liicoming Calls —Forwards —Intercom —Queue CaUbacks —Recalls —Ring-ins —^Transfers Immediate Station Ringing IntemalExtemal Paging Last Number RedialSave Liquid Civ'stal Displajs Message Centeits) Messa« Waiting Indication MicrD|mone .Mute Multiple Attendant Answenng Music-on-Hold Direct Station Selector Busy Lamp Field 24-Button Keyset \ ' ‘4. Off-Piranises Call Forwarding Off-Premises Transfer On-Hook Dialing Otf-Hook Voice Announce OPX Stations Page Zones (6) Pooled Line Groups Private Line Assig^iment Programmable Soft Kev’s Remove/Replace horn Pa^g Remove-Replaoe from UCD' Hunt Group Secretarial Intercept Speakerphone Operation Speed Dialing, Station —Intercom —Outsit>e Numbers Speed Diiling System Station Monitonhe Station-to-Station \Iessaging Talkback Speakers Transfer to Hold Transfer to Park Uniform Call Distribution (UCD) Voice Mail Reliability Database Battery Protection Remote Diagnostics Remote Servke Capability Svstem Battery Back-Up Svstem Condition Reports Some features may require additional eejuipment Features subject to change without notioB. c. ■ H 2i-Button Kivsei with Display Pr^SMISr^ Premier Telecom Products,’Inc. 600 Industrial Parkway Industnal Airport. KS 66031 Q 0 CoovtMtht 1187 Tf)«Tnn Pmducts. Iw maxvAmi 4^ >^>:;r"::: -v ::^0^ \-*-2 r-uk^itw*. •-•'ivir^.^s if- V ■Si^- \ VA ■f^-r-.- \'M j4 ^ ^ -V /• ^:.:. INTRODUCING THE PREMIER ESP. THE PHONE SYSTEM THAT SENSES THE NEEDS C OF BUSINESS TODAY...AND TOMORROW. Today it isn't enough fora telephone s\’stem to simply be "state-of-the-art." In order to deliver ik productivity, it must also function efficiently in your business environment. It must become a "part of your business team. And offer you the capability to better serve your clients and better manage your business operation. We know that. You Irnow that. Now there's a phone that knows. The new Premier ESP is among the most sophisticated communication systems a\'ailable toduy. It contains a powerful computer that "knows", and just as importantly, reacts to your business needs. The Piemier ESP has uncommon response to callers via recorded message, then helps distribute the work load evenly among your employees. With UCD, you never lose important business because phone lines are busy. The s^'stem answers, automatically plac^es cu.’' ;omers on hold, then routes callers to the first available person. In the meantime, instead of a busy signal, your callers listen to pleasant background music. When ibs their turn to place an order, thabs music to your ears! business savw’. And vou'll be impressed atnpi what this add^ dimension can do for vou. THE PREMIER ESP KNOWS WHAT A HIGH PRIORITY YOU PUT ON YOUR BOTTOM LINE. The Premier ESP knows. ..the importance of your company's bottom line, so i. s loaded with features that save you money. Day after day. Phone call after phone call. Least Cost Routing (LCR) The Premier ESP bunvs... the lowest-cost way to route ThePremierESPgivaifW ofjpicnxes the jxjwer to bftter serve deras and customers. your long distance calls. That's because the Prernier ESP is programmed with your company's long distance use patterns in mind. The Premier ESP knows how to optimize the rate structures of a variety of long distance cairiers like U.S. Sprint, AT&T, and MQ. Depending on the time of day and the destination, LCR routes e. i .»call through the least expensive av'ailable route. The bottom line: at me end of the month you ve saved considerable money. Uni'ionn Call Distribution (UCD) 77re Premier ESP toms... the way to handle inc oming calls to increase productivity. The ESPs ‘ -" Uui5, rm Call Distribution feature provides a professional Sbtion-to-Slation Messaging The Premier ESP knows... how frustrating it can be to call people in vour office and find them away from their ciesk. Your only recourse used to be to deliver messages by hand. But now there's a better way. With the Premier ESP phone system, you can leave messages for anyone and everyone in your office. Your messages are dearly visible on the ESPs easy-to-read display screen. Think of the tirne you'll say.»J Integrated Voice Mail V y The Premier ESP knows...how to get the message through loud and dear. 'The Integrated Voice Mail reature lets you leave recorded messages in an electronic "mailbox." You communicate more * effidently, without an actual voice conversation. And you can even get your message across while co-workers are using the phone. Now there's a breakthrough! Directory E>i.aling The Premier ESP knows... the people you call most frequently, and it sto^ es their names ancf numbers in its memory. Dialing is as simple as entering the^fe . .eor twolett^ofaname. • ~ . • : Automated Attendant . Xv" ^ 7 . ■ The Premier ESP knows, .'.how to take good care of /• your rec^tionist. The system can be programmed to ‘ automaticallv answer the phone and announce a rnenubf . options. CaDers then either dial directly to tfie pei^n or ■ : departmentthey want, ‘ ■ get your receptio; list's _ ----rper^nal assistance. ■ ■ ^ . "7: i ■ rriMPBlf:] ; The power behind the Pramer ESP phonesystem is a state<jf-the^ mxTvpntsssor. It's ths ikhxzncai UdmciLx^ that lets the ESP "htow ” sormtdt Telephone Specialists, Inc. The BusiiMK Phone Company Premier ES IQhXrtudiT LIST Premier ESP 24/60 Hybrid KSU; Power Supplies; Common Equipment P M-F Rated Software including Call Cost Accounting. Traffic R<ports. Least Coat Routing, Automated Attendant, Uniform Ci 11 Distribution, Directory Premier El P COD Trunk Card - 6 ports Premier El P STA-A EKT Cairda - 6 ports each Premier B!P STA-B SLT “ 6 ports Premier El P 12 Button LCD Speakerphones w/DSS BLF, OHVA/ilFR and Progr( nnnable Rave Premier El P 8 Button Speakerphones w/Programmable Keys Premier 2100 Sets v/Tap Night Ansver Chimes v/Switch Inetallac pv-^wer fel prctectioh Testing. on includes teflon cable; 4 circuit automatic ure transfer; power surge and c.o. gas tube and Ramote Malntsnance, Administration and Configure I for 6 trunks. 18 electronic terminals, and 12 slnglc‘-ll la devices (1 for fax, 1 for RMAT) TWO YEAR 110,895.03 JAIUIANTY ON PARTS AND LABOR >'i5 iTs6-Ci-3-l 9401 Science Centet Drive • Minneapolis. Minnesota 55428 ♦ Telephone (612) 533«7556 COMMUmCATIOriS WORLD OF MimEAPOLIS January 4,1969 Teh Naab CI7YOFORONO Orono, MN Dear Terl, Thank you for this or'x>rtunlty to propose 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 largest company nationally In the small to medium sized system market. Our success has been the result of the following: 1) High quality full featured systems tailored to the client needs. 2) Prompt, courteous sarvico provided by highly skilled factory trained technicians. 3) Unsurpassed service and support after the sale. Terl. we are recommending the Toshiba DK Digital Key System for CENTURY COMPANIES OF AMERICA. Toshiba Is over 100 years old with annual sales In excess of 20 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 West 77th Street • Suite 2SO • Minneapolis. MM 5S4S3 (612) 944-S1 51 Service (6 12) 0SS-OSO3 Sales ALTERNATIVE CGNFI6URATI0N USING FULL FEATURE ELECTRONIC TELEPHONES COMMUNICATIONS WORLD PROPOSAL FOR oiroNo TOSHIBA STRATA 0K56 OISITAL KEY TELEPHOFC SYSTBI SYSTEM CAPACITY OF 20 C.O. LINES 8. 64 STATIONS EXPANDABLE TO 36 C.O. LINES 8. 96 STATIONS SYSTEM COWI6URATION • 2 PCOU 4 CIRCUIT LINE CARDS FOR 8 LINE CAPACITY • 1 PSTU 8 CIRCUIT STANDARD TELEPHONE STATION CARDS • 3 PEKU 8 CIRCUIT ELECTRONIC TELEPHONE STATION CARD 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 DIRECT STATION SELECTOR CONSOLE FOR RECEPTIONIST • 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 & LABOR WARRANTY. ALL COORDINATION WITH TELCO, ALL OVC CABLE. HARDWARE 8. LABOR NECESSARY TO INSTALL, TOTAL SYSTEM COST WITH OUT TAX $ 10.938.00 InteriorCommunications Systems, Inc. Tell TELPAD • MITEL TELEPHONE SYSTEMS • GENESIS VOICE MAIL 1954 PIK3POSAL suBMinin *j CTTY OF nPONO STREET Rnv I CITY. STATE AND rODf j ARCHITECT JI^OSTAL RAY, OATE OF PLANS phone LTX-l'X'^l j03 LOCAFION I JOB PMUNE We hereoy submit specitications and estimates tor INTERIOR COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC PROPOSES TO FURNISH, INSTALL AND MAKE OPERABLE A TELRAD KEY BX2464 ELECTRONIC TELEPHONES SYSTEM CONFIGURED FOR 8 LINES AND 24 PHONES AND INCLUDING: 1 - 2464KSU AND POWER SUPPLY 1 - C.O. LINE CARDS ( 8 per ) 3 - STATION CARDS ( 8 per ) 1 - EXECUTIVE DISPLAY SPEAKERPHONES 1 - STANDARD DISPLAY SPEAKERPHONES 18 - FOUR BUTTON PLUS NON DISPLAY SPEAKERPHONES 1 - DIRECT STATION SELECTOR/BLF(PROGRAMMING) CONSOLE 1 - POWER FAIL TELEPHONE TWO YEAR WARRANTY ON PARTS AND LABOR: EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION: $9289.00 tax exempt NOTE: ICS,INC has no control over, nor are we responsible for any costs incurred in bringing central office dial tone to the customer's premise. Customer to provide dedicated electrical circuit and any necessary conduit to meet local or national electrical codes. In the event Teflon cable is needed, add $10.00 per station for additional cost of cable. NOTE: NOTE: fflr propose hereby to furnish material and laoor — complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of: NINE iHOUSAND TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE AND NO/100_______________9289.00 tax exempt Payment to be made as follows: 20Z down payment 40% upon completion of installation 40% OR BALANCE DUE NET 20 ail maltfial n guaranteed to be a» ipeotied An woiK lo be completed m a woramaniifce manner according lo standard practice* Any alteration or deviation from above ipecilica lioflt mvotving ealra co»ti will be eteculed only upon wiiten order*, and «nH become an eilra charge over and above me estimate All agreements contingent upon strike* accident* or delays beyond our control Ov.ner to carry lue tornado and oiner necessary insurance Our workers arc tuily covered by Workmen s Compensation Insurance TIMOTHY T. POPPAuthorized Signature ----- Note' This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted wnthm.. days. a^rrPptilttrP of ^roposoi — The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby acce^itcd You are authorized to do the work as specified Payment will be made as outlined above Date of Acceptance ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- < Signature Signature .y To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator From: Teri L. Naab, Deputy Clerk Date: January 4, 1990 Subject: New Phone System Attachments - 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 Communications - 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 ion cards have 7 stations per card, the multi-line ds have 8. When the system is maximized, the six.^le line sets would allow about 8 less 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 cert.aln phones on a zone and be able to pick a zone to page a particular person. CL New Phone System January 4, 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 number could be assigned to allow persons to call after-hours. The total cost of the system proposed is $8,425.00. To upgrade and go with a 4-button set for everyone but the 2 main consoles, it would cost approximately $9,289.00. 2. Telephone Specialists - 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 l.'ne or multi-lined sets. The single line sets require a ringer card for an additional cost of $250.00. They will do all major progreunming. 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. New Phone System 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 multi-button sets have the capability to have progrcunmed dual purpose speed dialing - both intercom and outside numbers at the same time. The console proposed has one 12-Lutton 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 vent 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 last 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 camr to $9,120.00. the cost of the system with mixed multi-button sets and single line sets would be approximately $10,895.00. 3. Communications Works Minneapolis - 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. New Phone System January 4, 1990 Page 4 of 4 The phones the representative proposes are multi-button sets with 1-way speaker systems. This allows a caller to dial without picking up the handset but to talk must pick up the handset. I feel that it would be beneficial to go with 2- t way speaker phones right away. This ccjipany's policy is Free Programming and Free Training for the life of the systis^, which could mean alot to us when we are considering a move in a copy of years. This system has a feature called Automatic Busy Redial. If a caller calls a busy line, initiates the ABR button, and hangs up, the phone automatically retries every 30-60 seconds for 10-15 minutes to get through to this line. The Direct Inward Station Calling feabure allows night callers to reach persons working late, without adding a special line or number. The console buttons can be programmed for speed dialing or any other feature. Other systems were not able to do this. The system was proposed with all single line sets at $10,528.00, all electronic sets at $11,708.00, and a mixture of multi-button phones and single line phones at approximately $10,938.00. Nummary - The main reason for upgrading the current system is to make the limited staff we have more efficient. Because we do not have a "dedicated" receptionist and do not have room for one right now, I feel it is imperative to go with a system that is user friendly to all stations, not just the main console. I feel that if we put in single lines sets as requested, we are only putlixi^ in something that is compatible with the inefficient system we have today. If we wish to make our staff more productive, we need to bring the phone system up to date with the technology available today. Recoaniendation - I would strongly recommend getting a mixture of multi-line and single-line phones, as suggested above. There is very little difference in price between the systems but I feel that the Premier and Toshiba systems are of a better quality and seem to be more advanced in current phone technology and therefore can be easily updated by simply adding cumputer chips. An appointment could be set up for you to go and view the systems to get a better idea of how they function. To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: January 4, 1990 Subject: Recommendation Concerning Acquisition of New Telephone System for Administrative Buildinc After reviewing the demonstrations of the single line systems by the Interior Communications (Telrad) and Telephone Specialists Inc, (Premier), I would strongly encourage that our original proposal be amended to include either ail 'Electronic phones or a combination of single line and electronic phones. I was not present at the demonstration by Communication World of the Toshiba system, but Teri 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 combination of both, one must purchase both forms of power supply. The Premier and Toshiba systems are not 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 message notice via a visual display at the phone. Each message is electrically signaled based on the time they are received by the system. All electronic phones contain speakers rather than staff people 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 offlc- Each %-i the venders has been asked to provide an amended estimate including mixed single and electronic phones f-jL the City's consideration. Second bids are all considerably unde original $15,000 limit. Teri's memo will provide the amended statements. Recommendation Concerning Acquisition of New Telephone System January 4, 1990 Page 2 of ^ Once i*gain, 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 system. Although I understand Interior Communications has come through with the lowest bid in the revises estimates, I strongly recommend either the Premier or the Toshiba systems because they provide greater versatility, are user friendly, technology reflects a greater state of the arts and a progreun 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 sir - : e line phones and after a month of use changed from single lin to all electronic phones with combinations of the 12 button display and 8 button units without display. The representatives of the Premier system have also advised that the City of Mound is a.ijo considering the system. DATE: January 5, 1990 TO: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Melvir Kilb' hief of Police SUBJECT: Longevity Pay Step - Officer James Cornick -tJo.'iCil MEETING JAM 8i990 f;iTv n? Officer Cornick has comp!'* Police Department. He .1 as "Officer Friendly”, t. "DARE" Officer. '.'s 4th year with the Orono •essed in the department first 53ignment as the department's I request his pay, 1989 contract, be raised from $16.24 per hour to 1989 contract $16,727 per hour as determined by lon gevity step in the L.E.L.S. contract. TO: FROM Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat^*^ Forwarded recommending approval. PK')FOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded o>tr increase Officer James Cornick's salary from $16.24 per hcur to $16,727 per hour based on the 1989 labor contract, effective January 2, 1990. Ayes _, Nays _. I. : I 11390.1 n TO: FROM: DATE: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk January 3, 1990 COUNCIL MEETING JAN 81990 pm n? SUBJECT: Tax Forfeited Property Attachments: A. Hennepin County Property Tax and Public Records Letter Dated 12/4/89 3. 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 must indicate their desired settlement 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 Administrato 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 parcela 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 year. 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 t__ releasing tax forfeit parcel for public sale and resolution #__ requesting conveyance of parcel for public use by the City of oFono. Ayes __, Nays __. To; Dorothy Halllnj City Clerk December 4, 1989 i1 Certified Mail//P919701588 City of Orono 1335 Bro^m Rd, P. 0, Box 66 Crystal Bay, S. MN 55323 Request for Approval for Sale of Tax Forfeited Land Parcels (L'u-— DEC - 6 !C39 Enclosed is a classification list of non-conservation property located^in ycur 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 Commissioners cti November 21, 1989, by Resolution No. 89-11-0932. As provided in Minnesota Statutes 282, we request - you; 1. Approve the parcel(s) for public auction. 2.Approve the parcel(s) for adjacent owner auction if M.S. 282.01, Subd. 7a is applicable. Please state in your resolution that the parcel of land is not buildable because of eitl^er 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 "Application by a Governmental Subdivision for Conveyance of Tax Forfeited ^d" be completed and returned to our 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: Attached is a con^niter run showing the balance of any unpaid cancelled special assessments at the time of forfeiture and that may be reassessed. Please certify that these are the correct amounts. If there is a discrep^ulcy, 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 computed. 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. m ■iim ilg-SftfU'* "'Ci • ♦<■1 i Ps'M;4-te 1-4' ;SiS‘ ;S:Cn ■iir-'^'rU'^V?:; I ..(:a ' » .pijif ^ ■■ ■ -1 25!jVP|’-;*^'-'-' m ■ '■"‘i SX-I ■; Jna£?? ;v1^v.?'■-' v •■ ■i!ii> j|^.i; ■^hl'\ I# .te,0 ;l/ ■ i ll- ■ • ‘ {11 • 'i' • ■ ■ • ■M- I M flf ■'?• vJ' '“i >:P ;■ :■ ■. * y ~ • - :;^J /. .‘5'“ll; X - fSp :‘S-ft)n M3IA1C3U3 -------T—■ m ■ .3A\y ;t--.VXNOi A ow • ••H ■ • . ••■■::•■ .■' .-X-:s-n-v-5^fe lir^-Pas-b* T;* . i.ZPtaoN itiSF •- 8t PW^r-^zt^JO ON\ ■ v< iv ib': - ■|; ij'5 c. ^ T ?.f^f ^UON ip'* ::i f', 1 iir.#i«fia-:|ffl!suV|;Vi::rjiUJ li ,•' • 15)•iV.!-»«/l j; \ J-iiS® ■ !iS-^llS! -:tyVi ■ ■. • •>' f? •; •^-i - ■:'I :■ :iiii:i®ii*lif ;Sii ’& fir , ,;VI'.&.-M vv^, i& ‘•J.’i ft • • ■'’■u'’ ’ ■•• v-::t-:;! will - y iitf ' i'-m i i; -vSiSIJs-' ’• • • ‘V '. ':•! f! ;7- ifi Mi. .,'^1 iB i^l^OV ■ iJiiS^B: _ I m - /} V‘'-rv^ :; .ti-vi'I'<•■■• 'y: >41.^ K*|;^Hii®'••ii'; •r- M '|t^ •y.. r‘!‘, ■• fKl'• -i^-,. .> i.-gV VB': fef ■ :©•; ■- # 5 •li-,-^ ^. I'iiS W'M vZ ‘cili i. *.* ' “ ' 'l7 .' ~ V^-'*:n ^ J ,., Brv B'-.;'i'?:'. . • .-I • • y-U i • . • .. '• ■ ' 'T‘ * ‘ . •• »,-' r:B.7h' • .i;V'* *■('. O i : 1390.2 1 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 OFtOIVO RESOl 'N OF THE CITY COUNCIL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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. District 38 38 Parcels Released For Sale P.I.D. 10-117-23 31 0067 10-117-23 31 0068 Special Assessments Levy £ Amount 10003 $12,506.30 - - -0- Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held the 8th day of January, 1990. ATTEST: James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Halim, City Clerk CITY OF ORONO City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _________________ REQUESTING 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 :he 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 oul tanding 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 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 dr linage and conservation purposes. PARCEL RETAINED FOR USE BY THE CITY District p.l.D, Public Purpose Specials 38 03-117-23 33 0001 Drainage & Conservation Nc 38 05-117-23 24 0105 Drainage & Conservation No. - 38 35-118 23 41 0010 Drainage & Conservation None 38 36-118-23 33 0016 Drainage & Conservation None Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minneiioia ^»t a regular meeting held the 8th day of January, 1990, by a vote of __ ayes and _ _ nays. ATTEST:James R. Grabek, Mayor U a 1 1 r* •: *-<r 1 V- Intero-f-fice Memo Date: January 9, 1990 To: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator From: Mel Kilbo, Chie-f o-f Police Re: Authority to purchase squad cars CUts^iGIL ^ilEgflNG JAN 81990 CITY OF OPOSfi The Police Department budgeted for purchase o-f three squad cars -for 1990 from Hennepin County Contract 1139A9-232 from Farmington Ford-Mercury. □n 12/4/09, 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 get 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 Farminqton Ford-Mercury with a total purchase price not to exceed ^39,054.00 less -Tl 1,500 estimated trade-in. Budgeted figure of 4=30,000 includes change over of squads. Departm^t PXX Box U Crystal Bay. MN 55323 445 Willow Drive Lont; Uke. MN 55356 M.H. Kilbo Chief of Police Admlnisiration 473-7710 Non-Emergency 544-9511 Emergency 911 December 4, 1939 Mr. John Cline Farminqton Ford-Mercury 301 Elm Street Farmington, Minnesota 550?^ Dear Mr. Cline, This is Orono's letter of intent to purchase three (3) full size four-door police sedans on Hennepin County contract 1139A9-232. full size Ford Crown Victoria $12,,392.00 cloth seats -230.00 engine heaters +18.00 6” LH spot N/C conduit +83.00 bonding strap +44.70 gauges +166.00 heavy duty battery +45.00 $13,018.00 " $39,054.00 is the total for three units, according to contract The City of Orono wishes white paint color on all three units. If you have any questions, please call me at 473-7710. Sincerely, Melvin Kilbo Chief of Police MK:cjh Serving North Lake Minnetonka Communities of Orono Long Lake. Mmnelonka Beach and Sprng Park DATE: December 18, 1989TO: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Mel Kilbo, Chief of Police SUBJECT; Officer Charles Schauss CUUJiCli. METINGJAN 81990 CITY OF DPffsft officer Charles Schauss has completed his second year with our department as of October 26, 1989. Chuck has performed bove the expected performance for a second year officer and I would reoLsrhlfsalary be raised from $12,992 hourly rate year officer, (1989 Salary rate) to $lf,.619, 2nd year officer level ( 1989 Salary rate), effective October 26, 1989. Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator^^ ^ Forwarded recommending approval. 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 —. 122089.3 TO: Mayor and City Council FRCN4: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratoi DATE: December 20, 1989 SUBJECT: Resignation of Police Officer COU.ICII. MEETING JAN 8i990 tJiTV OF emn Attachment: A. Charles Schauss Letter of Resignation Dated 12/19/89 ISSUE 1. Accept the resignation of Charles Schauss. 2. Authorization to seek replacement. INTRODUCTION - Attached please find the resigna^on 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 accept Mr. Schauss** 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 Charles Schauss anoauthorizes staff to seek a replacement with staff to bring back the nominee for approval to employ. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: Personnel File Chief Kilbo ti VILLAGE OF OKONO, fli.'NESOTA STATEMENT OF RESIGNATION Prepare 3 copies NAi'IE OF Hi'l rL,. PLOYEE j !^< ^ X-.> POSITION TITLE Department Salary Rate • i 1 Full Time X Part Time Statement of Resignation; I request that this resignation be accepted by the Village Cowell to become effective on ' is the lasr day of actual service. 1 an^'requesting compensation for personal service to the Village in the above indicated position for accrued annual leave H.i* for _ _ _^days. The reason for this resignation is as follows: nr'*-.1.h'> ■T k Date: (Employee * s ^S4^ature) Recommendation of Department Head: I would pO would not ( ) re-hire this employee. Tnis position may not be refilled until /- ^ ^ _ Date; /(f(Department Head) Certification of Accrued Leave: Payment for accrued leave upon employee’s termination on Data://5/fg’ i 1490.2 ^ A TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratc^P^ December 13, 1989 mm mriHG 8 mu <■ !! y OF O^OHD SUBJECT: Resignation of Part Time Police Officer Attachment:A. Scott Kuyper Statement of Resignation Dated 12/12/89 ISSUE 1. Accept the resignucion 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 the City of Edina as a full-time 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 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 _. Personnel File Chief Kilbo VILLAHE OF ORONO, .-flNNESOTA STATE!lENT OF RESIGNATION Prepare 3 copies NA!IE OF El IPLOYEE / / ^^0 7^ 1^(7 POSITION TITLE Department Po//c^ Salary Rate V. ft Full Time Part Time Stateiaeiit of Resignation: I request that this resignation ^ accepted by the Village Co^cil to become effective on j* wnich is the lasr day of actual serviced I am requesting” compensation for personal service to the Village in the above indicated position for accrued annual leave Hu. for _ _ _^days. The reason for this resignation is as follows: Date: (Employee’s Sf^wture) Recommendation of Department Head: I would (>0 would not ( . ) re-hire this employee. Tuis position may not be refilled \3Hti \ /icu£ Date: ih rJfu^ Certification of Accrued Leave: . hf,ru^ ■Payment for 5/^^ ^ps^ccrued leave upon erapl ^O f^Om^ t Cr / Date: (Department Heacij cee's termination on^ lorinzed.i ■ • -^21 JAN 8 1990TO: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator DATK: January 3, 1990 SUBJ: 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. NiniBium 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) 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 Interia 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. r } Memo-MPG Eliiri nation of Well Permitting Authority January 3, 1990 Page 3 4. 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 construct:cn 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 incorporatin ’^? 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 RecoHiendation - Staff recommends that options 1 and 2 be pursued by the City. m (on] minnesota department of health 717t.».d«lawir«8t p.o.bo*9441 minnaapolls 55440 (612)M3.5000 A-) ^ ^IS L Z3k - ^^7“7 Hi MEMORANDUM TO: Local Government Officials and Other Interested Parties FROM: Raymond W. Thron, Ph.D., P.E., Di[®ctor Division of Environmental Health (J DATE: November 30, 1989 SUBJECT: Effect of Article 3 of the 1989 Groundwater Protection Legislation on Local Government Enclosed for your information is a summary of new ':e9“2'’®™"ts 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 i»m I C7FECT OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE GROUNDWATER PROTECTION ACT MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 1031 ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT WELLS AND BORINGS i REGULATION OF WELLS AND BORINGS 1. No local well programs without delegation 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. 3. 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. r ii 4. Variance Fees 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 Distances Actual 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. B) Monitoring 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 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. firniindwater Thermal Exchange Devices and Vertiral Heat Exchanger^ Require a $50 permit fee. After July I, 1990, A $50 permit fee is rr.,uired for an excavation for an gigvator shaft. 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 after January 1 1990. If a monitoring well is not sealed within ?oS^een nwnthl'after construction, a ;s'oS;;r W"’;; ms! a.WKi'i.sr;"'* $2s"f^rLt^be paid!''lJr°L«“inr?ell%rojSc« 1 10 wells, the permit fee is $250 per site. FEEfB5?'M5sfcOMJLY'5nS^ 8. Well Sealing A well owner is responsible for having an unused well sealed by a licensed contractor. CoUiissioner hiving the well sealed and assessing the ccst 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 1 ?2!^«llrted couI?v4lS “piI upWater and Soil Resources, provides funds for selected count to 75% of the cost of sealing a well not to exceed jz.uuu. 9. rnuntv Well Certificate counties must issue sealed well certificates prescri^^^ by me Conmissioner of Health for all wells that are sealed. \ r. 10. Disclosure of Well rtv at Time of Property Transfer Beginning July 1, 1990, 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 tne 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 cross misdemeanor through the county court system, the law allows the Commissioner of Health to levy fines against both property owners and 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) 3) 4) Provide accurate and correct information on the well certificate. File proper notifications. Have a well properly sealed. 12. Wellhead Protection governments. 13. Licenseno A) License categories B) A licensed well contracts»* may construct, repair, and seal any well including monitoring well., unconventional wells, excavations for elevator shafts and environ.:^ntal bore holes. A licensed limited well contractor miy 1) install, repair, 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) sP2l any well; or 4) install a well pump or pumping equipment in any well. ; 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. As exploratory borer may construct and seal exploratory borings. elevator shaft contractors, or exploratory borers. Licensing and rggistration is a State requirements A State license or registration bond is required for well contractors, limited well contractors,and elevator shaft contractors. The bonQreet"Pfs lo<;a» license bonds (Minnesota Laws, Chapter 1031). Effective July 1, 1990, four categories of limited well contractor licenses are required for: , 1) Installation, repair, and sealing of unconventional wells such as dewatering wells, dug wells, and drive-point wells. 2) Repair of well screens or well casings. 3) Well sealing. 4) 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 installation of elevator shafts and hydraulic cylinders for elevator shafts. CITY OF ORONO CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323• Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka December 21, 19P'^’ Raymond W. Thron Director, Division of Environmental Health Minnesota Department of Health 717 Delaware Street Southeast P.O. Box 9441 Minneapolis, MN 55440 Re: Article 3, 1989 Ground Water ^lotection Legislation Dear Mr. Thron: Having received your memorandum 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 management in the City. Currently, the City of Orono reauires permits for water well construction and abandonment. Fermj.ts are issued only to state licensed well drillers. The City requires a predrilling site inspection to verify with the driller that isolation distances are met, and more critically, that wells will be located so as to not affect development on adjacent vacant lots by conflicting with approved sewage treatment system sites. The City requires drillers 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 that the driller submit a copy of the State Water Well Record to the City upon comoletion of each well. Approximately 80 wells per year are drilled within the City of Orono, virtually all being private residential wells. The rural areas v;ithin the City of Orono are developing at a 2 acre minimum lot size density with wells and septic systems. It is critical that in order for such a development plan to work effectively, well and septic system location and construction must be closely monitored. BLILDING A ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMr •- TRATION A FINANCE - 473-7358 FAX - 473-0510 PL BLIC WORKS - 473-7359 r Raymond W. Thron, Director Division of Environmental Health Ke: Article 3, 1989 Ground Water Protection LegislationDecember 21r 1989 Page 2 of 3 sIM-lSpSfMiihistorically provided to the residents of Orono by City staff. Eliminating our permitting authority will the 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 memc 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 provide the ability to levy fines against contractors who don t folio 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 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 tne 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? : i S 12.50 SEC. 12.50. WATER WELL CONSTRUCTION? 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) 4i|l i;|s 3 ¥rillS mi U “ -5 a c*2 s 3 j!!1-WA•3 a. 0. -JS a. s| 53^^ 11 |!ll= II illil r *l1 2*9*^ ^lili IU'~" II ill?si |il Iflllfii llfljjli*51111 ^IS lli!li5 111'lliiiii[illlUi;lljhlK; I 5^ ill --|5ill•a -3 »..s «-3 ■S a-j ||uH^- "’’I s S = 51=1 i s H i “ =« - 58* 5 "S ^ - V • = “ ; 2-=5>w «• = « = = s = I c 5-2 o 3 ^ i * i1 !? - 5 * S3 I-5S- -■ 5 1^1 =1 11 1|ss| - lUl 5i ili|||5S •a S S-2S = 1=":- ■s • ;i I l5»E3'S*l=S^ *=iii'iiiiiiSmnnini iUA' i •sSs s -f S 51 - I. I U- § ^ O U 111 ! If: iI -|3 gl^a i i!l 1 2-:=» ? 2 » I s 5b| I ■s'c '£ •§ lilMJ5 * - ? ! Mi! I I iHh az su u Dz 5 m z< «■uz«oCB •f M w 13 fl11 & .£ 5^ “I If "s-* -3?3 e - 11 I i|’ a I 3 3 X C i “S» - a. ko • • *» J E :2 - f i s§miL l»l I! ii sjJ 3 I i j s 111 3 5 ^ - I 3 5-g a «• ^ ‘= - Si ^ = • : : Ji sX u u> IS h : i I • 8 c 1| •; IIM iilrl• • — J « I li 3ir s. r 8 s 1=11^ 5 z« ia3I «{j ||3I |f5s|li If I Is= -I I I3II I? j?:s:5 :l 2? I g 5 s II n i • 5j«|f K-2 E J -S .2 - i?* “§• I-iJ li c • I 5 So” s - '= j 0.5 i 3|l■5 s. 2 = 1 - if& J-s|| I i'3* si;-8 2"H 5 2 ?* c * * sii 5 - - HI If .2 S t -So II - I? -I3Hil?iliuIII ii |i| il 535 1 “ IJf I IT ii§ is s 1 = 1 III |l?flj ** £ 1 ||1 .?! IJ II- a. * ?,r I la II Hi Hiiuiu ii|iiI niiifisllii ;f iniiliipi 2 8 “ ^3 c||t^3 lit l-1c 3f s -a^3| ||j53 S.5 as.i 3-s s ti ^ ''z6 : g-S .3 e 3lilltll !-l |r|iMHlkimitinlu iil J! ^ S C'SII SSSsSl 5 6 •* J !*222s5= Svtttiiiuvv i-imuiIliiiJlii rt1^1 Vim ^ '111 H1^3 Hi is!|II1^-1 P ! |i ^11,*"mi^iii ilii |i lliilHI II'1'^ lE;|l %lH Hi 11*= i jg*5|.=- ?■§ liil m SH3 &- £ iS 3 »i| si .3||1 uOilh fill V4 ifii HI c I fr h illJji IHlfl i|?.ii| e i s 1 - roiits Mllti Jet'll4> O S ISlfill..s S-S**: • . s riimLiifUifiJ J? Ill Iff 5:|fllf I-II = l| |i|lf“l I ni || all ?|l ilslfje ■'I i 1490.1 M££TING TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate January 2, 1990 8 mo ''>TV np npoitin 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 General 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 __. TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FR(M: Tom Kuehn, Finance Director % DATE: December 3. 1989 SUBJECT: Adjustments to 1989 Adopted Budgets GENERAL FUND Compensation When 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 amendments 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 assessments, 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 undr 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 projects were done and it is requested that the 1988 unexpended allocation of $50,930 be added to the 1989 original 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 1939 costs 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 ad3ustments. EXPENDITURES Depar traen t/Purpose Adopted Budget Amendment Amended Budget Auti'iOrized 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 To PIR - Emergency Acct.-0-344,160 344,160 7/24/89 To Bldg C.O. - Bldg Constr.-0-1,905,000 1,905,000 7/24/89 TOTAL General Fund $2,720,660 $2,401,890 $5,122,550 all Depcirtments ssss=:==ss=- - REVENUES County grant recycling $ -0-$ 20,190 $ 20,190 User fees - recycling -0-23,715 23,715 Use of fund Isalance 100,000 2,357,985 2,457,985 Total General Fund ciU Revenues $2,720,660 $2,401,890 =======:==: =3 $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 AI^ENDED BUDGET AMENDMENT BUDGET AUTHORIZED Capital Outlay 1989 Budget Computer equip - loan to P.D. Mailing machine TOTALS BUILDING OUTLAY FUND $112,530 -0- -0- $112,530 SS3SSS3S $ -0- 5,140 5,410 n“0,550 3333333 $112,530 5,140 5,410 $123, OM SS333S33 89 Budget 02/13/89 3/89 purch Space Study, Boarman & Assoc. $-0-$ 9,750 3SS3SS3 $ 9,750 3333333 08/24/87 Funding for the adjustments to the Special Revenue Funds is from the following: Imp & Equip Outlay Fund Mailing machine and police department computer equipment to replace obsolete or unservicable equipment financed from 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. 1 -1290.3 TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato January 2, 1990 tVj££; jf^'g JAM 8 i990 CiTV OP SUBJECT: 1989 Interfund Transfers and Loan Payments Attachment: A. Finance Director's Memo Dated 12/31/89 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 C ations - 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 _, seconded by _, that the inter fund operating transfers, loan payments and special assessments payments on City property be approved as proposed, effective December 31, 1989. Ayes , Nays 1390.3 TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FR(M: Tom Kuehn, Finance Director DATE: December 31, 1989 SUBJECT: 1989 Interfund Transfers and Loan Payments At the end of each year it is necessary to transfer monies between certain funds for the purpose of providing support as budgeted or for repayment of outstanding loans, as scheduled. The necessary transactions for 1989 are listed below. FUNDS FROM AMOUNT General General General Imp & Equip Outlay $49,200.00 Bldg Cap Project $120,000.00 Permanent Improve Revolving (PIR) $30,000.00 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. Rd. 15 street improvement project. (Princ $16,800, int $13,200) Bal o/s 12/31/89 $172,000 Repayment of Metro Wastrr Control debt credits, final installment. Budgeted loan payment (princ $2,443, int $977' for water tower refurbishing - payment #P of 10 - balance o/s 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/s 12/31/89 $33,855 FUNDS FROM Golf Operating General Golf Operating General AMOUNT PURPOSE $ 4,840.00 Scheduled payment reimbursement for monies borrowed in Sept 1988 tc replace clubhouse roof Balance o/s 12/31/89 -0-. $11,624.86 Scheduled reimbursement for monies borrowed tc fund golf course cash deficit in 1988. Balance o/s 12/31/89 -0-. Permanent Improve General Revolving (P.I.R.) $123,840.80 Permanent Improve General Revolving (P.I.R.) 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-. $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. 1390.4 '•‘-‘I'.’iSB mpiiis TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrates January 3, 1990 JflJI 8 5990 CITY ay SUBJECT: Public Use of Private Streets 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 11, 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 prese.ited. cc; John R. Gerhardson, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator 'J.. I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OP ORONO BY COMPELLING PRIVATE OWNERS TO ALLOW PUBLIC PASSAGE ON 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: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE: January 3, 1990 WSCn. MEETING m3^ ^ Cmv nr rrpoMfi SUBJECT: 1988 Financial Health Profile/State of Minnesota Attachment:A. Financial Health Profile - 1988 - State Auditor Dated December 1989 ISSUE - Providing a profile to the Council. INTRODUCTION - 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 AL'DITOR 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 1©1DW1 001261990 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 AHCimjb Enclosure AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER MINNESOTA i OFFICE OF THE W STATE AUDITOR V-’'v*:v . V ; . * ' Siia»KP •rr-v-uf^ ::»'V.^rw--.---; •%:<*:’;•-»sA -'•> m ■p- ^ ■ '■ ■?. ^ -“■’V ■■0'- ': ‘V^-;v ,.* -* ARNE H. CARLSON STATE AUDITOR ♦, IMliiiiii •:,si ■JI e ■“'V;" 1^ 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 State’s Executive Council, Land Exchange Board, State Investment Board, State Housing Finance Agency, Rural Finance Administration Hoard, and the Public Employees Retirement Association IBoard. I 3 ] 3 j m N« K4 * 1 } 4 k 9 u M M M \ * F'NANCIAL HEALTH PROFILE CITY OF ORONO Years Ended December 31 1984 through 1988 December, 1989 S tate of Minnesota OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR SUITE 400 525 PARK STREET SAINT PAUL 55103 ARNE H. CARLSON STATE AUDITOR 296-2651 ■ t I HINNESOTA 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 80J 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 ton. 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 greater 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 MFHP 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 the Office of State Auditor. There are, however, 188 cities with populations less than 2,500 which, for the lart two years, have elected to prepare annual fin -Mai 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. by of 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 loca unit's financial health can be determined. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The five major trends and example indicators measured by this program are:A. B. C. D. K°"population: ^Is there an increase or decrease in population? Real estate: Is the taxable valuation of r-:^ estate growing too slowly? »Retail sales: Does the growth or decline in che number of businesses and retail sales reflect an overall economic recession or an erosion of local economic vitality? Je hoaii-hSocial welfare: Is unemployment placing greater demands on health, welfare, and social service programs? 2. 3. 4. l!'^^Levy^nmit: Is the actual current levy rate at or approaching the 2. Earnlnyon^liiestLnts: Is the percent of revenues Cerived from earnings on investments changing? rafoe 3. Tax collection rate: Is the trend in property tax collection rates 4. Revenue/expenditure comparisons: Is there a consistert pattern of revenue shortfalls? K^^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. 3. E. K^'^D^t^^'^Is^future financial flexibility being lost due to a growing debt burden? . o2. Bond rating: Is there a change in the bond rating? 3. Debt service payments: Are debt service payments becoming a larger percentage of total revenues? , , . u , o4. Fund balance: Is there a decline in the general fund balance? 1. Auditor's opinion: Is there a consistent failure to obtain an unqualified opinion on financial statements from independent ’uditL s? ‘pal employees: Is the number of municipal employees 'tent with current population trends? er,ef“-s: Will growth in fringe benefits and employer-paid jtions place undue demands on future revenues? enterprises: Are the municipal enterprises incurring 2. 3. 4. Mu for losses or gains? The MFHP was (level ^>d 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 municipalities whether or not a sound fiscal course lies ahead. 9/89 MINNESOTA FINANCIAL HEALTH PROFILE 1984 THROUGH 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS Graphs 11 M H PI IJ 14 fi #4 r< Li II 14 m 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: ’ dicator 9: idicator ndicator dicator indicator indicator Indicator Indicator Indicator 10: 11; 12: 13: 14; 15: 16; 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 Gove'*nmental 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 (Governmental Funds) . . . . . . . . . . . Profit or Loss in Enterprises . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Base )« Content of Indicators for Financial Health Profiles Appendices Appendix A - Statewide and Seminar Analysis Appendix B - Analysis by Class of City Appendix C - Regional Map and Analysis of Selected Indicators Page 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 M » -• ORONO Revenues $3.5 $3.0 $2.5 $2.0 $1.5 $1.0 $0.5 $0.0 Millions ! i 1 _| r-^ 1984 1985 1986 Year 1987 1988 nnini. Local Government Aid I i All Other Revenues Other Intergov. Rev. -$1000 Thousands ORONO Expenditures Qji-eral Government Fire Police Street A Highways 1 - 1 ORONO Indicated Market Value Millions $1.4 ORONO Net Property Taxes Collected Millions 1 - 2 rL L* 1 1 ! • I CITY; ORONO COUNTY: HENNEPIN MINNESOTA FINANCIAL HEALTH PROGRAM OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR (612) 296-2551 ECONOMIC VITALITY ! « 1. INDICATOR:CHANGE IN POPULATION mm 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1 e Population 6,820 7,020 7,172 7,212 7,284 -Percent Change o.ox 2.9%2.2%0.6X 1.0% Number of Households 2,349 2,462 2,540 k.v58 2,629 • Percent Change O.OX 4.8X 3.2X 1.1X 2.4X - 2. INDICATOR:CHANGE IN PROPERTY VALUES - 1984 1986 1987 1988 Indicated Market Value % 408,921,088 S 444,024,71.5 $442,638.681 $449,695,073 %516,884,643 Percent Change •2.IX 8.6X -0.3X \6%14.9X Assessed Valuation % 95,064,821 %101,745,272 S 100,331,833 %102.970.459 $106,617,932 Percent Change 5.7X 7.0X -1.4X 2.6X 3.5% -•4 mm 7.<ix Increment District Captured \ssessed Valuation $ 0 $0 S 0 %0 $0 mm Percent Change ................ .... wm Sales Ratio 0.883 0.870 0.880 0.896 0.834 3. INDICATOR:TREND IN BUILDING PERMITS - 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 P * i 4 Value of Building Permits Percent Change $ 13.625,990 $ 39.8X 15,826,755 % 16.2X 14,145,515 f -10.6X 22,380,545 $ 58.2% 19,756,357 -11.7% M »' ' • of Bui Iding S s 1 ssueci 335 322 354 371 353 . f Percent Change 32.9X -3.9X 9.9X 4.8%-4.9% n/08/89 METRO AVERAGE 5 YEAR 5 YEAR X CHANGE X CHANGE METRO AVERAGE 5 YEAR 5 YEAR X CHANGE X CHANGE 14.9X 26.4X 21. IX 3.5X 12.2% 25.2X 142.4X METRO AVERAGE 5 YEAR 5 YEAR X CHANGE X CHANGE 11.?X 45.OX 34.2X NOTE: Asterisks (**,•**.*X) on any page indicate that a percentage change was too large to be meaningful. 2 - 1 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR CITY; ORONO — ECONOMIC VITALITY 4. INDICATOR:TREND IN RETAIL SALES ACTIVITY 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 5 YEAR X CHANGE Gross Retai1 Sales Percent Change $ 6,523,427 $ 3,658,342 $1,113,581 $ -69.6X 1,190,707 $ 6.9X NA — Number of Businesses Percent Change 11 13 •8.3X 18.2X 12 ■7.7X 10 -16.7X NA .... 5. INDICATOR:TREND IN MANDATED COUNTY WELFARE SERVICES COUNTY WELFARE COSTS *1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 5 YEAR X CHANGE TOTAL - Federal $209,445,528 $221,917,934 $23‘.,3oO,255 $240,078,447 $NA - State 200,894,608 219,029,231 213,322,113 211,552,068 NA • 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 — Total County Welfare per capita t 535.19 $ 578.26 $ 615.21 $ 625.40 $........ Number of AFOC Recipients in County 36,965 37,883 40,226 42,288 43,448 17.5X AFOC Recipients as a Percent of County Population 3.9X 3.9X 4.2X 4.3X 4.4X METRO AVERAGE METRO AVERAGE Unemployment Rate in County *• 4.4X 4.1X 3.9X 4.1%3.2X 1988 STATEWIDE RATE 4.OX 6. INDICATOR: TREND IN CONSUMER PRICE INDEX _ _ _1984_ _ _ _ _1985_ _ 1986 Mpls-St. Paul CPI X Change *** 3.6X 3.8X 1.3X 1987 3.OX 1988 5 YEAR X change 5.OX 13.7X Notes: (*] Source: State Department of Hurwjn Services. Welfare costs include both state and county p>ayments. The 1988 data is currently unavailable. (**] Source: State Department of Jobs and Training. [***] Source: U.S. Department of Labor, All Urban Considers • (CPI-U) 1982*84 » 100. 2 - 2 OFFICL OF THE STATE AUDITOR REVENUE TRENDS 7. INDICATOR; TREND IN REVENUE SOURCES CITY; ORONO 11/08/89 GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS REVENUES Intergovernmental Revenues 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT —Federal • Revenue Sharing $ 29,099 1.1X $29,807 0.8X i 19,219 0.6X %522 O.OX S 0 O.OX - COBG $ 17,921 0.7X %125 O.OX %99,328 2.8X »6,188 0.2X S 4,734 0.1X —Federal * All Other S 9,242 0.4X t 6,135 0.2X t 4,622 0.1X %10,227 0.3X %3,425 0.1X State • Local Gov't Aid 155,876 6.IX 165,119 4.6X 165,126 4.7X 164,904 5.IX 164,902 5.OX -• Homestead Credit 142,658 5.6X 131,206 3.7X 143,964 4.IX 169,996 5.3X 164,359 4.9X • Taconite Aids 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX —- Highway 69,462 2.7X 199,955 5.6X 172,044 4.9X 126,747 3.9X 80,301 2.4X - All Other 36,672 1.4X 40,055 1.1X 44,436 1.3X 58,609 1.8X 70,611 2.IX County 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX Local 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 3.100 0.1X Total Intergovernmental Revenues 460,930 17.9X 572,402 16.OX 648,739 18.6X 537,193 16.6X ;91,432 14.8X Taxes 932,760 36.3X 892,479 25. OX 988,711 28.3X 1.106,613 34.3X 1.172,795 35.3X Special Assessments 154,359 6.OX 1,037,255 29. OX 671,947 19.2X 378,567 11.7X 332,163 1 .OX Franchise Taxes 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX —Sales & Hotel/Motel Taxes 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX --Licenses and Permits 102,958 4.OX 102,811 2.9X 102,533 2.9X 136,420 4.2X 124.334 3.7X Charges for Services 438,643 17.IX 13.3X 605,002 17.3X 594,424 18.4X 643.151 19.3X Fines and Forfeits 46,400 1.8X 61,611 1.7X 84,877 2.4X 102.058 3.2X 140,657 4.2X Miscellaneous Revenues Interest Earnings 388,373 15.IX 383,729 10.7%351,447 10.IX 330,093 10.2X 370.387 11.IX —All Other Revenues 45,185 1.8X 47.757 1.3X 39.678 1.1X 43.274 1.3X 51.881 1.6X Total Revenues 2,569,608 sesssssssBS : UO.OX 3,571.894 SSS3SS BBSSSSS3SSS 100.OX 3,492,934 SSrSSS 33SSSSSSSS8 100.ox 3,228,642 SSSSSS SS3SSSSSSSS 100.OX 3,326,800 SSSSSS SSSBSSSSSSS 100.OX SSSSSS Total Revenues Per Capita $ 376.78 S 508.82 S 487.02 S 447.68 S 456.73 Annual Percentage Change Per Capita -4.9%35.05 •4.35p -8.IX 2.OX 2 • 3 OFFICE OP THE STATE AUDITOR REVENUE TRENDS 8. INDICATOR; CHANGE IN PROPERTY TAX LEVY Limited Levy Other Local Levy Property Tax Levy 1*1 Special Assessment S CITY: ORONO 11/08/89 METRO AVERAGE 5 YEAR 5 YEAR 1987 1988 fiscal Disp. Levy and Sp. Assessment Levy Percent Change Levy Limit Limited Levy as a Percent of Levy Limit Fiscal Disparities Levy Percent Collected Interest Income Percent Change Interest Income as of Total Revenues 1VB4 1,021.426 iyo3 1,001,044 1,089,557 1,206,520 1,263,426 23.7X 46.022 15 77 40.154 30.136 -34.5X 1,067,448 1,001,059 1,089,634 1.246,674 1,293,562 21.2X 444.023 ( 375.744 %462.254 S 333.175 %289.019 -34.9X 1,511,471 SSSSSSSS8XSSS 1,376,803 1,551,888 S88S8SSSSSSSSS SSSS3 1,579,849 :=ssssssss sss 1,582,581 SS3SXB==S:S 16.ox -8.9X 12.7X 1.8X 0.2X 4.7X 25.7X 1,090,109 1.155,992 1,288,746 1,389,395 1,263,426 15.9X 93.7X 86.6X 84.5X 86.8X 100.OX 18,248 22,927 20,311 26,218 34.255 87.7X TREND IN PROPERTY TAX COLLECTION 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 94.9X 96.7X 97.4X 97.7X 97.2X 5 TREND IN EARNINGS ON (GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS) INVESTMENTS METRO 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 5 YEAR X CHANGE AVERAGE 5 YEAR X CHANGE S 388,373 $ 383,729 %351,447 %330,093 %370,387 24.4X •1.2X -8.4X •6.1X 12.2X •4.6X 30.9X 'ercent 15.IX 10.7X 10.IX 10.2X 11.IX 1 Note: t*l Property tax levy includes the fiscal disparities levy. 2 • 4 Pi ‘ t i OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR CITY: ORONO EXPENDITURE TRENDS 11/08/89 11. INDICATOR! TREND IN EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS CURRENT EXPENDITURES 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT 1 « General Government $ 459,955 23. n S 409,659 20.9X % 458,631 19.1X $ 535,558 22. OX $ 589,137 23.8X Pol ice 610,885 30.7X 652,587 33.2X 766,042 31.9X 815,482 33.5X 878,838 35.5X Pi ! ♦Fire 119,035 6. OX 131,569 6.7X 142,436 5.9X 146,531 6.OX 142,350 5.8X Streets & Highways 360,053 18.IX 306,479 15.6X 461,855 19.2X 385,422 15.8X 344,407 13.9X Refuse & Sanitation 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX Culture and Recreation 37,865 1.9X 38,967 2.OX 44,817 1.9X 61,720 2.5X 44,585 1.8X Urban Redevelopment & Housing 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX 0 O.OX M Interest and Fiscal Charges 209,446 10.5X 219,050 11.2X 223,450 9.3X 193,773 8.ox 167,595 6.8X ♦ 4 Miscellaneous Expenditures 191.860 9.6X 205.351 10.5X 307.638 12.8X 297.900 12.2X 306.166 12.4X —Total Current Expenditures 1,989,099 100.OX 1,963,662 100.OX 2,404,869 100.OX 2,436,386 100.OX 2,473,078 100.OX ■b. Total Current Expenditures s=ssz=s=s=:ssssss ======SSSSSSSS88:SSSSSS sszssssssss SSSSSS sssssssssss SSSSSS PH Per Capita i 291.66 $ 279.72 $ 335.31 S 337.82 X 339.52 top Annual Percentage Change Per Capita 8.9X -4.IX 19.9X 0.7X 0.5X SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES Total Current Expenditures 1,989,099 88.IX 1,963.662 66.8X 2,404,869 82.9%2,436,386 . . .IX 2,473,078 7i.9X Total Capital Outlay 267.976 11.9X 942.880 32.IX 460,274 15.9X 157,703 5.IX 515,045 15.4X Debt Service Fund Principal 0 O.OX 35.0CC 1.2X 35.000 1.2X 485.000 15.8X 360.000 10.8X Total Expenditures 2,257,075 100.OX 2,941,"OX 2,900,143 100.OX 3,079,089 100.OX 3,348,123 100.OX sssssasssss ssssss sssssssssr 8 SSSSSSSS8SS ssssss SSSSSSSS888 ssssss SSSSSSSSSSS 888888 Total Expenditures Per Capita $ 330.95 X 419.02 f 404.37 $ 426.94 X 459.65 Annual Percentage Change Per Capita 3.3X 26.6X •3.5X 5.6%7.7X 2 - 5 r iLi OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR CITY; ORONO EXPENDITURE TRENDS 11/08/89 12. INDICATOR: TREND IN EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION (PER CAPITA) GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS CURRENT EXPENDITURES (Per Capita) 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 AMOUNT X AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT General Government Police Fire Streets S Highwavv> Refuse & San’:ation Culture & Recreation Urban Redevelopment & Housing Interest and Fiscal Charges Miscellaneous Expenditures Total Current Expenditures 67.44 23.IX % 58.36 20.9X $ 89.57 30.7X 92.96 33.2X 17.45 6.0X 52.79 18.1X 0.00 O.OX 5.55 1.9X 0.00 O.OX 30.71 10.5X 28.13 9.6X 18.74 6.7X 43.66 15.6X 0.00 O.OX 5.55 2.OX 0.00 O.OX 31.20 11.2X 29.25 10.5X 63.95 19.IX 106.81 31.9X 19.86 5.9X 64.40 19.2X 0.00 O.OX 6.25 1.9X 0.00 O.OX 31.16 9.3X 42.89 12.8X 74.26 22.OX 113.07 33.5X 20.32 6.OX 53.44 15.8X 0.00 O.OX 8.56 2.5X 0.00 O.OX 26.87 8.OX 41.31 12.2X 80.88 23.8X 120.65 35.5X 19.54 5.8X 47.28 13.9X 0.00 O.OX 6.12 1.8X 0.00 O.OX 23.01 6.8X^ 42.03 12.4X. 291.66 100.OX 279.72 100.OX 335.31 100.OX Bsssrssssss ssssss sssssrsssss SSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSS 337.82 100.OX ssssss ssssss 339.52 100.OX. ===:=ssssss ::ss== Annual Percentage Change 8.9X -4.IX 19.9X 0.7X 0.5X SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES (Per Capita) Total current Expenditures 291.66 88.IX 279.72 66.8X 335.31 82.9X 337.82 79.IX 339.52 73.9X' Total Capital Outlay 39.29 11.9X 134.31 32.IX 64.18 15.9X 21.87 5.IX 70.71 15.4X Debt Service Fund Principal _ _ _ _0.00 O.OX_ _ _ _4.99 1.2X_ _ _ _4.88 1.2X 67.25 1S.8X 49.42 10.8X Total Expenditures 330.95 100.OX 419.02 100.OX 404.37 IflO.OX 426.94 100.OX 459.65 100.OX SSSSSSZSSSS ZSZSZS ZSBSZSSSSrS ZZZZBZ BBBZZZZBZBB ZZZZ3S zzzzzzsssss szzzzz zzzzzzrzzzz zzzzzz Annual Percentage Change 3.3X 26.6X •3.5X 5.6X 7.7X 2 • 6 h\ I « f t pa i 9 » « i* M i OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR REVENUE/EXPENDITURB COMPARISONS CITY: ORONO 11/08/89 13. INDICATOR: BUDGET TO ACTUAL REVENUES 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 GENERAL FUND: Budgeted Revenues Actual Revenues Percent Over/-Under 1,772,323 2,061,930 16.3X 1,876,193 2,129,764 13.5X 2,163,193 2,343,116 8.3X 2,322,590 $ 2,567,914 10.6X 2,461,070 2,751,232 11.8X SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS: Budgeted Revenues Actual Revenues Percent Over/-Under 42,000 $ 96,431 129.6X 64,595 68,347 5.8X 161,438 165,960 2.8X 32,880 S 48,999 49. OX 38,500 50,168 30.3X M 14. INDICATOR: BUDGET TO ACTUAL EXPENDITURES PI 1984 1985 1986 1987 • 1988 M GENERAL FUND: Budgeted Experiditures t 1,758,014 S 1,653,525 $2,203,383 S 2,257,680 $2,394,820 M Actual Expenditures 1,786,613 1,781,311 2,126,563 2,246,748 2,311,343 Ml Percent -Over/Under ■1.6X 3.9X 3.5X 0.5X 3.5X SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS: Budgeted Expenditures t 35,812 * 55,605 *190,078 $71.490 $102,790 —1 Actual Expenditures 97,836 70,656 150,592 86,031 90,764 Percent -Over/Under -173.2X -27.IX 20.8X -20.3X 11.7X 2 - 7 OFFICE OF,THE STATE AUDITOR FUTURE SOLVENCY 15. INDICA'T ’OR: TREND IN OUTSTANDING BONDED INDEBTEDNESS CITY: ORONO 11/08/89 METRO AVERAGE 5 YEAR 5 YEAR 1984 1985 General Obligation Special Assessment Tax Increment C.O. Revenue Revenue All Other TOTAL BONDED DEBT 0 $ 2,785,000 0 0 0 145,000 0 % 3,280,000 0 0 0 110.000 2,930,000 3,390,000 Per Capita 429.62 As a X of Assessed Value 3.IX 482.91 3.3X 1986 1987 1988 X CHANGE 0 %0 %0 .... 2,795,000 2,350,000 2,025,000 •27.3X 0 0 0 .... 0 0 0 .... 0 0 0 .... 75.000 35.000 0 •100.OX 2,870,000 2,385,000 2,025,000 -30.9X 400.17 330.70 278.01 16.7X 13.3X 202.6X 54 6X 180.5X 2.9X 2.3X 1.9X 16. INDICATOR: CURRENT OR CHANGE IN BOND RATING 1984 1985_ _ 1986 1987 1988 RATING FIRM Moody's A1 A* Standard and Poor's 17. INDICATOR: TREND IN CURRENT DEBT SERVICE COSTS (GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS) METRO AVERAGE 5 YEAR 5 YEAR i.,. 3 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 X CHANGE X CHANGE Debt Service Payments S Percent Change 609,446 $ 3.9X 659,050 % 8. IX 743,450 S 12.8X 678,773 $ -8.7X 527,595 -22.3X -13.4X 22.9X Debt Service as a Percent of Total Revenues 23.7X 18.5X 21.3X 21.OX 15.9X 18. INDICATOR:TREND IN GOVERNMENTAL FUND LIABILITIES METRO AVERAGE 5 YEAR 5 YEAR 1984 1985 1986 1987 1983 X CHANGE X CHANGE Total Liabilities • S 3,043,983 %3,764.026 %1,578,972 $1,404,034 %1,292,680 Percent Change •9.IX 23.7X -58.IX -11.IX -7.9X •57.5X -39.5X Liabilities as a Percent of Current Expenditures 153.OX 191.7X 65.7X 57.6X 52.3X n 2 • 8 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR FUTURE SOLVENCY CITY: ORONO 19. INDICATOR: CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES (UNRESERVED, UNDESIGNATED) n/08/89 METRO AVERAGE 5 YEAR 5 YEAR 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 X CHANGE X CHANGE —General Fund $1,929,185 S 2,215,606 S 2,227,876 t 2,613,610 S 2,845,060 i Percent Change 13.9X 14.8X 0.6X 17.3X 8.9X 47.5X 30.9X —X of Actual Expenditures 108.OX 124.4X 104.8X 116.3X 123.IX mm Special Revenue Funds S 385,978 $427,556 $472,951 $513,622 S 539,276 Percent Change 15.7X 10 8X 10.6X 8.6X 5.OX 39.7X 356.6X -X of Actual Expenditures 394.5X 605.IX 314.IX 597. OX 594.2X ' -H General Fund Balance as a X ot Total Current Expenditures 97. OX 112.8X 92.6X 107.3X 115.OX MANAGEMENT PRACTICES -20. INDICATOR: OPINION ON FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 1984 1985 1986 1987 1983 Auditor's Opinion UNOUAUFIEO UNQUALIFIED UNQUALIFIED UNQUALIFIED UNQUALIFIED GFOA Certificate of Achievement 2 ■ 9 IOFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR CITY: ORONO MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 11/08/89 21. INDICATOR: TREND IN NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES COMPARED TO POPULATION (GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS) (As Reported by the city) METRO AVERAGE 5 YEAR 5 YEAR 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 X CHANGE X CHANGE Employees 31 31 33 36 32 3.2X 9.8X per 1,000 Population 4.55 4.42 4.60 4.99 4.39 Employees 10 3 9 14 43 330.OX 39.7X pe: 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 5 YEAR 5 YEAR Operating Revrlues Operating Expenses Operating Income S 78,204 76.4r 1,707 S 82,807 76,456 6,351 %79,710 8^.931 1 $89,283 S 89,203 85 88,867 103,526 -14,659 Net Income 4,049 9,264 c .6 3,904 •15,091 LIQUOR STORE Operating Revenues Oocrating Expenses Operating Ircomc %419,509 414,144 5,365 $431,987 443,419 -11,432 $479,635 467,727 11,908 %’34,241 198,822 -14,581 .... Net Income 9,118 -8,5Q4 15,275 37,884 .... SEWER Operating Revenues Operating Expenses Operating Income %313,808 419,298 -105,490 %318,182 404,722 ■86,540 %347,536 446,032 -98,496 %382,352 $ 462,A94 -80,142 402,337 452,319 -49,982 Net Income ■53,566 -^,908 -49,272 -28,573 7,753 2 - 10 I I 1 1 1 1 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 X CHANGE X CHANGE Total Payroll S .59,803 1 1,075,683 S 1,211,024 %1,300,817 %1,358,081 Percent Change 22.3X 25.IX 12.6X 7.4X 4.4X 58.OX 43. OX Employer Paid Fringe Benefits %263,537 $271,671 % 336,518 $372,208 $375,857 Percent Change 10.2X 3. IX 23.9X 10.iX 1.0X 42.6X 16.6?i Fringe Benefits as cz a Percent of Payroll 30.7X 25.3X 27.8X 28.6X 27.7X u. 23. INDICATOR:PROFIT OR -LOSS IN ENTERPRISES 1984 1985 1986 1937 1968 GOLF COURSE ti 23. INDICATOR: PROFIT OR -LOSS IN ENTERPRISES (Continued) CITY: ORONO 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 WATER Operating Revenues Operating Expenses Operating Income % 151,022 $ 146,268 -15,246 1?P S -15,4b*, 136,032 % 158,531 -22,499 148,767 % 154,357 -5,590 185,832 177,618 8,214 Net Income •17,972 -16,687 -22,653 -4,989 12,642 £ I > M n » M M M M m 7 - n DATABASE CONTENT OF INDICATORS FOR FINANCIAL HEALTH PROFILES I.S tate of Minnesota OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR SUITE 400 625 PARK STREET SAINT PAUL 55103 ARNE H. CARLSON STATE AUDITOR 296-2651 r* — Ml M im M m M (M 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. 1. Population - Source: Minnesota State Demographer; estimate 2. 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: Property Tax Levy: Special Assessments: Levy Total: Levy Limit: Fiscal Disparities Levy: 9. Property Tax Collection Rate Source: Department of Revenue Total levy less limited levy Total of limited levy plus other local levy. Source: Department of Revenue Source: Department of Revenue The sum of the property tax levy and special assessment levy. Calculated by Department of Revenue pursuant to levy limit law. Source: Department of Revenue 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 (long 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. i i » t ■ '.V 1 3 - 2 M k * »>«• t ■ P« IM IM l»4 M JL. 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 ) source: Annual Financial Statement 14. Budget to Actual Expenditures ) 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 Stcndard and Poor's bond rating services. Note: Cities are often rated oi'.ly 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. Governmentel Fund Liabilities Total liabilities of the governmental fund types. Includes accounts payable, outstanding principal of short tenn 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, undesi^ <ated) 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 comnon example Is general fixed assets, which may not be accounted for in a manner prescribed by GAAP. 3 - 3 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 Funds) 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 1 3 - 4 APPENDIX A STATEWIDE ANALYSIS OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR MINNESOTA FINANCIAL HEALTH PROGRAM Revenues Per Capita For the Year Ended December 31, 1988 09/2S/89 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 TAXES 118.12 217.68 148.83 61.39 110.88 154.17 91.86 146.92 136.08 181.68 137.06 103.27 97.67 126.53 155.94 95.01 289.48 165.02 133.08 99.80 161.53 180.54 142.03 180.41 83.11 187.48 208.26 100.86 425.29 145.22 108.13 87.93 186.12 138.21 155.54 145.97 85.86 115.15 176.67 107.59 94.04 202.52 113.15 133.04 78.59 296.54 138.48 40.64 154.39 340.91 208.12 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 5.70 18.11 29.60 239.00 27.65 125.65 54.93 12.79 10.66 69.46 10.12 44.81 34.50 11.21 146.46 127.61 27.09 77.85 19.73 42.37 20.02 132.91 107.73 100.65 62.47 48.81 132.26 255.11 241.80 66.96 2.64 111.20 8.92 64.51 24.74 150.49 15.52 75.59 12.60 18.88 8.26 51.16 221.26 61.29 35.28 8.97 239.19 67.45 103.16 164.68 32.54 LICENSES & PERMITS 4.45 6.88 5.07 18.08 7.70 23.27 13 3 4 13 30 86 22 09 16.14 7.26 9.30 1.40 14.31 10.38 21.32 3.56 8.05 3.78 11.21 16.26 15.10 26.22 4.16 22.71 5.20 19.89 88 20 5 17 4 5 11 25 30 56 94 15 8.52 11.35 14.82 14.95 2.74 8.93 11.29 19.28 14.15 3.97 4.35 3.50 24.15 9.74 5.81 76.51 13.53 FEDi-RAL GRANTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 19.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.71 28.34 0.00 2.56 33.42 0.23 6.05 13.76 10.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.95 8.13 5.35 0.00 0.00 38.32 9.00 1.69 0.00 18.38 7.28 0.00 0.90 55.84 5.41 3.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.49 0.46 5.32 164.70 7.91 1.37 STATE GRANTS 55.40 231.21 204.82 50.16 119.54 66 51 293 207 77 89 117 38 46 22 83 52 19 02 216.65 209.85 135.15 79.35 86.79 198.08 188.94 207.46 128.83 90.61 93.74 90.88 155.20 263.70 189 101 152 69 406 82 251 65 17 67 26 92 51 89 i.60.49 162.27 108 48 136 241 67 71 55 18 108.33 55.39 76.46 0.00 180.67 127.20 271.95 56.67 56.06 210.80 61.93 55.70 •n 1 4 - 09/25/89 » » rtf M M COUNTY & LOCAL GRANTS 0.00 6.67 0.00 9.51 6.38 5.38 1.97 2.03 6.45 0.00 0.00 2.91 3.38 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.96 108.12 9.30 16.99 0.06 1.32 0.00 0.09 0.19 0.00 7.50 8.04 2.46 2.54 2.30 0.00 4.14 33.81 14.36 2.85 2.70 4.79 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.49 3.29 1.89 6.30 0.00 0.62 9.39 8.23 2.25 SERVICE CHARGES 0.00 29.51 19.36 6.30 24.62 18.75 9.74 9.09 7.77 0.00 42.06 23.19 19.27 80.14 23.56 23.21 41.25 12.80 15.33 18.25 43.14 8.61 40.01 21.72 31.19 17.91 38.05 70.20 52.00 101.46 39.56 24.87 19.63 28.78 33.36 18.00 5.10 37.83 31.77 20.44 4.58 35.63 52.16 21.29 22.06 42.01 42.24 0.38 76.36 76.06 17.48 FINES & FORFEITS 2.79 4.01 6.79 3.44 11.85 5.68 3.24 2.54 1.95 3.83 5.98 3.08 13.80 4.46 13.96 5.71 6.32 2.96 4.37 5.40 8.29 5.12 7.84 4.23 2.81 5.55 9.00 7.57 1.54 2.21 2.37 6.26 1.97 5.32 5.86 5.02 6.96 4.61 3.96 8.53 4.09 13 23 3.95 9.63 6.55 9.35 4.17 2.93 5.03 6.06 11.55 ALL OTHER REVENUES 9.29 92.09 67.28 71.95 87.75 44.59 44.64 25.50 120.23 55.43 175.54 22.68 57.28 53.93 74.47 133.23 277.36 106.99 38.36 104.91 91.95 67.15 62.86 117.28 56.19 75.06 215.12 146.17 121.49 89.16 17.26 46.83 33.25 27.44 98.94 54.24 18.07 29.56 67.65 33.42 7.53 49.53 64.35 82.59 33.23 69.01 100.68 28.74 48.71 81.15 15.78 TOTAL REVENUES 195.75 606.17 481.76 462.47 396.38 443.86 271.14 495.15 514.20 401.01 476.08 324.22 455.55 515.87 563.85 477.67 783.99 675.61 423.21 512.72 475.86 502.52 469.33 541.49 395.33 645.16 813.15 714.36 1,085.35 497.07 622.80 386.16 512.54 463.71 521.96 503.87 197.74 419.94 593.01 311.52 188.67 >’•48.07 604.48 495.78 309.16 755.13 606.03 211.39 778.35 823.44 358.32 4 - k 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 CANi LITTLE FALL.> LONG PRAIRIE LUVERNE MAHTOMEDI MANKATO MAPLE GROVE MAPLEWOOD MARSHALL MEDINA y.;:;.ROSE hLNijOTA HEIGHTS OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR MINNESOTA FINANCIAL HEALTH PROGRAM Revenues Per Capita For the Year Ended Deceiuber 31, 1988 TAXES 133.13 120.44 137.93 155.39 133.17 168.51 148.36 186.43 144.27 151.19 151.19 119.01 179.03 185.71 367.26 143.21 168.21 129.20 55.47 160.45 97.35 127.31 227.06 155.71 97.07 197.37 141.68 257.17 116.64 132.55 149.76 150.05 82.21 143.00 73.85 157.02 141.35 119.19 101.37 129.19 127.43 98.72 89.81 104.37 205.57 129.87 150.90 191.06 244.70 88.99 228.35 09/25/89 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 ^.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 13.51 2.51 4.56 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 32.34 158.17 47.41 145.59 46.23 27.58 40.06 51.90 20.48 118.32 74.08 41.47 63.22 13.60 105.41 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 642.56 564.29 646.34 517.12 467.13 353.29 601.64 610.57 618.03 480.79 426.91 681.75 444.98 534.76 758.21 353.81 664.15 397.13 176.42 499.92 272.28 798.18 657.85 720.26 239.87 671.97 266.95 855.27 497.48 557.70 434.40 506.68 281.04 513.15 189.61 640.33 439.67 450.01 679.13 431.00 530.86 350.99 357.85 692.48 719.33 579.43 404.87 611.09 838.72 495.90 720.49 4-4 OFFICE OF rSL BTArE AUDITOR MINNESOTA FINANCIAL HEALTH PROGRAM Revenues Per Capita For the Vear Ended December 31, 1988 NAME OF CITY MINNEAPOLIS MINNETONKA MINNETRISTA MONTEVIDEO MONTGOMERY MONTICELLO MOORHEAD MORA MORRIS MOUND MOUNDS VIEW MOUNTAIN IRON NEW BRIGHTON NEW HOPE NEW PRAGUE NEW um NEWPORT NORTH MANKATO NORTH OAKS NORTH ST. PAUL NORTHFIELD OAK PARK HEIGHTS OAKDALE OLIVIA ORONO ORTONVILLE OSSEO OWATONNA PARK RAPIDS PINE CITY PIPESTONE PLAINVIEW PLYMOUTH PRINCETON PRIOR LAKE PROCTOR RAMSEY RED WING REDWOOD FALLS RICHFIELD ROBBINSDALE ROCHESTER ROCKFORD ROSEMOUNT ROSEVILLE SARTELL SAUK CENTRE SAUK RAPIDS SAVAGE SHAKOPEE SHOREVIEW TAXES 398.12 241.10 168.35 123.52 147.22 467.60 84.56 118.61 121.19 131.35 74.41 155.53 107.33 158.13 151.42 128.20 254.60 128.10 136.95 70.39 125.56 225.09 120.31 136.04 161.01 135.83 129.72 189.63 95.67 96.87 104.19 94.42 188.20 290.39 155.47 118.10 83.02 523.62 112.53 189.09 177.02 298.55 134.99 203.18 169.53 217.24 95.12 137.29 205.43 252.24 84.96 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 19.50 115.50 80.78 28.84 15.42 104.40 48.59 21.49 25.13 99.29 21.83 16.21 29.20 13.16 30.90 30.23 8.68 98.72 0.00 57.91 95.80 54.12 190.02 15.85 45.60 0.41 202.19 57.12 50.72 4.50 14.51 20.98 167.82 17.04 123.72 21.73 103.88 32.68 18.02 28.63 4.64 38.90 43.05 125.11 30.66 152.94 22.73 68.03 123.88 116.78 40.83 LICENSES & PERMITS 19.48 27.19 17.18 4.27 5.86 17.42 6.17 8.62 4.79 16.45 12.04 1.55 11.34 5.85 9.12 6.61 12.30 5.14 19.46 9.22 10.42 6.05 20.54 2.17 17.07 0.62 7.44 6.82 7.69 5.08 3.26 1.99 30.01 7.89 12.99 2.64 35.75 8.10 1.96 8.63 5.25 16.23 7.66 38.94 13.97 13.61 5.17 6.40 25.38 26.55 11.69 FEDERAL GRANTS 116.25 3.36 3.09 5.99 0.00 0.00 43.93 0.00 31.65 4.43 0.00 0.00 14.04 18.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.12 54.64 7.58 0.00 511.39 6.28 11.94 0.00 11.53 10.38 0.00 10.99 1.18 0.00 0.00 10.52 3.74 43.44 9.68 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.09 52.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 STATE GRANTS 270.11 93.68 95.67 210.11 198.85 71.20 204.08 137.97 267.47 102.32 75.82 218.79 70.41 101.71 145.29 211.31 127.53 307.76 19.81 117.09 118.18 52.65 111.07 165.32 65.92 259.94 101.39 180.81 158.33 140.98 237.32 124.05 59.70 140.18 75.64 130.92 67.22 151.11 160.49 146.43 162.12 167.21 96.32 218.74 81.02 113.88 162.41 287.93 102.52 146.51 58.29 4-5 09/25/89 r* M m w M 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 0.00 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 3.64 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 42.23 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 7.41 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 32.02 29.85 64. j1 59.35 41.31 125.72 92.52 31.33 66.39 47.64 40.89 11.93 44.15 104.19 48.45 64.63 28.90 57.97 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 1,157.74 680.14 429.35 432.30 425.53 784.34 493.62 362.96 537.19 442.80 273.01 456.20 383.20 420.07 392.99 488.34 455.13 601.17 193.93 308.93 490.40 411.81 555.13 356.86 456.73 505.43 532.84 548.96 992.80 364.91 485.03 357.64 620.65 533.13 497.54 317.24 364.92 826.89 355.37 485.58 502.64 782.19 323.25 734.48 390.68 605.96 383.80 613.20 640.97 692.21 258.46 4 “ OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR MINNESOTA FINANCIAL HEALTH PROGRAM Revenues Per Capita For the Year Ended Decen±>er 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 CHARLES CLOUD JAMES JOSEPH LOUIS PARK PAUL PAUL PARK PETER STAPLES STEWARTVILLE STILLWATER THIEF RIVER FALLS TWO HARBORS VADNAIS HEIGHTS VIRGINIA MACONIA WADENA WAITE PARK WARROAD ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. WASECA WAYZATA WELLS WEST ST. PAUL WHITE BEAR LAKE WILLMAR WINDOM WINONA WOODBURY WORTHINGTON METRO - AVERAGE - MAXIMUM - MINIMUM NON-METRO - STATEWIDE - AVERAGE MAXIMUM MINIMUM AVERAGE MAXIMUM MINIMUM TAXES 213.41 95.51 117.75 106.68 76.78 186.87 81.87 135.72 160.77 130.54 207.05 86.59 44.67 182.86 328.97 82.43 73.84 74.49 98.95 161.41 117.21 73.82 93.41 280.69 258.99 74.54 147.16 36.23 133.44 342.72 115.04 153.01 77.93 115.18 123.16 198.22 331.56 168.61 228.88 425.29 40.64 180.87 523.62 36.23 214.67 523.62 36.23 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 236.53 0.00 30.86 8.10 5.82 28.49 30.95 8.78 5.13 42.76 62.07 34.48 40.72 33.51 46.50 130.22 0.00 59.37 67.06 74.92 35.60 6.48 80.30 13.27 145.29 16.24 38.24 38.10 27.55 39.21 20.17 43.85 68.60 25.62 86.95 21.84 297.88 41.63 73.59 333.29 0.00 39.30 221.26 0.00 63.44 333.29 0.00 LICENSES & PERMITS 64.86 1.60 3.27 11.66 6.64 6.07 8.53 2.20 5.59 3.53 15.50 1.58 8.19 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 2.72 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 STATE GRANTS 66.94 323.16 223.08 214.48 155.35 207.87 81.38 186.40 82.98 210.36 232.16 149.62 130.62 108.45 263.06 121.86 145.42 241.22 217 129 184 260 36 463 136 121 102 220.54 177.27 83 47 77 53 01 89 65 97 01 84 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 m 4 - 1I COUNTY & LOCAL GRANTS 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 1*73.71 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 ARGES FORFEITS REVENUES 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. ' 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 2.51 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 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR MINNESOTA FINANCIAL HEALTH PROGRAM Current Expenditures Per Capita For the Year Ended December 31, l988 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 79.10 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 POLICE 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 .?0 51.6. 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 FIRE 17.04 64.35 29.10 8.44 14.73 9.89 25.89 14.71 68.60 8.15 23.83 8.23 32.62 15.94 23.05 12.11 24.99 6.78 36.58 7.72 9.67 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 37.33 45 09 50 05 28 STREETS & HIGHWAYS 72.54 62.29 56.10 14.75 35.77 50.56 27.04 93.79 83.61 24.05 74 43 67 98 49 25.99 50.04 71.76 45.94 54.08 52.27 43.19 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 58.01 29.79 37.78 82.63 72.82 81.83 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 41 00 0*7 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 m m 4-9 LI I 09/22/89 Ml CULTURE & RECREATION 0.00 75.12 47.68 10.53 66.93 31.52 26.04 28.66 60.40 9.88 59.57 38.36 39.98 45.28 9.76 27.34 36.12 58.94 25.99 56.64 60.24 32.38 19.93 30.22 26.49 10.16 50.72 41.86 31.63 31.80 46.83 18.68 52.10 8.25 79.56 31.84 2.92 38.92 104.09 32.49 9.62 13.75 13.23 52.31 8.46 48.97 29.92 3.42 84.34 51.51 31.93 URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING 0.00 12.61 0.00 0.85 6.71 6.69 0.00 0.56 20.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.18 28.58 7.87 8.31 47.40 23.76 3.53 29.53 28.32 0.32 116.08 0.00 0.00 0. uO 10.87 5.30 40.51 40.34 2.74 0.00 3.60 0.00 30.75 10.46 2.65 1.30 0.00 4.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 131.06 0.00 70.78 0.00 0.98 96.24 0.49 10.89 INTEREST AND FISCAL CHARGES 6.61 24.69 12.85 110.24 28.91 56.09 10.89 6.15 19.19 99.40 0.00 31.87 34.37 27.89 120.06 51.51 175.62 137.93 36.49 62.95 23.46 30.51 92.94 142.25 97.09 104.59 739.79 142.94 193.59 61.12 0.30 31.33 24.45 59.21 65.01 53.35 5.13 28.22 22.61 22.76 6.21 20.66 97.25 53.54 34.66 57.81 77.44 34.98 79.55 139.80 47.08 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES 11.21 20.97 21.37 17.96 8.21 15.71 5.96 8.77 17.52 19.17 15.93 9.77 18.52 37.76 8.06 9.79 20.18 5.81 22.07 28.11 22.75 2.39 14.62 13.83 20.26 57.71 33.36 45.93 85.62 76.76 49.05 13.67 12.81 1.73 11.77 29.28 17.78 124.82 66.61 55.41 17.26 43.43 10.09 17.67 0.47 74.93 0.00 8.93 62.44 70.87 21.96 TOTAL CURRENT EXPENDITURES 152.54 402.67 358.96 213.89 339.01 261.06 169.47 330.48 390.92 235.40 319.12 256.97 351.23 374.11 358.74 219.11 515.36 404.37 327.35 397.89 320.91 232.12 429.46 374.25 336.65 365.09 527.91 432.65 532.20 394.44 474.92 214.02 352.87 243.97 372.15 297.30 168.73 351.39 437.57 250.79 161.89 307.02 363.93 487.24 210.92 596.99 276.40 110.41 644 .69 435.08 306.09 4-10 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR MINNESOTA 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 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 69.65 159.99 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 POLICE FIRE 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 74.69 61.80 54.53 72.44 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 83.83 126.97 89.25 65.22 66.91 29.34 53.32 66.04 49.92 43.74 57.61 110,00 73.64 106.75 93.58 38.81 90.50 59.98 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 34.52 64.51 21.81 55.77 72.56 41.76 28.42 63.77 35.48 41.81 91.18 91.57 52.55 31.76 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 0 0 0 34 00 13 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 1.49 II I I I 1 ,1 n 4-11 09/22/89 16.60 6.73 49.63 20.66 307.14 48.04 9.93 15.42 35.54 488.24 45.62 0.00 7.48 186.20 520.52 31.53 0.00 18.09 33.04 405.87 65.81 8.00 63.74 25.55 349.65 8.49 0.00 60.28 22.85 232.83 49.82 79.62 56.50 39.78 465.21 42.40 18.56 81.70 1.75 371.61 74.56 46.05 44.58 26.75 388.62 22.63 0.00 54.83 47.27 328.75 20.10 14.93 48.51 1.79 318.45 51.84 2.53 14.25 41.08 453.68 27.20 15.06 55.08 11.99 305.^7 68.00 3.05 13.09 19.08 383. ^ 37.07 9.61 105.00 29.94 481.01 7.80 0.00 67.88 0.34 241.31 106.79 12.76 71.94 30.97 476.91 48.14 23.23 34.02 10.56 309.60 0.00 0.00 11.64 10.87 93.94 24.92 1.91 50.64 23.22 294.66 2.49 0.00 35.77 16.44 184.93 52.18 12.49 25.94 89.45 417.49 27.93 18.00 35.15 44.69 389.31 135.57 33.27 0.00 35.53 629.73 0.40 0.00 15.69 22.61 170.72 95.24 36.26 77.64 54.92 472.82 0.66 0.00 0.00 2.32 245.22 41.61 2.02 30.56 117.44 556.94 25.04 0.00 80.30 11.93 289.44 43.11 0.00 76.09 64.60 441.57 14.77 29.53 24.38 21.04 269.76 46.89 0.00 18.89 15.14 230.17 16.38 0.00 30.11 12.56 172.30 42.86 0.00 102.27 15.19 348.44 7.02 0.00 3.52 1.45 116.02 31.06 0.00 93.05 12.40 316.11 82.02 3.31 28.47 37.29 356.48 11.98 0.00 33.80 6.02 238.06 57.79 0.17 24.81 18.31 308.11 13.81 1.20 64.01 7.53 185.84 25.66 2.00 103.06 38.80 353.80 8.41 0.00 4*’.96 4.38 263.20 80.37 4.36 13.06 8.29 301.04 13.00 0.00 *^3.95 12.07 221.71 50.62 17.39 72.15 79.64 438.92 29.55 13.57 78.27 2.44 247.12 33.15 14.05 40.18 11.42 296.29 116.09 65.54 69.35 9.86 527.72 3.68 0.00 93.26 103.19 481.71 9.25 0.00 38.00 2.12 285.03 16.15 0.00 112.33 5.68 350.54 4-12 i ' L] OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR MINNESOTA FINANCIAL HEALTH PROGRAMCurrent Expenditures Per Capita For the Year Ended December 31, 1988 NAME OF CITY GOVERNMENT POLICE FIRE HIGHWAYS SANITATION MINNEAPOLIS 109.96 150.66 96.59 78.73 40.20 MINNETONKA 39.83 68.94 14.80 36.04 0.00 MINNETRISTA 81.06 74.15 26.05 70.07 0.93 MONTEVIDEO 46.98 55.25 14.22 64.26 0.19 MONTGOMERY 44.65 69.32 18.39 74.38 1.73 MONTICELLO 90.34 33.27 22.97 59.09 26.05 MOORHEAD 45.69 67.41 41.45 56.14 0.00 MORA 53.98 62.51 11.27 41.04 0.00 MORRIS 47.71 72.10 12.86 69.93 27.75 MOUND 56.73 62.01 15.88 47.56 0.00 MOUNDS VIEW 61.05 52.35 10.77 19.51 0.00 MOUNTAIN IRON 92.24 66.60 13.97 87.00 20.95 NEW BRIGHTON 38.84 44.03 6.50 24.19 0.00 NEW HOPE 38.73 76.76 16.54 27.34 1.63 NEW PRAGUE 55.00 70.00 11.14 60.70 0.00 NEW UI21 63.45 70.36 11.00 83.99 3.43 NEWPORT 64.58 91.11 14.49 70.46 0.00 NORTH MANKATO 50.09 41.46 5.98 81.38 0.00 NORTH OAKS 15.21 79.61 11.28 5.39 0.00 NORTH ST. PAUL 18.85 54.63 8.94 33.11 2.71 NORTHFIELD 48.29 63.79 12.69 49.17 0.00 OAK PARK HEIGHTS 68.96 89.91 4.28 19.25 38.27 OAKDALE 53.03 57.78 15.20 31.93 0.00 OLIVIA 55.60 48.27 14.91 60.83 1.00 ORONO 80.88 120.65 19.54 47.28 0.00 ORTONVILLE 32.41 104.33 8.54 98.13 3.75 OSSEO 45.91 51.29 8.67 37.82 0.00 OWATONNA 31.28 51.05 24.00 62.72 1.79 PARK RAPIDS 78.45 57.75 16.09 56.37 2.61 PINE CITY 71.57 23.70 30.83 71.93 0.00 PIPESTONE 99.04 56.29 18.60 59.74 0.00 PLAINVIEW 57.04 62.18 16.02 52.65 0.00 PLYMOUTH 37.80 51.60 13.45 38.19 4.91 PRINCETON 68.43 58.31 25.05 63.12 0.52 PRIOR LAKE 61.96 64.44 9.32 4 3.59 0.00 PROCTOR 56.32 66.29 8.39 40.39 1.00 RAMSEY 61.58 33.72 6.81 17.13 0.00 RED WING 62.25 104.28 81.41 97.98 40.17 REDWOOD FALLS 57.81 67.63 16.19 77.13 0.00 RICHFIELD 46.13 84.71 41.44 26.84 0.00 ROBBINSDALE 76.39 89.41 14.12 41.38 0.00 ROCHESTER 33.36 92.78 81.40 62.36 1.56 ROCKFORD 83.57 26.35 19.74 42.22 0.00 ROSEMOUNT 100.89 58.48 12.02 72.84 0.00 ROSEVILLE 32.27 54.84 14.15 33.06 0.00 SARTELL 44.22 46.93 15.58 37.63 0.00 SAUK CENTRE 46.56 82.21 19.54 51.82 15.55 SAUK RAPIDS 39.81 49.86 14.58 57.47 0 SAVAGE 80.48 70.30 10.05 43.26 0. ..w SHAKOPEE 71.14 90.80 11.93 66.38 18.22 SHOREVIEW 27.11 25.78 9.61 32.26 0.00 4-13 I n 1 I j I I 09/22/89 CULTURE & RECREATION 110.73 25.73 0.88 35.51 17.77 41.34 44.04 13.69 34.14 18.57 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 4 * 32 0.12 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 URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING 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 INTEREST AND FISCAL CHARGES 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 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES TOTAL CURRENT EXPENDITURES 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 6.73 868.48 338.04 323.20 337.90 285.23 442.16 420.15 278.49 354.90 288.41 198.85 369.67 272.11 283.68 281.78 396.96 329.49 351.43 160.26 173.87 307.80 275.50 268.84 306.18 339.52 490.18 227.68 334.87 622.66 264.46 408.21 291.94 286.05 405.82 337.39 245.53 182.20 572.52 318.65 369.18 415.62 467.05 224.36 362.12 274.30 269.16 309.32 257.97 344.60 402.34 161.03 I OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR MINNESOTA FINANCIAL HEALTH PROGRAM Current Expenditures Per Capita For the Year Ended December 31, l988 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 WAY2ATA WELLS WEST ST. PAUL WHITE BEAR LAKE WILIilAR WINDOM WINONA WOODBURY WORTHINGTON METRO - AVERAGE - MAXIMUM - MINIMUM NON-METRO - STATEWIDE - AVERAGE MAXIMUM MINIMUM 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 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 52.65 81 29 67 79 47 84 05 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 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 53.42 75.29 42.63 159.99 133.76 123.87 8.54 23.70 5.62 60.22 80.94 41.19 159.99 150.66 123.87 8.54 9.05 4.28 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 60.37 76.27 93.89 60.74 28 42 63 60 43 72 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 45 55 83 94 14 92 50.05 94.83 5.39 66.47 126.97 22.54 54.91 126.97 5.39 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 8.09 40.20 0.00 4.13 40.47 0.00 6.91 40.47 0.00 4-15 09/22/89 » f m M 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 URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING INTEREST AND FISCAL CHARGES 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 87.63 119.85 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 4-16 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES 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 TOTAL CURRENT EXPENDITURES 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 lie.73 C. 00 34.09 108.29 0.00 75.66 193.59 0.00 47.56 127.33 0.00 453.77 868.48 93.94 54.40 135.57 2.49 25.88 309.64 0.00 49.84 224.94 0.00 43.31 206.01 0.06 415.37 908.16 172.30 52.25 135.57 0.00 31.66 309.64 0.00 68.02 224.94 0.00 46.30 206.01 0.00 442.40 908.16 93.94 1 1 I APPENDIX B ANALYSIS BY CLASS OF CITY « m Mi m 'Hi u Indicator OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR FINANCIAL HEALTH PROFILE SUMMARY BY CLASS OF CITY For the Year Ended Deceaber 31, 1988 CLASS 1 (Greater than 90,000 in Population) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Average Maxi nun Mininun 09/25/89 Total Revenues • 5 *^ear Percent Change State Intergovernmental Revenues • 5 Year Percent Change Federal Intergovernmental Revenues - 5 Year Percent Ch.* -g Local Intergovernmental Revenues - 5 Year Percent Change Total Intergovernmental Reve^-xjes • 5 Year Percent Change Property Taxes 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 Expenditures Per Capita Total Revenues Per Capita Total Expenditures 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 Funds) as a X of Total Revenues Total Fund Islance as a Percent of Total Current Expenditures Interest Income as a Pe- ent of Total Revenues Debt Service as a Percent of Total Revenues Full-time Employees Per 1,000 in Population (Governmental Funds) Part-time Eim>loyees Per 1,000 in Population (Governmental Funds) fringe Benefits as a Percent Total Payroll (Governmental Funds) General Government Current Cxpeneditures Per Capita Police Current Expenediture.. Per Capita Fire Current Expeneditures Per Capita Streets t Highways Current Expeneditures Per Capita Culture I Recreation Current Expeneditures Per Capita U.OX 5.4X •33.9X 131.AX -5.IX 31.OX 2.8X 37.2X 71.5X 15.6X 27. IX O.OX 338.AX O.OX 31.9X 5.AX A3. IX 77.tX S 765.08 S 868.A8 S S 999,69 S 1,157.'»A S SI,152.92 S 1,391.22 S S 307.OA S A76.10 S 3.9X 6.8X S 67.A1 S 89.62 S 0.9X 3A.0X 3.6X 5.7X IS. AX 11.1 1.1 21 .AX 2.3X A6.1X 5.6X 6.2X 16.OX 11.A A.2 31.2X S 87.6A S 109.96 S S 12A.19 S 150.66 S S 89.00 S 96.59 S S 73.92 S 87.56 S S 91.35 S 110.73 S 10.OX -8.2X -55.9X .■*/ 7X -7.1X 26.AX 1.2X 35.9X 63.OX 596.99 755.13 789.65 150.2A 2.3X 32.06 0.5X 27.6X O.OX 3.9X 1A.1X 9.3 1.1 19.8X 57.58 86.AA 80.85 63.19 A8.97 1 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR FINANCIAL HEALTH PROFILE SUMMARY BY CLASS OF CITY For the Year Ended December 31, 1988 CLASS 2 (20,000 to 90,000 in Population) 09/25/89 Indicator Average Max irrvr^Minimifn Total Revefxies * S Year Percent Change 34.3X 78.8X -0.8X State Intergoverrvnental Revenues - 5 Year Percent Change 26.6X 63.7X -3.9X Pederal Intergovernmental Revenues - 5 Year Percent Change -39.3X 107.7X -100.OX Local Intergovernmental Revenues - 5 Year Percent Change 264.3X 7,4/8.3X -100.ox Total Intergovernmental Revenues • 5 Year Percent Change 23.7X 124.OX -25.2X Property Taxes as a Percent of Total Revenues 30. BX 57.8X 17.1X ^mrn Special Assessments as a Percent of ctal Revenues 14.2X 39.5X 2.IX i Total Intergovernmental Revenues as a Percent of Total Revenues 25.IX 50.9X 9.4X Limited Levy as a Percent of the Total Levy 66.IX 89. IX 49.8X Total Current Expenditures Per Capita S 342.06 S 515.36 S 161.03 — Total Revenues Per Capita S 559.90 s 823.44 s 258.46 Total Expenditures Per Capita S 641.28 s 991.88 s 268.15 0^- General Obligation Indebtedness Per Capita S 116.86 %328.84 s 0.00 General Obligation Debt as a Percent of Assessed Valuation 1.3X 4.8X o.ox Special Assessment lndebtedr>ess Per Capita S 461.16 %1,454.47 s 13.37 Special Assessment Debt as a Percent of Assessed Valuation 5.3X 19.3X 0.2X Hmm Total Liabilities (Governmental FifxJs) as a X of Total Revenues 64.7X 172.6X 7.IX Total Fund Balance as a Percent of Total Current Expenditures 25.5X 58.7X O.OX Interest Income as a Percent of Total Revenues 11.2X 23.9X 3.2X — Debt Service as a Percent of Total Revenues 28.6X 131.2X 9.3X - Full-time Employees Per 1,000 in Population (Governmental Finds)4.2 6.8 1.5 - Part-time Eitployees Per 1,000 In Population (Governmental Finds)4.3 13.2 0.3 Fringe Benefits as a Percent Total Payroll (Governmerital Funds)18.6X 35.5X 1.3X General Government Current Expeneditures Per Capita S 48.00 %13M8 s 8.54 Police Current Expeneditures Per Capita S 68.38 %92.78 s 25.78 Fire Current Expeneditures Per Capita t 29.42 %81.88 s 5.46 Streets t Highways Current Expeneditures Per Capita S 44.07 %93.58 s 23.45 Culture S Recreation Current Expeneditures Per Capita S 40.22 s 101.31 %13.20 5 • I ■I m t« i: Ml Indicator OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR FINAMCIAL HEALTH PROFILE SUMMARY BY CLASS OF CITYFor th« Y«sr Ended December 31, 19S8 CLASS 3 (10,000 to 20,000 in Population) Average Maxirtun Minimen Total Revenues - 5 Tear Percent Change State Intergovernmental Revenues - 5 Tear Percent Change Federal Intergovernaental Revenues * 5 Year Percent Change Local Intergovernmental Revenues - 5 Tear Percent Change Total Intergovernmental Revenues - 5 Tear Percent Change Property Taxes as a Percent of Total Revenues Special Assessments as a Percent of Total Revenues Total Intergovernmental Revenues as a P,n,»nt of Total Revenues Limited Levy as a Percent of the Total Levy Trtal Current Expertditures Per Capita *otsl Revenues Per Capita otal Expenditures Per Capita S 357.27 S 908.16 S 546.65 S 990.34 S 677.70 S 1,345.17 Gi'eral Obligation Indebtedness Per Capita S 96.93 S 345.93 S 0.00 Ceners. Obligation Debt as a Percent of Assessed Valuation 1.7%8.9X o.ox Special Assessment Indebtedness Per Capita "0.61 S 1,872.93 S 0.00 Special Assessment Debt as a Percent of Assessed Valuation 8.2X 40.4X o.ox Total Liabilities (Governmental Fmisi as a X of Total Revenues 67. IX 207.5X 11.8X Total Fund Salanca as a Percent of Total Current Expenditures 31.9X 74.2X o.ox Interest Income as a Percent of Total Revenues 7.9X 17.A 1.2X Debt Service as a Percent of Total Revenues 29.OX 93.1X 7.4X Full'time E«plo>.*es Per 1,000 in Population (Governmental finis)4.9 13.5 1.5 Part'time EMoms Per 1,000 in Population (Governmental Finis)6.6 26.1 0.0 Fringe tenefits as a Percent Total Payroll (Governmental Funds)22.OX 31.7X 11.3X General Government Current Expeneditures Per Capita S 51.93 s 76.39 s 18.85 Police Current Expeneditures Per Capita s 71.59 s 112.76 s 15.81 Fire Current Expeneditures Per Capita s 28.69 s 123.87 s 6.81 Streets t Highways Current Expeneditures Per Cspita s 52.63 s 106.49 s 14.75 Culture t Recreation Current Expeneditures Per Capita s 47.59 s 124.78 s 9.45 09/25/89 5 • 3 09/25/89 Indicator OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR FINANCIAL HEALTH PROFILE SUMMARY BY CLASS OF CITY For tho Year Ended December 31, 1988 CLASS 4 (Less Than 10,000 in Population) Averaoe Maxiwon Total Revenues ■ 5 Tear Percent Change State Intergovernmental Revenues - 5 Tear Percent Change Federal Intergovernmental Revenues • 5 Year Percent Change Local Intergovernmental Revenues ■ 5 Year Percent Change Total Intergovernmental Revenues • S Year Percent Change Property Taxes 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 Expenditure* Per Capita Total Revenues Per Capita Total Expenditures Per Capita Ceneral 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 Finds) 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 Revenues Full'time Employees Per 1,000 in Population (Governmental Funds) Part'tine Employees Per 1,000 in Population (Governmental Finds) Fringe Benefits as a Percent Total Payroll (Governmental Finds) General Government Current Expeneditures Per Capita Police Current Expeneditures Per Capita Fire Current Expeneditures Per Capita Streets t Highvays Current Expeneditures Per Capita Culture I Recreation Current Expeneditures Per Capita 30.OX 33.9X 230.OX 830.OX •46.4X 6,312.4X -31.IX 779.8X U.BX 28.3X 12.5X 36.6X 64.8X 428.9X 70.6X 48.IX 86.2X 100.OX t 325.10 S 662.89 S 498.78 S 1,905.73 % 609.83 S 2,233.40 S 83.r» S 576.92 1.5X 24.7X S 436.18 S 1,687.62 7.7X 61.6X 37.3X 7.1X 28.5X 4.0 9.1 22.2X 42.4X 196.5X 127.4X 23.9X 179.8X 10.2 40.2 1,510.OX 58.27 S 159.99 61.79 S 133.76 17.71 S 84.90 55.34 S 126.97 33.16 S 135.57 Winimm •48.0X -100.OX -100.ox -100.ox -72.8X 1.9X o.ox 8.6X 25. IX S 93.94 S 176.42 i 163.08 S 0.00 o.ox S 0.00 O.OX o.ox •5.3X 0.2X o.ox 0.5 0.2 O.OX S 15.21 9.05 4.28 5.39 0.00 II I I I 1 J 1 5 - 4 APPENDIX C REGIONAL ANALYSIS I* p p w ! 1* Minnesota County Outline By Region ^ V r \ »CC 0*1 GM*-:OOulOS Sitvtss •t*i A *A>\ c»0» <» S'.1 m/TT^L— i»;se s:n i>:v S7T Noe.is 6 - 1 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR Minnesota Financial Health Program Analysis of Population 19B4 _ _ _1985 1986 1987 1988 Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 25,121 14,410 186,627 72,261 24,869 14.245 182,325 72.246 24,910 13,944 179,640 72.067 24,681 13,827 177,727 72.280 24.812 13.943 177,324 72.861 1 Year 5 Year X Change X Change 0.5X -1.2X 0.8X -3.2X •0.2X -5.OX 0.8X 0.8X Region 5 31,504 31,695 31,761 31,738 31,981 0.8X 1.5X tm Region 6E 39,604 39,904 40,009 40,267 40,686 1.0X 2.7X Region 6W 15,644 15,431 15,379 15,271 15,247 •0.2X •2.5X "*Region 7E 11,767 12,017 11,946 12,094 12,351 2.IX 5.OX Region 7W 91,905 93,684 95,234 98,859 101,651 2.8X 10.6X ■"I w# Region 8 47.242 47,310 46,989 47.087 47,511 0.9X 0.6X mmm Region 9 101,824 102,879 102,396 102,761 103,730 0.9X 1.9X Region 10 219,034 221.360 221,961 223,962 226,136 1.0X 3.2X Region 11 1.936.734 1.964.982 1.993.568 2.026.109 2.069.680 2.2X 6.9X Total 2,793,677 2,822,947 2,849,804 2,886,663 2,937.913 1.8X 5.2X Analysis of Number of Households 1 Year 5 Year 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 X Change X Change Region 1 9,640 9.570 9,623 9,616 9,695 0.8X 0.6X Region 2 5,355 5,308 5,331 5,345 5,408 1.2X 1.0X Region 3 70,790 69,556 Ji.779 68,070 68,246 0.3X -3.6X —Region 4 27,213 27,:T3 27,399 27,598 27,992 1.4X 2.9X -Region 5 12,761 12,835 12,894 13,001 13,181 1.4X 3.3X -Region 6E 15,431 15,551 15,662 15,993 16,241 1.6X 5.2X -Region 6U 6,687 6,620 6,603 6,611 6,618 0.1X •1.0X ■■Region 7E 4,925 5,039 5,065 5,142 5,287 2.8X 7.4X Region 7U 31,053 31,885 32,660 34.298 35,631 3.9X 14.7X Region 8 19,030 19,083 19,085 19,194 19,411 1.1X 2.OX Region 9 38,055 38,083 38,211 38,489 39,019 1.4X 2.5X Region 10 8.3.270 84,430 85,087 86,312 87,472 1.3X 5.OX Region 11 730.207 750.155 767.745 78\522 807.079 2.5X 10.5X Total 1,054,417 1,075,388 1,094,144 1,117,191 1,141,280 2.2X 8.2X 6 • 2 I OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR Minnesota Financial Health ProgramAnalysis of Indicated Market Value 1 Year 5 Year 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 t Change * Change Region 1 391,707,071 383,799,766 402,780,983 372,473,254 393,677,762 5.7X 0.5* Region 2 235,276,539 232,528,982 231,333,184 232,132,304 228,527,540 •1.6*•2.9* Region 3 3,735,893,024 3,036,220,5062,909,806,721 2.668.570,852 2,715,636,019 1.8*•18.6* Region 4 1,293,243,075 1,302,002,964 1,346,448,831 1,232,010,551 1,300,687,209 5.6*0.6* Region 5 556,901,256 561,930,868 559.186,812 548,142,321 554,047,332 1.1*•0.5* Region 6E 817,330,649 863,577,008 879,640,782 807,789,100 851,749,471 5.4*4.2* Region 6W 261,619.273 253,686,888 256,218,943 236,928,006 232,075,726 •2.0*•11.3* Region 7E 255,840,595 270,269,719 280,784,148 269,851,890 276,947,992 2.6* 8.3* Region 7U 2,029,915,449 2,138,396,241 2.270,040,598 2,285,049,860 2,458,320,304 7.6*21.1* Region 8 894.745.468 922,158,896 934,415,488 814,573,006 825,095,479 1.3*•7.8* Region 9 2,045.648,030 2,048,036,347 2,127,577,635 1,953,126,272 2,024.276,132 3.6*•1.0* Region 10 4,971.438,039 5,272,272,217 5,586,463,878 5,211,766,723 5,502,521,080 5.6*10.7* Reoion 11 61.790.347.592 Total 78,879,906,060 63.643.609.626 80,928,490,028 65.807.841.976 83,592,539,979 67.734.013.642 84,366,427,781 74.843.206.585 92,206,768,631 10.5* 9.3* 21.1* 16.9* Analysis of Net Property Taxes Collected 1 Year 5 Year 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 * Change *Change Region 1 2,597,129 2,857,837 2,991,598 3,371,861 3,506,130 4.0*35.C* Region 2 1,008,860 986,583 956,408 1.294,497 1,356,161 4.8*34.4* Region 3 22,724,048 24,887.224 26,050,049 27,193,238 31,047,118 14.2*36.6* Region 4 6,997,717 7,444,544 7,515,453 7,844,616 8,234,568 5.0*17.7* Region 5 2,079,335 2.447.285 2,986,868 3,585,385 3,816,680 6.5*83.6* Region 6£3,878,114 4,‘»73.623 5,883,258 6.944,843 5,754,178 •17.1*48.4* Region 6U 1,543,708 1,/<22,664 1,881,586 1,835,818 1,944,718 5.9*26.0* Region 7E 1,343,548 1,411,384 1,833,432 2,031,077 2,238,004 10.2*66.6* Region 7U 10,695,898 11,523,892 12,862,104 14,376,183 16,489,300 14.7*54.2* Region 8 4,457,028 4,834,:T7 6,081,699 6.551.673 6,738,235 2.8*51.2* Region 9 11,805,406 12,381,956 13,588,733 13,731,446 14,817,383 7.9*25.5* Region 10 27,981,395 30,275,041 33,651,689 38,325,185 40,935,198 6.8*46.3* Region 11 Total 295.469.430 392,581,616 320.402.562 426,049.172 356.516.537 472,799,414 389.273.718 516,359,540 439.117.630 575,995,303 12.8% 11.5* 48.6* 46.7* 3 6 • 3 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR Minnesota Financial Health Program Analysis of Value of Building Permits Issued 1984 Region 1 R< -) 2 » ,'on 3 Region 4 Region S Region 6E Region 6W Region 7E Region 7W Region 8 Region 9 Region 10 1985 5,860,773 7,698,765 63,096.814 27,057,589 28,951,594 20.295.333 3.797.228 9.734,470 77,501,430 18,236,205 46,025.865 190,485,112 1986 8.397,452 10.598.112 32,442.063 38,371,799 17,676,814 32.224.538 2,682,697 10,348,140 94.317,556 15,875,069 41,355,892 161,824,816 1987 1988 <‘,062,540 11,258,705 82,241.551 30.241,050 15.263,786 24.735,146 2,506,778 9,777,971 100,143,587 15,470,653 52,538,603 182,726,464 7.042,032 9,004,705 75,676,349 36,509,263 23,047,025 34.509,481 2,827,295 13,602,066 137,411,694 22,093,608 48,954,863 197,398,727 9,505,764 19,676,522 106,494.580 35,737,957 24,765,412 32,802,857 3,744,704 15,743,572 131,835,796 21,274,551 52,272,249 298,151,746 1 Year 5 Year X Change X Change 35.OX 62.2X 118.5X 155.6X 40.7X 68.8X •2.IX 32.IX 7.5X *14.5X -4.9X 61.6X 32.4X -1.4X 15.7X 61.7X -4.IX 70.IX •3.7X 16.7X 6.8X 13.6X 51.OX 56.5X Region 11 2.140.679.152 2.589.939,878 3.104.948.441 3.397.662.433 2.873,805.253 Total 2,639,420,330 3,056,054,826 3,638,715,275 4,005,739,541 3,625,810^^ •15.4X 34.2X •9.5X 37.4X Analysis of Number of Building Permits Issued *1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1 Year X Change 5 Year X Change -Region 1 514 501 489 499 484 •3.OX •5.8X Region 2 289 282 288 328 344 4.9X 19.OX Region 3 3,888 3,323 3,396 3,943 4,152 5.3X 6.8X -Region 4 1,199 1,209 1,475 1,365 1,160 •15.OX •3.3X -Region 5 642 748 689 784 693 •11.6X 7.9X —*Region 6€613 918 897 774 745 •3.7X 21.5X Region 6U 321 282 229 236 281 19.1X -12.5X Region 7E 249 236 369 396 375 •5.3X 50.6X Region 7W 1,594 1,873 2,129 2,713 2,376 -12.4X 49.IX Region 8 965 807 895 837 916 9.4X •5.IX Region 9 2,478 2,444 2,451 2,544 1,683 -33.8X •32.IX Region 10 4,688 4,698 4,865 4,824 5,273 9.3X 12.5X Region 11 47.728 48.945 54.145 59.752 58.693 •1.8X 23. OXTotal65,168 66,266 72,317 78,995 77,175 •2.3X 18.4X 6 • 4 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR Ninn«sota Financial Health Program Analysis of Total Revenues 1984 Hegion 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 13.177,533 7,027,200 110.260.733 32,556.836 14.912,633 1985 12.428.624 6,895,555 114,241,994 36,535,572 16.406,355 1986 1987 12,800,707 10,270,581 123,117,860 39,108,863 13,030,869 13,502,552 7,951.889 116,696,877 36,239,163 12.348,722 1988 14,895,241 7.878,610 123,683,536 37.351,086 13,538,234 1 Year t Change 10.3X -0.9X 6.0X 3.IX 9.6X 5 Year X C^ar^ge 13. OX 12.IX 12.2X 14.7X -9.2X Region 6E 17,045,737 18,826.099 18,438,109 21,138.956 20,521,206 •2.9X 20.4X — Region 6U 6.859,680 6.710.951 6,197,290 7,467.505 6,966,514 -6.7X 1.6X Region 7E 6,143,723 4,492.470 4,952,251 6,230,975 6,057,068 •2.8X •1.4X Region 7W 45,619,892 46,211,007 51,173,861 54.556,482 65,655,126 20.3X 43.9X ‘ • Region 8 20,217.155 21.894,284 23,177,449 23,597,749 23,805,029 0.9X 17.A Region 9 51,831,096 49,690,467 50,259,891 48,451,119 58,289,394 20.3X 12.5X Region 10 112,826,869 118,556,318 139,781,222 138,704,283 141.498,428 2.OX 25.4X Region 11 1.095.925.829 1.144.971.323 1.210.193.559 1.277.488.803 1.388.778.496 S.7X 26.7X 't-m. Total 1.534,404,916 1,597,861,019 1,702,502,512 1,764,375,075 1,908.917,968 8.2X 24.4X — Analysis of Total Current Expenditures — 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1 Year 5 Yea- X Cbanc? X Chanoe • Region 1 9,625,755 10,575.775 11,284.650 11,820,285 12,021,900 1.7X 24.9X Region 2 4,144,951 4,219.657 4,339,171 4,374,336 5,668,555 29.6X 36.8X r*'- 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 ?->.5X Region 6C 12,081,720 12,828,79V 13,041,074 14,217,662 14,692,371 3.3X 21.6X Region 6U 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 7U 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 2-'.. 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 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR Minnesota Financial Health Program i t m Analysis of Total Bonded Indebtedness 19S4 1985 1986 1987 1988 iesion 1 teflon 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6E Region 6U Region 7E Region 7U Region 8 Region 9 Region 10 26.548.000 10.047.400 120.377.796 36.028.342 17,957.900 67.590.000 16.403.000 14,841,249 80.026.000 49,602,000 77.824,710 132,643,600 25,451,781 10,210,000 127,758,352 60,497,401 22,213,400 69.555.000 16.548.000 14.520.000 106,083,000 56.942,007 93,311,546 146,281,008 23.804.564 7,909,100 132.884,876 59,502,632 21,552,900 73.590.000 17.400.000 14.368.000 121.534,000 58,308,106 102,105,923 164,009.864 22.622,947 9.253.200 180.008,536 57.309,551 19,309,900 87.930.000 19.505.000 13.877.000 129,858,273 59.234.838 100,268.494 165,999,067 21.204.729 8,550,300 174,238,000 58.849.814 19,927,500 90.190.000 19.060.000 13.937.000 148,637,546 61,288,536 103,283,643 164,052,755 1 Year X Change •6.IX 5 Year X Change -20.IX Region 11 1,583.949.384 1.958.799,223 2.345.081,163 2.464.069.340 2.755.690.540 Total 2.253.839,381 2,708,17:,718 3,142,051,128 3.329.246,146 3.638.910,363 -7.6X -3.2X 2.7X S.2X 2.6X •2.3X 0.4X 14.5X 3.5X 3.OX •1.2X 11.8X -14.9X 44.7X 5.OX 11.OX 33.4X 16.2X •6.IX 85.7X 23.6X 32.A 23.A 74. OX 9.3X 61.5X Analysis of Undesignated, Unreserved General Fund Balance 1 Year 5 Year M 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 X Change X Change Region 1 2,112,273 2.215.0U 2.467,101 2.759.584 2,811.805 1.9X 33.IX M W Region 2 2,095.549 2.546.753 2.738,777 2,758,227 2,985,033 8.2X 42.4X m Region 3 15.771,128 14,527,731 16,156,001 15,586,701 19.214,276 23.3X 21.8X M Region 4 6,270,381 7.520,540 8,205,006 9.655.712 8,660,604 -10.3X 38.IX M 5 2,964,188 3,601,942 3,782,856 4,406,954 4,701,394 6.A 58.6X M Region 6C 2.048.550 1,808,121 2,348.402 2,725,886 2.406.908 -11.A 17.5X Region 6U 1,105,582 903,702 1,162,373 1,230,973 1,280,266 4.OX 15.8X M Region 7E 424,260 U0.549 818,364 1.172,844 1.375.519 17.3X 224.2X \4 Region 7U 9,116,871 11,594,156 13,890,345 15,429,171 17.279.853 12.OX 89.5X •Region 8 5,000,392 5,139.714 5,228,201 5,369,724 5,352,600 -0.3X 7.OX - i Region 9 7,601,605 8,683,008 10,063,321 10,610,868 11,093,919 4.6X 45.9X Region 10 27,288,213 27.857,995 30,125.914 31,554,462 30,503,254 -3.3X 11.8X Region 11 106.895.718 116.049.883 131.385.935 132.370.835 139.907.313 5.A 3C.9X turn Total 188,694.510 202,889,108 228.372.596 235,631,941 247,572,744 5.IX 31.2X 6 - 6 .••?a3gr«naBiirnT7nry ^ •. -ivyr?- ■'.•it '.'.'C - .= tiUj-^TCSa ....Mmm:Mrn CKAN5IS TO THI 190 WUNESOTA FtHMICJAl »«*tT« OOFIIE •.v;v ■ • ■ '; • .- In tadUlon to Ificrttsloa the eurnher of cU1e$ irclt«led \n thi Wt h«vt owoe severfti ehangts to the profiles. irUfly, those ores Indicator 5:Tr«a9 ‘ Ifc Maftdtteil Countj W*lf»r« S*rv1cti (fomtrjy Trend in lftdl*1i»a1 fefiwiRlc Stitu*) :?v _,-V :*S' ■€,»; Oue to tWerel end Sute U« lew cMnse*. (u* *li«ptlflc»Uofll Hr Cepiu Federel Adjirtted Srojs incnme Tlguret »rt no lonjer •Mileblf on • b«»l* eonpertble to prior j*ers. «« doletM thjt portion of tM IMlHtor and a^ed Hat ttsl fare Coat* tor the ■counties. I nd 1 caior ft Traad is Hawsti# Sources 0-:£: 00'- «■■ . Fldfrtl |nd Sute eourees of Inttrsoveriwontal Havenues have a-!®rfSk:;l»aeS';evpaftded to show (Ksre deUlUV- ^■-Rillwi1'";^ >V'iRdUator 8: Change In Property Tax levy ■"3:&;; *• we have loM a ei^toUt, Pr^fty tax levy, for clarification *iT»**,, It is the tout Of limited levy and Other Local Levy. ; iigllcitsr ISi Tfand in Outstanding Bonded indebtedness • As*Mi Hve major types of bonded debt err shown together artth thi bit ether bended debt category. Total Bonded Debt is shown as weir, Md should agree with the total In BudltM financial sutements. W' 0 'J #■ iS3t Append^* «i Bevenues and EifendVUres Hr Capita fi' 'I11- ' thstfjid of Hstiap only the cities by seminar for comparisons of pivenyes and iJtranOltures per capita, m have listed all ISl ■0 Si* 4 cutes Included in the «FHP and expanded the cowparlson categories ijgv W^.;gi*f from four to tan 0^00 f ;.vi •••■ f'4. ■ I:.....4 TO: Mayor and City Council FROt: Thomas M. Kuehn, Finance Director DATS January 3, 1990 1390.9 tUUJIUlt Mtt! INti JAN 81990 CITY OF CPONfi SUBJECT: 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 consuitant, Ehlers and Assoc, to review the bond and to direct the City how to proceed with this request. They have advised tha^ 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 TFie 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: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat Forwarded recommending adoption. 1390.10 CITY OF ORONO city of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A RES^UTIOH AOTHORIZIHG TEIB 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 NHEREAS: A. The City Council of the City of Orono, by resolution authorized the issuance of General Obligation Bonds of 1985 (hereinafter referred to aj 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. BOW THEREFt «E, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono as folJ '•ws; 1. The Finance Director is hereby directed to send letter to the Bond Registrar of the G.O. Improvement Bonds of 1985, First Trust Company, authorizing the Bond Registrar to issue a Duplicate Certificate 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. James R. GrabeKT Mayor ATTEST: Dorotny M. Hailin, city Clerk" 1390.5 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat DATS: January 3, 1990 SUBJECT: Stubb*s Bay Sewer Meeting fi JAN 81990 CITY OF QPmn Attachment: A. Stubbs Bay Memo Dated 12/1/39 ISSUE - Updated information regarding proposed meeting to be held on Stubb's Bay sewer. INTRODUCTION - .At the Council's December 1 1, 1989, Council meeting they established January 30th as a possible date ♦ ^r a Stubb's Bay sewer meeting. D. SCUSS ION - The staff has contacted the school, wher. 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 *^urther 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 TO: Mayor and City Council FAOM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate) DATE: December 1, 1989 SUBJECT: Stubbs Bay Sewer Consideration OUNCIL MEETING DEC 111989 CITY OF ORQNO ISSUE - Establishment of a da^e 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, 1939 meeting they 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, established as a joint meeting date to be held at the Orono Hig^ school Auditormn at 7:00 P.M. Notification of this meeting will be sent to all residents and property owners in approximately 2 1/2 weeks in advance of the meeting. A spec.al letter will be sent to those on Oxford Road to d.itermine what, if any, interest they have in being included in such a project. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by —, th^at the Council adopt as the date for a joint meeting with the residents of the StUbFs 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 & Zoning Administrator Planning Commission Members TO: FROM: DATE: 1390.7 ' (^ Mayor and City Council _ JAfi 8 1990 Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistraton r^TY 0.‘ r*POj^f5 January 3, 1990 SUBJECT: Administrator's Information HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR SELECTION STUDY - The City has been apprised ol the fact that Howard 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 during the next year. It is expected that during the next month Mr. )T will be in contact with each of the cities to establish an initial meeting with the consultant. 1950 SHORELINE '^RIVE - The final docnments are expected to be signed on this during the next two wt . 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 SHADYWOOD ROAD - The initial part of the winter had little evidence 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) r 1 -t «in ;■*’m Vr4ts-r»~‘» O.A.R.E. Jan 23 - March 15 Tuesday - 8:45 - 9:40 9:40 - 10:21 1:55 - 2:45 Kristen Peterson- room 115 flike Schwarze - room 116 Mike Schwarze - room 116 We'-’nesday -9:40 -10:20 1:55 -2:45 Thursday -8:54 -9:40 1:55 -2:45 The week of March 5,1990 onl Rebekah Hanson - room 121 Rebekah Hanson - room 121 Cheryl Blonigen - room 113 Kristen Peterson - room 115 as follows:The changes will be Monday - 8:54 1:55 9:40 2:45 Cheryl Blonigen Kristen Peterson Tuesday - same as other weeks Wednesday - same as o^her weeks oc^<<r Z D O o O CO m o O CO «Q»Oc ••••■>r* o O r-»O n CO o o 00 o 00 00 o n m 00 ««««in o r>in CM in c^ o m iH m <N W OT a to CO CO 0)V 01 01 0)a jxr JO JO JC iH (0 IQ 10 IQ IQ a •-3 •4 •4 •4 s: JC je C C c C c c <0 10 (0 10 IQ 10 ca CQ pa CQ 03 CQ 4J 4J 4J m to to CO CO (0 r-^r-t 1-4 rH *-4 »-4 JO 10 c CO 03 CO IQ •H J£ c c CQ a 10 IQ u s •4 CQ 10 o;0) 0)4J j^4J JJ 4J c 4J c ta cn 0)IQ 03 10 01 3 cn 3 CQ 3 u cr cr* u IQ u u ■U 0 0)(0 CO 10 (0zcnx:iH s •H 4J 4J 0)c tJ •O 03 rO CO CO *o s Z 03 03 03 4J 4J 03 0 0 03 4J M u e 03 10 M a a M C 103c303 C O 3 03 03 3 03 a h 4J X M Q Q 4J a CO CO cn 3 Wi IQ U U-10 »o 10 03 T3 C3 • £ 03 •o £03-^r! CM 03 ci-i £03 03 C u5a03a-M 0 CO o B Mao 03 e (0 a e 10 wi 6 10 D> CQ JC M os 0 a 0 a 03 0 CO £(0 O <’V3 C o 1^c I- u M 03 O 03 U 03 M 10 a IM rH 0 CO «M iH *J CM M 4J CM 03 CO C CQ 03 10 •o 10 *0 •*H 10 3 10 CO 10 IQ O OS CO -H ^ c (0 -4 03 CO CO u a u (0 10 ^ CQ 03 c M •o o CO 0 •D O CO 0 »0 *M --4 -O U (0 10 b 03 U 03 CQ 0.’ 1-1 IQ a <u Cw lu CU 03 O M 4J 10 4-3 CQ 03 03 u 03 03 J3 03 <1> —< 0 03 M 3 *M x:rzo e 03 C U S U Q U M 44 O 3 a^j o a<0 I 4J lO 0 6 U 0 M 4-3 M 0 a 03 M osu 0 C 0 Wi 0 3 CM M 03 03 03 M 03 CM M 3 u Eh a u M 4 a u a 0 a u c U a a o u a 0C oc oc o>CJC OC Oc 00 00 00 00 03 CO V.\ \ \ \ m oc ON oc i-i CN 03 iH C4 C4 CN o <-4\\\\ k C r-i (-4 #H CN CN Q r4 iH rH r4 1-4 *■? SB - 29S7 Start tan O^jwtlv* •It SB - Utt Start tkcB (Mwtlw •It SB > ISB Bart taoi <^aettr» ■M SB - ISM Star* Tam Bjwtlw GOK un'i'iiuCRT Cf OODmm B.CRT Htaxamam 1 mX 1SS9 - 30 WBIL ISM Draft 5/lS/SS taviaaa 1/30/n 7/31/W S/0V» S/»/W 10/31/B 12/04/89 12/27/89 Mn GOM. AHB 1. oatmRT oevHiORair A. Highway 12 1. otilitlea Sawer - Part I Sower - Part II Mater Systen Main CBJFCnVE Install Install Install »TES giMTS 09/01/89 Bids nose 6/30/89 Project Ordered 7/24/89 Negotiating Aamt Itena/bevelap Agnait OoaaietKWd Construction 10^7/89 4 11/13/89 well (6 aonths) Ibwer (9-12 aonths) Plans Specs - Order Award Financing Nsgotiation on OtiUties (Long Lake - Medina) 07/01/90 09/01/89 04/01/90 07/0 V90 09/89 11/89 09/11/89 10/04/89 S22ed'SSr^2 ’l0/27/89 4 11/13/89 2/1/90 Need available water 9/U/89 T^le Test Well to 9/25/89 9/25/89 Awarded Test Wells U/1/89 IT...... Test DriUings U/6/89 Test drilling found adequate aquifer UA3/89 Interla production wll drilled 8A4/89 Bonl Resolution adapted Requested to negotiate with Madina 10/23/89 Bonl Sale Awardad/AAl Ratlng/6.S7% Bond Closing n aiaiiirnl water discussion 10/25/89 with Medina - Medina to aeet with affactad residents 1/90 to dtecsjas mm aoM. ato <Bracrn/g1. oowJHm aensamn canUmMd*88 3TO 2. Ung T ub Oorrldoc Opgcad*•W STO ■90 STO PBulblUty Study ttiDOT initiation UnJectake corridor aelecticn study with MnDOT consultant t surrounding cities Talie appropriate planning steps if needed In potential corcidors C^TES SmlOB09/01/89 «/30/89-Miting Hispensa eras MDst Central Offioe on Oonoultant 07/07/89 Delayed laitll at Least 11/30/89 _ ^ ^ Govemoc's Transporation Safety Hbg 10/28/N UA5/89 OoHlasionK lawlne anno raiees oonsultant/^MXXr cocridoc wlsction stii^ir 02/90 10/90 12/90 •90 STO 3. 1992 Safety Inprovw».nt '88 STO •89 STO •90 STO •87 STO B. Navarre RedevelciiBent C. OoiBity EkMri 15 Beautification Plan Prelininary plan approval Adopt if appropriats Viork with ftiDOT on right-of-wsy/frontage roads Dnourage stoplight Willow/12 Detenaine project scops/ direction Detenaine desired direction Detertalne beautification plan li^lenentation if nay Oosplete y^ter Planning, if appropriate Determine need tor Ta* Increment District Project oaklet ion Special asaesawnts Determine means to Lipleswnt 10/01/89 Info masting held 7/24/89. Awaiting Long lake response bo HnOOT 10/3/89 Bold saeting with PUDOT - DisciMMsd with Ottan 10/11 - Need to Develop Frontage Road Prelim (bats > Davelop warrants/WiUow Drive 12/1/89 Mtg with ftiDOT - Anticipate project 02/90 07/90 08/01/89 02/90 03/90 go ahead if traffic signal instaUe 6/01/89-Held Joint Mtg 6/26/89 Dlacuasad future direction 9/11/89 Changed to 11/18 11/18 Oouncil/PC/Area mtg held n«l. Tb take to Council in 1-2/90 for further conslderatian 07/90 07/01/89 09/01/89 10/01/89 Project ooag>leted 8/28/89 AsaaaMent adopted 9/89 Request regarding C3ttistaas decorationa to 10/23/89 Council meeting - Requastad sal from staff if daenad rpprapriata Lighting proposal 11/13/89 Awa1. OBKWm DBVBiOI>MEWr Continued ■87 STO (BJELTIVED. Oaeeunity Transportation PlanW. •90 9ID E. Oxnty Road U6 •87 STD •88 STO •89 STD r. storm Water T«naqenBnt ?lsi Update capital project guidelinesBridge banding prograa 09/89 Pvi)lic/Private street - review 02/90 policy Undertake capital budget designated projects DATES STRIPS07/89 10/23/89 Itoviaad 1990-2000 to Oouicil7/10/89 AdoptedNeed to siijait request foe plana and specifications to sii»it to State - 11/13/89 OowKll order plans t specs 7/24/89 Moao Private/P\i»Uc/lnrlvewsy8/Taada 8/28/89 neao Re: aty Attorney Private Roads Preliminary plan review Monitor action by County as to its proposed oonstruction Review and if appropriate ad^^t U/89 a preliminary design Review and if afproprlate adc^t a final design Ascertain available napping Develop BFP for study if apprt^rlate 08/01/89 Set fAS>lic info ntg for design review at 7A0 Resident review 7/26 Held Ptijllc info 9/25 - Tablad to 10/23 10/23/99 Preliminary design approved - Resolution adopted UA3/89 aw response due by U/29/89 Oaipleted currently delayed to 1994 •88 STD •89 STD G. OoBwnity Develo(ment Direction and Progress H. UtS Qjqjrehensive nt Plan A. ) Marina Control Initiate review 01/90 Oeplete review 03/90 B. ) Work towards service and results oriented *!to Surprises’ process Review all drafts for issues and direction Present desired changes to UCD 03/90 Ann TQAL Area2. HWnWIEWrAL PROTECTION'90 A. Stubbs Bay Public tnfonaatlanal meeting 08A5/B9 Mnting held 7/27/89Significant Issues ^«no Presented a* 9/25 mtg Tabled to 10/23/8910/23/89 - Tabled issue to next meeting 11/13/89 - Table to 12/11/89 to set mtg foe 1/90 or 2/90 •89 STO B. Solid Haste Manageeent ‘*^1 • •90 STO Establish policies regarding 11/89 the project Determine assesanent area interest 11/01/89 Engage an appraiser 11/15/89 Consider financing options Consider development inotatoriii» IE Appropriate - Inltla C. >tetro Waste Replacement Project Lift Station lOAift Station 43 Replacement itiate project - Prepare Plans t Specifications - Project bid - H.ld Hearing a if appropriate order project - Bond for project - Coenenoe project - Complete project - Assess project Review organized collectlai if needed Review progroB performance Rebid contract tor curbside Review incentives to lapcove participation Review recycling efforts Determine If further solid waste regulation appropriate Review organized oollection if approprlate Oaipletian Bid award Piljiic informational meeting - Financing iRplement financing - Connection charges 11/30/89 12/30/89 02/90 03/90 04/90 03/90 05/90 10/90 10/90 09/89 1b be bid for 1990 Bids due 12/8/89 10/89 10/89 02/90 06/90 12/90 12/90 10/01/89 Delayed to at least 12/31/89 05/22/89 5/22/89 Bid awarded 06/89 6/22/89 Pre constructityi nitg. held 07/89 7/18/89 Oanstructlon orjameigud connection charges adopted 8/14/99 9/20/89 Oonst mostly oonpleted pending M«IOC work DMES ga'ns3. ORBUnZATICHM. □IVEliOPMEin'A. 1990 Oouncll Goal Setting CowenoeCJanplete 07/89 8/28/09 Ptellail.Taty 1990 Strategic Goalaettlng preaentad09/89 •90 StO 1991 Goal Setting B. 1990 Budget Process Assessment Board of Review Preliadnary Budget guidelines Capital projects guidelines review Alternate Dates 08/01 - 08AS Preliminary mill levy adcgition {TruOi in Taxation) 09A5 - 10/15 Heating •90 STO •90 STO 10/25/89 1991 Budget C. 1990 Legislative Progt* 1991 Legislative Plan D. Team Building Budget adoption Final levy adoption Review Staff Ocxjncil 05/89 Bd of Review held 5/11/89 ( 5/24/89 06/89 Presented Initial Guidelines 6/12/89 Presented Revised Guidelines 6/26/89 08/89 Initial revised plan 1990-2000 Present 10/23/89 09A5/B9 6/30/89 May require action tr/ 8/1/89 7/24/89 Adapted preliaianry max. levy 8A4/89 Adopted •Final* ptellmlnm^ im. 8/28/89 Special Oouncil mtg set 9/27/89 with Budget Hearing delayed pending results of Special Session 10A5/89 Revised Schedule to Oouncil foe UA3/89 Public hearing set for U/30/89 12A5/89 U/30/89 Levy adopted 06/-10AO 12/89 09/-U/90 12/89 MBA4. SBOTCE DEUVm ’90 STO OOM. AfEAA. Facilities Upgrade aJEOTIVEDoteralne If rtaklng- Financial- Qaeta- Site- Public lnfor«iatlan ncetlng(s)If Undertaken Site acquisition, If any Select architect Design Final plans/costs Plans/speclfIcatlons Financing Bid awards DATES STMUS09/01/89 6/29/89 Bus tour of facilities Meeting set foe U/B/89 11/8/89 Mtg directed developsient of tine guidelines to Oouncll 11/27/09 project estlnates/flnanclng to Council 12/U/89 ■07 STO ■08 STO ■90 STO B. Dong Range Financial Policy C. Business Strategy Plans ■90 STO ■90 STO 0. Service Revl_ws E. Assessing Service Replaoanent Develop balanoe of policy Police Qolf Course Engineering services legal services 12/89 07/01/89 7/10/89 Presented bo Council 09/01/89 7/10/89 Initio aptlcns bo Council Directed to assess ideas to naKe profitable 09/89 03/90 10/89 06/90 01/90 7/10/09 Ooimcll directed transitional arrangement plus ei^lote contract and/or esployment 0/15/89 ’Ads* sibeuttod in.Ol/89 BFP’s transmitted - 11/3/89 duo bach U/3/89 »oelved 4 BFP's - Renr—endatlai to 12/11/89 Btg JU»S. SHU) RBOM3S •90 STD A. Oa^ensatian• ■••vyv.4 Isf>laBent Bifiloyee RecognitionFornulate City eB^)loyee devclopwnt Explore perfocnanoe incentive pcogran Explore 'Cafeteria Benefits*/ IRS Section US Plan 01/9006/9010/89 07/01/89 02/90 Determine Section 89 requirements 10/01/89 Anticipate delay in Requireaients for until after 1/90 9/28/89 Anticipate Osngressional repeal of requicement 11/99 Qxigresa repeals B. OifiloyTDent Affirmative Action Program adoption 07/01/89 6/89 Do linger State requirement 6. NAfKETItC 3 7 LIST OF LICENSES FOfi COUNCIL APPROVAL iVJEETING FOR HEETING OF January 8, 1990 g ^ggg my HF rmm^ Residential K^^nnel License - Alan Cornelius 3'70 Leaf Street D. Brian & Cathy Fulmer 3505 Wayzata Blvd. KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1, 19 ^0 to December 31, 19 90 Owner; /t 4 /Jcr" // Property Address: J>1~ /<^/j'<f (include city and zip)/ Mailing Address (if different;:_ Phone: (home) ^S' ^^^(work) RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Information: $25,00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time: <3 (over 6 months of age) rrry nr i-:/:nun FJ.VrfCf OFFICEi 7i 7C-r„lAM 01 CFH 25.0:) Principal Breed: Sf j ^ ^ ^ ^7/^prFTPT-J)-^J^Jk^ YoJf'^^ ^ n/ ^ ^ko cooi FOi no:. Purpose for more than 2 dogs ; r /rJi^jr^ 12.007/ X/ insideDogs 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.) Normal Business Hours: 'After“Hours Contact: (name)__ (phone) Dog runs/exercise areas are: • * ^ . • **- •• *3 ; 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 agree to abide by the re<^irements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Co*’ncil as part of any kennel license approval. Applicant Date For City Use Only ^ \ < Kennel inspected by IO.iVa Date Recommends Approval V Denial_ KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1, 19 to December 31, 19 Owner; _T^.. L. » Fl:^uv^fZ— Property Address O^AN-2LA-TTQt (include city and zip) (work) ‘ *^OZCo Mailing Address (if different) Phone: (home) A~~^Co- 1"^Z.C_ _ _ _ _ _ _ RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Information; (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time; ^ (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed; N\f^ru.^krwCri^'^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Purpose for than 2 docs; Dogs normally kept; _ _ _inside kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Information: $150.00 (payment must accompany application) N2une of Bv^siness: Business Activities;^_ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ (exaunple; boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ After Hours Contact: (name)_ (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 t-.e 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 For City Use Only Kennel inspected by Recommends Approval ()i A (( 04^_ _ _ Date ^ if Denial_ _ _ 12/24/89 PR CB PRREGOR C0ij«C!I, MEETING JAN 81990 CITY OF Conw NAME 1DPT YTD GROSS CURRENT GROSS ANDERSON. BRUCE L 31 42740 38 1760 62 BERNHARDSON, MARK E 12 57361 95 2115 61 BOBZIEN, SUE A 31 23139 65 886.40 BOSMA. JAMIE L 12 .’3549 71 507 47 BRINKHAUS. JOHN F 42 35912 25 2031 00 CHESWICK, GARY B 31 38499 03 1468 00 CHRISTIANSON. SALLY 31 4795 94 168 84 CORNICK, JAMES L 31 42095.31 2237.06 ENGLISHIII. IRVING H 31 42496.14 1969 60 ERICKSCN. KURT R 31 37432 90 682 08 FISCHENICH, DAN T 31 37559 38 1331 68 FRITZLER. JOHN M 31 41252 79 2041.98 GAFFRON. MICHAEL P 33 33026 09 i:.7 20 GERHARDSON, JOHN R 42 44688 83 2383 37 GREGORY, JAMES D 42 31689 19 1359 39 HALLIN. DOROTHY M 12 28810.02 1108 80 HANSEN, STEVEN C 42 26010.92 1091.60 HANSING. CAROL J 31 13289 36 475.61 JOHNSON. BRADLEY P 31 39240.79 1415 32 KILBO. MELVIN H 31 48171 52 1388 88 KNUTSON. CHARLOTTE A 15 23043.15 886 40 KUEHN. THOMAS M 15 45588 60 1798.96 KUYPER. SCOTT E 31 12386 69 766 97 MABUSTH. JEANNE A 33 40560 23 2308 00 MORAN. MARK F 31 38168.39 1939 06 MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES 31 44849 66 1747 83 NAAB. THERESA L 12 22771.23 886 40 OBRIEN. RANDY L 92 25997.24 1108.97 OMAN. LYLE E 33 28115.56 1181.60 OUAST. WAYNE A 92 30484 76 1133.92 RATHBUN. BARRY J 92 26098.56 991.05 SASS. JOHN J 42 27716 52 1083 13 SCHAUSS. CHARLES R 31 32183.28 1156.29 SCHEFFLER. LAURIE K 12 20181.27 797 76 SKREEN. DALE S 42 27292.81 1074.00 STEFFENHAGEN. RONALD 93 28849.55 1110.32 THOMTON. MARK R 31 34572.99 1388 52 TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F 31 38675 26 1367.41 TOMCZYK. MARK W 31 37657 24 1437 48 VANG, BRUCE L 33 4672 80 1038 40 WALSH. KEVIN L 35 1999 15 294 67 WALTERS. LINDA G 15 15079 55 830 47 54,538 12 ri 12/10/89 PR CB PRREGOR NAME ANDERSON. BRUCE L BERNHARDSON. MARK E BERNHARDSON, MARK E B08ZIEN, SUE A BOSMA. JAMIE L BRINKHAUS. JOHN F CHESWICK GARY B CHRISTIANSON, SALLY CORNICK. JAMES L ENGLISHIII, IRVING ERICKSON. KURT R FISCHENICH. DAN T FRITZLER. 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 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 STEFFENHAGEN. RONALD THOMTON. MARK R TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F TOMCZYK. MARK W VANG. BRUCE L WALSH. KEVIN L WALTERS. LINDA Q JAMES L L '^TD 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 1883.88 . 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 ‘078.21 92 29350.84 1383.96 92 25107 51 1033.16 42 26633.39 1120.75 31 31026.99 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 PRREGOR T- ^ 1 C P/ NAME CALLAHAN. EDWARD J GOETTEN. J OIANN GRABEK. JAMES NETTLES. ALAN R PETERSON. BARBARA A DPT VTD CURRENT GROSS GROSS 11 241.67 241.67 11 241.67 241.6711300 00 300.0011241.67 241.67 11 241.67 241.67 1.266.68 1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK HO DATE CHECK REGISTER36300636300636300636300636300636300601/04/9001/04/9001/04/9001/04/9001/04/9001/04/90 VENDORACRO-MINNESOTA INC ACRO-MINNESOTA INC ACRO-MINNESOTA INC ACRO-MINNESOTA INC ACRO-MINNESOTA INC ACRO-MINNESOTA INC ITEM DESCRIPTIONOFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICESUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIESSUPPLIES 01-08-90 PAGE 1ACCOUNT NO INV • P 0 8 MESSAGE01-4T10-039-1201-4210-059-1401-4210-069-1501-4210-129-3101-4210-174-3301-4210-249-42 363012 363012 01/04/90 01/04/90 37,689.21 21,729 38 59,418 59 • ALBRECHT EXCAVATING ALBRECHT EXCAVATING SEWER PYMNT2 WATER PYMNT2 26-4531-434-82 26-4531-436-84 363014 01/04/90 78 47 78 47 • ALL STAR ELECTRIC REPLACE TIMER 01-4342-290-61 363030 363030 363030363030 363030363030 01/04/30 01/04/90 01/04/9001/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 19 43 19 43 19 43 32 50 19 43 19 43 129 65 • AT 4 T INFO SYSTEM AT 4 T INFO SYSTEM AT 4 T INFO SYSTEM AT 4 T INFO SYSTEM AT 4 T INFO SYSTEM AT 4 T INFO SYSTEM MAINT DP LINE MAINT DP LINE MAINT OP LINE MAINT DP LINE MAINT DP LINE MAINT DP LINE 01-4340-039-1201-4340-059-14 01-4340-069-1501-4340-129-31 01-4340-174-33 01-4340-249-42 363034 01/04/90 423 00 423 00 * ANCHOR PAPER COPY PAPER 01-1261-000-00 363064 01/04/90 17 48 17 48 ■ BLITZ ONE HR FOTO PHOTO FINSH 01-4210-129-31 363073 01/U4/90 2,064 00 2,064 00 • BOVUM EQUIP INC FRINK ARM HITCH 14-4550-633-00 363114 01/04/90 55.00 55 00 • CITYVIEW PLMBG 4 HTG PO FURNACE REPAIR 01-4343-099-17 363127 01/04/90 187 50 187 50 • COFFIN GRONBERG STAKE EASEMNT 01-4306-249-42 ■-CKS •-CKS ■-CKS ‘-CKS •••-CKS >-CKS <-CKS •-CKS 1919 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER 01-08-90 PAGE 2CHECK NO.DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV • P 0 8 MESSAGE36314201/04/90 167 62 167 62 •COPY DUP PR INC MAINT AGREEMT 01-1210-129-31 •**-CKS363154 363154 363154 363154 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/30 01/04/90 46 95 114 95 74 10 46 80 282 80 • CYS UNIFORMS CVS UNIFORMS CYS UNIFORMS CYS UNIFORMS BOOTS SHOES INIFORMS UNIFORMS 01-4221-.26-31 01-4221-126-31 01-4221-129-31 01-4221-129-31 •••-CKS 363226 01/04/90 1 SO 1 50 * FIRST BANK MPLS BANK CHRG 01-3810-000-00 •••-CKS 363226 01/04/90 675 00 675 00 * FIRST TRUST CO INC AGENT FEE 89 45-4630-908-00 •••-CKS 363247 01/04/90 12 24 12 24 ■ GAFFRON/MIKE MILEAGE 01-4381-174-33 •••-CKS 363256 363251 01/04/90 01/04/90 133 40 29.25 162 65 • GLENWOOO INGLEWOOD GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD CUPS WATER 01-4231-099-17 01-4231-099-17 •••-CKS 363266 01/04/90 115 20 115 20 • GOPHER OIL CO 1 DRUM OIL 01-4220-249-42 •••-CKS 363291 01/04/90 2 18 2 18 * HALLIN/DOROTHY MILEAGE 01-4381-020-11 •••-CKS 333303 01/04/90 2.269 73 2.269 73 • HENN CTY FIN DIV NOV ROOM/BOARD 01-4358-080-lF •••-CKS 363301 363308 363308 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 34 00 6.811 30 495 54 7.340 84 • HENN CTY SHERIFF DPT HENN CTY SHERIFF OPT HENN CTY SHERIFF DPT BELT LOOPS RADIO RENTAL NOV BOOKING FEE 01-4221-129-31 01-4330-129-31 01-4358-080-16 •-CKS I-18«9 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTERCHECK NO.DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV38331601/04/90 2.000 00 HERMAN APPRAISAL APPRAISAL SITE C 15-4306-651-0036331601/04/90 2.220 00 HERMAN APPRAISAL APPRAISE ORONO PLAZA 26-4306-434-824.220 00 *363330 01/U4/90 94 78 ICMA RETIREMNT TRUST ICMA 12/11-12/24 01-4140-039-12 94 78 • 3633SS 01/04/90 53 95 INTERSTATE BATTERIES BATTERY 01-4341-174-33 363395 01/04/90 155 80 INTERSTATE BATTERIES BATTERIES 01-4341-249-42 209 75 ■ •••••■ 363372 01/04/90 b3 40 JOHNS AUTO SUPPLY MI SC PAR S 01-4232-249-42 68 40 • •••••a 363367 01/04/90 58 77 KUEHN-THOMAS MILEAGE DEC 01-4381-069-15 363367 01/04/90 16 49 KUEHN-THOMAS MILEAGE DEC 01-4381-174-33 363367 01/04/90 5 50 KUEHH-THOMA'’MILEAGE DEC 73-4381-569-92 80 76 • a a a a a a 363404 01/04/90 153 09 THE LAKER ADS 01-4322-039-12 363404 01/04/90 12 15 THE LAKER ADS 01-4322-295-65 363404 01/04/90 12 15 THE LAKER ADS 01-4322-299-72 1 7 39 ‘ 363437 01/04/90 17 92 C;1Y OF LONG LAKE DEC FLASHER 01 -4325-249-42 363437 01/04/90 58 64 CITY OF LONG LAKE DEC LIFT 73-4344-569-92 76 56 363462 01/04/90 624 33 MARTINS NAVARRE 6L SOD REPAIRS 01-4341-129-31 624 33 ‘ 363466 01/04/90 440 00 METRO W iHSP SEKV OCT/NOV iNSPEC 01-430F 'T4-33 440 00 363486 01/04/90 190 20 MN CELLULAR lElt TE1E PHONE 0 1 - 4 3 2 0 - 1 2 a - 3 1 190 20 • o.-o.-,o J5|Pt P 0 • MESSAOC wmm - ■ —-«t : 1 •••-CKi •-CKS •••-CKS ■-CKS ■-CKS UIB CITY OF OROMO CHECK REGISTERCHECK NO.DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV363S0001/04/40 34 00 34 00 •MINN COMM CONVERT PAGER 01-4342-129-31 363SOS 01/04/90 142 70 142 70 • MN FIRE 4 SAFETY REFILL EXTG 01-4232-129-31 3S3S32 01/04/40 4 80 4 80 • MOROWCZVNSKl/JAMES MILEAGE 01-4381-129-31 3S3S4S 01/04/40 t ' SO 6b.80 • NAVARRE AUTO REPAIR REPAIR 01-4341-249-42 343542 343542 343542 343542 343542 343542 343542 343542 343542 01/04/40 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/40 01/04/40 01/04/40 01/04/40 370 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 UTILITIES UTLIITIES UTILITIES UTLIITIES UTILITIES UTLIITIES UTLIITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES 01-4324-099-17 Oi-4324-129-31 01-4324-249-42 01-4324-249-42 01-4324-290-61 01-4324-290-61 73-4324-569-92 73- 4324-569-92 74- 4324-590-93 343547 01/04/90 4.061 11 4.061 11 • PUBLIC EMPL RET ASSN PERA 12/l.’-24/89 01-2031-000-00 343404 343404 343404 01/04/40 01/04/90 01/04/90 15 00 1 50 1 50- 15 00 • PACE LABORATORIES PACE LABORATORIES PACE LABORATORIES TEST TEST TEST 01-4305-174-33 01-4305-174-33 01-4305-174-13 343421 01/04/90 200 00 200 00 • POPHA.1 HAIK 4 ASSOC TRAININC 01-4356-129-31 363431 01/04/90 1.617 00 1.617 00 • POLKA DOT RECYCLING DEC RECY 01-4392-295-65 Ol-Ot-90 PAGE 4■ •-CKS‘-CKS •'•-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS ■-CKS ■-CKS ■-CKS 1919 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT CHECK REGISTERVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 01-01-90 PAQE S i ACCOUNT NO. INV. IPO. • MESSAQE3939393939T9 393993 3937S1 3937SI 39397S 363901 01/04/9001/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 112.70 102.25 214 95 303 80 303 80 407 70 282 60 690 30 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRAIRIE OFFSET RUFFRIDGE-JOHNSON SUNDIAL BLOG SERVICE SUNDIAL BLDG SERVICE BiZ CAROS BUS CARDS SUEt.'^fR BRUSHES DEC JANITOR DEC JANITOR 646 29 8 25 8 25 37 50 37 50 120 00 WRIGHT HENN ELECTRIC DONNA QANGELHOFF DCTC ADUIT EXT UTILITIES PICKUP DEER CLASS 01-4322-174-3301-4322-249-42 01-4232-249-42 01-4349-099-17 01-4349-129-31 393779 01/04/90 216 51 216 51 • TRACY OIL ro FUEL OIL 74-4324-590-93 393783 01/04/90 13 92 13 92 • TOMCHECK LARRY MILEAGE 01-4381-129-31 393815 01/04/90 S3 41 US WEST COMMON TELEPHONE 01-4320-039-12 393815 01/04/90 S3 41 US WEST COMMUN lELEPHONE 01-4320-059-14 393815 01/04/90 26 71 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-06E-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 383815 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 393815 01/04/90 46.17 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 74-4320-590-93 74-4323-590-9336381501/04/90 108.90 US WEST COMMUN ADV 01-4324-249-4. 01-4360-185-35 01-4356-129-31 •••-CKS •■•-CKS •••-CKS '-CKS •••-CKS ••■-CKS ‘•-C'S •-CKS 1119 CITY Of ORONO CHECK NO. DATE CHECK REGISTERAMOUNT120 00 VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV U 1-0.8-90 PAGE 6 • P 0 ■ MESSAGE39390301/04/90 27/50277.50 •CITY OF MEDINA SEWER EASEMNT 73-4383-569-9239390401/04/90 250 00 250 00 .MN DEPT OF HEALTH REVIEW FEE WELL 26-4306-437-8539300SCl/04/90 ISO 00 150 00 •MN DEPT OF HEALTH REVIEW FEE PUMP 26-4306-437-85 393909 01/04/90 30.00 30.00 •PERSONNEL DECISIONS QUESTIONIARFS 01-4210-129-31 HCIS64 01/04/90 9 10 1ST NATL ME OCR 01-4142-111-31 HCIS94 01/04/90 9 10-1ST NATL MEDCR 01-4142-111-37 HCI594 01/04/90 9 10 1ST NATL ME OCR 01-4142-111-37 HC9S84 01/04/90 20 72 1ST NATL MEDCR 01-4142-121-31 HCIS94 01/04/90 37 30 97 12 -1ST NATL MEDCR 01-4142-126-31 HCIS99 01/04/90 89 98 89 98 .CHAMPION AUTO RADIO SPEAKERS 01-4232-249-42 NC9S97 01/04/90 150 00 150 00 I» PARKVIEW GOLF PULL CARTS 74-4232-590-93 HCI589 01/04/90 900 00 900 00 POSTMASTER POSTAGE 01-1262-000-00 •••-CKS MANUALMANUALMANUAL MANUALMANUAL •••-CKS MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL •••-CKS HCB570 01/04/90 14 00 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 01-4142-020-11 MANUAL HC8570 01/04/a0 159.18 1ST NATL FICA i2/i: 12/12 01-4142-039-12 MANUAL HC8S70 01/U4/90 2 08 1ST NATL FICA 01-4142-040-13 MANUAL HC8570 01/04/90 5 08 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 01-4142-059-14 MANUALHC8570Oi/04/90 251 53 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 01-4142-069-15 MANUALHC857001/04/90 33 17 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 31-4142-099-17 MANUALHC857001/04/90 28 75 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 ''1-4142-111-31 MANUALHC8570 01/04/90 105 35 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 01-4142-115-31 MANUALHC857001/04/90 23 90 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 31-4142-121-31 MANUALHC857001/04/90 39 23 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 01-4142-126-31 MANUALHC857001/04/90 497 32 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 01-4142-174-33 MANUALHC8S70 01/04/90 21 70 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 01-4142-185-35 MANUALHC8S7001/04/90 435 92 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 Ol-' 42-249-42 MANUALHC857001/04/90 62 34 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 R1 ■ J2-290-61 . >142-549-91 MANUALHC8S7001/04/90 107 14 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 MANUALHC857001/04/90 181 21 1ST NATL FICA 12/12 ,5 4142-569-92 MANUALHC857001/04/90 96 ;1ST NATL FICA 12/12 74-4142-590-9J MANUAL -CKS KD^ CiTV OF ORONO CHECK NO DATEHCIS72 01*04/90HCS973 01/04/90 AMOUNT HCIS7I HCIS7I HCI57I HCS57I HCI57I HCI57t HCIS74 HCtS7l HCI57S HCS97I HCI57I HCIS7t HCtS7a HCtS7l HCt«7t HCIS7I HCtS/9 HCtStO 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/00 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/9001/04/00 01/04/90 01/04/90 01/04/90 7 25 iS9 00 5 26 236.59 15 53 39 24 104 74 19 31 36 60 503 07 22.13 566 67 46 12 117 SO 166 78 96 10 2.174 49 CHECK REGISTERVENDORMN POLLUTION CTRL LONG LK HDWR HEM DESCRIPTIONSEMINARHEATERS 01-06-90ACCOUNT NO IHV 9 P.O •73-4356-569-9201-4231-099-17 1ST NATL FICA 12/27 01-4142-039-12 MANUAL 1ST NATL FICA 12/27 01-4142-039-12 MANUAL 1ST NATL FICA 12/27 01-4142-059-14 MANUAL 1ST NATL FICA 12/27 01-4142-C69-15 MANUAL 1ST NATL FICA 12/27 01-4142-099-17 MANUAL 1ST NATL FICA 12/27 01-4142-111-31 MANUAL 1ST NATL FICA 12/27 01-4'42-115-31 MANUAL 1ST NATL FICA 12/27 01-4142-121-31 MANUAL 1ST NATL FICA 12/27 01-4142-126-31 MANUAL 1ST NATL FICA 12/2-01-4142-174-33 MANUAL 1ST NATL FICA 12/27 01-'1142-185-35 MANUAL 1ST NATL FICA 12/27 01-4142-249-42 MANUAL 1ST NATL FICA 12/27 01-4142-290-61 MANUAL 1ST NATL FICA 12/27 72-4142-540-91 MANUAL 1ST NATL FICA 12/27 73-4142-569-92 MANUAL 1ST NATL FICA 12/27 74-4142-590-93 MANUAL U OF HN SEMINAR 01-4356-174-33 MANUAL KNOX LUMBER LAo: •:01-4232-174-33 MANUAL 27 , 161 52 . JNO 01 TOT,»GENERAL FUND 2.064 00 FUND 14 TOT^.'IMPROVE 6 EQUIP OUTLAY ' 2.000 00 FUND 15 TOfAL BUILDNG CAPITAL OUTLAY F 62.038 59 FUND 26 TOTAL 1989 SWR-WTR CONSTR FUI.D 675 00 FUND 45 TOTAL 1985 IMF BOND 0/S FUND 233.05 FUND 72 TOTAL WATER OPERATING FUND 1,260 52 FUND 73 total SEWER OPERATING FUND 775 . 96.208 1 FUND TOTAL 74 TOTAL GOLF COURSE OPERATING FD ■-CKS QEMUNIS FINANCIAL SYSTEM 01/04/90ACCOUNTINGREPOPT00 1989 CITY OF ORONONUMBER OF REPORTS 103 UPDATE DESCRIPTIONS 0 FINANCIAL REPORTSNUMBER OF UPDATES 0 SUMMARY FILE 0 SCHEDULED RUN DATE 0Ci7‘JV0NUMBER OF RECORDS PAYROLL A REPORT DATE 001. .'IV LEVEL 1 999 BENEFIT ACCRUAL LEVEL 2 0 ACTIVITY REPORT 0 ACTIVITY REPORTS LEVEL 3 0 CHECK REGISTER 1 SCHEDULED RUN DATE 010490 LEVEL 4 0 TRIAL BALANCE 0 REPORT DATE 010890 LEVEL 5 34 BALANCE SHEET 0 LEVEL 6 0 REVENUE STATEMENT 0 PAYROLL POSTING DATES 000000 LEVEL 7 0 OPERATING STATEMENT 0 000000 LEVEL 8 523 BUDGET WORKSHEETS 0 LEVEL 9 0 CLEAR-CURR-MONTH 0 000000 LEVEL 0 2 CITY FILE OPTION 0 000000 PROJECT DEPARTMENT X TOTAL 1.560 CHART OF ACCOUNTS PAQE MO CHECK RECONCILE 0 YEAR TO DATE PERIOD 12 BUDGET RECORDS CREATED 19SQ CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE CHECK REGISTERAMOUNT360004 360006 360006 360006 380006 360006 360006 360006 360014 360014 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 88.00 88.00 25 25 26 39 25 25 238 403 32 23 61 98 94.21 VENDOR A-AA RONS SEWER ACRO-MINNESOTA INC ACRO-MINNESOTA INC ACRO-MINNESOTA INC ACRO-MINNESOTA INC ACRO-MINNESOTA INC ACRO-MINNESOTA INC ACRO-MINNESOTA INC ALL STAR ELECTRIC ALL STAR ELECTRIC ITEM DESCRIPTION CLEAN OUT LINE OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES FILE CABINET REPAIR BALLAST LGT REPAIR ACCOUNT NO. INV. 73-4344-569-92 01-4210-039-12 01-4210-059-14 01-4210-069-15 01-4210-129-31 01-4210-174-33 01-4210-249-42 14-4560-633-00 01-4343-099-17 01-4343-129-31 360027 12/21/89 60.00 APPLE VALLEY AGENCY NOTARY BOND JOHN G 01-4375-039-1260,00 • 360031 12/21/89 13 54 AT * T COMM TELEPHONE 01-4320-175-3413.54 • 360064 12/21/89 5 85 BLITZ ONE HR FOTO REPRINTS 01-4210-129-315 85 • 360067 12/21/89 56.38 SAM BLOOM IRON USED STEEL 01-4232-249-4256 38 ■ 360071 12/21/89 17 34 BOBZIENNSUE A INS REFUND 01-4152-129-3117 34 • 360074 12/21/89 50 00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENG RETAINER OCT 01-4304-200-4136007412/21/89 570 00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN HWY 12 SAFETY IMPR 01-4305-200-4136007412/21/89 123 00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENG PC MTG OCT 01-4305-200-4136007412/21/89 114 00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN MSA-BRIDGES OCT 01-4305-249-4236007412/21/89 2,182 00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENG CONSULT OCT 01-4305-840-7136007412/21/89 153 00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN CD SIREN INSPEC 01-4306-175-3436007412/21/89 217 34 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENG CONSULT EST 43 26-43C5-433-8136007412/21/89 849 i3 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN STAKING/INSPEC OCT 26-4306-433-81 12-26-89 PAGE 1 • P.O. • MESSAGE •-CKS ...-CKS ■-CKS ■-CKS ■••-CKS ‘-CKS ‘-CKS ■-CKS o o1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTERCHECK NO . DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV36007436007436007412/21/8912/21/8912/21/89 1.105 65 544.57 455.52 6.364.21 • BONESTROO ROSENE ASN BONESTROO ROSENE ASN BONESTROO ROSENE ASN STAKING/INSPEC OCT STAKING/INSPEC OCT STAKING/INSPEC OCT 26-4306-434-8226-4306-436-8426-4306-437-85 360128 12/21/89 274.65 274.65 • CONCEPT MICROFILM MICROFILM 01-4306-174-33 360130 360130 360130 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 17 00 83 49 105 33 205.82 * COLONIAL LIFE INS CO COLONIAL LIFE INS CO COLONIAL LIFE INS CO DEC INS DEC INS DEC INS 01-4152-121-31 01-4152-126-31 01-4152-129-31 360142 360142 12/21/89 12/21/89 552.64 2.618.C COPT DUP PR INC r.OPY OUP PR INC MNT BAL 12/1/89 MNT CONTR 12/1/90 01-1283-000-00 01-1283-000-00 12-26-89 PAGE ‘••-CKS >-CKS ■■-CKS 360150 360150 360157 12/21/St 12/21/89 12/21/89 36 80 7 00 43 80 736 43 736 43 CULLIGAN CULLIGAN DAHLGREN SHARDLOW WATER SOFTNER WATER SOFTNER NAVARRE REDEV A PLAN 01-4343-099-17 74-4343-590-93 01-4306-299-72 ■-CKS •-CKS -CKS 360207 360207 360207 360207 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 56.301.00 909.00 2,728.00 1.021 00 60,959 00 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT ADM WORKERS COMP INS 90 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT ADM WORKERS COMP INS 90 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT ADM WORKERS COMP INS 90 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT ADM WORKERS COMP INS 90 01-1280-000-00 72- 1280-000-00 73- 1280-000-00 74- 1280-000-00 •-CKS 360212 360212 360212 360212 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 14, 10, 22, 19 65 EXPRESS MESSENGER EXPRESS MESSENGER EXPRESS MESSENGER EXPRESS MESSENGER POSTAGE POSTAGE POSTAGE POSTAGE 01-3500-000-00 01-4321-039-12 01-4321-129-31 01-4321-174-33 -CKS 360257 360257 12/21/89 12/21/89 37 44 14 00 51 44 GERHARDSON/JOHN GERHARDSON/JOHN mileage MTG EXP 01 -4381-249-42 01-4382-249-42 1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE CHECK REGISTERAMOUNT 360304 360330 12/21/89 12/21/89 12.30 12.30 94.78 94 78 VENDOR DEPT PROPERTY TAX ICMA RETIREMNT TRUST ITEM DESCRIPTION POSTAGE ICMA 11/26-12/10 12-26-89 PAGE 3 ACCOUNT NO. INV. 8 P.O. 8 MESSAGE 01-4321-040-13 01-4140-039-12 ...-CKS -CKS • •-CKS 360337 360337 360337 360337 360337 360337 360337 360377 360377 360395 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 41 45 41.45 21.58 50.40 71.98 221 60 221 60 IMS/MN IMS/MN IMS/MN IMS/MN IMS/MN IMS/MN IMS/MN INTL CONE-BLDG OFFLS JOHNSON/BRADLEY JOHNSON/BRAOLEY KOEHNENS STANDARD 360398 12/21/89 12 00 12.00 ■ KUYPER SCOT r 360435 12/21/89 123 36 LOG IS - SUITE 300 360435 12/21/89 123 37 LOGIS - SUITE 300 360435 12/21/89 123 36-LOGIS - SUITE 300 360435 12/21/89 123.36- LOGIS - SUITE 300 360435 12/21/89 123.36 LOGIS - SUITE 300 360435 12/21/89 123 36 LOGIS - SUITE 300 360435 12/21/89 123.36 LOGIS - SUITE 300 360435 12/21/89 123.36-LOGIS - SUITE 300 360435 12/21/89 717 55 LOGIS - SUITE 300 360435 12/21/89 415 97 LOGIS - SUITE 300 MAILING TAPES 01-4321-039-12 MAILING TAPES 01-4321-069-15 MAILING TAPES 01-4321-174-33 MAILING TAPES 01-4321-174-33 MAILING TAPES 01-4321-174-33 MAILING TAPES 01-4321-249-42 MAILING TAPES 73-4321-569-92 BOOKS 01-4240-174-33 MTG EXP MILEAGE AUTO MAINT MILEAGE HP HP HP HP HP HP HP HP APL MNT RECORDER MNT RECORDER MNT RECORDER MNT RECORDER MNT RECORDER MNT RECORDER MNT RECORDER MNT RECORDER SUPPORT NOV 01-4356-129-31 01-4381-129-31 01-4341-129-31 01-4381-129-31 APL SUPPORT NOV 01-1340 01-4340 01-4340 01-4340 01-4340 01-4340 01-1340 01 4340 01-4352 01-4352 -174-33 -039-12 -174-33 -174-33 -174-33 -174-33 -174-33 -174-33 -069-15 -129-31 ■•-CKS ■-CKS ■-CKS ■-CKS •-CKS €1 19«9 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE CHECK REGISTERAMOUNTVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV 12-26-89 PAGE 4 • P 0 • MESSAGE360435360435360435360435360435360435360435 360435 12/21/8912/21/8912/21/8912/21/8912/21/8912/21/8912/21/89 12/21/89 218 39 566.10 677 00 279 86 144.13 292 63 8.40 46.13 LOGIS - SUITE LOGIS - SUITE LOGIS - SUITE LOGIS • SUITE LOGIS - SUITE LOGIS - SUITE LOGIS - SUITE LOGIS - SUITE 300300300300300300300 300 APL SUPPORT NOV DATA PROC NOV DATA PROC NOV DATA PROC NOV APL SUPPORT NOV APL SUPPORT NOV COURIER DP OCT DATA PROC NOV 01-4352-174-3301-4355-069-1501-4355-129-3101-4355-174-3372- 4352-549-9173- 4352-569-92 73-4353-569-92 73-4355-569-92 3.612 89 360439 12/21/89 35.20 35.20 .LONG LK FORD TRACTOR PART 01-4342-249-42 360474 12/21/89 10,715.35 10,715.35 •METRO WASTE MWCC JAN 73-1282-000-00 360462 12/21/89 128.60 128 60 •MPLS HEALTH DEPT LAB TESTS 01-4306-129-31 360485 12/21/89 13 50 13.50 m MPLS OXYGEN CO DEMURRAGE 01-4232-129-31 360490 360490 360490 360490 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 588 76 57 35 594 50 21 33 MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES 01-4324-099-17 01-4324-129-31 72- 4324-549-91 73- 4324-569-92 1,261.94 360500 12/21/89 275 48 275 48 •MINN COMM TELEPHONE 01-4320-129-31 360522 360522 12/21/89 12/21/89 60 00 252,50 312 50 . MTI DIST CO MTI DIST CO STAPLES MISC SUPPLIES 74-4232-590-93 74-4232-590-93 360545 12/21/89 149 50 149 50 NAVARRE AUTO REPAIR CAR WASH TICKETS 01-4341-129-31 >-CKS •-CKS ***-CKS ■-•-CKS •••-CKS ..•-CKS «-CKS ■••-CKS ■-CKS 19tt CITY or ORONO CHECK NO. DATE12/21/8912/21/8912/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 CHECK REGISTER 12-26-89 RAGE 5AMOUNTVENDORITEMDESCRIPTIONACCOUNT NO INV8400NAVARREHARDWAREMISCSUPPLIES01-4231-099-178450NAVARREHARDWAREMISCSUPPLIES01-4232-129-3101-4232-249-423694NAVARREHARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 47 83 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 01-4343-099-17 S 89 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 72-4232-549-91 70 76 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 72-4234-549-91 1 09 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 73-4232-569-92 1 19 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 73-4234-569-92 332 20 3S05S9 12/21/89 987 42 NSP DEC ST LIGHTING 01-4325-249-42 987 42 • 360S64 12/21/89 106 05 NORTHERN HYDRAUOLICS cylinder 01-4232-249-42 106 05 • 360597 12/21/89 3.836 31 PUBLIC EMPL RET ASSN PERA ’/27-12/10 01-2031-000-00 3 896 31 * 360613 12/21/89 290 25 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR •156 REPAIR 01-4341-129-31 360613 12/21/89 5 735 71 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR *157 COLL REPAIR 01-4341-129-31 360613 12/21/89 2i4 65 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR TRUCK REPAIR 01-4341-249-42 6.240 61 ■ 380629 12/21/89 17 00 POSTMASTER PO BOX RENTAL 01-1262-000-00 17 00 • 360638 12/21/89 45 70 PRAIRIE OFFSET CERT OF OCCP 01-4322-174-33 45 70 • 360675 12/21/89 4.236 60 ROLLINS OIL CO GASOLINE 01-1260-000-00 4.236 60 * 360699 12/21/89 59 43 ROAD RESCUE INC 3 SPOT HANDLES 01-4232-129-31 59 4.3 • 360719 12/21/89 15 00 DIXIE PETRO-CHEM CYL OEMMURAGE 72-4234-549-91 ‘-CKS •-CKS ■-CKS •-CKS ‘-CKS ■-CKS >-CKS «-CKS ‘-CKS a l»l» CITY OF OROMO CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT CHECK REGISTERVENDOR item description15 0036074012/21/89 8 45 8 45 •STRETCHERS KEY HOLDER 01-4221-126-31 360779 360779 360779 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 299 49- 299 49 299 49 299 49 . TRACY OIL CO TRACY OIL CO TRACY OIL CO FUEL OIL FUEL OIL FUEL OIL 74-4234-590-93 74-4234-590-93 74-4324-590-93 36081S 360815 360815 390915 360915 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 48 70 29 62 27 41 22 42 33 22 161,37 US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE TELEPHONE DATA PROC DATA PROC DATA PROC 01-4320-129-31 01-4320-249-42 01-4355-069-15 72- 4355-549-91 73- 4355-569-92 360631 12/21/89 10 06 10 06 •WALTERS LINDA MILEAGE 01-4381-069-15 360135 12/21/89 45.00 45 00 .WARNING LITES OF MN FLASHERS 01-4331-249-42 360901 360901 12/21/89 12/21/89 17 94 74 99 92 93 6EST BUY BEST BUY TAPES RADIO 01-4210-129-31 01-4232-129-31 360902 360902 360902 12/21/89 12/21/89 12/21/89 4 73- 2 51 29 37 27 15 SMITH & WESSON SMITH \ WESSON SMITH & WESSON CREDIT GUN PARTS GUN PARTS 01-4232-129-31 31-4232-129-31 01-4232-129-31 360903 12/21/89 117 00 117 00 .HEALY RUFF CO SIREN REPAIR 01-4342-175-34 360904 12/21/89 30 00 30 00 LAKE COUNTRY CHAPTR DUES 01-4380-174-33 360905 12/21/89 269 00 269 00 .NATL FIRE CODE SUBSCRIPTION 01-4240-174-33 360906 12/21/89 104 U. 104 00 ■ SUBURAN LAW ENFORCE MEMBERSHIPS 01-4380-129-31 ©u 12-26-89 PAGE 6 account no INV • P 0 • MESSAGE•••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS ■•-CKS ‘-CKS <■)l»l» CITY Of OHOMO CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT3«0t07360t0«12/21/1912/21/19 CHECK REGISTERVENDOR850 00 NORTHERN 1STATES850 00 *439 05 WHEELER LUMBER 439 05 ■ 86.380 24 FUND 01 TOTAL 238 17 FUND 14 TOTAL 4.022 21 FUND 26 TOTAL 1.761 70 FUND 72 TOTAL 13.939.89 FUND 73 TOTAL 1.639 99 FUND 74 TOTAL 107.982.20 TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION FROST CHRGLUMBER REPAIR BRIDGE 12-26-89 PAGE 7 ACCOUNT NO INV. 9 P 0. 9 MESSAGE26-4531-434-8201-4233-249-42 •••-CKS GENERAL FUND IMPROVE & EQUIP OUTLAY F 1989 SWR-WTR CONSTR FUND WATER OPERATING FUND SEWER OPERATING FUND GOLF COURSE OPERATING FD r a JA!i 8 \ . L. J BItn mi lEADIRS IM PUBLIC FINANCE A <T 1 M ONTHLY PUBLICATION DFfiCES IN VIINNEAPOHS AND WAUKESHA VOLUME 35. NAJMPEiU HLE: Finmcial SpecidLists: EMera ml Asaociaies. Inc. Please dtaumne to governing body members INTEREST RATES Bond indesns January 1966 to Oacoatwr 1989 9.sot V Inlerett rates on tax-exempt bonds have improved with tlie BBl at 7.4*}% in early October dropping to 7.00% in early December, an improvemcni of 40 basis pwints Taxable inicrest rates gyrated in the last quarter with the US government bond yields moving from the usual ascending curve (higher rates for longer maturities) to invened. humped and sagging , • Sometimes thirty year yields were lower than those on Treasury bills, with intermediate maturity yields higher than either Because of Fetleral Reserve Board uncertainties all interest rates may be higlter than they should be. given a 4% inflation late. 01/86 01/87 01/88 01/89 12/89 DISCLOSURE State and municipal offerings have been brought within the Federal Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) ami its new disclosure Rules 15c 2-12 Tlirough overuse of tax-exempt fmancings, the trade aroused the attention of the US Treasury Department, the courts. Congress and the bureaucracy. Fhe famous WPPSS bond default featured the lack of adequate disclosure. In addition, a court case changed the Constitution as previouslv mterpreted. to take away State s rights to finance their needs, free of fedetal mterference and taxation Effective January 1. IV90 Governmental borrowers are subject to SEC regulation governing disclosure While our clients and most borrowers have ciuefuMy disclosed economic ami financial data for years, issuers now by fedenU rule, must furnish a near final official statement to bidders before receiving bids Seven days aftei awiud. the utiderwriter must distribute a final official statement to investors Issuers must noti'fv successful bidders of significant changes within a certain period after the sale Excepted are securities sold in denominations of $I(M).(M)() or more sold to ,T5 or fewer sophisticated investors, or mature in ^ months or less, iuul issues undei $1,000,000 N'-eilless to sav these regulations increase the complexity and cost of borrowing For thirtv-five years Fillers and /Xssociates have been leaders in assisting borrowers in ihsclosure of infonnation and have earnerl a reputation for presenting bond issues simply imd completely None of our clients have suffered a tlefault ’ Disclosure" is nothing new here J9SI} . 'K; S’'.:”' Si MN SS40? lUC • hi.' vw H.N1 • hU’ .KiLm r disclosure to issuers The SFX' ami Us Municipal Secuiilies Rule Milking Board (MSRBi rules try to protect investois (except sophisticated investors) from bond ilealers. and uiulersMiters from one another But fevs rules pioiect issuers nf boiuls. espectiilly in negotiated sales Nothing requires disclosuie of undeiwriters assi>ciations with investors (their other clientsi who seek securities at the highest possible interest rale Without a public sale, issuers have no way of detennining if tui interest late quoteil is the lowest possible in the market place junk bonds Reportedly, devalued or defaulted junk bomis have resulted in great losses to individtial investors and fimuicial institutions Wl at are junk bonds and how ilo they affect local governments'^ Are uniated tax-exempts considered ’junk’"’ Junk bonds are cprporsitc bonds issued to fund leveraged buyouts (LBOs). are not rated or are rated less than investment grade by rating agencies Tire issuer may ex^rect the debt to be long temi but, more than likely, expects to pay them off from the proceeds of a ’break up ” of the business When such sales do not come off a corporation becomes saddled with huge debt which it may be unable to service. Municipal bonds are not the same and. in fact, mjuiy unrated bonds are of gooil investment quality and attract very strong buying interest. A lack of a rating may be because of the sire of an issue or because the issuer was advised not to seek a rating and pay the rating fees Such bonds are never based on a ’’breakup" of the issuer. While not junk, they often do carry higher interest rales. CONTINGENT COMPENSATION Perhaps issuers, such as WPPSS. are themselves victims of non disclosure in that underwriters, designers and advisors often stand to be paid only if bonds are issued They are thus motivated to "get the job done" whether or not it makes economic sence for the issuer. Allegedly the bad WPPSS bonds were sold well after the cost and feasibility of the projects were in doubt. For some projects someone should l'*e on boiud who will be compensated adequately whether or not a project is financed Some projects should not be financed even if their bonds are salable, and borrowers need someone in a fudiciary capacity to advise them. We wish you another successful solai orbit and looking forward to seeing you at the viuious conventions and meetings Sincerely, EHLERS AND ASSOC IaTES. INC Roheit L Elilei ^ Sl'MMAKV AREA BUND SALES Bond Hunicipa) Hjr Crdar Rapidt C«d«r Rapidt Raokuk S>oo» C'I» Wait Pat No»nat Otcaela loralviI la Ankanf Alik any Oraatt *n^r Clinton Mata Board ol Ra9antt Rallay CaaaNinlty $/0 Date (j(pe oi Bonds lO/Oa/80 Parking Syttm> Rfvanua Bondt 10/04/69 GO Bonds ■ O/OS/69 G O. Jaiprovaaiant Ponds IO/IO/R9 G 0 Iaif>ro«a«»nt Bonds 10/Ih/BO G 0 layiro»a*ant Bonds 10/17/69 Sanar Ra«aniia Bonds IO/^4/69 GO Bonds 11/00/69 G O. l«i»ro»a«anl Bonds 11/06/69 Sanar Ravamia Bonds I I/08/B9 Clactric Havanua Bonds II/I4/S9 G 0. Star* Sai>ar Bonds U/IS/B9 Utility SyStooHan. Bonds II/ZI/B9 GO Sihool Bonds Nal Buyer Amount Maturity Rate Inda*Rati $ 4./BON 199I./00B / 74t 7,40t A 9.400N 1997-2002 6 711 7 40t Aaa 1.900N 1991-ZOnB 6.961 ) 40t 41 4.700N 199I./OOZ 6 4Bl 7 19t Aa 4.900N 1990-1999 h to*.7 19t Aa B70N 1990-7000 h B9t 7 19t NR 690N 1992-1999 b.IBi 7 m At 2.MSN 1990-1999 6 361 7 24t At /.B75N I990-200B 6 7 7X 7 24t A 3B0N 1990-1999 6 B2l 7 74t NR 4.I20N 1992-2003 6. m 7 20t AA 9.660N 1991-1999 S bit 7./0X Al 1,69BN 1993-2009 7.04X 7 12X NR HlnOdlRU laCrascant Hatonta Matonia Datroit talas Shakopaa Shakepaa Barkar County Backar County Pina County Maarns County St Louis County St. Louis County St. Louis County Corast taka ISO dlLB NortB Branch ISO «n0 North Branch lakashoro NorsholI App'a Vallay Appio VAlloy AppI# Vallay Nandota Haiohts NicoHal County OsMlenna (htatonna Chsatonna Stanton ALuatar Haplauood Haplauood Naplauood lindstroa Joint Rouors Dist. Groan Isla Mannapin County Hannopin County Idina tik Bi«or tlk Ri«ar ForpsI laka Glancoa Blyaeuth Plyaouth Board of Mostarn Laka Suparior Sanitary Hist. 0 lasI ad County Snift County l-S-O. P76T BrouarwiI la tasi (ml rat Sol'd Vasia ( naan ss>on Hankoto Nankaio Saul Rap'ds wliitr Raar 10/02/89 GO uastauatar Iraataant Bonds 10/02/69 GO Equipaant Cartitlcatas 10/02/69 0 n. laprovaaant Bonds 10/03/89 G.Q. loproraaant Bonds I0/03/B9 G.O. la* Incraaant Bonds I0/03/B9 GO la* Incraaant Bonds 10/10/69 G 0 Capital Nolas 10/10/09 Jail Ravtnua Bonds 10/10/69 GO Bonds 10/1Q/B9 G.O. Capital l^rovaaant Bonds I0/I0/B9 G.O Bonds I0/I0/B9 G 0. Ngrsinq Hgaa RavanuO Bonds I0/I0/B9 G.O. laaabla Raluncinq Ra«. Bonds 10/11/09 G O. laaobla Incraaant Bonds IB/I2/B9 GO. School BuiIdinq Bonds tO/12/89 GO Aid AnticipAlion Cart<«i<Atos 10/16/89 GO- Grant Anticiprl'on Bonds 10/16/69 GO. laprovaaont Bends 10/17/89 G.O Cquipaant larliticatos 10/17/89 G O. lai Incraaant Bonds 10/11/89 G.O. livro»oaanl Bonds IO/17/B9 GO laprovoaant Bonds IO/IF/69 G O Capital l^rovaant Bonds 10/17/89 GO lo> Incraaant Bonds I0/I7/B9 G O. Inpro»aaant Bonds 10/17/89 GO la* Incraaant Bends lO/t7/B9 GO. laprovaaaot Bonds I0/IB/B9 G 0. Nunicipal Buildinq Bonds I0/I9/B9 lorobla G O lo* Incroaont Bonds I0/I9/B9 CO. laprovaaant Bonds 10/19/89 G O. Ia» Incroaant Bonds 10/24/B9 GO. laprovaownt Bonds IB/26/B9 GO. Grant AnticIpation Bonds 10/26/04 G.O So«fOr Ra«anut Bonds 10/31/09 G.O. School Buildinq Bonds M/02/09 G.O. I^rovaaant Bonds 11/02/09 G.O. Capital Notes 11/02/09 G O. loprovoaonl Bonds 11/06/09 G O. Tox IncroiwnL Bofund. Bonds 11/06/09 G.O. loxoblo lax Incroaont Bonds 11/06/09 6 0. Fire IquipownI Bands M/06/B9 0.0. laproxaownl Bonds M/06/09 G.O. Water iavanua Bonds 11/06/09 GO. laproxoaant Bonds M/06/B9 G.O. Water Ra>anua Bonds M/06/09 6.0. waslanatar Iraalaont Bonds M/07/09 G O Resource Recovery Ravanua Rat und > nq Bonds II/07/B9 GO Solid Waste «a*. Bonds M/H/B9 G.O School Buildinq Bonds M/1 1/69 Solid Waste Resource Recovery Revenue Bonds ll/li/09 Ta»eble G 0 la* Inc Bonds IWll/69 I'l 0 B*fundinq Bonds tin 1/89 U 0 Bonds M/11/69 G 0 ia*aMe la* Inrceaent Bonds B7BN 1997-7001 6.95X 7 401 Baal 270N 1991-1994 6.60X 7 40X Oaal 2.200N 1991-1999 6.62t 7 401 Baal S80N 1991-2005 7.03X 7.40X Oaal I.6.35N 1991-2003 6.92X 7,401 A 1.965N 1991-2003 6 92t 7.401 A I.200N 1991-1994 6.45X > 77X A 2.0200 1991-2010 7.061 7.271 A 6200 1991-1991 6.501 7.271 Oaal 7.3100 1991-2009 7.001 7.271 A 3,0160 I99B.2004 7 03X 7.271 A 2.6660 1991-1995 6.571 7 271 A 1,0150 I99B-2009 9.491 7 271 A 2F5N 1992-2009 9.551 7.271 N0 1300 1992-1995 6.491 7.271 Baa 1.0000 1990 6 531 7 27X N0 5000 1992 6.491 7.191 m 3150 1991-1990 6.571 7.191 A 1650 1991-1994 6.311 7.191 A 2.IBO0 1992-1999 6.411 7.191 A 2.3750 1990-2005 6.461 7.191 A 1.6500 1991-2006 6 501 7 191 Al 1.7400 I996-1<I<>9 6 BIX 7 I9X A 2.5000 1903-2004 6 77’7 I9X Al 1.4000 1991-2000 6 r,«x 7 19X Al 7550 1992-1999 6 52X 7 m 41 500 1991-2000 7.001 1 m NR 3050 1992-2010 7.131 7.19X NR 3500 1992-2003 8.741 7 19*Aa 1.4700 1990-2009 6. 731 7.m Aa 1.3850 1991-2009 6.051 7.191 Aa 4250 1991-2000 6.671 7.191 Oaa 3950 1992 6.^7.191 N0 7300 1991-2001 6 591 7. 191 Baa 5.0010 1992-2014 7.291 7.221 00 900 1991-2000 7 251 7.221 N0 B.8OO0 1090-1904 6.101 7.221 Aaa/AAA 27.3250 1990-2009 6.751 7.221 aaa/aaa 12,9710 1991-2006 6.061 7.241 Aat 4100 1992-2007 9.301 7.241 Baal 4800 1992-2001 6.691 7.241 Baal 2000 1992-2001 6.041 7.241 Baal 1.6200 1990-2004 6 931 7.241 Baal 7150 1992-1996 6.171 7.241 Aa 4.2B50 1991-2000 6.311 7.241 Aa 9150 1993-7004 7.011 7/41 A 19,4000 1996-2007 6 941 7 24X Aa 1.000N 1990-/004 6 B7t 7 /4X Baal 7600 1997-/000 6 88X 1 /OX NR 4.7000 199/-/006 * 14*.f /OX 4«« 9000 199 1-/009 9 0/X 1 .•ox 41 1.1500 1991-1994 6 /3X 1 <ox 41 1., 100 1991-/006 b 64X ' ,'fix 4 5900 199/-1999 4 79X ’ /(IX R<04 ' CAlt Mhitt tMT Mitt ttar CkiMfi NtMiMf m$ totlMTitv n/n/M II/I3/M n/t4/M atciwtttr Mpit <K*t Ni»lt firtwt Itkrrillt u*t»nit Clt«Mt JtCkMH JtctMM Miwt Cttrtf (H mm Ctwitf I.S.9. A Mill Ctif itn It. NttMliifltN CtWHtr ■antr imtf iMk City lt«f frtirit LtN« rrtiri. Itaf frtirit ItMf trttrit *t4 IMt Wiictwtit Rvltit •titit NwliMt Mtrtt Crtm toy Ar»t tSO twti A>ta S/0 KtMito CrttMlitlO tortaft Cttnty Octnta Unilttf S/O Etqhartor Cyghtrtor Chiptmt ftlls Chiltan S/O Suttrter Hartitnd Cratt Bay tolretoMUn Stwtratt Diltrict BayitflP County toyfiolO County Naniloiwi County Nar^Mioid Niluauloo miuauhao miuawiioa torth PratrJ* Arcadia mart Riror iaH* S/D waitarn Ml VIAC lato Oallon torth OdtftlA Minto farqo I'M dl Nandan Souiifcatl Ca»» Mator Rotourco^ District Caroliar f arfo a.S O- d(> Most laruo Mahaotbn Mast farqo ll/IA/M n/um tl/u/to ll/t«/t« It/lf/tl ttmm 11/Zt/M II/2I/B0 tl/2t/t» 11/21/n 1l/2l/tt 1l/Z?/*0 itnim n/iM/w tt/2t/t0 ii/2t/n u/nm ii/n/tf 1l/20/«f II/Z9/W 1I/Z4/M t'./30/09 10/tz/m 19/02/09 10/03/69 10/03/89 10/04/99 10/11/09 10/16/69 •0/13/69 10/17/69 10/23/69 10/2S/69 10/30/69 10/30/69 •0/31/69 •1/01/69 •1/07/69 lt/06/89 1l/n/69 1 l/U/OQ 11/14/89 •1/14/69 •1/14/69 11/14/09 11/14/69 11/14/69 11/16/69 11,-16/69 M/Z0/09 11/21/69 •1/27/69 fi.O. Mattr to«a«Mt OanOs 6.0. taprauaMnt OtNOa Laasa Raranua Oandi 6.6. CqatowMl Caattficttaa 6.0. Itra tat Orn Or 6.6. Itrt.—t OtRto 6.0. IORi« 6.6. tmn at Cart, tf ta 6.6. Cotif 6.6. tmn at Cart, af ImOr M. aant Oands OaOHc Wliltty 6.6. City toilOia* Oaato 6.6 Stam Sa<wr OUt. BafaM. Bands 6.6. taa Incraamil tofandlnv Oands 6.6. SaliO HUta racility •and* 6.6. Caoital taorarawnt OonOt 6.6. Bafandind Oands 6.6. Sciiaal toildtn* 6.6. Tas Incraoant Bands TasaOla 6.0. *a> tncrawni Bands 6.0. ItraiifM Bands tu Incraaant tofandinf Bands Ta* tncraMnt Bafandlna Bands ladrauaaanl Rafandinf Bands Ta* Incraawnt tafandtno Bands Sauar Ravanua Bands Stata-Aid HtglMay 6.0. 6.0. 6.0. G.O. 6.0 6.0. 6.0. Rranissary Watas 6.0. Ta*aOla Rranissery Netas 6.0. Rro^issory liatas 6.0. Sauaraoa Systa* Bafundinq G.O. tranissary Nalas 6.0 Scitaal Bui Idinq Bands Ta* 6 Ravanua Antic. Matas 6.0. Rffundinq Inpravaswnt Bands G O. Rronissery Matas 6.0. StDeal Bands 6 0. I>ranitsary tSalas 6.0. Rranissary Matas Saswr Sysla* Ra*mua Be«ds 11.0. rranlssary Matas G O. Inaravawnt Bands 6.0. Carparata Purpesa Bends 6.0 Praaiissery Matas 6.0. l«provaa»nt Bonds 6.0 Rafunding Pranissary Netas 6.0. taiabla Praaissery Matas bO. Ceunly Building Bonds Malar Systa* Ravanua Bands 6 0. snarl lam Pranissary Netas 6.0. Corparata Purpose lap. Bands 6.0. InpravananI Bands 6.0. Pranissary Matas Sanaraqa Syslan Ravanua Bonds 6 0 Scliaol Building Bands 6.0. Pranissary Matas G.O Pranissary tiotas AdlOMOt tlOliltity Nat Rolf Bend 0oyar lodt" tiling tlSM 1f9l<2B69 6.on r.m Baal I.IMM 199I-26BS 0.611 7.m Baal 2,iidH 1961-2666 o.m T.m BMC 296N T961-I660 6.168 f.m AT o.nsM 1061-2616 6.M r.m AT 4.96W 1996-1999 6.661 T.m Aaa MdM 1016 o.m 7.m Al 3.60dN 1992-2662 6.261 7.m Al l.dfBM 1996-1060 0.161 7.121 A i.snN 1612-2661 0.161 7.121 A 4.6T9N 1696-2660 O.m 7.121 Al t.BNN 1001-2004 0.461 7.121 A 7MN 1006-2006 0.631 7.121 Baa • .dun 1992-2006 6.M 7.121 loo I.PtOH 1091-1093 0.661 7.121 Aa I.6MM 1901-2006 O.m 7 121 Aa MM 1904-2600 o.oii 7.M Ml 9.666M 1993-2010 o.m T.M A 239M 1091-1999 0.351 T.M A 239M 1991-1999 6.441 T.M A S36M 1991-2900 0.331 T.M A I.66M 1991-1000 0.661 T.M Baa I26H 100.3-1906 0.421 T.m Baal 236M 1991-1996 0.421 T.m Baal 3B6M I996<40r«0.741 T.m Baa* 5d6M 1991-2901 0.741 7.m Baal 2.3MM 1991-2000 O.m T.66R A 1.B66N 1990-1999 0 931 T.461 A TItN 1990-1999 9.Ml T.4I1 A 6.666M 1990-1999 0.041 7.461 A m 3.6dSM 1996-2002 0.971 7.461 •MIA 4.ISON tggi.iggg 6.021 7.461 Aa I.966M 199C-1399 0.S91 7.271 A 6.006N •990 0.3S1 7.191 NIG 1 S.ISOH 199P-I999 6.sot 7.191 Aaa 9.49BN •990-1996 0 in 7.191 Aa 4.I0BM 1991-2009 7.041 7.191 •MIA 170M 1990-1999 7 061 7.191 NR 1.140M 1996-1999 6.701 7.221 NB 2.TOON 1990-2609 7.221 7.221 NR I.SOOM 1990-1999 6.511 7.221 A 2.996M 1990-2009 7.001 7.221 A 3.40SM 1999-2009 7.071 7.241 A J9BM I991-199S 6 261 7.241 A S.OOOH 1992-2001 6.111 7.201 Aa SWi 1991-2000 6 661 7 201 •• 4041 1990 10.751 7.201 NR S.OOOM 1990-2009 6 6H 7.201 At 2.M6M 1991-2009 6.951 7.201 A S.IOOSI 1990-1999 6.541 7.201 P ■_ 7.325H 1990-2004 6.771 7.201 9.400M 1990-2009 6.961 7.201 Aa 8S0M 1991-1999 6.461 7.201 Baal 1.475M 1990-2010 7.621 7.201 NB I.700M 1991-2009 6 761 7.121 Aaa I.600M 1990-1999 6.m 7 121 Aa 1.250M 1991-1999 6.591 7.061 NB 111/02/69 Rptiinding InpravananI Bends 41SM 1991-2065 7 231 7 401 NR 10/17/B9 Carlifiiatas »f Ind*6lad**ass 4.30OH 1990 6.471 7.191 NR •0/17/B9 G 0. Refunding Inpravaannt Bands 95W 1990-2004 6 7 71 7.191 Baa 1I/01/B9 b 0. Inprovanant Bends 4.706M •993-2007 6.651 7 2/1 A 11/06/09 Solid Nasla Ravanua Bonds 225M 1991-001 7 Oil 7 /4t NR 11/06/69 Rafunding |npra>aMnt Bonds S.38Stl 1990-/007 6 901 7 /41 Aa 11/13/69 • a* Anin. Cart. of Indabt.1 .fiSSM 1990 6 I/I » /01 NR M/20/69 Ra<unding laipro'anani Bonds 1 lOOM lag/./ftO*.i.' 171 A 11/20/89 G.O. Rafun<inq Bonds 1.S25N 1991-/00'.n S4\' 1.'*.A L.. i I MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ATTENDANCE 7:00 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 Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative Edward Callahan, Jr. attended and CounciImember Nettles was a present. #1475 JOHN MCDOWELL 4045, 4105 AND 4135 BAYSIDE ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. TO 7:35 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. 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, Atto. .ey 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. He said that Mr. White's position is that Mr. McDowell's proposed subdivision will not work without access to Bajside 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 Keliey asked Mr. Owens whether access would be cut off if Mr. McDowell decided not to go through with the subdivision? MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING FILE #1475~MCDOWELL CONTINUED Mr. Owens said that if there is no subdivision, one of Mr. White's options would be to blockade the road to get the attention of the neighbors. Kelley asked what would be accomplished by such an action? Mr. Owens said that Mr. White would be exercising his rights over his own property. Mr. White said that allowing access for the existing two residences was one thing, but adding additional houses that would require the upgrade of the driveway was another. He said that he had suggested to Mr. McDowell's attorney that they look at other options for accessing the property. Planning Commissioner Bellows questioned the requirement to upgrade the driveway due to the existing density. Bellows said that she consistently takes the position that a driveway be upgraded at a 3-residence density. Mr. James Alt, 4165 Bayside Road, asked for a definition of "upgrade" and whether upgrading would be necessary only if there are more than 4 residences? Bellows said that the City has been enforcing the upgrade at a 3-house density. The City's standards for the road is 24' for a rural section, 28' for urban with curb. Chairman Kelley added that a cul-de-sac would also be required. Zoning Administrator Mabusth said that the cul-de-sac width must be 80' to provide for adequate turn around area for emergency vehicles. Mabusth noted the difficulty in determining from where the property for the road upgrade would come. Gaffron showed that the existing driveway is centered on the White and Rezebek property and does not abut the proposed out lot, but is separated from the driveway by a 10' to 15' gap. He said that the additional 25' needed for the standard 50' outlotwidth would prooably come from the Rezebek property. The other option would be to take a total of 50' from the McDowell, Hayssen and Alt properties and construct an entirely new road. Mabusth questioned how that would affect lot areas? Gaffron believed there would be sufficient area to accommodate the outlet. Mr. Gabriel Jabbour asked if the upgrade would occur as a result of a subdivision application, or whethei the City's Zoning MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1475-MCDOWELL CONTINUED 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. Mr. Alt questioned how the road width as discussed had gone from 24' to 50'? 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 from 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 prior to the current private road policy being adopted. Mr. McDowell hoped that the City would not ask him to put in a blacktop road ind a cul-de-sac. He said that the City would have to condemn l le 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 Rezebek, 4185 Bayside Road, said that he objected to the upgrade of the existing driveway and the construction of a cul-de-sac. He 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 Mr. White can agree. Planning Commissioner Brown asked whether, in light of the problems involved with access, if Bayside Road could be used? MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1475-HCDOWELL CONTINUED 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, Nays*=0, Motion passed. #1289 ROBERT HILL 115 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - REVIEW OP AMENDED PLAN RENOTIFICATION BY MAIL Mr. and Mrs. Will were present for the review of the amended plan for this preliminary subdivision. Chairman Kelley confirmed that renotification by mail 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. Will 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. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1289-WILL CONTINUED Chairman 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 rtandards. 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 tc 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 outlot 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 t’ southern access for Lot 1 be maintained off Old Crystal Bay -^d. The revised recommendation is that access for all 3 lots snould come from extension of the roadway. Mabusth said that the original septic test sit^*^ shown for Lot 2, Block 2, will be encroached by the outlot 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 tnat there is enough area to mcve the mound system south. Mabusth said that additional septic tost-ing 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 I MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1289-WILL CONTINUED Kelley clarified that Brown was asking whether th€ outlet going east on the north side of the property could be located on the south side of the property. Mabusth said that there are trees in that area that the applicant would like to preserve. Mr. Will said that there would be less trees removed on the south side than if the cul-de-sac were placed up near the north lot line. He said that placing the cul-de-sac on the southern lot line would eliminate the need to plow down a large grove of trees to get to the north lot line. Chairman Kelley said that could be done perhaps on a temporary basis, but that the City would prefer to see the road extend all the way north. Kelley said that it probably would not matter where the cul-de-sac was located as long as the outlot extended north. Mabusth informed the Planning Commission that the applicant was also being asked to remove the existing, temporary cul-de-sac that is part of the Rolling Meadows subdivision. Mr. Kill noted that there was higher ground on the south side which would lend itself better for driveways than the northern property. Mabusth said that such a configuration would also preserve the necessary septic test sites for Lot 2. Mr. Wear advised the Planning Commission that there was a ravine on the south side of the property and very steep grades. Planning Commissioner Hanson indicated that he had reservations about creating a public road that would be privately maintained. Hanson said that he would prefer to see a dedictated drive extending to the north. The cul-de-sac could be located anywhere within that north-south route. Hanson said that he would favor the outlot going to the east on the south side of the property. He indicated that he had no preference whether that outlot was located on the north or south side of the property. Planning Commissioner Bellows said that she has a problem with the concept of not developing the outlot to access the far eastern lot. Hanson questioned whether that outlot would actually be used as the access. Bellows said if the access to the subdivision is from the south, then that will be the only access to the far eastern site that the City will allow. Otherwise the access to the entire subdivision comes from the east. Bellows does not want to create a situation where the outlot is created, but Old Crystal Bay Road MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989ZONING PILE #1289-WILL CONTINUEDis used to access that lot. Mabusth said if the outlet is created it must be used for access. Mabusth said that the outlet would serve a private driveway to Lot 1, Block 2. The existing access at Old Crystal Bay Road must be eliminated. Chairman Kelley clarified that all three lots would be served with a north/south road extending down to Wear Lane North. Outlet A would extend all the way to the north, and the placement of the cul-de-sac along Outlet A could be variable depending on whether the applicant would like to place the outlet to the east on the north side or south side of the property. Planning Commissioner Bellows questioned how the north/south road would be maintained. She indicated that she could not support the notion of a public road being privately maintained. She said an alternative to that is to serve the subdivision off of Old Crystal Bay Road by its own roadway and its own homeowners association. She suggested that that City would still require the north/south outlot for future extension. Planning Commissioner Hanson indicated that he would prefer that solution to the proposed access through Wear Lane North. Planning Commissioner Brown said that in light of the City's attempt to limit additional access on to County Roads, he was in favor of the interior access roads. Brown said he would like to see the creation of public road that would be publicly maintained with the cul-de-sac the variable on the north/south outlot. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of the preliminary 3- lot subdivision with access through North Wear Lane, ® public roadway, maintained by the Public Works Department of the City of Orono. Outlot A should be continued to the north lot line of the subdivision and Outlot B should be placed on the south lot line of Lot 1, Block 2, to access Block 2; existing access off of Lot 2 should . f existing buildings destroyed within a certain building commences. Kelley then incorporated City staff s findings and conditions, with the exception of item c, g, and h. Kelley asked who would pay for ^he additional cost o* extending the road to the north at a later time? Mabusth said that bcomes an issue with the variable location of the ^®J1® stated that the City wants that road extended boundary. Kelley said that at this time the applicant would have to go dLn into the outlot for the previous subdivision and make modifications. Kelley asked why the City ^® done by the people who want to do it on the north side and come down and connect. Brown said that was the same way they were doing-it with Wear's. Bellows asked for clarification regarding the configuration of the road. Bellows also asked about the minutes of the planning commission meeting NOVEMBER 20, 1^89 ZONING FILE #1289-WILL 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 MCCOURTNEY 1055 FERNDALE ROAD WEST VARIANCES CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 8:10 P.M. TO 8:40 P.M. 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. N’cCourtney'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 wirh the idea that they would get approval for hardcover increases every ‘ i’her month. He said that the proposal being presented was thv* 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 matter 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. He 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 pr. >tirty. 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 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1465-MCCOORTNEY CONTINUED and only the tip of the terrace touches the sight line. He said that the terrace will only be 1.5' above grade with no railings. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Brown said that the Planning Commission has been very consistent in limiting additional hardcover beyond the Zoning Code Requirements. Brown said on the other hand he could understand the safety concerns of the applicant. He said that he would be inclined to say that hardcover should remain at its current percent. He said that the driveway could be constructed, but perhaps not the deck. Kelley observed that the deck would be located in the 0-75' zone. Gaffron said that allowing the driveway and sidewalks to go in would bring the hardcover total to 46% in the 75-250' zone. Planning Commissioner Hanson said that the remodelling and consequent hardcover were appropriate, but he wished to uphold the City's consistent policy regarding hardcover in the lakeshore. He said that eliminating the terrace would be a method of maintaining hardcover. Planning Commissioner Bellows said that she is not convinced that the driveway configuration will solve the safety problem. She said that it would be difficult to back out of the garage and get turned around to drive out of the circular drive. Bellows said that she was bothered by the significance of the house in relation to the size of the lot. She said that she was shocked to see that it had developed to the degree that it had. She agreed that there was a legitimate safety concern, but that it was self-inflicted. She did not think that allowing the large circular driveway would solve the problem. Bellows thought that there were other solutions and suggested that Mr. McCourtney be prepared for either "some hard trade-offs or for some sheer denials". Mr. Wenkus said that with respect to the hardcover, the adjacent land is sparsely developed and there is quite a bit of additional square footage in the area for runoff and filtration. Mr. Wenkus also noted that the house had not varied much from the building specs to the finished product. He said that the front of the house was brought forward slightly and that the roof peak in the center of the house was 4' higher than the original house. Mr. Wenkus said that the lot is substandard by virtue of City of Orono actions in the 197C's. He said that it was developed as a substandard lot with less acreage because the City of Orono allowed a .75 acre lot to be developed in a fairly expensive neighborhood with high property values. Mr. Wenkus said that they have built only to those values and not tried to overbuild. I I MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE 11465-MCCOURTNEy CONTINUED Planning Commissioner Bellows said that the house was nicely done, but the issue is hardcover. She said that the Planning Commission 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. Chairman 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, noc 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 public 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 with the cars being par\ed along Ferndale. Motion passed. The portion of this application pertaining to the fence was then discussed. Gaffron 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 MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1465-MCCOURTNEY CONTINUE same 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 openoss of the fence. It was moved by Planning Commission Brown, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of this height variance for a fence 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. Brown 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 GERALD MCCOURTNEY 1055 FERNDALE ROAD WEST AFTKR-THE-PACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITAARIANCE PUBLIC BEARING 8:40 P.M. TO 8:55 P.M. 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 Plann-*ng and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained how staff hau discovered the construction of a basement MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1481-MCCOURTNEY 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 lan«^scaping plan. Gaffron said 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 draining to the lake. Gaffron explained that the applicant has regraded the swale in the 0-75'zone, not only in connection with the riprap of the shoreline, but also excavation 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 are^ 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 comforcable with what the applicant is doing in that area within 20' of the shoreline. Planning Commissioner Brown said that it is bird 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 t\ie work was done to HmUTES OP THE PLANNING COIL SETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING FILE «1481-MCCOURTNEY CONTINUED relieve drainage going 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 would 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? Gaffron said that he could look into that aspect. Kelley amended his motion to include direction to staff to look into the dedication of a drainage easement and m.ake a recommendation to the City Council, Hanson seconded. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1470 DAN & ROTH PARTEN 4300 BATSIDE ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:55 P.M. TO 9:40 P.M. 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 outlots. 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 is located for Lot 1? Gaffron indicated that the alternate site is in Outlot A and the 60' easement jreates a configi 1 so that it is not contiguous with Outlot A. otic system 1 located on for Lot MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1470>PARTEN CONTINUED Kelley observed that if Outlet A were put in with only a 50' easementr Outlet A and Lot 1 will be contiguous. Gaffron suggested creating a more narrow Outlet 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 interjeered 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 proposed is the best that can be done due to the topography of the 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 s’.ie 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 he suggested with the 2 outlets. Bellows replied that she was uncomfortable w^th 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 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1470 PARTEN CONTINUED 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 PRD should not resemble a conventional 3-lot subdivision and that it may 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 the form of a right-of-way from the DNR. Planning Commissioner Brown 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 MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING FILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED subdivision of the 12 acres, subtracting out the acreage dedicated to the 60' easement that runs the whole south lot line. 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 the flag lot would require a width variance. Mabusth suggested putting a 25' outlet the extends 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 Chairman Kelley to recommend approval of the preliminary 2-lot subdivision of 12+ acres, less Outlet A which will run 50' from the southerly boundary to the east lot line. Outlet B will run on the eastern boundary commencing at Outlet A to the south up to the lot line of Lot 1 at a width of 25'. It was suggested by the applicant's surveyor that the out lot will need to be wider than 25' to contain a driveway. Kelley said that he did not want to create substandard lots. Mabusth suggested that it may be better to have the property owners work out the details. Kelley suggested tabling the application t-^ntil further information is available regarding actual lot areas. Bellows said the issue of drainage easements had not yet been addressed. Kelley withdrew his motion. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Bellows, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this application pending transmittal of a plan addressing the issue of easement vs. outlot, site drainage and subdivision of the 12+ acres rather than 17+ acres. Mr. Parten asked for clarification of what drainage information they needed to submit? Gaffron explained that the City may require a 20' to 30' drainage easement be taken over the existing drainageway. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1471 DARYLS UPHOPP 2699 KELLY AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 9:42 P.M. TO 9:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Uphoff was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided a brief review of this application for a conditional use permit to repair a sea wall. Mabusth said that the City Engineer had reviewed the application and found the proposal acceptable and recommended that the I MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED proposed plantings be placed below the existing water lines, which will be approximately 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. Uphoff advised that the spoils would be placed off site. 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 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 DNR and the applicant obtaining a building permit. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1472 DAVE CARLSON 1960 SHORELINE DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 9:45 P.M. TO 10:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Dave Carlson was present for the conditional use permit application. review of this Zoning Adiniiiistrator 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 Road 15? 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. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING FILE «1472-CARLSON CONTINUED Planning Commissioner Brown asked about the status of the crosswalk being proposed. Mabusth satd that Public Works Director Gerhardson had received word ixom Hennepin County that a crosswalk would be acceptable. Kelley 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. Kelley 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 degree 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. He 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 & 15 intersection, large trucks cannot use the intersection. He said the trucks use Spates Avenue, as do the Police and morning traffic trying to get onto County Road 15. He 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 time there had been discussion about placing a cul-de-sac at the end of Spates. \ih MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20# 1989 ZONING PILE #1472-CARLSON CONTINUED City 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. He 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. #1473 JACQUELYNN KELLY 2056 SHADYWOOD ROAD AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED TO JANUARY 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING It was moved by Chairperson Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown to table this application. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1474 DONALD BELAHSKI 1695 CONCORDIA STREET VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 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. I MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING FILE 11474-BELAWSKI CONTINUED Mr. Belawski said that he had built a house and sold it to his son and would like to build another house, remove 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 flew into the steps in the 1937 "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. There 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, requiring removal of the existing garage on the property within 6 months. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1476 DAVID £ SUZANNE PRASS 1065 LINDEN LANE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:17 P.M. 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. Mr. 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. Mr. 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. He said that structurally it was sound. [i_ MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE «1476-PRASS CONTINUED Kelley said that restoring the pool was fine but that he wanted a specific time 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. Prass 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 realized 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. Prass 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 Commissioner 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, hut that there is no structure on the adjacent property. Kelley said that he was concerned about children playing in the area and the safety risk of having an open, unattended pool. Mr. Prass 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. Prass said that would be an option. Bellows said that she had a problem with the apparent fact that a house will not be constructed within the one year period as the City consistently enforces. Planning Commissioner Hanson asked Mr. Prass 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. I MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1476-PRASS CONTINUED Hanson 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 Commissioner 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 Commission is going to limit the time to ra-build and there will be no extension. She said that she was disinclined to allow more than the standard one year period. Council ilepresentative 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 OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE 11476-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«0, Motion passed. #1477 DR. BOB WRITESEL OF VINEYARD OF THE LAKE, INC. 850 WEST WAYZATA BLVD. CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT APPLICATION WITHDRAWN #1478 ROBERT RITCHIE 3572 SHORELINE DRIVE CONDITIONAL USB PBRMIT/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 Nasset, 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 conditional 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? MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1478~RITCHIE CONTINUED Dr. 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 ott ,r 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 commercial 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. Roshar 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. MINUTES OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING FILE #1478-RITCHIE 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 & C heating building. Kelley questioned whether appioval of the conditional use permit could be recommended with the provision that the applicant come L.^ck 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 favoreble vote. Mr. Dohmeii asked about the adjacent property and the intended use? Mabusth replied that the adjacent property is also b-^ing 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 FILE 11478-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 Hanson, to recommend approval of the conditional 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, ’,\ith a further proviso that the improvements be executed within 6 months of the approval. If these conditions 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 >er motion, Hanson seconded. Brown noted that approval was being recommended in this manner to accommodate the applicant's professional time schedule. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays»0, Motion passed. 41479 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. Jurgen Stielow, the owner 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. Stielow'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 said that he MIHUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ii ■' ZONING PILE #1479-WILLIAMS CONTIM^'^D could see no hardship to warran-t . ne approval of this variance. Mr. Williams said that he had met with the Hoffmans 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 whw.re the original house was located, but placing the house an> 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. Hoffman presented pictures showing the location of the 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 ii MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING N K 20, 1989 ZONING FILE #1479-WILLIAMS CONTINUED Hoffman’s air and light. Bellows told Mr. Williams that he has provided nothing to substantiate that. Kelley noted that if the existing house is to be torn down, the Planning Commission would consider this to be a new lot and any buildings must conform to all or the required 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 sare site. He thought that it '..'-is a terrible wa.' te 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 "ingle-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 would consider granting the average lakeshore setback variance. Ms. Marge Gasch, 1030 Tonkawa Road, indicated that the proposed deck will extend beyond the site lines of her 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 OF DRAINAGE EASEMENTS PUBLIC HEARING 12:00 P.M. TO 12:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate 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. LI. 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 Commissioner 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. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON NOVEMBER 13, 1989 Offi / 31989 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. Dr. Mich expressed appreciation to the Board, faculty and staff for their kind expressions of sympathy at the time of his father's death. Dr. 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 Dr. 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. r Dr. 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 Dave Sohn, regarding the Orono School District and the Board viewed the video at this time. Dr. 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. Dave 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 pleased with the perfor mance of the Superintendent and they acknowledge the excellent leadership Dr. Mich provides. He expressed appreciation to Kitty Crosby for her work in the evaluation process. UPON MOTION by Don 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 Debt Service $6,836,843.43 635,311.14 165,065.10 590,743.13 354,226.00 $8,582,188.91 Kitty Crosby, MOVED, Don 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 stated that almost all uses of school facilities are by community groups for which no hourly use charge is assessed. The question was called on the motion. Nay: Jim Franklin. Motion carried. Hourly fees follow: ,J SCHOOL FACILITY USE FEES - Approved by the Board of i_:f Education - 11/13/89 Facility Classrooms Gymnasiums Middle & High Elementary Cafeterias Middle & High Elementary Other Library Auditorium Kitchen* Hourly Chi CLASS I $ -0- ♦Kitchen charge'is one time charge. Class I is for non-profit local groups iiCharges CLASS II $ 10 30 IS 20 15 15 35 15* I UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Kitty Crosby, the School Board approved an increase in the substitute teacher daily pay rate from S60 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. _A i rj) r>l>QS:>)ot/ Katherine P. Crosby, Clerky Approved: 4 Dave McKown, Chairman 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 had 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 Her 'epin County staff. f-; r A Ul«/I hcnncpin humcin /<rvi€«/ uiest hennepin human services planning board 4100 vemon avenue south, st. louis porh, minnesota 55416 920-5533 TO: FROM: West Hennepin Municipalities Dale Woodbeck, Chair West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board We wish to extend our appreciation to the municipal members of West Hennepin Human vServices 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 foi^'ard to working with you in the coming year. (Over for update on how the Hennepin County Budget affected agencies in the West Hennepin area.)