Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-22-1985 Council Packet
PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Hearing - April. 22, 1985 PlcaSu fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS 3. LI 7. i a. zz 1 17. a PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay'Sewer Project - Public Hearing - April. 22, 1985 Please fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS e C r -14,0 Lk�N I I Y ,C :7� K c ;Lv 3 6 3 5/ T 9. 0. GI A J 1 ey. 2. x A J 17. *'-c ew PUBLIC AT'IIFNUANCF City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Hearing - April 22, 198[, Please fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) Gil ADDRESS n r 2. • �'�C`C /Jv- 4-��?r,� ��k `vim •j2,a�cr 4. ic 6 A) 4, 9. kk lac J ,6c" '>f art u. h cl, 121- 3 /c- 37. 16. 1_..� 19 . ` fIlle r l't_ ' Q) �; (!! r/ C S . [, i , � { c �. v� r ( /1k_ I PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Hearing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS 2 TA A/ k/ 6 7 ILA ,�. x�� J 2. CL z V 24 15 16 21l c,4, pool P1111LIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Hearing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS T o" ,�..,. Q2 7. 7 r- Klrwe,-,� ger PUBLIC ATTENDANCE: City of Orono Crystal Ray Sewer Project. - PulAic Hearing - April 22., 1981) Please f i 11 out the information reyuv!.te"-3 l< w. NAME (please print) ADDRESS j 6. _�+ �. �11.► rc If 9. 12. 16 1 r �t� . ►.-. ' IL PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal flay Sewer Proji-ct - Public [fearing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the infcxm:jtion 1,ulcw. NAME (p1rane print) -V L 44 Ya 3. 4. CA kF ,YA L A, k,f Ad 2.4 PIC 12 fit 13 INA 14. k A, A 10 . 10 PUT '.!C ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Hearing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the information requested be -low. NAME (please print) ADDRESS 1 : Y J �. �i n er 3. .a 5. �• /�r� \ /�^ Lam,/ r '�� / ��^ % 8. 4, J 7 7E t ACW 10. r % .�' �p,i ., �. 12. i3. L r � �ti ►+�cci� 1 j � 6-- k -► �.. lute � '� t 4 L7. � 1 r 7 ' 2 0 . X f. r, r , 01 PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Hearing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the information requiL,iA below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS IA- 4 le A 10 4 t4W 7. 8. 14, Le - LW41-ef,i o . t ~~ ��,� .,-W 'tA I Ct lt�e ,2.VC(Af now grC X �3 14. 15P 1- IVtw, 17 18 �'t �.) ', l , 19 .4k ky 01h a 0 PUBLIC ATITNDANCF C:Iy of Orono Crystal Bay f Y wer Project - Public Hearing - April 22, 1985 Please fill ou-. the information rc,q-, ested below. NAME iplease print) ADDRESS ke" < 4- .4/. ter, i, 1 ')e ) — J")t t.- L LI ILI A�pdo Pip 1.2 rh of A v e 9 Ina 10 -7 12. 13. C 14 Vi Aj LL 1. Ciro A 9. r tAL, PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Hearing - April 22, 1985 Plcase fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS Z-- v AIA rz-= 3. C14 L/I L /4 L q A.-W 5 7. 9 '7 3's G7 0 2 A 3 yet 14. 16 (f . J4 IT L 7 *Ar Ik J fl4retl A.A t .,I L PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Hearing - April 22, 1985 Lease fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS � r 5. . ✓1 c� -r � � � . �. ; Li, 4 -1 Aill_ � c Z 1 I �ti�= ► �! �� 7. 9. 10. LIJ l 3. ti� �,� 5 (.yl C ►, l � 1 l 7 J 18. .- C. PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Pu6lic Hearing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the information requested below. M,.. NAME (please print) ADDRESS 1 art L�,� t/ C � � iJ: J �.�� � s � � C• � i ; is �- �. r 6. / � y 7 . �.. Z SAk, .. ' 00 1 �;ch �... (� t C 1 (7: r' caC c, TT C 1 .1 L_ 8. C.- 9. 3 16:'� _ r c ,."- 0 PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Hearing - April 22, 1985 out the information requested below. 0 1 . -- a- so .. "" z NAME' L, Aease print) ADDRESS MOWN" 2 A2 IC, cr 6 bi C, 7 10. 14. ".,ep "on. aw- 0 ► r'- ' .J, dw PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Hearing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the information requested bElow. NAME (p-lease print) ADDRESSAl ` kc� �vv i Y\ 1\1\, �� 1,/ L 3(�_�C�i{Ct.u/ �( /�(•%K•«rC.. 2_ �tL)/&Y . cam jlLir IrJH Yv : A. :f�M•�►Y�•.�w.�.A..q..v r.+••wr.r+-'s+1•fl yYw.. . s••�r •.ram. PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Hearing - April 22, 1985 Please fi 11u �_tJie information requested 4e)nw. ��w,•, ;� ��j,.•.. NAME (pleas`e print) ADDRESS 1 � �' , ! G t' �' ! � ". w•a. � �' ���� / ��rl � art '��-�� , . � � 3, 4. 7. L11- /?I sob.. r� 3 . Ip. 14. �..w.•+.ww.�jr..�....�....•,• .•.w• I I ..�y...+.7�.�r►y......•+."fir �%Y��'.���� �r '1 G 17. i .+.. 1 '+ . PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Hearing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS ip 4. 5 6. 7. 8. 10. 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. i 18. 19. 20. PUBLIC AEI" ENDANc'I•: City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Hearing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS r. lr 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ll. l2. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19 I 10. PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Hearing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) 3. 1 ADDRESS ��►11wo (A AL?�' 4. 5 6. _ 7. 1 a. 9. .0. l2. I 3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. ROBERT W. CARLSON 2080 Shadywood Road Wayzata Minnesota 5539-11E,: I lC.�C<[.1\ is .I City of Orono Orono, Minnesota APR 2 21985 ' To: Council Members E--NO Subj: Sewer Assessment Proj. 85-1 With regards to your undated letter on the above subject, I am very distressed with at least 2 aspects and would like to voice my opinion as follows: 1. The entire aspect of the proposed payment schedule (having the entire city pay for a local assessment) is contrary to all previous assessments, historical assessing, etc. etc. My personal feeling is strictly against this and I would do all in my power to fight including some suggestion that the parties involved in trying to push this thru be legally removed from office -including any other person involved as for example, the hired city attorney. 2. On the 2nd page of the letter - 2nd paragraph, is a statement "No appeal _ _ _ by the affected property owner _ _ _ _ hearing. I object of the wording of this because if the proposed financing goes thru, I will be an "affected proporty owner" and I don't think I have to object in writing or in person by any specific deadline. ,/ i j�J Robert W. Carlson APR 2 RoNo J brit � /6 �,' o � • - r L17 LIF I APR 2 2 1985 --CITY OF 0RU!N4 v APR 2 2 (_ C!TY OF Gq;►►i0 Date 1 It 1-24 /`01-;- I (we) the underr igned property owners located at a—1 Jg S n2cn /h!1( 5S-.Y'7/ street address -not ty` ►+.cx o6te-c.j?1a -*rt+eei Vie 1001,, project coat assessment in the amount of :610,Aj0.00 per unit for sewer in Crystal My. Sirnature (s ), JEFFREYA.CARSON WILLIAM G.CLELLANO CARSON AND CLELLAND ATTORNP.YS AT LAW DROOKOALE CORPORATE CENTER SUITE 305 6300 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWA' MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5543_ April 22, 1985 City Council City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN �,.,323 RE: Special Assessment--1950 Shoreline Drive TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: TELEPHONE (6.2i 56, •t600 APP 2 2 1985 j C{l'y OF OROFl4 Please be ad'►ised that this office represents Mr. and Mrs. Robie Wayne who own, the property at 1950 Shoreline Drive. This correspondence is intended to operate as an objection by the Waynes to the proposed assessment for the following reasons: 1. The proposed assessment exceeds the benefit to the subject property; that is, the assessment does not increase the market vale: of the property by at least the amount of the assessment. 2. That the method used by the City Council in arriving at the assessed amount for the subject property is arbitrary, unlawful and invalid. On behalf of the Waynes, I would appreciate receiving any and all documentation relating to the assessment proceedings at my office address. Thank you. Very truly yours, CA;ff SON AND CLELLAN ey A. Carson Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Robie Wayne N APR 2 21985 i Date '�'2- r-7� I (wt!) the undersigned prorw:rty owners located at street address - not PC nox dCa f+ea�-t'�e 10QA project cost assessment in the amount of $10,P50.00 per unit for sewer in Crystal Bay . Sipnature(s), 4 i j APR 2 2 1985 rU L;J U C'TY OF G'"t_ -., r Date 7 I (We) the undersigned property owners located at street address - not O7W4p.�ea.7. the 100% project cost assessment in Vie 0o amount of t10PA50.00 per unit for sewer in Crustal Ray . Signature (s ),, OBJECTION TO: Presiding Officer of Public Hearing on Proposed Special Assess- 'ments for Sanitary Sewer Project 85-1 Crystal Bay Area. FROM: George F. Rovegno, Jr, and Susan J. Rovegno We hereby object to any assessment against our property located at 2010 Shoreline Drive as no specific benefit accrues to the property as a result of the project and the project would reduce the value of the property. Sincerely, George Rovegn r. Executed this 22nd day of April, 1985. d an J. Ro egno ' APR 221985 ;+ OBJECTION r` �---- J I-1 TY GF ,r TO: Presiding Officer of Public Hearing on Proposed Special Assess- ments for Sanitary Sewer Project 85-1 Crystal Bay Area. FROM: George F. Rovegno, Jr. and Susan J. Rovegno We hereby object to any assessment against our property located at 2010 Shoreline Drive as no specific benefit accrues to the property as a result of the project and the project would reduce the value of the property. Sincerely, George F Rovegn r. StKan J. Rov gno Executed this 22n -day f April, i985. f APR 2 2 1985 +, _..: 1' OF TG'--Or' l� Date I (we) the undersigned property owners located at street address - not PC "ox ZA -the 100,E project cost assessment in the amount of $10,P50.00 per unit for sewer in Crystal Bay. Signature (s ), �� c RTt) 1-1 APR 2 2 1985 Date I (we) the undersigned property owners located at street address - not K' Pox ap:>eal t-!ie IOQ% project- cost assessment in the amount of tl0,R50.00 pnr unit for sewer in Crystal Ray . Sir.nature (s ), L- Fi APR 2 2 1985, 4/22/a � [ f ;e, I tree rroperty owners at 1-2 _��C<.�-�_�e..... wish to appeal the amount of sewar assesmant 10,�C''?. "'ris urittcn ob-ecticn to lie filed 11 with th � f i 01 ?rr or presented to the o, i i1.c:r at the bearing .:.pr:l 22, 111`15 APR 221985 4/22/85 We, I the property owners at l.) r- :--, ri tfft" r r 'f wish to appeal the ar,)unt of sewar assesmant 10,`50. This written objection to be filed with the City Clerk or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing April 22, 19F-55. MI NUTI•:S OF TIIF ORONO COUNCIL Mf•:t:TI NC: lll:1•U AYkI L. 22, 1 98'>, AT '1111% ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL AUDITORIUM AT 68') OLD CRYSTAI. BAY }LOAD - PAGI•: 1 ATTENDANCF 7:00 PM The Orono Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Butler, Councilmembers Grabek, Frahm, Tim Adams, and Lynn Adams. City Attorney Radio and City Engineer Cook were present. The following represented the City staff: Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Public works Coordinator Gerhardson, Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Finance Director Kuehn, City Clerk Hallin, Deputy Clerk Lattin, Police Chief Kilbo, Assistant Chief Burmaster, Building Inspector Jacobs, and City Recorder Sutton. Carolyn Drude from Ehlers and Associates was also present. Those present for the public hearing signed attendance sheets which are attached to these minutes. Those letters that were submitted the night of the meeting appealing Council's decision are also attached to these minutes. Those letters that were submitted prior to the Council meeting were included in the Council packets for their review and, therefore, those letters will not be attached to these minutes but wi 11 be kept on f i le at the City Clerk's office. PUBLIC HEARING 7:25 - 9:47 PM PROPOSED SPECIAL, ASSESSMENTS FOR SANIT?.RY SEWER IN CRYSTAL BAY AREA Mayor Butler announced that now is the time and place for the public hearing concerning the proposed special assessments for sanitary sewer in the Crystal Bay area. City Recorder Sutton noted the affidavit of publication and certificate of mailing. Mayor Butler explained that City Engineer Cook, Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and Carolyn Drude from Ehlers and Associates will speak first. and then the time will be turned over to the public. City Engineer Cook explained where the sewer lines will be installed in the Crystal Bay area known as project 85-1. Cook reported that the construction of the sewer would include a lift station on Spates Avenue. Cook added that the total estimated construction cost for the improvements is $900,000 or $10,850 per unit if 100% assessed against the benefitting Crystal Bay residents. Cook noted that in addition to the unit charge, the owner would have to pay a SAC charge of $425, permit fee of $30.50, and the plumbers fee to actually hookup the sewer. Cook explained that the decision to be made tonight is whether the project will be ordered and at what assessment. rate. Michelle Combs of 1251 Briar Street asked if the R3 unit figure includes or excludes he Art Center, and if it excluders the Art Center, w..y. MI14UTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, MEETING HELD APRII. 22, 1985, AT THE ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL. AUDITORIUM AT 685 OLD CRYSTAL, BAY ROAD - PAGE 2 PUBLIC HEARING (COWL'.) City Engineer Cock pointed out that. the 83 unit figure does not include the Art Center. Mayor Butler stated that the City Counci 1 has not yet had the necessary public hearings with the Art Center in order for them to hookup to sewer. Butler added if the Art Center is included'_.. the project, it will no' incur any additional construction because the pipe is already 1_:roposed to extend down Briar Street so that the Art Center could hookup at that point. Curt Quady of 1223 Brown Road South felt that the Art Center is part of Crystal Bay and should have been included in this sewer project. Quady explained that he was on the �' uncil when this area was first proposed for sewer. Quad :.ated that the Council voted against the sewer project beL._,,se of pressure. Quady noted that he was the only Councilmember to vote for the Crystal Bay sewer project. Quady felt it was a mistake on the City Is part not to have sewered the area long ago. Quady reiterated that the Art Center will require 20 units and that it should be incll.rded because it will lower the cost to the indivi; ual Crystal Bay residents. Quady stated what the whole project should be delayed until the Art Center is _ncluded in the project. Berman Renner of 3180 North Shore Drive agreed with Quady thCt the Art Center should be included in the project and that the development to the west of the Art. Center should be included too. Renner felt that sept,: systems are temporary and not state of the art. Mayor Butler introduced Carolyn Drude from Ehlers I; Associates, the City's financial consultants. Carolyn Drude presented the f inancial side of the project and noted the different assessment options that. the Council is considering. Drude stated that a 15 year bond maturity is proposed extending the assessment payments over 15 years. Drude explained that if the Council assesses the project 50% to the benef itt.inq property owners, then 50% will be spread over the general tax rolls and would increase taxes based on the valuation of the property. Drude also noted that one can pay in adva,,ce to avoid any interest payments. Drude gave the example of the assessment that would increase property taxes for a $150,000 market value home by $22.69/year for 15 years. Gary Printup of 1261 Briar Street referred to a letter that was mailed by Bill Sirrie in which he states that the increase in property taxes each year would be $112.00 for a $100,000 market value. Mayer But ler stated that the information in that letter war in error. MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 22, 198'_), AT THE ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOI, AUDITORIUM AT 685 OLD CRYS'TAI. litY ROAD - PAGE 3 PUBLIC HEARING Bill Sime of 2106 Shadywood Road explained that he received (CONT.) the numbers from City Hall and took that number and multi.j,lied it by 15, since it is a 15 year assessment, and came up with the figure $112.00 total assessment. Sime noted that actually the total assessment is more than he quoted in his letter. Carolyn Drude stated that for a $150,000 market value home the -essment per year is $22.69. Drude stated that the tot 3sessment is cannot be predicted now because of the chang%. in valuation of the home over that 15 year period. Bill Sime stated that the Mayor stated that his letter was in error and that his letter was not. in error. Sime stated that the f igures were given to him at a Council meeting that the total project cost was $900,000 and that if assessed 50% leaves $450,000 to be spread across the general tax rolls. Sime noted that $450,000 divided by approximately 4,000 tax parcels leaves $112.50 for a total assessment without interest. George Rovegno of 2010 Shoreline Drive referred to tLe estimated annual tax increaF -d asked if this mandates that property taxes must increz or can't the City be more fiscally responsible in its operating budget and take it out of the general fund. Roveg.io reiterated that there is no rule that mandates that property taxes must increase. Rovegno asked Drewd how much of the $900,000 total project cost goes to Ehlers 6 Associates. Carolyn Drude confirmed that there is no rule that mandates that taxes must go up, but there is a rule about having money available to pay those bonds. Drude estimated at ut $8- 9,000 will go to Ehlers 6 Associates for the financial consultant costs. Elmer Conover of 1489 Shoreline Drive stated that the figures he got from City Hall indicated his taxes would go up $600- 750. Conover noted that he wouldn't object to paying for a sewer project once, but asked how many other sewer project are in the City of Orono that could compound these figures discussed tonight. Conover objected to the assessment because it will he precedent setting for future sewer projects. Mayor Butler explained that the City has been talking about sewer in the Crystal Bay area for years. Butler noted that the City has investigated every means of federal end state funding and there is no funding available for this project. Butler informed the public that a Hennepin County survey done on the Crystal Bay area revealed thot a maiority of the people in this area qualify as low and moderate income. Butler reported that many wells and septi -ystems in the Crystal Bay area overlap one another and create hazardous cor.•iitions. Butler sympathized with those who had to pay for their own sewer and noted that sh, also paid for her own sewer, however, the community should 14, athle to pull toqether MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL. MEETING HELD APRIL 22, 1985, AT THE: ORONO MIDDLE. SCHOOI. AUDITORIUM AT 685 OLD CRYSTAL, BAY ROAD - PAGE: 4 PUBLIC HEAVING to help some people keep their homes. But r asked (CONT.) Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron to give tti,- public a brief overview on the different options available to this area. Assistant 'Zoning Administrator Gaffron reported that the Crystal Bay area is one of five rural housing clusters that were identified in the Orono Comprehensive Plan (adopted 1980).as an area needing an alternative waste management study. Gaffron noted that three of the five clusters identified have been studied and have been sewered. Gaffron pointed out the three areas as the Minnetonka Bluffs area, the Scotch Pine/North Shore Drive area, and the West Ferndale along County Road 15. Gaffron noted that these areas were historically developed in dense clusters leaving inadequate area for septic and well areas. Gaffron na;oed the Crystal Bay area and Stubbs Bay area as the two remaining areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan as needing sewer. Gaffron explained that the Crystal Bay area is located next to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's (MWCC) interceptor and offers the opportunity for this area to hook up to sewer. Gaffron mentione-' that most of the septic systems in Crystal Bay area are substandard in either design, location, or in construction. Gaffron noted that this area has a very high potential for future septic system failures. Gaffron reported that out of 79 existing units, 11 systems are now failing or have exhibited signs of failure. Gaffron pointed out that 2 properties currently use holding tanks. Gaffron noted that one commercial. property has no septic system and no possible location to install one. Gaffron stated that 21 septic systems of 83 properties in the Crystal Bay area cannot. be replaced within the confines of the state and local codes. Gaffron revealed an additional 38 (or 45%) will experience difficulties in repairing their current septic system. Gaf f ron stated that only 24 would be able to replace their septic system. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron reviewed the seven options available to this area: OPTION I. Alteration of the water consumption habits of the users, including careful system ,maintenance. OPTION 2. Repair or reconstruc, )n of individual systems, and replacement of existing sys,.ems with new individual bystems conr'.ructed to City standards per Ordinance 210. OPTION 3. Installation of innr-va;Ave on -site systems including consideratir of composting or incinerating devices and shared dr.air,Lield systems. OPTION 4. Installation of a collection system connected to a community drainfield. MINUTES OF THE: ORONO COUNCIL. ME:E:TING HELD APRII. 22, 1985, AT 'I'IiI: ORONO MIDDLE: SCHOOL AUDITORIUM AT 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - PAGE 5 PUBLIC HEARING (CONT.) OPTION 5. Installation of individual holding tanks with off -site disposal. OPTION 6. Selective condemnation and demolition of properties which cannot/will not comply. OPTION 7. Installation of collection system connected to existing MWCC interceptor (installation of sewer). Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that OPTIONS 1-6 each have certain drawbacks and that OPTION 7, installation of sanitary sewer, provides the only permanent sewage disposal method for the Crystal Bay area. Chris Kelley of 2340 Fox Street asked Gaffron what the problem is with OPTION 4. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted that 0' -ON 4 is a collection system that discharges into a community drainfield. Gaffron noted that there is inadequate area in the Crystal Bay area to locate a community drainfield. Gaffron also noted that a community drainfield tends to put excess nutrients in the soil seeping into ground water affecting the drinking water. Albert Gallistel of 2933 Casco Point Road stated that he unL'prs*ands that there is a certain need for money in thi> area but that he doesn't feel that charity should be mixed with sewer. Gallistel noted that he paid for his sewer and water and received no help from the general tax payers. Gallistel stated that probably half the people in the Crystal Bay area do not need the f inancial assi stance and then the tax payers would be providing charity to those people. Ken Carlson of 3498 North Shore Drive asked if the City is still allowing people to run down spouts into their sewers. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that down spouts and garage drains are not allowed to discharge into septic systems but that people still do this. Gaffron stated that it is impossible to police such a violation. Gaffron reminded the public not to allow such a violation to exist because it is detrimental to the septic and sewer systems. Shirley McWilliams of 1130 Willow Drive testified that the initial sewers in Orono were paid for by every citizen in Orono and noted that he has evidence to prove this fact. McWi l! i ams stated that he cal led the previous Engineer and he sent a telegram referring to these projects. McWilliams stated that the City did about half of the project for the contractors by doing the cleanup and restoration work. MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRII. 22, 1985, AT THE (WOW) MIDD1,F SCHOOL AUDITORIUM AT 685 OLD CRYSTAI. BAY ROAD - PAGE 6 PUBLIC HEARING Frances Setterlund of 4415 North Shore Drive stated that she (CONT. ) has lived in the same house for 30 years and has been a widow for over 20 years. Setterlund disclosed that she is on a fixed income and it has been hard to keep her home. Setterlund stated that when sewer came by her house she paid for it and is still paying for it on her tax bill. Setterlund sympathized with the Crystal Bay area but felt she would lose her home if any additional assessment would be added to her tax bill. Setterlund noted that she is not against improvements but cannot afford to pay for someone else's sewer project. Setterlund stated that when she first moved into Orono, her taxes were $146 and now they have risen to $4,000 which is very difficult to pay on a fixed income. Judy Christensen of 1251 Brown Road South remarked that the residents of Crystal Pay will pay for their sewer and the rest of the Orono residents should have to pay for their own road reconstruction. Christensen noted that she lives in a high density area and she pays the same taxes for the cost of maintaining the roads that everyone else does that has two or five acres. Christensen felt that as a community, the Crystal Bay residents have done everything possible to lower the cost of the sewer project. Christensen stated that originally the City proposed widening all roads in the Crystal Bay area which raised the cost of the project, and the Crystal Bay residents asked that this not be done and only restore them to their existing state. Christensen felt that thn Crystal Bay area needs the sewer because of the unsanitary conditions that exist. A]ex Jentilucci of -. iar Street sympathized with those on fixed incomes but noted that there are many people in the Crystal Bay area that will lose their homes because of the sewer assessment. Jentilucci also noted that many people in the Crystal. Bay area are older folks that have been in the area for a long time. Jentilucci noted that their money was put into the City of Orono in many ways. Jentilucci explained that he and his wife don't have children but they did vote for the referendum to raise school taxes because the children need the education. Jentilucci felt that this wasn't charity but something that the community needed. Jenti lucc4 mentioned that this community needs the genera i tax paye help. Hamilton Moran of 2965 Casco Point Road noted that he was willing to go a little farther on the helping standpoint but felt that basically and ethically every property should stand its own expense. Moran asked the Council to consider if they could put a lien or mortgage on a home that cannot pay the assessment and then collect the money when the person dies or the home is sold. Moran felt it was unfair and unethical to do what the Council is proposing. MINUTES THE: ORONO COUNCII. MFFTING HELD APRIL 22, 1985, AT THE ORONO MIDDLE. SCII0011 AUDITORIUM AT 685 OLD CRYSTAI. BAY ROAD - PAGE 7 PUBLIC HEARING Curt Quady of 1223 Brown Road South reiterated that the Art (CUNT.) Center should be included in the project. Quady stated that 15 years ago the City proposed sewer and would have cost the residents only $1,500 and now it is $10,850/unit. Quady stated that he was on the Council at that time and the Council, through pressure, voted against the sewer project. Quady disclosed that he was the only Counci.lmember to vote for the project. Quady felt that the City should help pay for the sewer project since the City made the mistake 15 years ago and cost the residents $9,000. John Ericson of 1620 Shadywood Road asked the Council for a concensus on whether the Counci 1 will assess the project 50- 75-100 percent against the benefitting property owners. Ericson asked how long it will take to include the Art enter and the new development to the west in the sewer project. Mayor Butler explained that the new homes west of the Art Center are being developed on two acre lot sizes with acceptable septic area and is outside of the designated sewer service area that is part of the Comprehensive Plan. Butler noted that the Comprehensive Plan involves the approval and permission from the Metropolitan Council in order to have that document changed. Butler noted that a public hearing will be held on May 13, 1985, concerning the possibility of sewering the Art Center. Newell Weed of 1385 Orono Lane reported that his area was just sewered a few years ago. Weed stated that this was the first time he has ever seen a Council propose something like this. Weed mentioned that he cannot figure out why under a tax paying system, the Council can't propose something that is equally fair to all people. Weed noted that three year s ago the Counci 1 proposed sewer for the Minnetonka Bluf f s area and never was a meeting held like this one because the Council didn't even consider such a proposal. Weed stated that 100 percent of the Orono residents in the Bluffs area were against the sewer project and the Council still voted to sewer the area. Weed reported that all of the Bluffs sewer assessment was placed against the benefitting property owners. Weed asked the Council if they can legally assess a half a million dollars against non-benefitting property owners. Mayor Butler answered yes the City Council can assess non- benefitting property owners. Newell Weed of 1385 Orono Lane declared that the Council has the power to assess to the public as much as they want to in order to sewer the entire area without the general public benefitting from the project. Weed stated that he was chairman of the school board at one time and agreed with Jentilurci's comments about people voting for the bond i ssues t ha t do not have ch i l d ren . Weed noted that ev yone M1 NUTI S OE' THE ORO NO COUNCIL MEETING HELD AI'R I L 22, 1985, AT -]'HE OLtONO MIDDLE SCHOOL AUDITORIUM AT 685 OLD CRYSTAL. HAY ROAD - PAGE: 8 PUBLIC HEARING of those assessments is ordered by a public bond issue vote (CUNT.) and if the general public votes against it, the bond issue isn't approved. Weed noted that it isn't the same with the sewer projects. Weed stated that approximately 90 percent of the residents in his -eighborhood voted against the sewer project and et the Council still ordered the project. Weed asked the C ty Council if they would credit the Minnetonka Bluffs area for the amount they are paying for their sewer if they, spread part of the project for the Crystal Bay area over the general tax rolls, or would the Minnetonka Bluffs area pay double. Mayor Butler stated that in essence the Bluffs area would be paying in addition. Newell Weed of 1385 Orono Lane submitted that this is unfair and should not be assessed against non-benefitting property owners. Mayor Butler responded to Weed's comments stating that the City does indeed have the legal ability to assess a sewer project just about any way the City sees appropriate assuming at least 20% of the project is assessed against the benefitting property owners. Butler disclosed that in the past the City has assessed only those affected. Butler noted that the City is only discussing deviating from past assessment policies. Councilmember Grabek responded to Weed's comments by saying that the City has advanced and wishes to hear the comments of the residents of Orono regarding major decisions like this. Grabek felt that the City lets the residents know what the worst could be, so that the residents will come out and participate in City government. Grabek explained that when these difficult decisions come up the City needs all of the residents help, not criticism. Grabek felt that in the last two years, the City of Orono is becoming more and more open to public comment. Hamilton Moran 2965 Casco Point Road asked Mayor Butler to point out the problem that exists if the project is assessed 100 percent against the benefitting property owners. Mayor Butler explained that the option that the affected property owner has is to object to the proposed assessment. Butler pointed out that just about every Crystal Bay resident has objected to the 100 percent assessment f igure which means that object ion wi 11 go to court and the judge w. 11 decide what the assessment should be. Butler disclosed _hat there is a law that states that an assessment may not exceed the benefit to the property. Butler explained that if an assessment of $10,850 does not increase the property value $10,850 more, then the owner has the right to appeal the assessment and then only pays what. the judge decides (fused on an apprai sal of the property) benefits the property. Butler stated that if the judge decides that the sewer only berief its the property MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCII. MEETING HELD APRIL 22, 1985, AT THE ORONO i•1IDDLE SCHOOL AUDITORIUM AT 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - PAGE 9 PUBLIC HEARING (CONT. ) $5,000 then $5,850 has to be paid by the City. Butler stated that the City would in turn assess that $5,850 over to the general tax payers. Butler announced that the court costs then boost the project cost up. Butler stressed that the ability to appeal the assessment ends tonight for the benefitting property owners and suggested that those who have not appealed, and want to, should appeal. in writing with the City Clerk tonight. Gary Printup of 1261 Briar Street asked if this was to go to court, what would the legal costs be to the City. City Attorney Radio responded if there was only one appeal it would cost the City approximately $4,000. Radio stated if, however, there were 10 appeals it would not cost $4,000 for each one because he would be using the same data. Radio explained if all 83 properties appealed then it would cost approximately $10-15,000. Radio suggested that the 83 property owners file a joint appeal and that would be less costly. Radio noted that the legal costs could be substantial and would be added onto the project cost. One man asked if the appeal procedure was open to those jeneral taxpayers that will suffer from the procedure of the assessment. City Attorney Radio stated no, that the appeal procedure is only for those benefitting property owners of the sewer. Councilmember Grabek asked Carolyn Drude of Ehlers & Associates if there was an opportunity for the homeowners benefitting by the project to make arrangements for installment payments on interest only. Carolyn Drude of Ehlers & Associates stated the assessments can be paid r ither in one lump sum immediately or at any time over a 15 year period without future interest. Drude explained that the other option is to spread them over a 15 year period with interest on the unpaid balance. Councilmember Grabek asked what if an individual cannot pay the assessment, who would pay for that assessment. Carolyn Drude informed the Council that the taxes would become delinquent and go through the delinquency process. City Attorney Radio stated that the rt-operty would then go up for sheriff's sale and become tax forfeit. Councilmember Grabek asked about tiie legal precedent on assuming more than the added value on a property and asked what is the potential for the court to assess the project 75 percent because of the inequities that exist. MINUTES OF THE' ORONO COUNCIL. MF.FTING HELD APP11, 22, 1985, AT 'i'liF 0110140 MIDDLE SCHOOL AUDITORIUM AT 685 OLD CRYSTAL, BAY ROAD •- PAGE 10 PUBLIC HEARING (CONT.) City Attorney Radio stated that there are a number of cases where the court determines that there was not enough evidence presented by the City in a appeals proceeding showing any increase in the valuation of the property, and have eliminated portions of the assessed cost. Judy Kyker of 3585 Sixth ]:venue North asked the Orono Council to try what the City of Minneapol is has done in the past where the assessments, for those who are in need and cannot pay the assessments, that those assessments are held in abeyance until that property is sold or owner dies and then the assessment is paid. Mayor Butler explained that there is a deferred assessment program available for those over 65 years of age who meet certain income criteria. Butler explained that the assessment would be set aside initially for five years and the City has the option of setting it aside again after 5 years, and the only time that assessment becomes due and payable is through the estate of a deceased individual or if their financial status changes. Bob Albertson of 2100 Shadywood Road stated that when the sewer project went through their neighborhood, many people had to sell their homes because of the assessments. Albertson was afraid the Council would set a precedent if they were to divide the assessments in the Crystal Bay area because the next area to be sewered is the Stubbs Bay area. Albertson stated if the Council passes this sewer project and divides the assessments, the rumor is going to be out that Orono will divide future sewer project assessments over the general tax rolls. Judy Christensen of 1251 Brown Road South explained that in the Minnetonka Bluffs sewer project the individual homeowners were assessed $9,833 and 22 homeowners appealed their assessment on the basis that their property values did not exceed that amount. Christensen stated that heir assessments were reduced to $6,000 which lowered the individual benefitting property owners share but that someone else had to pay for that extra. Jeff Carson stated that he is representing the Wayne's at. 1950 Shoreline Drive. Carson noted that they have not submitted d formal objection yet because theydon't knowwhat they would be objecting to. Carson asked the Council what is defined as a unit and also how many units 1950 Shoreline Drive would be assessed and at what cost per unit. Mayor Butler stated that 1950 Shoreline Drive has four dwelling units. Butler defined a sewer unit as one sewer unit per dwelling unit, therefore, four units would be assessed against 1950 Shoreline Drive. Putler stated that his objection would bey the 100 percent assessment against the property. MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, MEETING Hf:I,U APRII, 22, 1985, AT THI•: ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL AUDITORIUM AT 685 OLD CRYSTAI, BAY ROAD - PAGE 11 PUBLIC HEARING (CONT.) Jeff Carson submitted to the Mayor the Wayne's written objection. Einar Hagberg of 740 North Arm Drive pointed out that he has lived in Orono since 1950 and paid for his own sewer and is still paying for it. Hagberg stated that the Crystal Bay residents should have to pay for their .own sewer just like past residents have had to do. Craig Christensen of 1251 Brown Road South clarif ied For the record that past sewer projects were usually federally funded and that there isn't any federal funding available for the Crystal Bay area. Christensen noted that the Crystal Bay residents want and need the sewer but the $10,000 assessment is absurd. Phyllis Johnson of 2420 Watertown Road hoped that the City is doing a better job at estimating these sewer projects, because when they got their bill for the Hackberry Hill sewer project it was twice as much as was first estimated. One man pointed out that in addition to the initial assessment of $10,850 there is a hookup charge, plus the quarterly billings sent by the City for maintenance of the sewer system. George Roveqno of 2010 Shoreline Drive argued that the legal description on the public hearing notice describes an area of land larger than that of the actual proposed sewered Crystal Bay area. Roveqno asked the attorney if that error doesn't void the validity of the public hearing. City Attorney Radio commented on the alleged defect in the public hearing notice and stated that even if the description was in error, that type of defect would not void the validity of the public hearing. Radio stated that staff will check into the matter. Teri Morse of 2080 Spates Avenue pointed out that he has enough property to replace or repair his septic system, but felt that the Crystal Bay area does need sewer and tie would be willing to go along with the project. Morse noted that even at a 50 percent assessment, the hookup charges and the interest it adds up to about $10,000. Judy Ryker of 3585 Sixth Avenue North asked what the City plans to do about someone who cannot pay. Public works Coordinator Gerhardson stated that the deferred assessment form can be applied for at City Hall. Gerhardson stated the deferred assessment goes for five year and then it is the Counci.I's discretion to defer it for another five years. MINUTES OF THE' ORONO COUNCIL. MEETING .,.,1,U APRIL 22, 198`,, AT T111-; (AMM) M1D1)1,i, SCHOOL AUDITORIUM AT 685 OLD CRYSTAL. BAY ROAD - PAGE 1.' PUBLIC 11KARING (CONT.) Judy Kyker of 3585 Sixth Avenue North felt that if there is a method to help those who cannot pay, such as the deferred assessment approach, then the assessment should be left to the Crystal Bay residents only. John Erickson of 1620 Shadywood Road asked how many people can b:-� deferred of the 83 units. Public Works Coordinator Gerhardson stated that a survey from Hennepin County of the Crystal Bay area revealed that 51 percent were low and moderate income, but the City cannot estimate how many people will request the deferred assessment until they apply for it. John Story of 1233 Briar Street recounted when he bought his house and inquired at City Hall whether sewer would go through tni s area and was told by the City that sewer would not go into this area unless federal funding was found. Story noted he felt mislead. Story affirmed that his home was one of the homes that was randomly appraised in the area and such appraisal revealed that his home would only be worth $5,000 more with sewer. Story noted that he can replace his septic system for $3, 000 and felt he doesn't need sewer, but that the rest of the residents do need surer. Bajb Braun of 1230 Arbor Street expressed how hard the Crystal Bay residents have worked as a community. Braun explained that they just put a new septic system in December but that they are concerned with the other Crystal Bay residents that need sewer. Charlene Carlson of 855 Forest Arm Lane felt that the Council would set a precedent if they were to assess the general tax payers part of the project and noted her objection to such a decision. Greg Young of 3520 Watertown Road confirmed that such a decision would set a precedent for future sewer projects. Mayor Butler closed the public hearing at 9:47 p.m. Butler announced that the Council will now decide whether to order the project and how to assess the project. Councilmember Frahm felt that the sewer is needed and is a good solution to the existing problem. Councilmember L. Adams agreed with Frahm that the sewer plan is the best of the seven options presented by staff. Adams noted that the engineering plan is sound. Councilmember T. Adams remarked that research has proven that the Crystal Bay area definitely needs sewer and sewer is a permanent solution to the problem. MINUTE'S OF THE ORONO COUNCIL. MEETING HELD APRIL 22, 198`,, AT THE ORONO MIDDLE: SCHOOL. AUDITORIUM AT 685 OLD CRYSTALBAY ROAD - YAGF. I .' RESOLUTION #1747 Councilmember Grabek commente n the health hazard in the Crystal Bay area and that sewer is the best approach to solving the problems in the area. Grabek felt a responsibilit% to the City to order the sewer project. Mayor Butler read the proposed resolution ordering the sanitary sewer project for the Crystal Bay area. Councilmember Grabek moved, Councilmember Frahm-econded, to adopt Resolution #1747, A Resolution Ordering Imprc.vement and Awarding Contract for the Crystal Bay Sanitary Sewer Project 85-1. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). Councilmember Grabek, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to assess all project costs 100% to the benefitting Crystal Bay property owners for the proposed sewer improvements. The vote on the motion was delayed pending further discussion. Councilmember L. Adams stated sorne of the reasons he was in favor of the motion. Adams felt :hat no matter what option the Council chooses (50-75-100%) , in th- ' ng run the City is going to have to pick up a portion t-1 the _ sment because of the people who can defer their assessment. Adams also noted that another part of the project ::ill be picked up by the general tax payer because of the appeals process wherein the judge will decide what their assessment will be and the rest must be paid by the City. Adams explained that no matter what is decided tonight, the City will have to pick up some of cost through the general tax payer. ,ilmember Frahm stated that his preliminary feeling was :ess the project 75% to the benefitting property owne-s the last 48 hours he has found flaws with that opinion. Fi .n pointed out that the fair market value of the Crystal Bay residents will not rise $10,850 and that the people will probably challenge that number and have it reduced. Frahm felt the project should be assessed 100% to the benefitting property owners and let them challenge it individually. Counci lmember T. Adams ncted that he wi 11 support the motion because he believes that everyone should have to pay for their own sewer. Adams tried to come pup with a number that woulo sh - the assessment with the Crystal Bay residents that wou. solve the problem of the increase in value of the homes. Adams felt that choosing an arbitrary perc ntage is not the way to solve that problem and that a better remedy is through the appeals process and let the judge decide. Councilmember Grabek explained that he is not happy with the possibility of someone losing their home because of this decision. Grabek felt that the appeals procc!,s w. 1 be the best met hoc'.. MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNC i 1, M1:1:T.I NG HELD APR I L 22, 1985, AT THE ORONO M1 D1)1,1•: SCHOOL AUD] TOR I UM AT 68'; 01.1) CRYSTAL. LAY ROAD - PAGE 14 Councilmember L. Adams asked the other Councilmembers to reaffirm the block grant program funds for hookup charges for those who cannot afford to pay. Adams asked that these block grant funds not be used for those over 65 who can defer their payments but fo: those under 65 that cannot afford the hookup charges. Mayor Butler conf i.rmed that the block grant monies are set up for only hookups for anyone who qualifies based on income level. Public Wor" Coordinator Gerhardson explained that the block grant monies are available for those people w io qualify based on their income level. Gerhardson stated that those who wish to apply may apply at City Hall but that those funds do have to be applied for every year. Gerhardson roted the City has $28,700 set aside for block grant funds. Gerhardson noted that there are also funds available for those who need money for hookups. City Attorney Radio pointed out that if the Art Center is included in the project, that there would be no cost to assess and that a reassessment should be done so as to assess the Art Center fairly. Radio stressed to the public that if they wish to appeal, they must appeal by tonight. Mayor Butler felt that the Crystal Bay residents will get a better deal on an individual appeal basis through the courts. Councilmember Grabek felt that the Crystal Bay residents should decide or how they want to -take their payments, whether its larger payments in the beginning or smaller payments in the beginning. Grabek felt that after 'ie Council is informed of all the methods of payments the :e residents should be able to vote on the issue. Councilmember Grabek reworded his previous motion. Councilmember Grabek moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to direct staff to draft a resolution for action can May 13, 1985, assessing the Crystal Bay residents 100% of the project cost. Motion, Ryes (5), Nays (0). RECESS 15 MIN. The Orono Council meeting recessed for 15 minutes. CONSENT AGENDA* Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember T. Adams seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda* as submitted with all staff reports concerning tr!ese items to be attached to an original copy of these minutes on file at the City Clerk's office. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES* Counci Imember Frahm moved, Counci Imt•mber T. Adams seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono Council meeting held April h, 1985. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNC I I, MEE.TI NG !1l:I,U APR 1 i. ? , "'985, AT TIII: ORO1.0 MIDDLE SCHOOI. AUDI'.-t RI UM AT 685 01,1) CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - PAGE 15 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no Park Commission comments. LAKE Ml-NNETONKP LoNSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT There was no Lake Minnetonka Cons-. ;at iun District Report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no Planning Commission comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this point in the meeting. #712 JA14ES HARTZELL 2987 CASCO POINT ROAD FINAL ' BDIVISION RE'SOLUZION #1748* Councilmember Frahm move:,-ouncilmt,mber T. Adams seconded, to adopt Resolution #174b, A Resolution approving the plat of Hartzell Addition. Mot' ., Ayes (5), Nays (0). #884 RICH?;Mir F'-LLER 6 5 5 SHAM -XWu ROAD vARIANCE RF.S0:,UTI!)*1 #1749* Councilmember Frahm moved, Councs er T. Adams seconded, to adapt R^solut #1749, A 1, olution denying the variances request *=.C% F s to permit the ^torage of a boat greater tha _lowed length per Municipal Zoning Code Sev- Lditision 13. Motion, Ayes ;5), Nays (0). # 9 0 0 TAMES OGLAND BIG ISLAND ,cECr`RV 133 VARY 7E RX'""OLUTION r 17!)n AUW, TIC LOT AS 'A RESI".,UTION #1751* Counci lmember Frahr- moved, Council member T. Adams seconded, to adopt Resolutio- 41..0, H Resolution granting a variance to I :rmit the construction of a deck and accessory storage structure !ocated within the 0-75' setback area. Motion, Ayes (5). Nays (0). Counci .lmember Frahm moved, Counci lmembE: r T. Adams seco. . to adopt Resolution #1751 , A Resolution .-ipprovi, lot a. variaijc- for Record I,ot #38 pursuant to Ordinance 024% Motion, eyes (5), Nays M . SPRING CLEANUP* "ounci!member Frahm m(_-ved, Counci lmembE _. Adams seconded, 0i pr ve the days set asi dam. for spring ear. up May 1 I and Ma.,. I , 19,85. Motion, Ayes !' ) , Nays (u , . MINUTE'S OF THE OR..N(' COUNCIL ME:ET.ING HELD APRI1, 22, 1985, AT THE: OR)NO MIDDLE, SCHOOL AiIDITORIUM AT 685 OI.D CRYSTAL HAY ROAD - PAGE': 16 TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT GOLF COURSE* Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember T. Adams seconded, to approve the following employees for temporary help at the Orono Golf Courso: Douglas Erickson $4.70/hr Betty Stevens $4.25/hr Stephanie Sligo $4.1.0/hr Roy Peterson $4.00/hr Dan Oas $4.00/hr. Motion, Aye (5), Nays (0). POSITION RECLASSIL TION ?.ND SALARY ADJUSTML- r CONNIE MANUEL* Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember .yams •-)nded, to approve the employee reclas:;ification t i rmai,,;i►t ilart- time with a hourly wage increase from $4.84 to $5.60/hour for Connie Manuel, liquor store employee. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). DOCK ASES FOR LAKE .:SES* Councilmember rahm moved, Councilmember T. Adams sec:, nded, to approve the purchasing of 24 dock section, from A & G Sales for an imount not to exceed '".,688.00 from the park dedica+4on fund. Motion, Ayes (..), Nays (0). RESOLUTION #1752 VARIANCE MSA OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD* Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember T. Adam- seconded, to adcr Resolution #1752, A Resolution Requesting a Variance om Current Municipal State Aid Standard,,% for Old Crysts' y Road. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). SEALCOAT PROGRAM FOR 1985* Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember T. P .;- zconded, to direct the City Engineer to prej plans and specifications for sealcoating 122,000 squ:ise yards of City streets. Mot.4or.v Ay^s (5), Nays (0). CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City „ttorney Ralio had nothing to report.. LICENSES* Councilmember Frahm.rwoved, Councilmember T. Adams seconded, to approve the following licenses: Americat, Youth HostelF- - Special E%ents License Blackowiak & Sons - Garbage Hauler License Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). BILLS* Councilmember Frahm moved, Covnci lmeml.iv. T. Ada..,e seconded, that t he All Funds Accounts and Lj quol- St ore Accounts he paid. Motion, Aye, t5), Nays (0). MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELL) APRIL 22, 1985, AT THE ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL AUDITORIUM AT 685 OLD CRYSTAL. BAY ROAD - PAGE: 17 ADJOURNMENT 1 0 : 4 5 PM Councilmember Grabek moved, Councilmember Frahm seconded, to adjourn the regular Council meeting at 10:45 p.m. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). ATTES, ' : Z� or thy M. 11in, tity Clerk Mary C. B 1 , Mayor AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, APRIL 22, 19R5, 7:00 P.M. HELD AT THE ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL AUDITORIUM, 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH (*) 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. ROLL CALL 7:00 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR SANITARY SEWER - CRYSTAL BAY AREA SEWER 1. CONSENT AGENDA* APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2. Regular Meeting of April 8, 1985 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT * 3. #712 James R. Hartzell, 2987 Casco Point Road - Final Subdivision - Updated Resolution * 4. #884 Richard El,.er, 2655 Shadywood Road - Variance - Resolution * 5. #900 James W. Og?and, Big Island Record Lot #38 - Variance - Resolution - Resolution•Automatic Lot Area Variance CITY ENGINEER'S P'.-''-JRT MAYOR'S REPORT CABLE TV REPORT TRANSPORTATION REPORT CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT * 6 Spring Clean Up Days - May 11 and 18, 1985 * ?. Temprrar-y Employment Golf Course * 8. Poe n Reclassifica,ion and Salary Adjustment - Connie Manuel * 9. Lai .cess's Dock Purchases *10. Var.-,ice MSA Old Crystal Bay Road - Resolution *11. 1985 Sealcoat Program CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S LETTERS AND MEMOS CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT LICENSES (12*) BILLS (13*) ADJOURNMENT ASSESSMENT HEARING CRYSTAL RAY SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT". PROJECT NO. 85-1 ORONO, MINNESOTA April 22, 1984 7:00 P.M. 1. PROPOSED TMPR_OVEMENTs: Construction of Sanitary Sewer to yc►-vir the Crystal Bay area (shown on the back of this Sheet). Street replacement section - 18' wide bituminous surface Replacement in kind. 11. _ESTIMATED COST r- Sanitary Sewer Street Replacement TOTAL $90010U0 III. PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS Units to be Assessed 83 Estimated Cost/Unit $ 10,850 Option I - 100% Assessed Arssessm-2nt/Unit $ 10,850 City Share 5 Units $ 54,250 Option II - 75Z Assessed Assessment/Unit $ 8,10(l City Share $265,500 Option III - 66-2/3% Assessed Assessment/Unit $ 7,200 City Share $337,000 Option IV - 50X Assessed Assessment/Unit $ 5,400 City Shar.' $477,000 IV. PROPERTY TAX Estimated Market Value $150,000 Tax Increase* $ 22.69 *Based on 50% Assessment 7 I83. ASSESSMEN"C PAYMENT Based on 15 year assessment period at an 11 percent interest rate. Year Opt i.►1► 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 100% Assessed 751 Assessed 66-2_/3X_Assessed 5_01 Assessed Unit Assessment $10,"50) _ $8,100-.00. �$7,20U.UU 1486 $2,215.20 $1,65'!.75 $1,470.00 $1,10?.`i0 1987 $1,837.26 $1,371.60 $1,219.20 $ 914.40 1488 $1,/)7.70 $1131.'.20 $i,ibb.40 a 874.60 1989 $1,678.13 $1,252.80 $1,113.60 $ 835.20 1990 $1.599.56 $1,193.4,1 $1,060.80 $ 795.60 1991 $1,519.00 $1,134.00 $1,008.00 $ 756.00 1992 $1,439.43 $1,074.60 $ 955.?0 $ 716.40 1993 $1,359.86 $1,015.20 $ 902.40 } 676.8U 1994 $1,280.30 $ 955.8U $ 849.60 $ 637.20 1995 $1,200.73 $ 896.40 $ 796.80 $ 597.bU 1996 $1,121.1t, $ 837.00 $ 744.00 $ 518.00 1947 $1,041.60 $ 771.00 $ 791.210 $ 518.40 1998 $ 962.03 $ 718.20 $ 638.40 $ 478.80 1999 $ 882.46 $ 658.80 $ 585.60 $ 439.20 2000 $ 802.89 $ 599.40 $ 532.80 $ 399.60 Average Paywent $ 7 $1,)UJ.1'11 y1,.ar..Y3 yl,f .�• 1 5...9 ASSESSMENT HEARING CRYSTAL BAY SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 85-1 ORONO, MINNESOTA April 22, 1984 7:00 Y.M. I. PROPOSED TMPHOVE_MENTS: Construction of Sanitary Sew.tr to serve the Crystal Bay area (shown on the beck of this sheet). Street replacement section - 18' wide bituminous surface Replacement in kind. lI. ESTImnn COST Sanitary Sewer Street Replacement TOTAL $900,000 III. PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS Units to be Assessed 83 Estimated Cost/Unit $ lo,850 Option I - 1002 Assessed Assessment/Unit $ 10,850 City Sham 5 Units $ 54,250 Option 11 - 75% Assessed Assessment/Unit $ 8,100 laity Share $265,500 Option III - Oh-2/3% Assessed Assessment/Unit $ 7,200 City Share $337,000 Option IV - 50% Assessed hasessment/Unit $ 5,400 City Share $477,000 IV. PROPERTY TAX Estimated Market Value $150,000 Tax Increabe* $ 22.69 *Based on 501 Assessment 71M3c ASSFSSMEN'1' PAYMENT Based on 15 year assessment period tit an 11 porcent interest rate. Year Option I Option Z Option 3 Option 4 100% Assessed 75X Assessed 66-2_/3X_Assessed 50% Assessed Unit Assessment $10,850.00 $8,100.00 $7,200.00 $5,400.00 19H6 $2,215.20 5-1,653.P) $1,470.oO $1,102.50 i987 $1,837.26 $1,371.60 $1,219.70 $ 914.41) 1988 $1,/)1.70 $1,312.20 $i,ito.40 $ n/4.00 1989 $1,678.IJ $1,252.60 $1,113.60 835.20 1990 $1,598.56 ':,193.wo $1,060.80 $ 795.60 1991 $1,`)19.00 1,134.00 $1,008.00 $ 756.00 1992 $1,439.43 $1,074.60 $ 955.-20 $ 716.40 1993 $1,359.86 $1,015.20 $ 902.40 $ 676.80 1994 $1,280.30 $ 955.80 $ 849.60 $ 637.20 1995 $1,200.73 $ 8 1) $ 796.80 $ 597 6-1 1996 $1,121.16 $ 831.00 $ 744.90 $ 5)8.00 1997 $1,041.60 $ -71.60 $ 791.20 $ `)18.4U 1998 $ 962.03 $ 718.20 $ 638.40 $ 478.80 1999 $ 882.46 $ 658.80 $ 585.60 $ 439.20 2000 $ 802.89 $ 599.40 $ 532.80 $ 399.60 Average i'.►ywenC $1.509.ii i $1 , 12t,.. , $ l ,00! .2' $ 750.5'` 71H It ASSESSMENT HEARING CRYSTAL BAY SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT`, PROJECT NO. 85-1 ORONO, MINNES01-A April 22, 1984 7:00 P.M. I. PROPOSED IMPR_OVE.MENTS: Conatrtletion of Sanitary Sewer to nerve the Crystal Bay area (shown on the back of this sheet). Street replacement section - le' wide bituminous surface Replacement in kind. 11. ESTIMATED COST �r Sanitary Sewer Street Replacement TOTAL $ 900 , U 00 III. PilOPOS_En ASSESSMENTS Units to be :Assessed 83 Estimated Cost/Unit $ 10,850 Option I - 100% Assessed Assessm�!nt/Unit $ 10,850 City Shary 5 (,nits $ 54,250 Option 11 - 751 Assessed Assessment/Unit $ 8,100 City Slis-e $265,500 Option III - bf)-2/3'4 Assessed Assessment/Unit $ 7,200 City Share $337,000 Option IV - SUX Assessed Assessment/Unit $ 5,400 (:ity Share $477,000 IV. PROPERTY TAX Estimated Market Vulue $150,000 Tax Increare* $ 22.69 *Based on 50% Assessment 7183c ASSESSMEN'r PAYMENT Based on 15 year assessment period at an 11 percent interest rate. Year Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Assessed 75% Assessed 66-2/3% Assessed 50% Assessed Unit Assessment _100% $10,850.00 $8,100•.00 $7,200.00 $5,400.00 1 16 $2,215.20 $,1,65'1.75 $1,470.00 $1,102.50 1987 $1,837.26 $1,371.h0 $1,219.20 $ 914.40 1988 $1,/51.70 $1,312.20 $1,1bb.40 $ 874.bO 1989 $1,678.13 $1,252.80 $1,113.60 $ 835.20 1940 $1,59H.'i6 $1'193.40 $1,060.80 $ 795.60 1991 $1,519.00 $1,134.00 $1,008.00 $ 756.00 1992 $1,439.43 $1,074.60 $ 955.20 $ 716.40 1993 $1,359.86 $1,015.20 $ 902.40 $ 676.80 1994 $1,280.30 $ 955.80 $ 849.60 $ 637.20 1995 $1,200.73 $ 896.40 $ 796.80 $ 597.bO 191,Ph $1,121.16 $ 837.00 $ 744.00 $ 51S.00 1997 $1,041.60 $ 777.60 $ 791.20 $ 518.40 1998 $ 962.03 $ 718.20 $ 638.40 $ 478.80 1999 $ 882.46 $ 658.P0 $ 585.60 $ 439.20 2000 $ 802.89 $ 599.4U $ 532.80 $ 399.60 Averatle Paywent $IISCP 85 $1,126.It3 $1.001.27 $ 750.95 71N3c CERTIFICATE; OF MAILING STATE OF MINNESOIA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. CITY OF ORONO ) I, Dorothy M. Hal Iin, City Clerk, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a 'lotice of Public Hearing Concerning Crystal B_ay__Area Sewer_.__ Project of April 22, 1985, 7:00 P.M. was mailed to the attached l t of preperty owners on April 8, 1985 In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal is 8th day of April,-1985 .Dorothy M allin, City Clerk L (SEAL) 10-117-23 31 0015 & 35 10-117-23 3.1 0016 10-117-21 31 0017 Mi.s. Albert i'. Hoppe Irene Woytcke Joyce F. Sprague P.O. Box 144 Box 112 1022 E. Gardner St Crystal Bay, ':d 55323 Crystal Bay, 14N 55323 Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 .31 0018 Bobby D. Johnson Box 123 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 A-117-23 31 0029 Home 'iLade Ins. Inc. 1270 Arbor St Crystal Bay, MN 55323 10-117-23 31 0032 F. P. Petersen P.O. Box 164 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 10-117-23 31 0038 Dianne J. fattila P.O. Boy 108 Crystal Bay, PIN 55323 10-117-23 31 0042 Gary M. Printup P.O. Box 104 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 10-117 23 31 0044 Alexan(.er & Dianne Jentilucci P.O. E-x 27 Cry5tad Bay, MN 55323 10-117-23 31 0049 George Platzer 1380 Arbor Street Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 24 0003 Randolph T. Lukanen 1085 S Brown Road Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 24 0(UGo Duane A. & Nancy Clew 1135 Brown Rc Wayzata, MN' 391 0-117-23 31 0019 10-117-23 31 0017 Frederick W. Curtis Patricia D. Drummond 2180 Prospect Ave P.O. Box 195 V , MN 55391 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 10- L, 23 31 0030 & 31. Cary F. Farley P.U. Box 22 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 10-117-23 31 0033 Maribeth A Swanson 1271 Arbor St - Box 71 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 10•-117-21 31 0036 Marcus J Jud; A Blup P.O. Box r:' Crystal Bay, MN 55323 10-117--'- 11 0039 James D. P.O. bc.x l�. Crystal Bay, MN 55323 10-117-23 11 004.1 Mrs. Emory I u''iite P.O. Box 64 Crystal Bay, AN 55323 10-117-23 31 0022 & 23 Craig W. Christianson 1251 Brown Road Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 31 0028 Robert J. CF.rlson P.O. Box 52 Crystal Say, MN 323 10-1.17-23 31 0034 Jay Wood 1285 Arbor St Box 43 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 10-117-23 31 0037 Fale M. Hart_;3ft 1290 Briar Street Wayzata, MP: 55"::1 10-117 3 31 U040 h 41 Adeline Est P.O. Box :�)j Crystal Bay, MN 553-13 10-117-23 '.)1 0050 10-117--2: 0048 Philip Ka'.ey Jeffrey ". Jerson 139. Brov n Road S P.O. Box 14 Wayzata, MN 391 Crystal Bay. MN ;' 3-'3 10-11--23 24 0004 10-117-2. 31 0()-)1 Abie J. Christenson Emilio Ga. 1105 S. Brown Road Box 114 Way .ata, MN 55391 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 J-117-23 24 0007 L. J. Symonia� eta P.O. Box 1.53 ('ry.;tal Bay, MN 55323 I(' 21 24 00uj Kevi., Derry i . 0. Bc A �4 ' Crystal Its,. . MN ;5?:23 10-117-23 24 0008 10-117-23 31 0055 10-117-23 31 0056 David Liesch Enrique Libatique Doris I. Eisenkralrler 1140 S. Willow P.O. Box 139 2140 North Shore Dr Wayzata, MN 55391 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 24 0009 10-117-23 24 0010 10-117-23 24 0011 Shirley & LaDeen Vera C. McWilliams Harold & Irma Freund McWilliams C/O S. G. McWilliams 1110 Willow Dr S P.O. Box 21 P.O. Box 21 Wayzata, MN 55391 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 10-117-23 24 0016 Warren P. Kelly 1099 Will - Dr. S. Wayzata, MA 55391 10-117-23 24 0017 Mary An- Olson 1115 WiI.nw Dr S. Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 24 0019 10-117-23 24 0020 Douglas & Norma Schnoor De�,nis W. Fischer 1220 Lakeview Ave 1165 S. Brown Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 24 0022 Betty J. Flam P.O. Box 63 Crystal Bay, MN 5` '3 10-117-23 24 0030 John Story P.O. Box 91 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 10-117-23 31 0002 John T. Spence 2040 North Shcre Dr. Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 31 0005 Olai Hanson Box 129 Crystal Eiay, MN 55323 10-117-23 31 0008 Helen Bowers 2055 Spates Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 24 0023 Virgil H. Rollings 1225 Lakeview Ave Way-:ata, MN 55391 10-117-23 24 0011 Candee Suess] & James Kemna I110 Willow Dr S Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 24 0018 Oliver Engstrom 1145 Willow Dr. S. Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 24 0021 Al L. Hopwood 1205 Lakeview Ave Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 24 0031 10-117-23 24 0024 Stephen & Randi Carlson Roger M. Zeeb 1205 Arbor St 1245 Lakeview Ave Wayzata, MN 55391 Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 31 0003 Lyle G. Godfrey 2060 North Shore Dr Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 31 0006 F. J. Golden P.O. Box 172 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 10-117-23 31 0013 & 14 Godfrey F. Bergquist Box 125 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 10-11.7-23 31 0001 George F. Rovegno 2010 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 31 0004 Carol A. LaQuey 2080 North Shore Dr Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 31 0007 Everett V. Miller Box 46 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 10-117-23 42 001 10-117-23 31 0053 2 10- 117--23 31 0052 E. Robie Wayne Ronald Anderson Mabel M. Belt E. bieEllWayne Road P.O. Box 54 Box 162 crystal Bay, MN 55323 Crystal Hay, MN 55325 Minnetonka, MN 55143 10-117-23 42 0012 10-117-23 31 0064 E. Robie Wayne Wayne A. Quast 780 South Federal 4390 1205 Brown Road South Chicago, IL 60605 Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 31 0054 Elizabeth C. Johnson Box 161 Crystal Bay, M14 55323 10-117-23 31 0057 Herbert A. Shepherd 1335 Briar Street Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 31 0058 Brian L. Gammon 15601 Suset Road Minnetonka, MN 55345 10-117-23 31 0066 Richard C. Johnson Box 183 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 10-117-23 31 0069 Robert R. Braun 1230 Arbor Street Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 31 0072 & 73 Karen E. Bjerkeng 1245 Arbor Street Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 31 0090 Richard V. Stinson 2040 Spates Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 31 0096 Harriet Spates Torangeau 2060 Spates Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 10- 117- 23 42 001 5 H. Tourangeau 2060 Spates Ave Wayzata, MN 5r A':�1 10-117-23 31'0058 Occupant P.O. Box 157 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 10-117-23 31 0070 C. H. Sandgren 1215 Arbor Street Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 31 (-75 Richard T. Kie,nen 1212 Briar Street Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 31 0065 Curtis Quady Box 127 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 10-117-23 31 0067 & 68 Candace S. M. Allen P.O. Box 3765 Aspen, CO 81611 10-117-23 31 0071 Elvon & Terri Yager 1223 Arbor Street Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 31 0074 Maybell Kohls 1224 Briar Street Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 31 0093 10-117-23 31 0095 Michael P. McClelland Terry D. Morse P.O. Box 45 2080 Spates Ave Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 42 0021 & 89 10-117-23 42 0014 Daniel Crear Sailors World 1980 Spates Avenue Box 176 Wayzata, MN 55391 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 10-117-23 42 0022 Tonka Transmission Craig Olson 1960 Shoreline Dr Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Orono Property Owner: The City Council of the City of Orono will meet n Monday, April 22, 1985, at 7:00 P.M., at the Orono Middle School Auditorium, 685 Old Crystal Bay Road North, to pass upon a proposed special assessment for the construction of sanitary sewers in the Crystal Bay area. The notice of the public hearing is enclosed for your information. As stated in *.he notice the City Council will consider several assessment options including a partial assessment of the project cc,st to the benefitting property cwners with the remainder of the project cost to be paid out of City fends, which could result in an increase in property taxes of the entire City. NOTICE: OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR SANITARY SEWER PROJECT 85-1 CRYSTAL BAY AREA Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota will meet at 7:00 P.M. on Monday, April 22, 1985, at the Orono MAdlt- School Auditorium, 685 Old Crystal Bay Road North, to pass upon the proposed special assessment for the construction of sanitary sewers in the Crystal Bay :area. The aroa to bF., assessed lies within the following .area lega I ly described as follows: The northeast 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 except the west 205 feet of the south 353 feet of Section 10, ri17, R23W Hennepin Country, Minnesota That part of the northwest 1/4 of thu southeast 1/4 of Section 10, T117, R23W Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows. Commencing at the southwest corner of the northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of said section, thence easterly to Lake Minnetonka, thence northeasterly along the lakeshore to a line extended easterly from the north line of the Ora Park Addition thence northwesterly to a_he west line of said northwest 1 /4 of the southeast 1 /4 of Sect ion 10, thence southerly to th.- point at beginning and there terminating. That part of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 10, T1 17, R23W Hennepin County Minnesota3 described as fo11ows: Beginning 7.78 chains south of the northeast corner of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 10, thence westerly 370 feet, thence south 410 west 239 feet to the centerline of Willow Drive, thence northwesterly along the centerline of Willow Drive to a Point described as follows; "Commencing at the southwest corner of the northeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 10; thence northerly along the west line 395 feet 10 inches, thence south 350 45' east 1093.9 feet"; thence southerly at right angles to the north line of Maxwell's Addition to Crystal Bay, thence northwest along the north line to the west line of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 10; thence south along the west line to the southwest corner of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 10, thence east along the south lint, to the centerline of Brown Road (Co. Rd. 146), thence_ northeast along the centerline to the east line of the southeast 1/4 of thv northwest 1/4 of Section 10; thence north along they east line to the; point of beginning and there termi nat i nc7. The property owners within they ,above legally described aroa will be specially assessed 100% of the project cost which amounts to a unit cost of $10,850. The Orono City Council will consider several assessmc,nt options, including a partial assessment of the project cost to th6, be•nefatting property owners with t.h•, r-mainderr of the.,1�r>ject costs to be paid out of City funds, which could result in an increase in property taxes of the entire city. The proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the office of Lhe City Clerk. The total cost of the improvement to be specially assessed is $900,000. Written or oral objections will be considered at the hearing. No appeal may be taken as to any amount of any assessment unless a written objection signed by the affected property owner is filed with the City Clerk prior to the assessment hearing or is presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. If such written objection is so filed, the owner may appeal an assessment to District Court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within 10 days after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. Owners of homestead property who are 65 years or older may apply for a deferment of the special assessment if they meet the criteria set forth in City Council Resolution #1093. By order of the City Council /s/ Dorothy M. Hellin City Clerk NOTM ON NINLIC HIRARINO ON PF40POUD SMICIAL ASSISOWNTS FOR SANITARY SEWN P NOACT W1 CRYSTAL MAY AMA Notice is hereby given that the City Council Of Orono. Hennepin County Minnesota will meet M 7 00 p m on Monday. April 22 1985 dl the Orono Middle School Auditorium 685 Old Crystal Bay Road North to pass upon the pro posW SWIM assessment for the construction of sanitary sewers in the Crystal Bay area The area to be assessed Ices within the follow Mp area legally described as follows Thenorlheast'. of the„cxdhwest.. ex cept the west 205 feet of the south 353 feet of Section 10. T 117, RZ3W Herr nepm County Minnesota That part of the northwest.,. of the southeast'. of Section 10. Too? R23W Hennepin County Minnesota described as follows Commertcutg of the southwest corner of the northWeSt ". of the southeast'. of said section thence easterly to Lake Min netonks. thence northeasterly, along the laheshore to a line extended easterly from the north line of the Ora Park Ad ditan thence northwesterly to the west line of said northwest'. of the southeast'. of Section 10. thence southerly to the point at beginning and there terminating That part of the southeast':. of the northwest'. of Section 10 T 1 1 7 R23W Hennepin County Mrnnesola described as follows Bi pinning 7 78 chains south of the northeast corner of the southeast'.. of the northwest', of Section 10 thence westerly 370 feet. thence south 41 dogr tes west 239 feet to the centerline of Willow Drive thence northwesterly along the centerline of Willow Drive to a Pont described as toMows Cornmwx-.ng at the southwest Corner of the northeast'/4 of the northwest'., of Section 10 thence nor therty akog the west kne 306 feet 10 Inches thence south ',5 degrees 45 east 1093 9 feet thence southerly at right angles to the north line of Max wail s Addition to Crystal Bay thence northwest along the north line to the west true of the southeast% of the nor! west`,. of Section 10. thence soul' of +ng the west line to the soutr'•weat corner of the southeast':. of the rnvtt•vest . of section 10, thence Affidavit of Publication east along Me south line to t' e centerline of Brown Road (Co Rd 1461 thence ."heart along the centerline to the east line of the southeast'. of the State of Minnesota. County of Hennepin northwest'. of Section 10. thence north along the east line to the point of begin ning and there terminating Bill Holm, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is The property owners within the above legally described area will be specially assessed 100 an authorized agent and employee of the publisher percent of the project cost which amounts to of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound, Min- a and cost of $ 10 650 The Orono City Council will consider several nesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are assessment options, including a partial assess stated below. ment of the project cost to the benefrthng pro perty owners with the remainder of the piolerI costs f:r be paid out of City funds. which cijuld q, The newspaper has complied with all the re- tire in an increase in property taxes of the en tyre city quirements constituting qualifications as a qualified The proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the office of the City Clerk newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute The total cost of the ,mprovernent to be sWiiiily 331 A 02. 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, as assessed Is S900.000 Written or oral objec tans will be considered at the hearing amended. No appeal may be taken as to any amount of / any assessment unless a written obj4chon sign i.rL �Ay w; G �f 0 r-7 ad by the affected property owns is filed with B ) The printed ?T C the city Clerk prior to the assessment hearing of is presented to the presiding officer at the hearing If such written objection is so filed. the owner may appeal an assessment to District Court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section which is attached was cut from the columns of said 429 081 by servrng notice of the appeal upon the Mayor of City Clerk within 30 days attar the newspaper, and was printed and published once each adoption of the assessment and filing such week for Y successive weeks. notice with the distrx-1 court within 10 days after service upon the Mayof or City Clerk Owners of homestead property who are 65 It was first published Tuesday, years or older may apply for a deferment of the' / Special assessment of they meet the criteria set pI forth n City Council Resolution No 1093 �{IX / L the � day of ,' 19 ' By order of the City Council and was thereafter printed and published every /s/Dorothy M HaIW Tuesday, to and including Tuesday. City Clerk IPublished r- The Laker and The Pioneer April the day of 4' / 19 si 2 and April 9 19851 Authorized Agent Subscribed and sworn to me oa day of 19 b By IL i "wy Public A OR,� 21985 l� Nate Information (11 lowest :,Idbwtl fd rate paid by cornnref ctd u W s tur c'x*Parade Waco $6 90 per inch (2l Maximum rote allowed by law for above fatter $4 13 per irch 131 Rate actualty, charged fur above +natter $4 13 per ?"Ch Eat h fctditruryal atx 4 eYsfve wee* S, 75 [Jar iix.h NOTICE OLD PUBLIC HARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL. ASSESSMENTS rcid SANITARY SEWER PROJECT 85-1 CRYSTAL. BAY AREA Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota will meet at 7:00 P.M. on Monday, April 22, 1985, at the Orono Middle School Auditorium, 685 Old Crystal Bay Road North, to pass upon the proposed special assessment for the construction of sanitary sewers in the Crystal Bay area. The area to be assessed lies within the following area legally described as follows: The northeast 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 except the west 205 feet of the south 353 feet of Section :0, T117, R23W Hennepin County, Minnesota That part of the northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 10, T117, R23W Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows. Commencing at the southwest corner of the northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of said section, thence easterly to Lake Minnetonka, thence northeasterly along the lakeshore to a line extended easterly from the north line of the Ora Park Addition thence northwesterly to the west line of said northwest 1/4 of the scutheast 1/4 of Section 10, thence southerly to the point at beginning and there terminating. That part of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 10, T117, R23W Hennepin County Minnesota described as follows: Beginning 7.78 chains south of the northeast corner of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 10, thence westerly 370 feet, thence south 410 west 239 feet to the centerline of Willow Drive, thence northwesterly along the centerline of Willow Drive to a Point described as follows; "Commencing at the southwest corner of the northeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 10; thence northerly along the west line 395 feet 10 inches, thence south 350 45' east 1093.9 feet"; thence southerly at right angles to the north line of Maxwell's Addition to Crystal Bav, thence northwest along the north line to the west line of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 10; thence south along the west line to the southwest corner of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section ',0, thence east along the south line to the centerline of Brown Road (Co. Rd. 146), thence northeast along the centerline to the east line of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 10; thence north along the east line to the point of beginning and there terminating. The property owners within the above legally described area will be specially assessed 100% of the project cost which amounts to a unit cost of $10,850. The Orono City Council will consider several assessment options, including a partial assessment of the project cost to the benefitting property owners with the remainder of the project costs to be paid out of City funds, which could result in an increase in property taxes of the entire city. The proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the office of the City Clerk. The total cost of the improvement to be specially assessed is $900,000. Written or oral objections will be considered at the hearing. No appeal may be taken as to any amount of any assessment unless a written objection signed by the affected property owner is f i led with the City Clerk prior to the assessment hearing or is presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. If such written objection is so filed, the owner may appeal an assessment to District Court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within 10 days after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. owners of homestead property who are 65 years or older may apply for a deferment of the special assessment if they meet the criteria set forth in City Council Resolution #1093. By order of the City Council /s/ Dorothy M. Hai.lin City Clerk Publish in the baker and the Pioneer newspapers the weeks of April 1, 1985 and April 8, 1985. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF TH-- CITY (:OUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND AWARDING CONTRACT CRYSTAL BAY SANITARY SEWER PROJECT 85-1 WHEREAS, on March 15, 1985, several bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law pursuant to an advertisement for bids for construction of the sanitary sewer in the Crystal Bay area and, WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends that A.R.I. Contracting Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder for this improvement; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Counc i 1 of the City of Orono, Minnesota 1. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby directed to enter into a cc.,itract with A.R.I. Contracting Inc. in the name of the City of Orono, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the Ci;-y Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with the bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next two lowest bidders shall be retained until the contract is signed. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held on April 22, 1985, by a vote of ayes and nays. _—_-- Mary C:. Butler, -Mayor �---�---+--- AvrEST Dorothy M. Halpin, City Cferrc r-- COUNCIL MEETING To: Orono Council Members APR 2 21985 Glenn Cook, City Engineer Tom Radio, City Attorney .John R. GeCiardson, Public Works Coordinator CITY Of ORONO Thomas M. Kuehn, Finance Director Frorr: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning AdminiEtrator Date: April 18, 1985 Subjec..: .Alternative Waste Management Study, Crystal Bay Sewers The Orono Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan (Ciapter 6 of the Communit, Management Plan) states in Policy No. 11 uneer "Rural sewage Treatment Policies", that an Alternative Waste Management Study is to be undertaken when multiple on -site system deficiencies occur in one of the existing isolated pockets of development in t'ie rural service area. Through an inventory and analysis process, optional solutions to sewage treatment problems must be reviewed on both technical and economics bases, and extension of municipal sewers should occur only if other options are found to be infeasible. Although City staff has informally reviewed the possible options on numerous occasions, this report is prese:i:ed to you as a formal Alternative Waste Management Study, addressin.f the feasibility of alternative sewage treatment op- tions in the Cr;rtal Bay Area, and concluding that extension of municipal sewers is the most technically and economically feasible long-term solut n to existing and potential problems in the area. CONTENTS MEMO I. Introduction - Overview of Problem II. Inventory of Existing Systems A. Inventory Procedure and Content B. Inventory Results III. Alternative Waste Management Methods A. Options Are to be Reviewed per Comprehensive Plan Requirements B. Options OPTION 1. Alteration of the water consumption habits of the users, including careful system maintenance. OPTION 2. Repair or reconstruction of individual sy- stems, and replacement of existing systems with new individual systems constructed to City standards per Ordinance 210. OPTION 3. Installation of innovative on -site systems including consideration of composting or incinerating devices and shared drainfi.eld systems. OPTION 4. Installation of a collection .7-Y-$ten connected to community drainfield. OPTION 5. Installation of individual holding tanks with off -site disposal. OPTION 6. Selective condemnation and demolition of properties which cannot/will not comply. OPTION 7. Installation of collection system connected to existing MWCC interceptor. C. Summary of Options IV. Conclusion EXHIBITS A. Replacement Capability Map, Compilation, Rationale B. Selected Data APPENDICES 1. Individual Property Surveys/Sket.ches 2. Inventory Worksheets 3. Well Depth Survey 2 I. INTRODUCTION - Overview of the Problem The Crystal Bay Area of Orono is a historically developed area on the west shore of Smith's Bay, Lake Minnetonka. Much of the study area was platted prior to 1900, with development in the northerly portions occurring in the 1950's and 19(0's. The typical originally platted lots were 50' x 140', although development generally occurred on combinations of 2 or more lots. Of the 79 existing developed properties, 31% are 1/4 ,-acre or less, 45% are 1/4 to 1/2 acre 18t are 1/2 to 1 acre, and 68 are larger than 1 acre. Orly 1 property meets or exceeds the RR-lB Zoning District 2 acre minimum lot size.- In most cases, outward expansion of existing homes or infi l l development of the remaining vacant lots will require lot area, lot width, and set- back .,ari -!y)res. The Crystal Bay area is a neighborhood in transit:or. Approxi- mately 25% of the homes in the area are owned by retirement age residents, and -;s home maintenance chores become overwhe.'.ming, sales to younger families with children are occurring with the Lccompanying increases in water use. The condition of existing sep-Lic systems in the area falls in a wide range, with a number being totally nor -functional, many failing on a seasonal or intermittent basis, a large number for below code standards but still functional, few that nearly meet c urient design specifications, but none that totally conform to current c,)de stan- dards. Currently, one property has no sewer facilities (Sailors World Marina). Two properties regularly pump sealed holding tanks because drai.nfields are n,,t feasible due to small lot sizes, intensity of use of the properties, and high water tables. In addition to these, at least seven properties either had sewage discharges to the surface or experienced severe backup problems during 19e4, all of which were related to inadequate drainfields, and only 2 of which have subse- quently been repaired. At least 4 additional systems have in previous years experienced intermittent problems of backup or surface dis- charge, probably as a result of soil water conditions or over -use of substandard systems, and which have not been repaired and which may be subject to future similar problems. The observed failures of existing systens in the area can generally be attributed to one or more of the follDwinq factors: 1. Poorly maintained systems a. Not pumped out regularly, allowinq solids to clog drain - field lines. 1,. Baffles not reel ar_•d as they decay, with same resu : s above. C. Construction of encroaching hardcover onto or near drainfield, causinq excess runoff into drainfield lines. 2. Poorly designed systems a. Deep cesspools (up to 15-20' deep) used as septic tanks, with or without drainfi.eld. b. Tank capacities extremely small for 1980's water use habits. C. Single tank systems of inadequate capacity or retention times to treat the current flows. d. Drainfields with inadequate hydraulic capability to dispose of current flows, due to small size or natural biomat buildup due to age of system. e. Drainfields with inadequate piping, little or no rock, or both. 3. Poorly located systems a. Drainfields and non -sealed tanks located near or within high water tables, causing premature system failures. b. Drainfields located near hardcover which drains excess surface runoff onto the drainfield. 4. Old systems subject to groundwater inflow and infiltration especially where tanks are deep and a pump is used to discharge effluent to elevated drainfiel9 sites. As stated previously, a number of systems either discharge to the surface or have backed up into basements. In both instances, a poten- tial health problem is created as well as an odor problem. Add°- tionally, althougr no ( ^*_amination problems have been documented, well water contaminatioi. -ild occur since more than 1/3 of the exist- ing wells are less that the Minnesota Health Department required minimum of 50' from non -sealed septic tanks or drainfields. In fact, 3 wells are located only 15' from septic tanks or drainfields. The potential exists for untreated septic tank effluent to migrate to the well casing and then follow the casing down to the subsurface aquifer, contaminating the water supply at its source. Note that well records are on file for 37 of the 73 existing wells, with depths generally 100-150' deep in the northerly and easterly portions of the study area, but 200-320' deep in the southwesterly quadrant. Soil conditions in the area are documented in the Hennepin County Soil Survey, which indicates that about 60% of the area is Anoka loamy fine sand, with the remaining 40% consisting of various loamy and wetland soils. In general, the soils on ti h, dry ground are suitable for septic systems, although the actual ,il types observed by staff in the field include inconsistent pockets of more clayey soils within *.he Anoka mapping unit. As a general rule, a specific site shown as )ntaininq Anoka soils on the soil survey may not necessarily contain .pose soi Is. 4 II. INVENTORY OF EXISTING SYSTFMS A. Inventory Procedures and Content The City of Orono undertook a program to inspect and inventory the City's existing septic systems commencing in 1978, hence fairly accurate information exists regarding the location, design, and layout of septic systems and wells in the Crystal Bay area. A detailed, scaled layout of each affected property has been drawn in order to determine the technical feasibility of repairing or replacing the systems in the area. (See Exhibit B) The drawings are scaled at 1" _ 20, 1" = 30'1 1" = 40', or 1" = 60', and in most cases are based on the City plat maps, air photos, and field measurements in order to provide accurate relative building and system locations. In some cases actual existing certificates of survey were used. The inventory drawings show the following information: 1. Property boundaries 2. Location of house, septic system components, wells, driveway, street, accessory buildings 3. 50' minimum setback (well to septic tank and drainfield) required by Minnesota Health Department 4. 10' minimum setbacks to property line, house and other hard- cover 5. Steep slopes (where critical) The relaxed well and hardcover setbacks used above are considered to be the minimum allowable setbacks. Orono's code requires a 75' setback for wells from any septic system drainfield or unsealed septic tank, and 20' setback for drainfields from property lines and hard- cover area. A well setback of less than 50' requires a variance from the Minnesota Health Department and is rarely granted. The MPCA recommended performance standards (WPC-40) maintain a minimum 10' septic system setback from houses and property lines. The inventory listing (Appendix 2) defines each property by ad- dress, and acreage, and contains information on the well/septic separ- ation distances, notes current or past septic system problems, indi- cates a relative level of code compliance of each existing system, and assesses the potential of each site for repair/replacement of the existing system. In addition, a subjective rating on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 is best) is given in comparison to the study area P d to the rest of unsewered Orono. B. Inventory Results Perhaps the most enlightening information to be gained from the inventory is the potential capability of each property to !:!.Export a replacement septic system within the confines of the minimum "ity and estate sanitary code requirements. See Exhibits A 6 B. r Note first that 29 of 78 existing wells are located less than the minimum required 50' from septic system components. Also, note that of 83 developed or developable properties, 21 (26%) could not con- struct a new or replacement system within the confines of the relaxed code standards, and 11 additional properties (another 13%) could only construct a bed -type drainfield system which is generally less effi- cient and more prone to failure than a trench system. In addition, 27 properties (32%) would encounter major limita- tions in trying to replace existing systems due to limited lot areas, well locations, and the locations of trees, small storage buildings, sidewalks, and other property amenities not enumerated in the survey. Only 24 (29%) of the properties have what could be considered substantial area available for replacement of septic systems. III. Alternative Waste Management Methods - Review and Analysis A. Options are to be reviewed per CSPP Policy No. 11. The Orono Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan (CSPP) was adopted as Chapter 6 of the 1980 Community Management Plan. Policy 11 of the Rural Sewage Treatment Policies contained within the CSPP reads as follows: 11. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS WILL OCCUR IF SEWAGE. TREATMENT DEFICIENCIES ARE DOCUMENTED IN RURAL HOUSING CLUSTERS. In the event that multiple on -site system deficiencies should occur in one of the existing isolated pockets of development in the rural a2-ea, the correction of those deficiencies will be a concern of the City, the neighborhood and the property owners alike. Individual repair or replacement will remain the first option. This may involve joint systems, acquisition of addition- al land or selective condemnation. Other options include innova- tive or '.ow -water systems, community drainfields or selective condemnation. The extension of municipal sanitary sewer will be considered only if the environmental and/or health problems can- not be technically or economically resolved on -site and then only if the neighborhood is adjacent to the existing urban area or along the route of. the MWCC interceptor. In no case will the land use density be increased or new areas opened for development because of such a sewer extension. The Sewer Facilities Plan section of the CSPP also discusses the Alternative Waste Management Study and is incorporated herein by reference. A. Review and Analysis of Optional Waste Management Methods OPTION 1. Alteration of the water consumption habits of the users, including careful system maintenance. 6 Water. consumption habits vary from family to family, depending on a variety of factors. A retired couple who has lived with a septic tank all their lives may generate only 50-75 gallons per day total for two peoples At the opposite end of the scale, City staff has docu- mented water use for a specific 10-member household in rural Orono at 1109.5 gallons per day total or about 111 gallons per person per day. A household with infant children can be expected to have higher water use rates due to daily diaper washing.-eenagers tend to take an inordinate amount of baths or showers. A family that formerly lived in an area with City sewer may have acquired the habit of using their sink garbage disposal unit as a garbage can. This not only increases the daily wastewater load, but introduces undigested foods and materials to the septic system, which do not break down as readily in the septic tank as does human waste. A number of the Crystal Bay area residents have reportedly been practicing water conservation methods on an on -going basis, such as taking laundry to the laundromat, flushing toilets only after multiple uses, attempting to limit the time on showers, etc. However, the fact remains that specific systems are in such poor condition that they continue to fail regardless of any water conservation practices that may be in effect.. A number of water saving devices have entered the market place in recent years, including low-water use toilets and low -flow faucets and shower heads. For example, one model of low -flush toilet uses com- pressed air and 2 quarts of water per f lush. Each toilet unit costs approximately $400 and the compressor unit an additional $200-250, plus installation costs. With the electrically -run compressor kept in a remote location from the bathroom, air piping might create some additional higher costs when retrofitting existing homes. As far as showerheads and faucets go, these items are readily available at relatively low cost and are easily installed by the homeowner. It is likely that for a typical house wi,h 2 bathrooms, a kitchen, and a laundry, water use could be reduced considerably, perhaps as much as 50% by retrofitting with all low -water -use fixtures at a cost ranging from $750-2000 per house. This r�s not negate the need to maintain a functional septic system on V roperty, although the drainfield could be reduced in size proporti4 illy. There still would be properties that could not adequately replace their septic systems under any circumstances. 1. observed metered water use rates, studv by Michael P. Gaffron - Ham Lake, MN 1981-83 2. residential well metered 8-15-83 thru 1-3C-85 7 Proper ne;'ntenance of existing septic systems can have a po--..tive impact on their efficiency and continued operation. However, ),� the Crystal Bay area, many systems are located or designed such that tank access is extremely difficult, i.e. tanks buried under 8-10' of cover with no manhole. Older shallow tanks still require major excavation to open up the strip cover sections. Note that the 4" diameter inspec- tion pipes. located in most tanks were installed to function only as inspection pipes; the tank solids generally cannot be adequately removed and baffles cannot always be reliably checked through the inspection pipe. Ncte also that Orono's On -Site code adopted in 1978 on finally required retrofitting of all septic tanks with inspection pipes and manholes to within 6-12" of the ground surface. It became apparent that the majority of existing septic tanks would need to have the entire tank cover replaced in order to add the required 20" dia- meter manhole. Because tank covers are not generally sold separately from the tank, they would have to be special ordered. The costs for cover replacement approached the costs for replacing entire tanks; the code was subsequently amended to only require installation of inspec- tion pipes. Each time a septic tank is pumped out, the pumping contractor is required to send notification to the City. If we presume that ^on - tractors have been judicious in their reporting, records indicate that only about 50 of the 1000 plus septic systems in Orono are pumped each year. Since the code requires pumpouts at least once every three years, we would expect to see 300-400 pumpout slips each year. Clear- ly, people do not pump their tanks as often as they should. In Crystal Bay, pumpout records indicate that only about 60% of the systems have been pumped out since records were first kept in 1978. To summarize, reliance on a change in habits or attitudes toward septic systems would indeed require some major educational efforts by the City and the history of system maintenance indicates efforts to date have not been completely successful. Each family is different in their water use habits and a push for major changes in usage patterns would likely be met with conscious and unconscious resistance. Water saving fixtures could be retrofitted into each house at a cost ranging from $750-2000 per house. These potentially would reduce the daily flow rate by up to 50% but would still require the use J septic systems. OPTION 2. Repair or reconstruction of individual systems and replacement of existing systems constructed to City standards per Ordinance 210. For the most part, existing septic systems in the Crystal Bay area are quite substandard. As discussed in the inventory review, the existing tanks generally are of block construction, not sealed off from groundwater fluctuations. Where a two tank system exists, when both tanks are in relatively good condition, baffles intact and of 600 gallons each or greater, in a fairly shallow location where ground- water would have a minimal effect on their functioning, existing tanks might be considered as suitable for continued use should system repair or reconstruction be contemplated. New precast concrete sealed tanks could be placed in approximately the same location as existing tanks. 8 But, where an existing drainfield is failing and needs to be replaced, it is not generally feasible to tear up the existing drainfield and re -use the same site unless the existing drainfield is taken out of commission for a period of time and allowed to totally dry out. Then, it is conceivable that the old trenches could be re -excavated to a width and depth just greater than the old system, i.e. removing the trench wall areas that have become reduced in absorption capacity due to the biomat. This would only be considered if the existing drainfield site is the only possible site, and if soil and water conditions are suitable for a drainfield system. As described in the system inventory, many existing systems could not be'replaced within the confines of the minimum code standards. In general, Orono's policy has been to allow repairs to failing systems by salvaging whatever components can be expected to continue satisfactorily without jeopardizing the rest of the system, and replacing system components that have outlived their usefulness or would be detrimental to proper functioning if they remained as part of the system. A typical septic system repair will include the addition of drainfield using the existing tanks, often adding a 3rd pumping tank when the drainfield needs to be located uphill. Tanks in poor condition or located in high groundwater areas usually are replaced with sealed, precast concrete tanks. Approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of all repair jobs include a pump system or re-routing of plumbing in the house in order to place drainfield on higher, dryer gound. In gene•i1, drainfield additions, when proposed, are required to meet all standards of the code for location in suitable soils and soil water conditions, and are sized based on standards for new homes. In past cases where these standards were not met, some replacement drainfields failed to function from the day they were installed. Given the lot area requirements, lot line and structural setback requirements, soil permeability and water table depth criteria, the mizcL of houses, the topography, locations and construction of exist- ing systems and the locatiu,i �,f existing wells, the replacement of existing septic systems in Crystal Bay with systems tnaL file6t the minimum acceptable code standards is impossible on 26% of the proper- ties and is severely limited or questionable on another 45%. Only 29% of the properties have what could be considered as adequate area for replacement and permanent usage of septic systems. Note also that the continued use of septic systems will in many cases effectively limit the opportunity for expansion of houses or for adding garages where none exist and act as a severely limiting factor in the upgrading of the Crystal Bay neighborhood. At least one bed- room addition proposal is on hold pending resolution of the Crystal Bay sewer situation. Estimated costs for replacing septic systems in Crystal Bay vary depending on the specific site, access to it, and capability for replacement. In general current costs are as follows: 9 Repairs to existing 750 square feet of drainfield in trenches (installed): $1750-2500 1-1000 gallon precast tank (installed): $500-1000 Pump tank, pump, alarm system, electrical work (installed): $1,250-2,000 Totally New System 2-1000 gallon tanks, 750 s.f. trench drainfield $3,000-4,500 w/pump tank and pump add $1,250-2,000 Mound -type drainfield system (complete) $6,500-10,000 OPTION 3. Installation of innovative on -site systems including consideration of composting or incinerating devices and shared drain - field systems. A number of innovative on -site sewage treatment systems exist which might have applicability to the Crystal Bay area under certain circumstances. Various types of recirculating -fluid waste transport systems are on the market, which use a recyclable fluid (water, mineral oil, etc.) to transport toilet waste either to a holding tank and incinerator unit, or to a self contained treatment unit. These systems are quite complex in design and prices range from $13,000-30,000. The demon- strated applicability for these units is to serve a building or busi- ness with little or no "graywater" (sink, shower, laundry) use. These units wou' not be practical to serve the needs of Crystal Bay. A second type of recirculating toilet considered is the portable unit used in boats and recreational vehicles. These units have a relatively small holding tank capacity and are not suited to full time residential family usage. Two innovative types of toilets which are more appropriate under the constraints of a holding tank system include incinerator toilets and composting toilets. Incinerator toilets are a self contained toilet and waste treatment unit which uses electricity or burns natural gas to reduce human waste to a clean ash which needs to be removed cn a regular basis. Cost range for the units is about $1,500- 2,000 plus connection and installation costs. These units do require some maintenance and energy costs in either case are a consideration. Composting toilets provide a chamber in which proper environ- mental conditions are maintained for biological breakdown of human waste. The resultant compost must be removed on an occasional basis. Most units use some type of electrical heating element. Cost of the units ranges from $800-2,000 plus installation costs. One such system is now in use within the City in conjunction with a graywater holding tank, on a property too small to support any t.ypc of septic system (Stubbs Bay area). 10 All the systems described above pertain only to the handling of toilet wastes and must be used in conjunction with a graywater treat- ment and disposal system, i.e. septic tank/drainfield, holding tank, or other method. Certain types of innovative drainfield systems may have applicability in Crystal Bay. The on -site ordinances allow the use of mounds, shallow trenches, and "fill" trenches as innovative alterna- tives to overcome problem soil and water conditions. The code does not address specific innovative methods to overcome lot area problems. The concept of a "shared" system, typically 2 to 4 houses with in- dividual septic tanks connected to a single drainfield located on one or more of the properties, has been recognized as a reasonable alter- native where small clusters of houses abut a suitable space for drain - field. In general, easements are required and covenants or regula- tions must be drawn up regarding the use and maintenance of such a system. It is likely that in Crystal Bay the shared system would, in some instances, result in destruction of traditional lot boundary barriers such as fences and in some cases trees in order to have any chance of success. There would have to be an unusual amount of cooperation between neighbors in order to accept the concept of "treating my neighbor's sewage in my back yard". If system failure was to occur, there might be difficulties in determining who caused the problem and who is responsible for repairs. Conceptually ignoring the lot lines, the areas with the most potential septic system problems in Crystal Bay do not necessarily have adjacent suitable areas f..;r drainfield due to existing well and house locations. Costs of a shared system would be proportionally similar to costs for individual syste*ns. It is likely that some economies of scale would be realized in installation of such a shared system, but higher design and legal costs would likely offset this. The innovative methods described in Option 3 each have physical and technical limitations and would require public acceptance of unusual or non-standard concepts. Further study beyond the scope of this report would be needed in order to fully detail the feasibility of these methods. OPTION 4. Installation of a collection system connected to a community drainfield. The community drainfield system, in which sewage from individual households is collected and transported to a nearby site for treatment and disposal through a soil treatment unit (or drainfield), is occa- sionally used for rural housing clusters or Lakeshore areas where municipal sewers do not exist, and where the housing density or on - site soil conditions would not allow the use of standard septic sy- stems. By definition, the community system has two parts - the col- lection system and the treatment/disposal system. The treatment/dis- posal system (or the actual drainfield) requires a parcel of land sized in proportion to the amount of waste water to be treated and disposed of and is based on the soil's capability to accept and treat the wastewater. The University of Minnesota Agricultural Extension Service and 11 the MPCA suggest that a community septic-tank/drainfield system should generally not be used for more than 10 homes. Greater amounts of effluent discharged into a concentrated location in the soil will either not be accepted hydraulically or will create nutrient or ni- trate problems as the liquid percolates downwards. Aside from these potential hydraulic/pollution problems, the estimated costs of a collection system and community drainfield for the Crystal Bay area rival the costs of a collection system dis- charging to the MWCC interceptor. System design and estimated costs. The collector system would include individual septic tanks and effluent pumps discharging to a pressure sewer line which would extend to the community drainfield location. Installation of the pressure collection system, including new septic tanks, pump chambers, pumps and controls and the pressure collection lines, (which need only be 8' deep, and require minimal restoration) is estimated at about $500,000 or about $6,000 per unit for Crystal Bay. The treatment portion of the system would include a stilling tank discharging to a large drainfield. Drainfield sizing would be based on an average f low rate of 274 gpd/unit x 83 units or about 22,750 gpd. Two possible locations for this drainfield were considered in the Crystal Bay area. Site A is P.I.D. #10-117-23 21 0007, an undeveloped parcel of approximately 9 dry acres lying immediately adjacent to Crystal Bay on the north side of Willow Drive. Based on the Hennepin County Soil Survny, an estimate of the percolation rate of the soils at this site would be 15-30 minutes per inch, requiring 2 square feet of drainfield area per gallon of waste per day, or a drainfield of 45,500 square feet of trench bottom area, using approximately 3 acres of land area after proper trench spacing. An equivalent additional acreage would be prudently required to ensure that replacement of this system could be installed should the original system fail. This site potentially could be divided to create 4 attractive residential 2-acre building sites, with an estimated raw land value for the entire 9-acre parcel of $125,000. The cost of trench drainfield is estimated at $2.50/square foot. Hence, the drainfield system is estimated at $91,000 plus approximately $30,000 in additional site work (stilling tank, fencing, seeding, etc.). The total cost then is estimated at: $500,000 pressure collections system 125,000 land acquisition 91,000 drainfield construction 30,000 site work $746,000 190,000 plus 25% legal, administrative, engineering $936,000 T 83 s $11,275/unit. Site R, P.I.D. #10-117-23 33 0002, is a parcel of about 40 dry acres, about 2/3 wooded, on the south side of Country Road 51 across 12 from the Art Center of Minnesota. Soils int., ed by the Soi 1 Survey include Anoka loamy fine sand, which would have similar percolation characteristics to Site A. This property contains a large estate with mansion and caretaker house, and would have to be subdivided to create a 6-8 acre parcel for a community drainfield. The property has excel- lent potential for a high quality housing development. Due to a centrally located wetland in the open field area where no trees would have to be removed, the costs of developing this site for a drainfield would likely include tree removal. The value of the raw land for development is probably at least $15,000 per acre, and a parcel large enough for a community drainfield would likely cost $150,000 or more. There would be virtually no difference in the cost of the collection system to get to this site, but the cost of installing the drainfield could be substantially higher. Total cost estimated at $500,000 collection system 150,000 land acquisition 150,000 drainfield and site work $800,000 200,000 plus 25% legal, engineering, administrative $1,000,000 _ 83 = $12,050/unit In either site, there is a high potential for ground water pollu- tion because of the relatively sandy soils and high nutrient concen- trations in a relatively small area. The close proximity to wetlands bordering Lake Minnetonka, as well as the proximity to developed residential areas, are also factors which make the community drain - field alternative unattractive and a potential nuisance if it experiences problems. City staff would strongly recommend against the Community drain - field alternative, based not only on the estimated cost equivalence to a standard municipal sewer system, but also on the added maintenance costs to each homeowner with individual pump stations, the need for continuing regular tank pumpouts, the potential problems of pollution and the unknown life span or efficiency of such a system. OPTION 6. Installation of individual holding tanks with off -site disposal. Where on -site treatment and disposal of septic tank effluent is not possible due to site limitations, an individual holding tank is often a reasonable solution if A) The water use is minimal, such as in a seasonal cabin; or B) When construction of collection system with off -site treatment and disposal is imminent. Orono code allows hold- ing tanks only as a temporary solution for existing problem situa- tions, and never for new construction except of a temporary basis during construction. The costs of installation of a 2000 gallon sealed concrete hold- ing tank is estimated at $2,000. The yearly maintenance costs are exceedingly high, depending on actual water use. Cost of pumpouts is 13 expected to rise in 1985 to an average of about $100 per 2000 gallon load partly due to the approximately $10 per load dump charge levied by the MWCC when the pump truck discharges the "septage" (septic tank waste) to the MWCC sewer system. Two extreme residential examples illustrate these costs: 1) 1-2 persons in residence, doing laundry off -site, using water -saver toilets and conservation practices. E:-timated daily usage: 30 gpd per person. 30 gpd/person x 1-2 persons x 365 days/yr T 2000 gallons/pumpout = 6-11 pumpouts required/yx 6-11 x $100 = $600-$1100/yr 2) Family of 6 doing laundry at home, no water conserving practices or devices estimated daily usage: 75 gpd per person 75 gpd/person x 6 persons x 365 days/yr = 2000 gallons/pumpout = 82 pumpouts/yr (or every 4 days) 82 x $lC3 _ $8200/yr With a range of $600-$8200 yearly estimated maintenance cost, holding tanks are clearly not an economical method of permanent sewage management. In addition, problems encountered with this type of system can include failure to pump out when needed, leading to a sur- face discharge or backup in house; illegal pumping methods (siphon hose to a nearby wetland or other surface discharge); and inconvenience (needing a pumpout on a holiday, for instance). Also, unless properly protected with secure covers, holding tanks with a manhole access at the ground surface for ease of pumpout are a poten- tial hazard for inquisitive children who might fall in. For the economic and technical reasons stated above, holding tanks are not recommended as a permanent sewage treatment solution for the Crystal Bay area. OPTION 6. Selective condemnation and demolition of properties which cannot or will not comply. Of the 83 properties listed in the "system replacement capability survey", 21 were found to be located on sites so limited that should the systems fail, they could not be replaced in any way meeting the minimum code requirements. These 21 have a total taxable market value (from the Hennepin County tax records) of $772,600 for the structures only. It is unlikely that a total condemnation of these 21 properties would be considered. Under selective condemnation, we would strive to remove houses of low value which would a) eliminate an existing fail- ing system that couldn't be repaired according to .:ode, and b) al low th;: combination of the remaining land with adjacent properties to increase their replacment capability. 14 A review of the 21 properties which could not: adequately install i -^w system reveals that it - .`d likely be more fruitful to selec- y condemn certain low value houses which do have adequate re- ,ent capability, and devote the resulting vacant land to adjacent hi. value homes which need the vacant land. In essence, it appears that a redevelopment/replatting process would be needed to adequately provide a substantial benefit to the area. Two technical problems become tantamount in this redevelopment process a) it would be unwise to locate new drainfields over abandoned wells; and b) the removal of houses and filling in the basement ex- cavations would tend to create areas of soil unsuitable for use as drainfield. Neither compacted soils or fill soils are suitable for use as drainfield. Hence, the additional land made available in many cases would not have a substantial effect on the capability for repairing neighboring septic systems. Also, while a few specific problem sites might be benefitted by acquisition of a neighboring property, this expenditure does not necessarily solve the entire neighbonccod problem on a long- term basis. OPTION 7. The feasibility and costs of insta l lat-on of a sani- tary sewer serving Crystal Bay have been documented in the "Feasi- bility Report for Crystal Bay Sanitary Sewer Improvements for City of Orono, Minnesota, 1984" prepared by Bonestroo and Associates. Total cost of that project has been set at $10,850 per unit. Costs of connection, including SAC charge, permits and hookup costs could range from $1,000-2,000 additional per unit. Maintenance cost to the home- owner would be in the form of a quarterly sewer usage charge. With no limitations imposed by septic system constraints, homeowners would gain the ability to expand their living space, add garages and generally improve the quality of housing in the neighborhood. C. SUMMARY OF OPTIONS OPTION 1. Alteration of water use habits, relies on the ability to change the long -ingrained water use habits of an entire neighbor- hood. At a cost of $500-2,000 per residence, low water use fixtures could be installed that would reduce the waste load on existing septic systems. OPTION 2. Repairing or replacing existing systems as they fail, cannot be accom- ished on a significant number of properties within the confines of minimum code standards, even under reduced water use conditions. OPTION 3. Use of innovative methods, has limited applicability in Crystal Bay, but again asks the homeowner to accept unusual methods of sewage treatment and disposal. Incinerating or composting toilets are viable methods of eliminating the toilet waste portion of house- hold wastewater, but do not eliminate the need for septic systems. Shared drainfields might have limited application in Crystal Ray but need further study as to actual feasibl ity. 15 OPTION 4. A collection system discharging to a community drain - field, is not an environmentally sound method of solving the Crystal Bay sewer problem. If it were considered a safe method, costs would be roughly equivalent to the cost of a sanitary sewer discharging to the MWCC interceptor, but with a potential for unacceptable failure and still requiring individual maintenance of septic tanks. OPTION 5. Installation of holding tanks with off -site disposal, is technically sound but economically prohibitive unless coupled with many of the water -saving methods described under Options i and 3. OPTION 6. Selective condemnation and demolition, would be a potentially expensive alternative to requiring holding tanks. It is unlikely that major gains in suitable drainfield area would be real- ized under this process since drainfi.elds could generally not be located over abandoned wells or in fill soils over old foundations. Selective condemnation might be a consideration in redeveloping the Crystal Bay area to a lower density; the feasibility of such an under- taking is beyond the scope of this report. OPTION 7. Installation of sanitary sewer, presents a long-term solution to sewage problems in Crystal Bay at a cost of $10,850 per unit plus connection and usage charges. With sewer, the need to provide adequate area for a septic system is eliminated, offering homeowners ar, increased ability to improve the livability of their properties. 16 IV. Conclusion A study of the lot sizes and locations of existing improvements in the Crystal Bay area indicates that in 21 of 83 properties, the existing sewage treatment facilities cannot be replaced within the confines of the minimum acceptable City and State code requirements. An additional 38 (or 45%) would experience major difficulties in repairing or replacing existing systems. There are 24 (or 29%) which appear to have substantially �dequate area available for future repairs and permanent usage of septic systems. A total of 11 existinc ,ems are either now failing or have exhibited signs of failure ring 1984 and 1985. Two properties currently use holding tanks as their only acceptable means of sewage management, and one commercially zoned property has no septic system and no possible place to locate one. Many existing septic systems in the Crystal Bay area are substandard in construction, design, and location. There is a relatively high potential for future failures to occur. even optional methods for managing sewage in the Crystal Bay area wer, studied and evaluated. Each option has certain limitations in technical and economic fasibility. From a technical standpoint, municipal sewer provides the most permanent sewage disposal method for this area, and resolves existing and potential problems in a single effort. From an economic standpoint, septic system problems on some properties can be solved less expensively than the cost of municipal sewer, but on a substantial number of properties municipal sewer is the only possible alternative other than cost -prohibitive holding tanks or actual condemnation and demolition. 17 EXHIBIT A CRYSTAL BA; AREA SEPTIC SYSTEMS �`• REPLACEMENT CAPABILITY K E Y 1975 sq. ft. replacement area. Severe limitations or J impossible to replace. 1976-4999 sq. ft. replacement area. Major limitations but replacement may be feasible. 5000 sq. ft. replacement area. Probably feasible to dreplace permanently. - r EXHIBIT A - continued FUTURE REPLACEMENT CAPABILITY ASSUMPTIONS 1) 16-30 MPI perc rate = 250 s.f./bedroom 2) 3 bedroom home = 450 gpd design rate 3) 3 bedroom x 250 s.f./br = 750 s.f. min. system 4) using 3' trenches 750 s.f. = 3' = 250 l.f. 5) 250 l.f. x standard 7.5' o.c. = 1875 s.f. _ lawn area required to adequately replace drainfield system (area meeting setbacks) 6) bed area required would be 1.5 times the trench square footage or 1.5 x 750 = 1125 s.f. 7) 2 septic tanks require additional minimum area of approximately 100 s.f. Therefore, the minimum area needed to adequately replace with a complete trench and tank system meeting minimum sizing standards is 1875 + 100 = 1975 s.f. Minimum area for complete bed system is 1125 + 100 = 1225 s.f. In order to generalize presume that if area available for drain - field is less than 1225 s.f., system cannot be adequately replaced to minimum standards. Between 1225 - 1975 s.f., there is some doubt whether system can be adequately replaced. Over 1975 s.f., presume adequate room for replacement, but still will find limitaions which make permanent septic system use questionable. Over 5,000 s.f. - should have room for all future needs. Note that this also presumes no future additions which encroach on drainfield sites and does not account for location of trees, or slopes and other site -specific hindrances. RA = Replacement Area RA = 1225 Total 21 26% Cannot Be Re- placed Within Confines of Code 1226-1975 Total 11 13% Severe Limitations on Repairs Total 83 Listed (includes 1 vacant lot) 1976-5000 Total 27 32% Major Limitations on Repairs But May Be Feasible 5000 Plus Total 24 29% Probably Feasibl, to Repair CRYSTAL BAY ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY EXHIBIT B: SELECTED DATA I. Septic System Occurrence A. Number of properties currently using septic systems 78 B. Number of properties currently using holding tanks 2 C. Number of developed properties with no septic system 1 D. Number of vacant developable properties 1 E. Total number of properties included in study 82 II. Well Occurrence A. Number of existing wells 78 B. Number of developed properties with no well, water hauled in 2 C. Number of developed properties with no well, share neighboring well 2 III. Well Locations, Depths A. Number of wells meeting 50' setback from all existing septic system components 49 B. Number of wells located 25-49' from existing septic system component(s) 22 C. Number of wells located 0-24' from existing septic system component(s) 7 D. Range -,- known depths of wells 971(N,E) to 319'(SW) IV. Condition of Existing Septic Systems A. Number of systems meeting all current code standards for a new residence (Per Ordinance 210, Adopted 1978) 0 B. Number of systems that are substandard, but are known to consist of 2 septic tanks and a drainfield 40 C. Number of systems that are very substandard, consisting of 1 septic tank or cesspool, with or without drainfield 38 D. Number of systems currently known to be discharging to surface and systems which have a history of past intermittent failures which have not been corrected; includes properties with holding tanks or no existing system 15 V. Septic System Replacement Capability (See Exhibit A) A. Number of properties with adequate room for replacement of existing septic system, holding tank system, with a soil treatment and disposal system meeting the "relaxed" code standards discussed in the text (includes 1 vacant lot) 24 (29%) B. Number of properties where repair/replacement within confines of code is questionably feasible and will encounter major limitations due to limited area 27 (32%) C. Number of properties where repair/replacement within confines of code is severely limited and where bed -type drainfield may be the only possible treatment and disposal method 11 (13%) D. Number of properties where repair/replacement within confines of code is impossible (includes City Council Chambers, excluded from totals in I -III above) 21 (26%) 83 (100%) APPENDIX 1 INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY SURVEYS AND SKETCHES �1CL'� _ 1 �_ �-fit'/} (�Q �l _ ,j fiX1S7:�uG B j /IA R 57. FENcE +-\E � - /Sar— o ci AR�1 yr �j � j \�f • - 1 � 't• � � �N- vR�vC /N i LCAfiIN.a I`LiA o � ice, r� � r � •• � 1 ARBOR T. DRIVC wn t •. i (So' 12- A C- A c I 1212- BOAA L/ P , PO"moo _1 �w lr 1122L4 Q1��► �T n.2�� sc Doe_ -S 0 - ----7 A- 1,,Pr AaeA a IAI 500.ri .7p,32 Ac r c J E12 1 1 49=-fi0R-- Lr A S-bp 5-4 Ar,2 60 it S4 Ac 4._ CALV,N H. HEDLUND;,_ NtiOverlook 't'aikeC:led.. Land Surveyor u' E 4. sloomino". Minne •• 56437 \ •d nrnMr t t -, c' �M•2Ga0 JI NO. �. THIS _ SURVEY roR, John worre DESCRIM0 AS: Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, CRYSTAL BAY MINNET0r , City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota,� reserving the drainage. and utility eamements• as shown on the record plat thereof. \� C �I N � c*1 I 1 N r.91T a iCJ►Tt or S UILVEY 1: : I Vberaly certi y thet on NrVP'-mIx r 20, 1 surveyed the property described above and that the above piet to a correct representati" o, said aurvsy. Calvin H. Hedlund, Minn. Reg No. 5442 El 1 Sp' f to w�IbN Sos+J �s S C-raC'ir ► !D p' /D • 117 L s f �- wEiL 12 `® A RG©� i� � 35.38 r � iL`( /QZ ipwAtslE /: R�'' Y dG f' �r° 10 2 y 00 c.. F'r. I ,f I CXfS7/fins 'CONK !S f0 DIA��c %n •11 ; �� 1 I r r Ta NAUC g��ry Pa r?#PM o %ItCE o I s, f cily IN 19.7c> r►NT NJ Pc rl ��'' � O� � � / /. !'• '\W /i AL7'T�'x6M wotiw r"PY .Mf►vE (3 C' JJV es Fo , ln�FlL- tDCAT/0A% cE•"Jtl+f LY �f•`•', 100, \ — �• iJ�`'v 'ANC' Pyr F-Kj•rIA•L l T►1 L C T }towcZJf F S�7.LTtOle -A ='"" �TAL 14 V ENVI i AEQyILeW%Cf sa' =�•►�� ,•� w�i L fOf� TAOX s AWb Dfasu�ut,F'.. D -ram catb CORNEY� OF la��AND 'f'e^c-�-►� A64'lb Nn^&_pjT p F E)('ST/AjG W F L L) MAY FR r t, P AAc_DS Q AffA (roA F,A%NKt- USE I1 ?DO ...r .. .'•I- .-♦ti�•,•;�'N F,!'!►���.•�.i'My~w•.pn►�Y; 'i" `l�r �:1�?'1TM .'ti ,� i LI f or GetF = 7100 _ �, Z 1 Ae 2 -10 �Y AO PA = / y ODD f t = r 3'2- A c IC. r J 3G5 AR8c2 s T, tar "4-A= An)eS7.SI 7000 P,J% a I v •,1 I I - - -1 fE3�� =joltA-k�3 o.3Z AC - IC C atGcY.i>� . LS AJ F = `4cU W,R7.S - a l(. Ac `v JrAPR 1 5:GW%l CITY Of ORONO ,?ap � �- T NHS /37S s . alzown1 ,uD . �uRVE y l CALf SKeTC H By sf�Ff� I i! nil.. SJ it / jor40e o.mAc' i L or A+ttA a/ MINNESOTA VALLEY, 61 s SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS C:01-1: `•r;N� E+icj 12006 12TIl AVENUE SGUTN — ilURNSViL.! E Phone: &`iC•775G Curlifiralc of ',imcN`for: %7 }�.. i �%!v':TP�UGT►ON1 1N-1�• I "*M �X �te �^ T�� �5 L O K Z_ �C, MAXEL ' ADDITIO�l _ ., .1,. �...r.. .. of ... ..a .. ,., , .J 1...... fit Plr,t of Survoy for L. J. Quast of Lot 1 and N 1/2. of Lot 2, Block 3, Crystal bay Mtka. HenneLin County, Rinnenota ,m 131 +A`� O ' lam' f-L�LIkf�Y%N1R♦ -----F CGISTREN 0 All 31 n . 41' i ' - r Certificate of Survey: We hereby ce.-tify th%'L t:;is is a true and correct Fl t of a survey wde by us of Lot 1 and the North half of i,ot 2, Block 3, Crystal Bay vdnnetunka . ___-----� KFLL='Y & KFLLFY, Engineers Loae Luke, 1Iinnesot.n Late July 10, 1356 %_K� . o . Iron tnarjri r ��•-'� Wm. .. Kelley,LN• Pep. No. 1342 Alr' �E�ISTERE� �!ry PC- r crvu ENGINEER � j LAND SURVE%R OF , M\N� h- RORY Go..tnt..-, 1'irawsotj 2 C" "Air. it tvb of .oL 3 _n_ t LcE..v, rent ;vla C:l L 'k 0 rno. ul,.it 1 3C uorJc,r. !-. CoMr. !te rjurve.,c,- L,!!d Avrmer V Iron r..z**/.,.r'.an,: LA.., Vinnvzot: I oo s i 1\ Copy for Atexandcr JcIlLIIuCCi JOIIN J. RVAN CC'. 156% SLLr. ( AVENUE, ST. PAUL 5610 PLAT Of SURVEY ERTY OF MOM "C"Ic lilt) ED AS �FOLLO�WS\%_z 1� �.. zjrII_..K ;r-- Zel a 4 t'4 k'JI tul rJ mw -Y do '00r. k, t jt& te Off CESTIFICATE OF LMATION OF BUILDING CERTIVICATF OF S U It V F: Y hdr", "Calpy that as asr"j. pjgw. t 9 plw#4 Ly Aew cw 6wor 11-Y Z' t.T thill 449VO). ptoft. w ftpUft 011,11 pIrP410061 tj I AA— " ram_- - __ 1 1 . - 4 ' - A—— .. - .. . . .% I — a " I Ave t09Ac `. p T 'C a f c �5-, 2 '_Y0 S -t . 4 0,12 A c GSTe c r 1 ellJL - Ijo wet l 'r lot I �l FA ARLEIGH C. SMITH # Rgiatsrtd Prc,Fsaaiorul Enainttr and Land Survcyos 2030 East Wayzata Boulcwrd Wayzata, Minncsxxa N.E. Cot, GC'YT LOT G ' PLAT OF SURVEY ZIP saalPl OF PROPERTY Mdescribed ac folic Co.n g i.rs__N E_CLDLrtr_Gmw! m Ls>_t 4,.,:c c thPnc�s��f_�12.9Qissf, thtnte_ tnr11►1q. Scale. I tnc?> • TF cii� f y —• '�^yG 1 T III � I I Iron rnorlurr,er,t CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION) OF BUILDING CCATIrICATE �7AF SUAVCT I hereby certify that ueL �. R�(�_ Itt�t I 1 hereby certify that on_l�.!�q_? y._• r 7(x i ..de a surve% of the proposed laation of the building surveyed the props t) described attave s:id that t.-,• r, the at -,cc described property and that the location above plat n a rurre•.t tvprewntat,mn of %aid tuetr. t .a:d but :Qy 1s correctly s!tut.n on the 7aIYQ plait o1 //os' — �D�loAc y , O 10 Q, 3 Ac `lb 1135 s,Remu�� 1 Ln, 0. / 41 4 i Lev A sz F Soo 0. C, m tu"ll, C A '� ` . � , __ _ _ _ _ � -�/� | / / / -_- ___ _----_'.~~� ' \ � �_ __ __ __ _ -__ __ _ �_~� ~- _^ - -- _- -- -- ~ _ - � ' // ' ' __---__�__--_ -- --_ ' , / / . -~~� / _ . / � � � v | � � �` � . \/ . } | �~ ~�~' L---_' / ' ' � ' 2 s r �Ao / Jew 2 0 .;4 A . �' � . � J fit►. L f rt-- nd corr', - rc of, e f it --y n' tl!P rice cae '-•Ot.e /.f � f and 7, .'lork F, f:CT tTabti' on ��j►* _!'i7f •r-d or t',p 1C'f tits f./: of* -1 L*•li l:'=r"� :: .: CC`!:f hr: (� Ri: sny, 'ro;-, cr -in r.r.F•rt1Gn with b rorti-nre Lrtir /'ry t' 74, i— -.n '}^ -!rve na llr•t•ilit;r is errs- e6 r>."--t !c ter rA- o; R-a nrt;_P,'r or nny ot•Y:E:r ir. .r--4t b.- rf m.ch rc.rtjei*e. It is un-*er!.t.-o. and bF--erd no ^rcmx*rts ?.eye "...-er .10• -ee .'er the njr:x:;<e of ,-t.nbllshlnr lot 1!nes or r::ncury rrrnvr_. 1" _ 4,1+ \ Ge nie,r. R. fc.:'f in :ems, .i• 6; A4 :.•t,rt 1"—l.',_7S t •� rx: :t:-�•r..cr r.rir. .'l�rnrr r '" N i � 1 r .� ,� L1 •� *. � Q � l I � � n �. �y � �. �, j O 1-70 11 c 2 Jra pe c�)s PiF CA $CA L V r i r I 9 So S'.• 0&-:!�, �ve . 1`00 r ' '' ',� •', ' a t o O5 �•�� -- ., N34� �9'41 E r — 29 66 ' �--- — • ` ' 3 r' o qp J NavSC� 19 fa \ �th 1 w ,Corner o� Nouse 1 01 9 `' 14 ,Q • n' � Sit n t r 0o 0 9 s \ 9oF �'\ I 46 • •�' _, `� uu LA a In - �=_- � _� .A "'''+• Yam---. --- vw art -27 S 40'45'00W C __ - !'•� ` CONCRETE Ce17/Cr //r7e— • ?51 , T -----. -- ----- Sar.7<h /ir7e o • Lo /l- �,! C'Eiv7 <>A L .4VE"IVE 1 .• rot `V \ - _ l J 4 ?O S _ 63 ,w - 7S 1 ZSo �. � • ' 04 a �, -- - --- o 9• A /ii7� �vroi/G/ /V:t/i Svvffi /•%)e e i Lef (o, �/bric�/�e S. f3orneS' First svboiirsior, 1 Y ` W,,v G•ence0 It e 1146. eO T sY 03-, ffa C 4 � I � �• r M C O qAre'e 0 ' •v pia. I .•t '' (_:,- rr�-- / / a I • f RYA 1 33 l / o dos. _- .. - eoio- _ --- - br..3o - -- 33 70 - - - CENTRAL AVENUE 2055 SPa�rF' AlV i ' � y _ / . . / ~-V--- 7 a% c � / --------- / - '^ / ' � . . . ^ =o | . --_ / ' 1 ^ -'---� _ ---�--_ - �~PA �3-rnc) � P / / . ° • f. �✓"� �✓" ....� ' Ir.. r ,l , ! 1 / , V I 1 t l' ) i.�i I r � � i �' 1 .' ---z �---�_ �n -- � `./ t a � 1= iv Ot D Co t � PV NO 17, °oo s ; �C- Y / z -� It E S J - C oa tAo�tc Vic _ ` • r l r _ �_ t 1I2.0 / a T �. V,/ /► c 1.•� ILLAb -1 JD 0- . J APPENDIX 2 INVENTORY WORKSHEETS ADDRESS C LA WATER SUPPLY ACREAGE WELL CISTERN >50' 1 450' >501 <50' X X j A� �- P ok �!D.20l X 1 RA•.�ec z H ( } w K W } W R >zu V-4 z w M 0. W W aoo SEPTIC SYSTEM a 44 OC a .a o I- z t? I < < C W h'+ 1 2 z 0 m w F O 2>< 0< CI < h d v. In W I c� n{ .n �•• 11 < O w 0 wU j W CI w a. InIn 4 �• } q.J In �n'r' O ; S( 1 KY. S F cInz w< -0 .� v W {a +� c, h F•w � 1 aul O J W V1 0 W 7 F6 1n OL F Y m F z Fo vfh In .] vl ¢ W :r i 1• W W jt x x 2►� I � ;;?-a X i iX 3' 1 3. �x X' 12 3 �1�•tiT3�E��ct.S RcFE�. 'ro ('�tOYI�+►:-f'`f '1'•D a^�7 P.�Iz'T DF SFFT�C SySTE/� (����• e Lr c°�` 'j �-� - CST 5 - wo A? Le Lon i - •.- + ice' - O.O � t. �•� '�/' T tom. �' ��• � �— �} '/ � � / /L I I r- I '' t• r . '� r 1 t°=P•• r I i fat? ►.,,:•.'-f.P �( + • T ( ` r 'tie 2 - Swvt i t E r•_ TA r' it: AL —AA -Aiff p AAA, ADDRESS WATER SUPPLY ACREAGE WELL CISTERN >SO• a50• >SO tso X SEPTIC SYSTEM C�Uctt ttjCcL! f 1 •. .1,, cc,: ,n *Q ` r,— IIW W a a W Z W Q W z < IuH S p2 ppZ li :; i N N F• 4 :A ! W 4 qq W 4 .: H Ir• 6 Z Y a: �• W N W 3? x d I H W F• h W I •-• O I .• _ W ©.• :[ W Y • O O< u w V. —':j aC N Z N ¢ h h U a a W e WQ ax W ..} ar 0tm qa I e 0 us > p x W V W D N O , N N Q V7 J O :.i Z U Z I C N •+ O J W R F+ H O F•z cCh5 "+`-4 H! W 4 80 7 0.0 z W T. Z ;:a Z a. :3 WU >•Z Jr as , ai.. W K •+z +i W ..:'SN W's 6 7< a4 4 W<a 4a sa HcK 0. W W hcc ih [ h0 Nh Oa }}. J ih KU a 4 H NSh ZHUI NS V:hZ N.J NK W 0. h 6 tl1 ) W W 74 aC 4 7:..z >•7 r >-W w< C1W i•+W OY >O > Q Uw aUZ 0.00 V)u NmF twm ua 6ce ,J¢ zvl OH OLj t ix ! ixl; 3 x� s 3 t! , 'Tt i, `� i� I LI 1.•1 .r^P� c4_S Ft FLU pt` �EN'IC .5Y;TEi1 C. OVW\ r- f / I TJ -rArtjle if IF rl /(fi•P:-:�••.� •�+. ^ � afjr + . It,,,( -A • . it I t_ !i i^::'etc i+dTM1Gi /r- emu' rt ' r►-� �f='� r_r-j.T?C �F'«I"" '�d'I �./rt..•f.t L i :1 1 7��l. lt��•' UcFr OL✓-u�E P�_srpit a�� ry ^'"�► t i •'L-�». :.�..1-rr,�, t� t �.'D.iP='r P{�:rr,[.cr►+ = �--�/Cj'�c+�a., '•�' :.DDRESS Z W O .- a Q S W ]• W S r a o a > O= � F WATERSUPPLY W: za hw0 a W ACREAGE WELL CISTERN 5¢ a 0 a � r• u >50'1.4 >50'-c v� aU�a00 SYSTEM t f �; g t a W a O pH 4 U If L U< IzLn W¢ - 0 N W 2>¢ O G F a p<❑ L. ., to mA W .L- IIH h0 W O a x > <- O> a q = a N Z �+ O a W ; K f• H I o (-. W W , W j a -4 a 7: 79 T O O < +J W U a• Z -1 • a s I -1 <W <c ¢a cc < V) R +n H Z W a I Vf W r. 6 VI W W a•:. :�6 >w Lao nW �•+W O> ,>O >O to U :7J h tr, a tJ 4.i <¢ J¢ 7.tn OF OF I x � i ,i Ix'3 1 ' i Xpi if t ij ji1ST;\t�tiC�S I2CFF-P, Tp (�R7Y1r�.'!•roe pN`7 PJAT DF SEA7'!C SY;TEr1 I - Pc =11*- _5 - L�; - ;e --T- coV^w EI,--s IL 1 -`: "• .r: + ?St1Jp�..rL•I ma's .mot,. t� �% 7 CA Pro 12 v /. ., I.,Ct.. )t i i IV 3 i 10'4^ A.I `K= ? t.�/P4•.•r'�, �IJU �,Glr�,r rC ADDRESS WATER SUPPLY ACREAGE WELL ICISTERM li>501 <SO• >501 <SO ( uReFI,. J W cc J va Z F.'%' ram— b„� d ' l37 l Z 2 r p �-t '; I e w A � f X SEPTIC SYSTEM -a �6K< W O•W o w O �SG��(. �0 us mown 'i W� �. 41 ^Jw W3 d�� 7U J(J ` IY z veil u-, sa vhir- o.3 �r wV >7< wmr-• >•W we {ri<( ,Ja<a caw i.as xM'Oh i >pp I *-1 •►`(% �, f^{ = tl:. ,-� �' L,- ..,.Ty .� �4N`i P1wr .5 — WO-a+T • Nv rF�-.t Lt-► _l E --. _ _ j 'j p1. i S r.�:.: t �' ram'• •I t c .' r� +j `f �E rf" C Ir i �j f . / `r � P!',..."' . �.�. ��� : � �- • t `� ' • � 1' fps '. � � - �._ __ �. L ADDRESS WATER SUPPLY ACREAGE WELL CISTERN 11 >S0' { :50' >501 :50' r ,y S ,,A E ).31 X .707 .I . - � -77 �o=�_�F��c.15i w Z 1-7 O (Y--ASPt cT f .'tt...� G � ii � FIB !-� `._ . �,' �' /" .�� ►.� � .i-C i i � Cr i4Ufr .✓ t� t• SEPTIC SYSTEM c of Fr►+� = < < �F2 F < < U 1111)�tCt >. vs 3-- 1q ow 31:> < F YI Ill.Y m< WKY �ip O< W vsb Kb ZQN R FO .3..)dc W Y Is1.-0 > pp W U W C m b 0 ~ N b Q N C O h .h( d t h W .] O W cc E i N 2 .+o .3 b.W 8bO �WU O ZZ 6�� ZvW Z ZW< I� <V ! � YI 3F ..3Y sU -3-1 C.] F990 6.+ NK ILwW IFU EWC NK (W- u N�Z ff- N..]] 0 . 0 O Y6 ; 6 Y W N W < W U W O V j a O O b U } < �mF. Y W Nm W< U6 <q " C aaf 12Y ZNI > O OF > O OF OMMININ IX' ^-+ X' -� - Tx i x]- "L-LX Z 13II j:,I!,T;\ILICt S RcFE.k p"PiT Dr SICF is sytre-r1 C o v., W' C , I -rs r,.,.� �• /c�G' f. 'GC3;� w,'Pvw1', (ca0 - I,. -4 ' r . ` _41i , �P✓w• Olr �'^�'_� L tn�tUl HAS. I-0CL: Farr• "n Ir w t++L, �� .�'., merit �= `� +./..�-� • � � C i�� ---.,'�•_-� �.l -� �lz Cc) >n S 70 Z - 77 A' ek r.. Ti�rvr of ` _ . L' �. / r a- : L i ADDRESS HATER SUPPLY ACREAGE HELL CISTERN >SO•1 tSO• >501 cso SEPTIC SYSTEM ► L • • •• sQ Yt �Y J•< �Y" p YOU yJi zL Y fJ aVaY at c <O tC • 7 < „ �bu t YY a ,I< qiJ Yi . x O Vf z;n I Y> O OH > OF Vu. 0.K 000N 0a mo U .�W6 KA ro Fit L It-j _ O.ZS X « '' t� M �D�lic, 4A: ..►A y s Li .- s x r ;'7-7LIT I � '• I ..l Ix fiI1T1\AUC%,I RCFER Tp f4p-)YIrw;T`f Toy AN''t IPIAT' �F Icr- !C sytrrM IV* >rl fa���^DES �L `}''=='�`•.re:Y — 1f: 2 S. r C 01►N W1 E l �'!'$ ADDRESS SUPPLY � ACREAGE ELL CISTERN 1>50!WATER I g50 >50 tso• L :. "' C . L GT A'f 1240 0 SEPTIC SYSTEM s W. Z W Z .] Os.. ,0 U °< u g 5 OH 4 U .. T F O i O T J N N N wq qq w 4w f-W G i 6 2U 7_ r K } W N w S' S 4 I-' w H I H W O LC W m.+ sw} F0 O -tO o[ H HO wO ..,5 r �0G >o_ WU w 0 N0 N n oN d4 K• CINz Of- FU KFx 7. w 7. 6U ti w =: I3' T. QQQ C� 4U W V �_ .1 �• ..7J W.. WK Z wW S. wt a 0 G W W F K H :L H o N H O -1 H 3 EHUi Nn: Nf'Z N1.1 NK 1.: �. f.6 31Fi1 I� V �a �a a0< Oaz rO :-J4 rw w4 Ow wW Or >oI>o u c.. auX GOO NU �NOH Nx ,-,G as •..)e T. N�'OH I OH 1! L I i I ID �D42 I _ To P a tw 1 r.►1 "r `'i .fy A N `1 P 1IZ1 Or' SEf'��C SYaTE11 +fix ✓: I�Ji ! )Er 1L �'1.'� I, tY J 5----e-T Cow^ e., E- i I--5 I P2. 4rt APPENDIX 3 WELL DEPTH SURVEY Depth Number 0-100, 1 101-1501 12 151-2001 4 201-2501 13 251-300' 3 301-319' 4 37 known COUNCIL MEETING APR 2 21985 CITY OF ORONO Estimated property_ tax increase_ for homesteaded properties CAN 18 1985 I CITY ONG"'11- I Assessor's Estimated Estimated Annual Market Value Property Tax Increase' 5 50,000 5 5.30 75,000 9.20 100,000 13.69 125,000 18.20 150,000 22.69 175,000 27.20 200,000 31.69 225,000 36.20 250,000 40.69 300,000 49.69 400,000 67.69 500,000 85.69 600,000 103.69 750,000 130.69 900,000 157.69 999,000 175.50 *Payable in two equal parts, the first half by May 15 and the second half by October 15. All figures are besed upon current property tax law. E property tax increase for homesteaded pngerties Assessor's Estimated Market Value 66-2/3ro Assessed Estimated Annual Property Tax Increase* $ 50,000 S 3.50 75,000 6.10 100,000 9.19 125,000 12.10 150,000 15.19 175,000 18.10 200.000 21.19 225,000 24.10 250,000 27.19 300,000 33.19 400,000 45.19 500,000 57.19 600,000 69.19 750,000 87.19 900,000 105.19 999,000 117.00 *Payable in do equal parts, the first half by May 15 and the second half by October 15. All figures are based upon current property tax law. Estimated proffer tax increase for homesteaded properties 75" Asse_•sed Assessor's Estimates Estimated Annual _ Market Value Pr9perty Tax Increase* S 50,000 $ 2.60 75,000 4.60 100,000 6.89 125,000 9.10 150,000 11.39 175,000 13.60 200,000 15.89 225,000 18.10 250,000 20.39 300,000 24.89 400,000 33.89 500,000 42.89 600,000 51.89 750,000 65.39 900,000 78.89 999,000 87.70 *Payable in two equal parts, the first half by May 15 and the second half by October 15. All figures are based upon current property tax law. CITY OF ORONO CRYSTAL. BAY SEWER ASSESSM}J41' HEARING APRIL 22, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL AUDITORIUM The Crystal Bay neighborhood of. Orono is located on Brown Road South (County Road 146) north of the intersection with North Shore Drive (County Road 51) and comprises approximately 80 existing residences. Originally platted prior to 1900 into 50- foot lots, the area's general patt- rn of development over the years has been single family hor* �n parcels of 1/2 acre or less. In fact, 31% of the propert are 1/4 acre or smaller. WHY IS INSTALLATION OF MUNICIPAL SEWER PROPOSED FOR CRYSTAI, BAY? A small but significant portion (about 1 in 8) of the septic systems serving these homes have experienced failure in recent years. A review of the design, location, size and condition of existing septic systems in the area has shown that the majority are quite substandard, and these continue to function adequately mainly due the sandier soils in this area. A review of each property ha. .ndicated that 26% of the existing properties do not have adequate lot area to replace existing septic systems with a new system meeting the minimum acceptable code standards if failure occurs. An additional 45% are severely limited in possible expansion area and would encounter major difficulties in trying to provide a conforming system. Although the majority of systems are not failing at this time, the potential for future failures is high, with a poor outlook for adequate repairs. The Crystal Bay area is one of ve rural housing clusters identified in the Orono Community Management Plan as requiring a special Alternative Waste Management Study. Three of the five clusters have been sewered since the Plan was adopted. Only Crystal Bay and certain portions of the Stubbs Bay area remain under consideration. Crystal Bay is located adjacent to the MWCC's Orono -Long Lake Interceptor, which offers the opportunity to connect into the Metropolitan Sewer System. WHAT FACTORS CONTRIBUTE TO THE COSTS OF THIS PROJECT? The sewer system proposed to serve Crystal Bay will cost $900,000, or $10,850 per unit. The cost includes installation of the sewer lines and lift station to discharge into the Inter- ceptor. Also, included is restoration of the roadways to their existing width. Cost of the project is somewhat higher than similar projects due to extreme depths of excavation (up to 271) required in some locations to provide a gravity flow system, thereby reducing maintenance costs. WHY IS THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERING HAVING THE GUNERAI, TAX- PAYERS ABSORB A PORTION OF THE COSTS OF THE PROJECT:' The Council has recognized that. recent Stara Supreme Court decisions make it difficult for a city to assess the entire cost of a municipal project to only the benefitted properties. The acceptable amount of assessment cannot exceed the amount that the property value increases as a result of the project. In Crystal Bay, with an average estimated residential market value (1985 taxes) of $64,200, and based on the report of an independent appraiser hired by the City, it is unlikely that all the bene- fitted properties will realize an increase in value of $10,850. The City applied for federal and state funding for this project in 1979. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, which administers these funds, has indicated that this project is not eligible for funding (collection systems discharging to existing treatment facilities are not being fui.Jed). Hence, the Council is considering declaring that a percentage of the project cost be financed through the general tax revenues, which may raise taxes slightly throughout the City. PROCESS TO DATE Octocer 1.0, 1979 - Orono submitted formal application for federal and state funding for sewer system for Crystal Bay and 5 other areas. June 1980 - Orono Community Management Plan adopted, identi- fied Crystal Bay as one of five rural housing cl,,sters needing Alternative Waste Management Studies. 1980-1983 - MPCA, reviewing agency for state and federal grant monies, indicated on many occasions that funds are not available to fund Orono's requests. 5/23/63 - Council adopts Resolution #1490 requesting Emergency Jobs Bill Funds for Crystal Bay/Stubbs Bay sewers. 9/12/83 - Council adopts Resolution #1518 amending Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding budget to include sewer feasibility studies for Crystal Bay and Stubbs Bay areas. Winter 1983-84 - Preliminary feasibility study for Crystal Bay sewers is completed by City Engineer. 5/11/84 - Formal notice from PCA that Orono's Crystal Bay and Stubb's Bay collection system projects are not eligible for funding. 8/15/84 - Crystal Bay public information meeting to discuss septic system problems and solutions. Members of public present indicated a strong interest in construction of sanitary sewers for Crystal Bay. Engineer preliminary cost estimate of $12,230- /u,: _ t . 9/24/84 - 22 Crystal Bay area residences represented at public hearing. Residents presented petition signed by property owners of 57 residences re- questing an assessment of 30% of project cost with 70% to be placed on tax levy. City staff directed to obtain independent appraisal of valuation in- creases with sewer installation and to determine the effect of various assessment/levy options on the general taxpayer. Engineer's revised estimate of $13,410/unit. Hearing continued to 10/29/84. 10/29/84 - Hearing further continued to 11/13/84. 11/13/84 - 36 Crystal Bay residences represented at public hearing continuation. Residents present petition stating 5 objectives to be resolved/considered in order to gain residential support. Council directs City Engineer to revise plans by reducing road restoration width and using easements over private property where feasible. 12/10/84 - 33 Crystal Bay residences represented at Council meeting. Cor.ncil adopts Resolution #1702 amending year IX-X CPBG funding - devoting $39,708 to Crystal Bay Sanitary Sewer Improvements. Council adopts Resolution #1738 receiving feasiblity report for Crystal Bay sewers (Engineer noted unit cost estimate revised down to $10,341 per unit). Council adopts Resolution #1739 ordering prepara- tions of plans and specifications for Crystal Bay sewers. V85 - Council adopts Resolution #1740 approving plans and specifications and directing staff to adver- tise for bids. 3/15/85 - Bid opening - Low bidder: ARI Contracting Inc. 3/25/85 - Council adopts Resolution #1741 accepting bids for the Crystal Bay Sewer Project. Council adopts Resolution #1742 calling assessment hearing on Crystal Bay Sewer Project for April 22, 1985. N Estimated 2ro�lert _ tax increase for homesteadeA2r2perties cna Arr�r-ri Assessor's Estimated Estimated Annual Market Value Property Tax Increase' S 50,000 75,000 100,000 125.000 150.000 175,000 200.000 225,000 .100 .,.,000 400.000 500.000 600,000 750,000 900.000 999,000 S 5.30 9.20 13.69 18.20 22.69 27.20 31.6° 36-20 40.69 49.69 67.69 85.69 103.69 130.69 157.69 175.50 66-2/3% Assessed Assessor's Estimated W mated Annual Market Value Property TaL Increase* $ 50,000 75,000 100.000 125.000 150.000 175.000 200.000 225,000 250.000 300,000 400.000 500.000 600.000 750.000 900,000 999,000 S 3.50 6.10 9.19 12.10 15.19 18.10 21.19 24.10 27.19 33.19 45.19 57.19 69.19 87.19 105.19 117.00 Ica A ---A Assessor's Estimated Estimated Annual Market Value Property Tax increase' S 50.000 75,000 100.000 125.000 150.000 175.000 200,000 225,000 250.000 300.000 400.000 $00.000 600,000 750.000 900.000 999.000 *Payable in two equal parts, the first half by May 15 and the second half by October 15. All figures are based upon current property tax law. S 2.60 4.60 6.89 9.10 11.39 13.60 15.89 18.10 20.39 24.89 33.89 42.89 51.89 65.39 78.89 87.70 ASSESSMENT HEARING CRYSTAL BAY SANITARY SEWER IMPRuVEMEN'l. PROJECT NO. 85- 1 ORONO, MINNESOT A April 22, 1984 7:00 P.M. Ty t' I. PROPOSED IMPROVE_MEN'rS: Construction of Sanitary Sewer to scrVe the Crystal Bay area �hown on the back of this sheet.). Street replacement section - 18' wide bituminous surface Replacement in kind. 11. ESr1MATED COST Sanitary Sewer Street Replacement TOTAL $900,000 III. PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS Units to be Assessed 83 Estimated Cost/Unit $ 1(1,850 Option I - 100% Assessed Assessment/Unit $ 10,850 City Share 5 Units $ 54,250 Option II - 75% Assessed Assessment/Unit $ 8,100 City Share $265,500 Option III - Of)-:/31 Assessed Aso eastneut/Unit $ 7,200 City Share $337,000 Option IV - 50% Assessed Assessment/Unit $ 5,400 City Share $477,000 IV. PROPERTY TAX Estimated Market Va1Ue $150,()00 Tax Increase* $ 22.69 *Based on 502 Assessment 7183c ASSESSMFN'r HAYMI:N'r Based on 15 year assesamw ,t period at an I percent interest rate. Year Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 100% Assessed 75% Assessed 66-2/3% Assessed 50% Assessed Unit AaaeBsment $10,850.00 $8,100-.00 Y$7,200.00 $5,400.00 1986 $2,215.20 $1,65'1.75 $1,470.00 $1,102.50 1987 $1,837.26 $1,371.h0 $1,219.20 $ 914.40 1988 $1,751.70 $1,312.20 $L,1bb.4O $ 874.80 1989 $1,678.13 $1,252.80 $1,113.60 $ 835.20 1990 $1,599.56 $1,193.40 $1,060.80 $ 795.60 1991 $1,519.00 $1,134.00 $1,008.00 $ 756.00 1992 $1,439.43 $1,074.60 $ 955.20 $ 716.40 1993 $1,359.86 $1,015.20 $ 902.40 $ 676.80 1994 $1,280.30 $ 955.80 $ 849.60 $ 637.20 1995 $1,200.73 $ 896.40 $ 796.80 $ 597.60 1996 $1,121.16 $ 837.00 $ 744.00 $ 5)8.00 1997 $1,041.60 $ 771.60 $ 791.70 $ 518.40 1998 $ 962.03 $ 718.20 5 63H.40 $ 478.80 1999 $ 882.46 $ 658.80 $ 585.60 $ 439.20 2000 $ 802.89 $ 599.40 $ 532.80 $ 399.60 Average Ilaywent 71H3c $1,121,.43 $1,001.27 $ 750.45 ASSESSMENT HEARING CRYSTAL BAY SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 85-1 ORONO, MINNESOTA April 22, 1984 7:00 P.M. I. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: Construction of Sanitary Sewer to serve the Crystal Bay area (shown on the back of this sheet). Street replacement section - 18' wide bituminous surface Replacement in kind. II. ESTIMATED COST Sanitary Sewer b Street Replacement TOTAL $900,000 III. PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS Units to be Assessed 83 Estimated Cost/Unit S 10,850 Option I - 100% Assessed Assessment/Unit $ 10,850 City Share 5 Units 5 54,250 Option II - 75% Assesses' Assessment/Unit $ 8,100 City Share $265,500 Option III - 66-2/3% Assessed Assessment/Unit S 7,200 City Share $337,000 Option IV - 50" Assessed Assessment/Unit $ 5,400 City Share $477,000 IV. PROPERTY TAX Estimated Market Value $150,000 Tax Increase* $ 22.69 *Based on 502 Assessment 7183C rol"A. A-f OF %%( I f v A �t SIX - [4 4 PPOPEPIV Ic BE ASSESSE_ 7 7-T wi i ri I* I fA so 0 4 Me .9 4 Is 4 1 1 F IGj RE Nam a swcwh P:�-' C Now! - SO& r .1 46 -014, C. ASSESSMENT PAYMENT Based on 15 year assessment period at an 11 percent interest rate. Year Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option L, 100% Assessed 75% Assessed 66-2/3% Assessed 50% Assessed Unit Assessment $10,850.00 $8,100.00 $7,200.00 $5,400.00 1986 $2,215.20 $1,653.75 $1,470.00 $1,102.50 1987 $1,837.26 $1,371.60 $1,219.20 $ 914.40 1988 $1,757.70 $1,312.20 $1,166.40 $ 874.80 1989 $1,678.13 $1,252.80 $1,113.60 $ 835.20 1990 $1,598.56 $1,193.40 $1,C60.80 $ 795.60 1991 $1,519.00 $1,134.00 $1,008.00 $ 756.00 1992 $1,439.43 $1,074.60 $ 955.20 $ 716.40 1993 $1,359.86 $1,015.20 $ 902.40 $ 676.80 1994 $1,280.30 $ 955.80 $ 849.60 $ 637.20 1995 $1,200.73 $ 896.40 $ 796.80 $ 597.60 1996 $1,121.16 $ 837.00 $ 744.00 $ 558.00 1997 $1,041.60 $ 777.60 $ 791.20 $ 518.40 1998 $ 962.03 $ 718.20 $ 619.40 $ 478.80 1999 $ 882.46 $ 658.80 $ 585.60 $ 439.20 2000 $ 802.89 $ 599.40 $ 532.80 $ 399.60 Average Payment $1,508.85 $1,126.43 $1,001.27 $ 750.95 / 18 3c ASSESSMENT HEARING CRYSTAL BAY SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 85-1 ORONO, MINNESOTA April 22, 1984 7:00 P.M. I. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: Construction of Sanitary Sewer to serve the crystal Bay area (shown on the back of this sheet). Street replacement section - 18' wide bituminous surface Replacement in kind. II. ESTIMATED COST Sanitary Sewer 6 Street Replacement TOTAL. $ 900 , 000 III. PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS Units to be Assessed 83 Estimated Cost/knit $ 10,850 Option I - 100% Assessed Assessment/Unit $ 10,850 City Share 5 Units $ 54,250 Option II - 75% Assessed Assessment/Unit $ 8,100 City Share $265,500 Option III - 66-2/3% Assessed Assessment/Unit $ 7,200 City Share $337,000 Option IV - 50% Assessed Assessment/Unit $ 5,400 City Share $477,000 IV. PROPERTY TAX Estimated Market Value $150,000 Tax Increase* $ 22.69 *Based on 50% Assessment 4 6j. J f�• 1 yf� wso �� tilt 1 ` :..• SRI It lk f 1 � . , •..• .. .y � S S 7 � s T + 6 s + t t t S l +� • -�_ 40 Pp JpEp' • -i �.::.. +�'" t Y t S + -+ d 7 f ; � _ _._�._ t f • 8E tS5ES5_' FIGJQE O_ __ -- _.—_ ._ _ i�aa=•�••�a� ROwC aatiwtSC'a •'_'� M` 6•1 YMA,-"b.. ..4w ASSESSMENT PAYMENT Based on 15 year assessment pe )d at an 11 percant interest rate. Year Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 100% Assessed 75% Assessed 66-2/3% Assessed 50% Assessed Unit Assessm..nt $10,850.00 $8,100. 00 $7,200.00 $5,400.00 1986 $2,215.20 $1,653.75 $1,470.00 $1,102.50 1987 $1,837.26 $1,371.60 $1,;19.20 $ 914.40 1988 $1,757.70 $1,312.20 $1.166.40 $ 874.80 1989 $1,678.13 $1,252.80 $1,113.60 $ 835.20 1990 $1,598.56 $1,193.40 $1,060.80 $ 795.60 1991 $1,519.00 $1,134.00 $1,008.00 $ 756.00 1992 $1,439.43 $1,074.60 $ 955.20 $ ?16.40 1993 $1,359.86 $1,015.20 $ 902 40 $ 676.80 19g4 $1,280.30 $ 955.80 $ 849.60 $ 637.20 1995 $1,200.73 $ 896.40 $ 796.80 $ 597.60 1996 $1,121.:.6 $ 837.00 $ 744.00 $ 558.00 1997 $1,041.E0 $ 77' '0 $ 791.20 $ 518.40 1998 $ 962.03 $ 71 1 $ 638.40 $ 478.80 1999 $ 882.46 $ 65f 30 $ 585.60 $ 439.20 2000 $ 802.89 $ 599.40 $ 532.80 $ 399.60 Average Payment $1,508.85 $1,126.43 $1,001.27 $ 750.95 7183c TO: City Council FROM: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Coordinator DATE: November 9, 1984 SUBJECT: Appraisals Crystal Bay Properties At the September 24, 1984, public hearing for the Crystal Bay sanitary sewer Council directed staff to contract with a private appraiser to appraise 16 properties in the Crystal Bay area to determine before and after values if a sewer project is constructed. I have listed the property address and the before and after values from each appraisal. The actual appraisal report will be available for review Tuesday evening, November 13, 1984, 7:00 P.M. APPRAISAL COMPARISONS ON OF CRYSTAL BAY SEWER PROJECT % Incr. to Value Before After $ Incr of Property 1390 Railroad Avenue 56,100 62,400 6.300 11.2% 1115 Willow Drive 80,200 89,700 9.500 11.8 1165 Brown Road 115,490 130,700 15.300 13.25 1270 Briar Street 5�:,500 59,700 6.200 11.5 1295 Arbor Street 53,000 66,700 8.700 15.0 1223 Arbor Street 53,600 62,000 8.400 15.6 1285 Arbor Street 30,000 84,990 4.900 6. 1290 Arbor Street 79,000 87,500 8.500 10.7 1233 Briar Street 92,500 100,700 8.200 8.8 1220 Lakeview Avenue 75,500 80,600 5.100 6.7 2060 Spates 113,090 124,000 11,000 9.7 1085 Brown Roa,1 South d0,000 88,000 8,300 10.3 2150 Prospect Avenue 77,890 95,400 17.600 t2.6 1205 Arbor Street 99,590 112,000 12,500 12.5 1380 Briar Street 58,900 64,900 6,000 10.2 2010 Shoreline Drive 158,000 171,500 13,500 8.5 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ] 747 A RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND AWARDING CONTRACT CRYSTAL BAY SANITARY SEWER PROJECT 85-1 WHEREAS, on March 15, 1985, several bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law pursuant to an advertisement for bids for construction of the sanitary sewer in the Crystal Bay area and, WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends that A.R.I. Contracting Inc. is the lowEst responsible bidder for this improvement; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota 1. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby directed to enter into a cc-itract with A.R.I. Contracting Inc. in the name of the City of Orono, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with the bids, except that *�-- deposits of the successful bidder and the next t est bidders shall be retained until the contract is cd. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held on April 22, 1985, by a vote of 5 ayes and O nays. _ .^—_ ATTES.�: orothy M a 1i Mary C.;BuVer, Mayor -� t y COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRI L 8, 198ARR M085L ATTENDANCE 7:00 PM The Orono Council met on the above date witMeWoN members present: Mayor Butler, Councilmembers Grabek, Frahm, Tim Adams, and Lynn Adams. The following represented the City staff: Police Chief Kilbo, Public Works Coordinator Gerhardson, Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Building Inspector Jacobs, City Attorney Radio, and Recorder Sutton. CONSENT AGENDA* Councilmember L.Adams asked that item #11 be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Mayor Butler removed item #12 from the Consent Agenda. Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda*, subject to items 11 and 12 being removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion, with all staff reports concerning these items to be attached to an original copy of these minutes on file in the City Clerk's office. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES* Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember L. Adams sE-onded, to approve the minutes of the regular Council meeting held March 25, 1985. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS NOERENB'3RG MEMORIAL PARK DRAFT REPORT Barb Peterson was present from the Park Commission. Peterson reviewed with the Council the draft report bubmitted for the Noerenberg Memorial Park. Peterson noted that this is not the final report. Planning Commission Chairman Callahan asked if Hennepin County would be required to go through the City's process of seeking conditional use permits. Mayor Butler stated that the application will be sent to Planning Commission first and then on to Council for their review. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT Jo Ellen Hurr was not present and there was no Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commission Representative Taylor had no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Dunn, Chaska Marina, was present. Dunn felt the need to discuss with the Council the lack of communication that has occurred between the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD)and Chaska Marina. Dunn stated that Chaska has tried often to discuss options with the LMCD but that the director, Frank Mixa, is not open to suggEstions. Dunn submitted to the Council a copy of the 1981 survey of docks and the 1985 survey of docks (such surveys to be kept on f i le in the Chaska Marina file). MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCII. MEETING fII;I,U AI P I L It, 1 ` 8', . PUBLIC COMMENTS Dunn noted that. the 1985 plan is much better for the neighbors (cont.) and the neighbors prefer the 1985 plan. Dunn noted that the LMCD director, Frank Mixa, insists that the 1981 dock plan is better. Councilmember Frahm moved, Mayor Butler seconded, to direct staff to contact Jo Ellen Hurr and have her set up an appointment to meet with Chaska Marina operators and Frank Mixa and LeFevre and try to establish communication between LMCD and Chaska Marina. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). #860 FUNK/ROGOSHESKE 540 OLD CRYSTAL. BAY ROAD FINAL SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION 11743 George Funk and Judy Rogosheske were present. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that Rogosheske has submitted a letter in regard to their intent to join the Homeowner's Association that is .involved in the upkeep of the private road White Oak Circle. Mabusth stated that the legal descriptions cannot be created until Council gives final approval, therefore they cannot join the Homeowner's Association until the legal descriptions are submitted. Mabusth stated that this letter confirms the homeowners of White Oak Circle and applicants have resolved their problem with the covenants of the homeowner's association. Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember T. Adams moved, to approve Resolution 11743, A resolution approving the plat of White Oak Overlook. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). #876 RANDY ASPLUND 3424-3444 EASTLAKE STREET VARIANCE Randy Asplund was present. Asplund presented pictures to the Council showing what type of fence he is proposing. Mayor Butler explained that the ordinance only allows a 6' fence along major thoroughfares and that Eastlake Street is not a major thoroughfare. Butler stated that she could not find any hardships to grant the variance. Randy Asplund stated that his only hardship is for privacy. Asplund noted that the homes that were built are between $250-300,0000 homes and would like to seclude them from view. Asplund noted that all the neighbors were in favor and no view will be blocked. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted that the neighbors that did attend the meeting were! rom Bayside Road, not Eastlake Street. Councilmember L. Adams noted that he cannot find sufficient hardships to grant the variance for the fence. Adams felt that to request a variance to seclude the home with a fence from the surrounding homes because it does not fit. in the neighboring homes is not just ificat ion for approval of the variance. MINUTES OF TLII. RFGULAR ORONO COUNCI I. MEETING HELP APRI I. 8, 1985. PAGI: 3 #876 ASPLUND Councilmember Frahm stated that he too has not seen a (Cont.) hardship demonstrated by the applicant. Councilmember L. Adams moved, Councilmember Grabek seconded, to deny the variance f inding that no hardships have been demonstrated by the applicant, and further directed staff to draft a resolution of denial with the appropriate findings. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). Mayor Butler addressed the second half of the application which involves an after -the -fact variance. Butler noted that patios were placed within the 75' lakeshore setback zone without permits or approval from the City. Randy Asplund stated that he was not aware of the hardcover regulations. Asplund stated that he doesn't want to remove the patios that cost approximately $4,500. Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to deny the after -the -fact variance for the patios, with such patios to be removed in 30 days, and further directed staff to draft the appropriate denial resolution based on the lack of hardship from the applicant. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). #894 T.M. CROSBY 745 SPRING HILL. ROAD FINAL SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION #1744 T.M. Crosby was not present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the proposal of the applicant to rearrange the lot lines which will result in the separation of the existing "main" house from the "caretaker" house. Gaffron noted that the "main" house will have approximately 24 acres and the "caretaker" house approximately 26 acres. Councilmember T. Adams moved, Councilmember Frahm seconded, to approve Resolution #1744, A Resolution approving a metes and bounds Class I subdivision for Thomas Crosby. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). #896 JAMES ANDERSON 2300 FOX STREET PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION James Anderson was present. Assistant Zoning Adminis- trator Gaffron reviewed with the Council the applicant's proposal. Gaffron noted the applicant is requesting a two lot subdivision of a vacant parcel north of Fox Street. Gaffron stated that the applicant's intent is to provide a shared driveway. James Anderson confirmed that his intent is to provide a shared driveway. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL. MEETING HELL) APRIL 8, 1985. PAGE 4 #896 ANDERSON Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to (cont.) grant preliminary subdivision approval finding that single family residences can be constructed on each lot meeting all the setback requirements of the RR-lB zoning district s!jbject to the following conditions: 1. Drainage and utility easements. 2. $200 park fee for each new lot (less $250 credit from previous subdivision). 3. Ac,�ess location to be 50' east of center dividing line as per Public Works Coordinator Gerhardson's suggestions. 4. Shared driveway. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). #898 LEROY KOEHNEN 3360 SHORELINE DRIVE VARIANCE COMMERCIAL. SITE PLAN REVIEW RESOLUTION t1745 Leroy Koehnen was present. Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the applicant seeks a setback variance to locate a canopy. Mabusth explained that to move the canopy to meet the required setback would create 3 traffic hazard. Mabusth noted that the applicant also wishes to install a car wash. Councilmember T. Adams asked if there would be extra signage as a result of the car wash use. Leroy Koehnen stated that additional signage would not be needed except directional signs to keep the traffic flowing in the right direction. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the SAC charge for the car was1: service will be $10, 620 and must be paid with the building permit. Mabusth stated that a regular inspection program for underground gasoline tanks should be established by the City by amending the municipal fire codes to require such inspections. Mabusth advised that the State was considering an amendment that would require five year inspections, but one cannot be certain this woul; pass. Mabusth stated that marinas should also have their underground tanks inspected. Council agreed that some sort of inspection program should be established to require regular inspections of underground gas and fuel tanks. Mayor Butler :roved, Councilmember Grabek seconded, to approve Resolution 01745, A Resolution Granting a Variance to permit the construction of a canopy structure over an existing gasoline pump island that will be located 26' from the right of way and to approve the commercial site plan submitted by Koehnen for installation of fuel tank subject to the following: MINUTES OF THE REGUI.AR OWNU COUNCIL MI,KTING II1:1,1) API?11, 8, 1985. PAGE: 5 #898 KOEIINEN 1. City must approve setback variance for canopy structure (cont.) finding its placement not detrimental to the public safety. 2. New tanks installed per standards by Municipal State Fire Code. 3. Payment of $10, 620 for total SAC and sewer unit payments with permit for installation of car wash. 4. Traffic flow signage provided on site upon completion of car wash. 5. Field tanks and lines must be inspected per approved City wide inspection schedule. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). #900 JAMES OGLAND BIG ISLAND RECORD LOT 138 VARIANCE RESOLUTION James Ogland was present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted that this is an after -the -fact variance for a deck and storage shed that were placed within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. Gaffron noted that the applicant did complete his automatic variance forms and returned them to the City for processing. Gaffron explained that the application was held up because of the violation. Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember T. Adams seconded, to approve the after -the -fact variance based on the following findings: 1. Steep slopes and the uneven, sometimes slippery shoreline terrace make access to the property difficult if not hazardous. 2. The lake access is the only viable access to the property, and in this case the decking appears reasonable to provide a safe access. 3. The 7' x 8' storage building acts as a lock box for storage of boating incidentals (paddles, lifejackets, etc) which reasonably should not have to be carried up the hill after each use. Before the motion was voted upon, Council continued discussion. Councilmember Frahm felt that the deck was acceptable but that the storage shed should not be allowed just to serve as a convenience so the applicant doesn't have to carry incidentals. Frahm noted that everyone else on Big Island or the lakeshore areas in Orono will want to have a shed like this one. Frahm felt that this would be precedent setting to allow the shed to remain within the 0-75' setback. MINUTES OF' THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 8, 1985� PAGE 6 #900 JAMES OGI.AND (Cont.) Mayor Butler asked Ogland if there were footings for the shed. James Ogland stated that the shed does not have footings but merely sits on the ground. Ogland noted that Big Island is for recreational use and that the topography of his land makes it very difficult to carry items up and down the hill. Councilmember L. Adams agreed with Councilmember Frahm regarding the shed. Adams felt that the storage shed should only be allowed to remain until the seasonal principal dwelling is built and then it should be removed. Councilmember Grabek stated that convenience should not be recognized by the City as a hardship. Grabek felt that the City would be opening the doors for everyone in Orono if they were to grant a variance for convenience only. Grabek felt the deck was acceptable because of the steep shore and that the deck should not create any ecological problem. Grabek agreed that the shed should remain until the principal dwelling is constructed and then it should be moved out of the 0-75' setback zone. Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember Grabek seconded, to approve the after -the -fact variance for James Ogland based on the following findings: 1. Steep slopes and the uneven, sometimes slippery shoreline terrace make access to the property difficult if not hazardous. 2. The lake access is the only viable access to the property, and in this case the decking appears reasonable to provide a safe access. Such approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Shed to be removed after the certificate of occupancy for the principal residence has been issued and is to be moved outside the 0-75' setback area. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (1). Councilmember Frahm voted nay. Mayor Butler addressed the issue of the automatic lot area variance. Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember Frahm seconded, to conceptually approve the automatic lot area variance and directed staff to revise the resolution and resubmit it to Council for action. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). MINUTES OF THE. REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 8, 1985. PAGE 7 1901 KAKI, JOHNSON 3393 CRYSTAL LAY ROAD VARIANCE' Mr. and Mrs. Karl Johnson were present. The following were also present for this issue: Bonnie Russell of 2275 Cry 'i1 Bay Road Jay 6 Beverly Keiser of 33,j Crystal Bay Road Aline Ogland of 3345 Crystal Bay Road Jack Kust of 3355 Crystal Bay Road Greg Long cf 3359 Crystal Bay Road Dick & Donna Carl of 3385 Crystal Bay Road Richard Siakel of 3325 Crystal Bay Road Dixie Lee Weeks of 3329 Crystal Bay Road Dick Cherba of 1340 Vine Place James Grady of 4937 Brunswick --Mound (former owner of Dick Carl's home) V. Olmstead of 4363 Wilshire Blvd --Mound Mayor Butler read the petition dated January 5, 1985, submitted at the Planning Commission asking for support and enforcement of ordinances dealing with hardcover and storage. Butler read a lecter submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Rex Ressler relating to the signed petition withdrawing their names from the petition (attached to these minutes as Exhibit A). Zoning Administrator Mabusth reviewed with the Council a sketch plan completed by staf f show he parking area and the retaining wall. Mabusth stated ..t the boat stored on the property is approximately 25 feet in length and is located less than 10' from the property line. Mabusth explained that the ordinances require if a boat is less than 20' , the owner has the right to store the boat in the rear yard '0'from the property line. Mabusth reviewed the discussion held at the Planning Commission meeting regarding the storage of boats. Mabusth explained that if a boat is over 0' in length and is properly screened from neighbor's view ,d meets setbacks for accessory structures, that the uncil felt that this was meeting the intent of the .rdinance. Mabusth stated that the problem here is the boat stored on the property is 25' in length stored less than 10' from the property line and clearly in view of the abuts' neighbor. Mabusth stated that she and Building Inspec Jacobs measured from the shoreline to the retaining wall, at found the retaining wall was not located in the 0-75' setback area but the side extension of the wall was in the 0-75' setback area. Mabusth stated that Johnson was advised by staff to erect a retaining wall to prevent the erosion that was . 'ing place on the property in 1982. Karl Johnson stated that the bank was never landsc ped properly and he has always had erosicn problems. MINUTES OF THE: REGULAR OROW) COUNCII. MEETING IIFLU APRIL 8, 1985. PAGE 8 #901 JOHNSON Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that another question (cont.) arose during the Planning Commi.ss;on's review as to whether there was an old driveway to th 2 house to the (west) was gravel bed. Jerry Wheeler of 3399 Crystal Bay Road explained that this was clay soil except under Johnson's boat. Wheeler stated that he measured the area yesterday after the snow and ice went out and the entire retaining wall is within the 0-75' setback area. Councilmember L. Adams asked the staff to review the instructions given by staff to build the retaining wall. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that in 1982 staff four filling taking place along the lakeshore of Mr. Johnson's property. Mabusth stated that staff placed a stop work order and then discovered where the fill was coming from which was from the lakeshore bank to the west side. Mabusth noted that Johnson was told to place hay bales along the shoreline and rip rapping. Karl Johnson stated that he came home one day and the City had done the rip rapping. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that at that time staff advised Johnson that he should erect a retaining wall to prevent further erosion. Mabusth asked Johnsonifstaff" commented on the graveled area. Karl Johnson stated that the area was gravel and that it was gravel before he purchased his home. Johnson stated that lie squared up the area where the parking spot already was. Johnson introduced James Grady and presented a letter from Mr. Grady e.tplaining facts regarding the graveled areas. Johnson explained that James Grady lived in Dick C- 's home and can testify to the fact that the gravel area s there prior to purchasing the home. Mayor Butler read James Grady's letter (attached to these minutes as Exhibit B). James Grady of 4937 Brunswick Road confirmed the fact that the graveled parking area was there prior to Johnson moving in. Mayor Butler noted that the Council recently denied a variance to park an oversized boat for Richard Eller and asked him to move the boat by May 1, 1985. Butler asked what. Johnson plans to do with the boat next year. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONt, COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRI L 8, 1985. PAGE 9 #901 JOHNSON Karl Johnson explained that his wife and he have discu ed (cont.) this to a gr,at extent and have de.-ided that theyi., love the boat elsewhere next year. Johnson explained the r,- i that they are going to do this is bF•cause of the violent Aia•- -'or of Mr. Wheeler with attempts at intimidation, including slanderous yard signs, inriccurate letters to local newspapers, and harrassiny mail and bodily injury threats to him and his immediate neighbors, which resulte in the police being called and which has dictated that he .crop his boat parking variance.. Mayor Butler asked if Johnson is formally withdr,fling his variance application and askin•.4 t}-.• Council t not take action on the bo.,t. Karl Johnson explained that if they were to win this they don't know what would happen and feared what would happen. Johnson noted that they are trying to end this and quiet the neighborhood down as this matter has gone too far. Johnson confirmed that he is withdrawing his variance to r k the bo t. Mayor Butler , L.ated that. the :pit :.i!t uld be moved .aay 1, 1985. Councilmember Frahn ad.: sed staf f that staff should notify the Co!-nr-il promptly at is parked there next year. Frahm had no problem c' gaining wall as it performs a fur.vtion of preventint, ch (-, :)sion. Counci lmemb<-r Grabek asked if t i -it was not moved by May 1, 1985, what would happen if it not moved. :'ooing Admini: explained that staff would i ssue a ci tat:, as not moved by May 1 . Mabusth confirmed thy. _ ;sue a citation a]so next year if the boat is again, and rej::-: t to Council. ::-.tjncilmemb,.:_ `.'..,; s agreed with V i:.lthm and felt the ret 3:ning wal 1 ,_d : e ai lowed to stay since it serves as an .Mpurtant function in preventing erosion. Zoning Adminis -a•-,r Mabusth noted the Planning Cc -mission's reL;o,imendation to z:emove all the gravel that was pla::Ed within the 0-75' setback area and to place sLitable ground cover over that area. Mabusth stated that since the property has an excess of 6 percent of har.ic ►er in the ' 5-250' setback area, Plan.ing commission ask ti..t chat portion of the graveled area z!lsc bo -cinc, 1. Ma. 'h noted that no base is under the graveled area unu,:r the bL Karl Johnson stated that f he jraveled area used to exte-d to the stairs can Wheelers property MINUTES ON THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 8, 1985. PAGE 10 #901 JOHNSON James .Grady of 4937 Brunswick Road (former owner of Dick (cont.) Carl's home at 3385 Crystal Bay Road) confirmed that the qravel area did extend to the stairs. Councilmember Grabek noted that the area is blacktop now and the car parking is right on tl^ lot line. Jerry Wheeler of 3399 Crystal Bay Road submitted his own sccried drawing of the graveled areas and his own ideas on where Johnson should park. Karl Johnson explained that where Wheeler wants the truck parked is an impossible location in the winter time because of the topography of the land. Mayor Butler noted that the Planning Commission did not take into consideration the topography of the land and the very obvious hardship that runs with the land. Butler noted that the City cannot man to a location for the truck if it is not Co -nci lmember L. Adams felt that. the Planr Cum. -ion's point was that people should nct expand ha Yer .., phi n 0- 7 ' of _..e lakeshore without going to the City first. Aoams felt that in fight of the new evidence submitted by James Gradv coi.f i rming that there was a parking spot there before Johnson moved in, that the City shouldn't require all removal of hardcover. Adams felt that the retaining wall serves a purpose and s, uld be allowed to remain. Adams fe' that half of the hardcover should be removed an•l grass put in. Mayor Butler felt that the area , .der the boat should be grasses' r landscaped. Councilmember Frahm st ,.ted that the 10' :. lot line setback should be enforced. Fr.3hm felt that a compromise c . ld be made and that he would be +:,illing to al low 6' out of the 14' or a 2' vari: ^e. Frahm noted that it would be 4' gravel and 10' green. Council,. oer T. Adams felt that the 10' side sett -hould be respected. Adams felt that th 2' variance .ot be enough to safely park the truck. Adams stateda upper part of the property should be non-hardcci Councilmember Grabek agreed that because of the slof-e the City should corm - ..i s., . Counci►member L. Adams felt that a 4' strip of gravel would not be enough to safely park the truck. Karl Johnson stated that in th winter it will create an unsafe probi. m. MINUTES OF THE REGUL-K, ,)HONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APPIL 8, 1985. PAGE 11 #901 JOHNSuNI Councilm+_ aer L. Adams moved, Councilmember Grabek (cont.) seconded, to deny the after -the -fact hardcover variance application by Karl Johnson at 3393 Crystal Bay Road based on the following findings: 1. Evidence has been submitted by James Grady confirming that a narking area did exist on the Johnson property prior o Johnson's occupancy in the south, reasonably nc thu, st corner. .2. The gravel as placed and used is considered as expanded hardcover. 3. Applicant placed hardcover within protecteu area without required variances. Recommendation for denial is subject to the following conditions: 1 . The t nuth one-half of all gravel hardcover within the 0- 75' area must be removed and placed with suitable ground cover (grass, etc). 2. Eight foot wide gravel parking area be allowed adjacent to the driveway with a 6 foot wide green area between the driveway and the lot line. 3. Any green cover to be added must be approved by Orono staff prior to installation. To further recommend approval of the after. -fact hardcover variance of 6 square feet created by the e. nsion of the retaining wall .ithin the 0-75' setback area based on the following findings: 1 . The major portion of the retaining wall is out of the 0- 75' setback area. 2. The retaining wall serves to control erosion. 3. Applicant was advised to erect retaining wall to sustain eroding bank in 1982 �ly Orono staff. To further re end that the boot be moved by May I , 1985, and if not moved • taff is to issue a citation and legal act: on commenced. Before the vote was taken on the motion, discussion was opened to the public that attended. Dick Carl of 3385 Crystal Bay Road did note that the steep slope in this area has put two cars in the lake and asked Council to consider the topography of the land. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCII, MEETINC HELD APRIL 8, 1985. PAGE 12 #901 JOHNSON Jerry Wheeler of 3399 Crystal Bay Road noted that he was going (cont.) to offer a compromise but the Council has decided what they are going to do. Wheeler noted that two years ago, Mr. Johnson came over to his home telling him that his wife was quite upset over the argument he and Johnson had had and that he would compromise if he could pull his truck all the way inside up to where the reta i.ning wall was at and he would move his boat. Wheeler stated that he agreed to that. Wheeler stated that Johnson changed his mind a day later. Wheeler stated that if Johnson wishes to pull his boat to the retaining wall area and truck and keep it gravel right up to the lot line, but in some manner put some sodding closer to the street, he would agree to that. Mayor Butler stated that in the motion it requires green area underneath the boat along with a 6' wide area. Councilmember Grabek asked Johnson if it was more convenient with Wheeler's suggestion. Karl Johnson stated that he prefers the first proposal with the motion Cc .icilmember Adams made. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). BOAT STORAGE ORDINANCE DISCUSSION The neighbors asked the Council to address t..e petitions that were signed by many residents to change or amend or abolish the boat storage ordinance. Dick Carl of 3385 Crystal Bay Road asked about the status of the petitions that were sent to the City regarding the chancing of the boat ordinancz. Mayor Butler stated that discussion has been held on the amending of the boat storage ordinance. Butler felt that the some of the Council felt that the ordinance should stay the same . Dick Carl of 3385 Crystal Bay Road explained that the problem here tonight seems to indicate that there will be problems in the future. Carl stated that if the City has an ordinance where the majority of the people cannot comply with the ordinance it seem unrealistic to keep that ordinance on the books. Carl stated that half the people in Orono violate this boat storage ordinance. Carl noted that the ordinance also st: .es "all mobile materials and equipment". Carl asked if this includes snowmobiles, cars, trucks, docks, etc:. Carl stated if y u have a boat and park it in your yard, chances are you are going to violate the letter of the ordinance. Mayor Butler noted tha+ the ordinance states toats over 20'. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 8, 1985. PAGE 13 BOAT STORAGE ORDINANCE DISCUSSION Dick Carl stated that it does not define boats over. 20' but says boats "less than 20'". Carl stated that the Council would be better served while they maintain a somewhat loose ordinance, that the ordinance be better defined. Rich Siakel of 3325 Crystal Bay Road noted that the ordinance seems to be vague regarding storage of equipment. Siakel asked if docks fall under this catP^-)ry, and if so, there will be and are many violators of the •tdinance. Siakel stated that equipment is not defined and draw the line. Siakel stated that random enforcement becomes the problem. Councilmember Grabek asked if they want to draw the line. Grabek felt that if the City leaves the ordinance vague that it leaves the Council the flexibility they need to resolve issues such as this. Grabek noted that the City could enforce every ordinance it has, but the property taxes would rise about 100 percent because the City would have to hire three times the staff they have now. Mayor Butler agreed that by leaving the ordinance vague it gives the City Council the flexibil.ityfor interpretation of the ordinance and open to the. feelings of the neighbors. Greg Long of 3359 Crystal Bay Road explained that the ordinance does not address the seasonal storage of equipment. Long stated that half the things stored on someone's property in the winter is not stored there in the summer because it is in the lake during the summer. Long felt the ordinance should be amended to include seasonal storage. Councilmember L. Adams agreed that the ordinance should be amended for clarity in certain areas. Adams felt that a public hearing should be held for consideration of modifying the boat storage ordinance. Adams noted that the boats seem to get larger and increase in number e.•ery year. Mayor Butler explained that the Council asked for Planning Commission's interpretation of the ordinance. Butler stated that they resolved that if a boat is properly screened from neighbor's view it should meet the ordinance. Dick Carl of 3385 Crystal Bay Road explained that the design of modern boats are made so that they may be stored on the owner's property. Carl stated that this has been done because the public has demanded it, and because it gets expensi-e when the owner of a boat has to store it at a marina. Dick Cherba of 1 340 Vine Place asked the Counci I to remember that the Lake Minnetonka area is a recreational area. Cherba stated that when someone lives in a recreational area the City should realize that storage of recreational equipment on the owner's property is inevitable. Cherba felt that this w.is only the beginning of tl-- problem for boat !it(-)rjgE- and seasonal equipment . MINUTES OF 'I'III: REGULAR ORONO COUNC I I, MEETING HELD APRI I, 8, 1985. PAGE 14 A letter submitted by Dick Carl was given to the Council regarding a speci f ic improvement on property located at 3399 Crystal Bay Road (attached to these minutes as Exhibit C). Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that staff would contact the individual the letter involves and staff would report back to Council. STATUS OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 130 CYGNET PLACE Councilmember L. Adams asked why the City should grant the extension and the status of the clean-up of the property. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the extension is asked by staff to allow the owner more time to clean-up in light of the fact of the winter storms that held up the clean- up. Mabusth stated that they have shown some progress in the clean-up. Courcilme:nber L. Adams moved, Councilmember Frahm seconded, to extend the deadline for clean-up of the violations at 130 Cygnet Place to May 1, 1985. Motion, Ayes ( 5) , Nays (0). BIG ISLAND VETERAN'S CAMP Mayor Butler noted that she has talked with John Burger on the telephone regarding the status of the Big Island Veteran's Camp. Butler noted that Burger's next idea was to have tent camping and open fires rather than use the buildings. Butler explained to Burger that without police and fire protection it would impossible for the City to grant such a request, and that the camp must be brought up to meet state fire and building codes. Building Inspector Jacobs explained that he testified at the State Legislature sub -committee regarding the building and fire code violations at the Big Island Veteran's Camp. Jacobs also presented to the sub -committee the City's position regarding the camp use. Jacobs noted that after working with the camp managers last summer to get the corrections completed and no*.hingwas done, Jacobs felt that hazardous building procedures should commence. Council concensus was that the Big Island Camp should not open until the violations have been corrected and the Camp meets state fire and building codes. Councilmember Frahm moved, Mayor Butler seconded, to start hazardous building procedures based on the evidence the Counci 1 has had ire the past of the f lagrant bui lding and f ire code violations at the Big Island Veteran's Camp, and directed staff to write a letter to the Veteran's Camp notifying them of such action. M.ot.ion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HI:I.D APRII. 8, 1985. PAGE 15 ANOTHER POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS BUILDING Councilmember L. Adams asked staff to check on a cottage on Crystal Bay Road which appears to be a potential hazardous building and have staff report back to Council. REVIEW Oe SITE PLAN 6 BUILDING PLANS OF PROPOSED SANCTUARY FOR CALVARY MEMORIAL CHURCH --INFO ITEM Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to approve the site plan and building plans of the proposed sanctuary for Calvary Memorial Church. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). CABLE TV REPORT Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to recognize that a Cable �V meeting would be held at tLe Shorewood City offices at 7:00 p.m. at April 9, 1985. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). APPEARANCE JOHN SHARDLOW John Shardlow was present to discuss possible contract with the City to act as a consultant.. Shardlow stated that what he knows about what the City wants is the City is interested in looking at the Comprehensive Plan and Zoninq Code as it affects the Highway 12 corridor. Mayor. Butler stated that the Council recently had a proposal by a businessman to relocate his landscape business on Highway 12. Butler explained that his appearance made the City take a look at the future development of Highway 12. Butler noted that the Maple Plain interceptor will run along Highway 12 and also Highway 12 itself will be upgraded and therefore create more traffic. Butler stated that the City would like to come up with something that addresses the City's intent for traffic and planning. Councilmember T. Adams stated that his orically the City felt a need for a type of commercial zoning for uses that don't require hookups to sewer, such as a nursery/ landscaping business. Adams stated that the City is looking for a land use that will be consistent with the City's historical planning objectives. Mayor Butler stated that when the Maple Plain interceptor permit was released it stated that no existing "residential" facilities would be allowed to hookup. Butler noted that permit left the door open for commercial uses and new residential to hookup by petitioning the Metro Waste Control Commission. Councilmember Frahm stated that the interceptor will be there but the City wishes to protect the Comprehensive Plan. Frahm stated that Highway 12 is zoned residential but that zoning is not very realistic-. Frahmnoted that the City does not want. industr ial zoning along Highway 12 either, but would like to see a quasi -commercial use that fits within the City's intent and �om treh nstve Plan. Frahm felt the City should bu prepare f�r t ie uturc:. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCII. MEETING HELD APRIL 8, 1985. PAGE 16 Councilmember T. Adams stated that the nursery/landscape business is a classic example to use for that type of quasi - commercial use. Councilmember Grabek felt that any planning should include the fact that I-394 will be Highway 12 in the future. John Shardlow stated that he has much of the information on the I-394 project and could include that in any planning he does.- Shardlow stated that he will prepare a draft proposal and bring it back to Council for their consideration. RESOLUTION f1746 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM* Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to adopt Resolution #1746, A Resolution approving proposed program for Year XI Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Funds and authorizing its submittal. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). PAYMENT UTILITY TRACTOR b SIDE MOUNT MOWER* Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to approve the payment in the amount of $19,280.82 to Kortuem Sales and Service for a utility tractor and side -mount mower. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). REQUEST FOR FUNDS WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZENS Councilmember Frahm mo---ed, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to commit the funds for the Westonka Senior Citizens. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). FINANCING CRYSTAL BAY IMPROVEMENTS Finance Director Kuehn reviewed with the Council the financing for the pr--osed Crystal Bay improvements. PROPERTY FOR SALE LOT 7, BLOCK 6 NAVARRE HEIGHTS Public Works Coordinator. Gerhardson explained that there is property for sale (I.ot 7, Block 6, Navarre Heights) which is adjacent to the Navarre parking tot at the west end. Gerhardson stated that if the City was to acquire the lot and certain improvements were made, it would be easier to maintain parts of the parking lot. Councilmember Grabek moved, Councilmember Frahm seconded, to direct staff to see if the owner will donate the land to the Orono Park C mission. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCII. MEETING HELD APRII, 8, 1985. PAGE 17 JF.NT1LUCCI DRAINAGE TILE Public Works Coordinator G-arhardson suggested that the City clean-up the drainage tile on a one-time basis. Mayor Butler suggested a written contract. Butler stated that staff should make it clear to the Jentilucci I s that in trade for the easement the City will clean out that ditch only once and will not maintain it in the future. Councilmember Frahm moved, Mayor Butler seconded, to direct staff to clean out the ditch on a one-time basis in exchange for the easement on the City road and that the City will not maintain the ditch at any other time in the future but will be the responsibility of the owner. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). EASEMENT NEEDED FOR CRYSTAL I3AY SEWER Public Works Coordinator Gerhardson stated th it Dick Sti nson is opposed to the City acquiring an easement across hi i;,.nd and Gerhardson suggested to alter the sewer line so the line will not cross his land. Gerhardson state3 that the alternate location of the line will cost approximately $7,000 more but that Stinson has stated that the City will have to condemn his easement. Councilmember Frahm moved, Mayor But 'erseconded, to approve the alternate sewer line location to avoid Stinson's property. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). ART CENTER SANITARY SEWER City Attorney Radio reported to the Council that to include the Art Center in the Crystal Bay Sewer project would require •-.hat the City start the whole procedure over. Radio did note that if there is some cost that has not been assessed against the whole project and it abt tts the project, the City can hold a supplementary proceeding in which you assess part of the cost back to the Art Center. Councilmember Frahm moved, Counc:_lmember Grabek seconded, to direct stz ff to start the procedure to serve the Art Center with sanity-y sewer. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). M-tyor Butler stated about the only thing that needs to be done to include the Art Center is to amend the feasibility study and hold a public hearing. MINU'1ES OF' THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCII. 'I''LD APRII, 8, 1985. CAGF ] h, LICENSES* Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to approve the following licenses: Septic License - Elmer Peterson Septic License - Sullivan's Service Septic License - Volkenant 6 Sons Parades & 11 lecial Events Permit - Hawg Hookers Bassmasters of MN Beer License - Orono Golf Course Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). BILLS* Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, that the All Funds Accounts and Liquor Store Accounts be paid. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). ADJOURNMENT 10:45 PM Councilmember Frahm moved, Mayor Butler seconded,t.oadjourn the regular Council meeting at 10:45 p.m. Motion, Ayes ' 5) , Nays (0). ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Mary C. Butler, Mayo 1"d'- / Q /I c - ( t A r•+ 0.1r. & all n . Rrx (5. 31rnn 1 rr 3Ci33 NarIII .51)urr Driur :Daqzata, 61inurnata 55391 April 8, 198 City of Orono 1335 South (crown Road Orono , t' i nnesot a 55323 We, the undersigned, wish to withdraw our names from the pet- ition we signed which was r.irculated by Mr. Gary Wheeler re- garding the earl Jonnson #901 variance. We feel Mr Wheeler did not completely represent all of the ramifications of the ordinance when he asked us to sign the petition. and therefore cannot lend our names to its endorse- ment. Rex G. Ressler S..aron M. Ressler i . r TO: Orono Cite Council. FROM: James R. Grady DATE: April 8, 1985 RE: 3393 Crystal Bay Road, Orono. MN: Parkin; Area and Ha ,ver History My name is Jim Crady. current residence is in Mound, where my wife Gayle and myself have owned our home since Novmeber, 1967. However, from Janu- ary, 1960, through October, 1967, my family and I lived at 3385 Crystal Bay Road, Orono. We rented the property. The property immediately ad- joining to the west (330 fal Bay Road) was at that time owned and occupied by Mr Scott b.'h. Subsequent to my departure as a ren' if the house at 3385, someti� the 1970's, Mr. Whitnah sold the east- i,, 50 foot parcel of his proper to 111r. and Mrs. Phil Gress, who built the home that Mr. and Mr- Karl Johnson now own and reside at. This property became 3393 Crystal v Road. Because of my long, -term proximity to these properties, I am very familiar with the parking and •-irdcover history that prevailed on the Whitnah property. While I lived at 3385, the Whitnall Droperty (at 3399) had a frames'. -wood stairway t`�at ran uphill towards the east sicc of his house from in frci►.. of (south -nd) and along the west side of his parking area. After `e Gross house was b>>ilt, the stairway remained, only now it been at � xi- mately along the north -south pronerty line dividing V.'`nah propert-, tom Gross property. Pr;c+r to selling the property to Cross, 'Whitnah hac: -,ise,' at least 112 of the front part c` that property for hic parking area. After s; Iling the property, he , :d tl.•2 area in front of the staircase (nortL of the staircase) that. rer, :ned on hi: properly. From time to time, Mr. Whitnah had driveway rock brought in to rover his parking area, be- fore and after selling to Crosr. The sketch bole-d is my recall of the above discussion. i Nv2?� A 44ei4�1,✓6 TT_ .7 A,ee� / _ Z/ %y/G Anal A LO'it n&Z _..C-1-, To: Jeanne A.Mabuslh. From: Charles R. Carl Date: April 5 1985. CITY OF ORONO Subject: 10' Fire Lane along property at 3399 Crystal Bay Rd Dear Jeanne, During a recent meeting involving Crystal Bay Rd. residents,l had the opportunity to examine a plat map of the area. I noticed a 10' public access running along the west Fide of the above stated property. Upon physical examination of that property line ° ppears that a graveled parking area alongside the west side of the existing garage overlaps well into the public area. Also having been an interested observer during the variance hearings for this property it seems to me that part of the final variance was the requirement for elimination of all hard cover along the west side of the new structure I sp-ke with a forn-jer member of the Planning Commission who was, at that time, an active member of the commission This person also remembers something similar. In view of all the pressure presently being put on one resident nextdoor about hardcover would you please check your records and advise Respectfully Dlck Carl COUNCIL MEETING APR 2 2 1985 TO: Mayor Butler, Orono Council Members CITY OF ORONO From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Date: April 18, 1985 Subject: i712 James R. Hartzell, 2987 Casco Point Road - .Final Subdivision - Updated Resolution to Permit Filing of Plat After numerous attempts to prepare the plat for filing were thwarted by unpaid taxes for last portion of year, a lost owners certificate, vacations, etc., the torrens office refused to ac- cept the hardshells or mylars or filing because the notary stamps were illegible. The mylars had to be redone and new signatures obtained. The original deadline for filing the nlat per the City's resolution was January 23, 1985. Staff submits an updated resolution for your execution so that the filing can finally be completed. The applicant will be asked to pay an additional filing fee of $100.00 to cover the additional clerical and filing costs. City of ORONO RESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL NO. • A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF HARTZELL ADDITION WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal eorporatior, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City, and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision plat by James 'r. Hartzell, the subdivider; and WHEREAS, the subdivision has beer, found to meet ail standards of the LR-1C Zoning District finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow its use as a single family residence to be developed without the reed of any variar.ces; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, ir.cludir.g: 1. Dedication On the plat of drainage and utility easements. 2. Dedication or, the plat of right of way for a public street showy. as Casco Poir.t Road. 3. Payment to the City of a Park Dedication Fee in the amount of S4a0.00. 4. Payment to the City for the legal review and recording of the plat and all documents related thereto in the amount of $75.00. NOW, THEREFORE, RE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Hartzell Addition., Hen.r.epin County Minnesota; subject to the following cunditior.s: 1. Lot 1 Is to be developed according to all standards of the LR-1C Zoning District and all Pertinent standardsof the Municipal Code for lakeshoredevelopment. The existing tennis court creates ar, excess of 9% hardcover over the All lowed amount of 3, 275 sf or 25%. The tennis court must be removed prior to development of Lot 1. 2. Lot 1 is not ripar iar, to Lake Minnetonka ar.d a future owr.er is placed or, notice that the City's subdivision regulatlor.s wi; not permit the clear ion of private easements grantlr.g ripar iar. access. AA City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ , •r 3. Access to Lot 1 must he aI..pi oved by the Public Works - Coordinator. 4. The aforesaid plat shall be filed with the Hennepin County Recorder's Office by the City of Orono on or before October 22, 1985, together with a certified original copy of this Resolution. The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held April 22, 1985. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Mary C. Butler, Mayor COUNCIL MEETING City of ORONO APR 22 1985 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ORONO NO. A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES ro MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.60, SUBDIVISION 13 - FILE 4884 WHEREAS, Richard Eller and Patrice Eller (hereinafter "the applicants") have an ineterest in the property located at 2655 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: That part of Lots 22 and 23 lying southeasterly of a line running parallel to the easterly line of Lots 22 and 23 f rom a point 156 feet northerly of north east corner of Lot 22 measured along Northwesterly line of Lot 22, of that part of Lots 22 and 23 lying north of a line running from a point in the Southeasterly line of Lot 22, distant 27 feet Southwesterly from the north east corner thereof to a point in the Northwesterly line of Lot 23, Distant 30 feet Northeasterly from the south west corner thereof of Lots 22 and 23, subject to an easement of ten feet along southerly line of above described property for access to laka; Pheasant Lawn Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.60, Subdivision 13 to permit the storage of a boat greater than the maximum allowed length of 19.9 feet to be stored within the side/street yard of the property instead of in a structure or fully screened from neighboring property owners' view; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Orono (hereinafter 'Council") has reviewed the findings of the Planning Commission and the City staff, written statements and comments of the applicants and the petition, written statements and comments of the neighbors. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Counci 1 hereby denies the variance application of Richard Eller and Patrice Eller based on one or more of the following findings: This application was reviewed as zoning file 4884. 2. The property is located in the LR-18 Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of one acre in area. The lots within the Pheasant lawn neighborhood consist of 5 to .75 of an acre in aria. Pagc 1 of 3 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3. The property contains approximately .79 percent of the required area. 4. The property is surrounded by streets on two sides and the lakeshore/lagoon to the rear of house. The only side yard area on the property along the east side of the existing residence measures 20 feet x 22 feet. 5. The property consists of predominately sloped yard areas. The only flat area suitable for placement of a boat 30+ feet in length is located in the side/street yard of the property. 6. The boat is stored approximately 25 feet off the street right of way, the street setback required for all structures in the zoning district is 35 feet. The boat is stored 10 feet from the south lot line of the property, 10 feet from their neighbors front yard. 7. The side yard along the south side c.f the property in which the boat is stored, is in line with the front yards of the Pheasant Lawn neighborhood. 8. The applicants could have stored this boat in a less noticeable and objectionable location on the property. 9. The neighboring property owners presented a petition dated January 4, 1985 to the Council noting the following grievances: a) The owner of a large boat can afford to store the boat off the site. h) The placement of the boat in its present locat depreciates the land values of the surround., neighborhood. c) The placement of the boat on the property has become a major concern for the Pheasant Lawn neighbors creating unnecessary bad feelings towards their neighbor, the applicants. 10. The applicants have agreed in writing tomove the boat as soon as weather permits and to store the boat off site in the future. 1'.,yv 2 of 3 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 11. The storage of a boat greater than 19.9 feet in length in the street yard without an attempt to screen the boat from view of adjacent property owners is not only in conflict with the intent and directives of Section 10.60, Subdivision 13, but is in complete conflict with the intent and directives of the sections of the code that govern the use of all Lakeshore property within the City. 12. The storage of the 30+ foot boat in the street yard of the property does alter the essential physical character of the neighborhood because the majority of homeowners store their boats off site and the few tha, store them on site have placed them in a more secluded, screened area of their to s. FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council hereby directs Richard Eller and Patrice Eller to remove the boat from its present location by May 1, 1985, and further directs that the street yards of this property may never be used to store a boat in excess of 19.9 feet. Council hereby further advises the applicants and future owners of the property legally described above that there may not be suitable area on this property for the on site storage of boats and to contact the Orono staff for current setback standards and screening requirements. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute violation of the zoning code and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 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 City Council �n this 22nd day of April, 1985. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Richard Eller Mary C. Butler, Mayor Patrice Eller P.igc 3 of 3 COUNCIL MEETING APR 22 1985 To: City Council Members CITY OF ORONO From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Admin'strator Date: April 12, 1985 Subject: 0900 James W. Ogland - Record Lot No. 38 - Big Island Variance - Resolution - Consert Agenda Per your 4-1 vote on April 8, 1985, I have revised the resolution for this application by making the additional finding that no hardship is demonstrated to justify allowing the storage building to remain in the 0-75' setback area, revising the ap- proved hardcover 8 to reflect the removal of the storage building and adding the condition that the storage building must be re- moved from the 0-75' lakeshore setback area prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new principal structure. City of OR ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. GRANTING A VARIANCE. TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE. .� SECTIONS 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 AND 10.31, SUBDIVISION 9 - FILE 1900 WHEREAS, James W. Ogland (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of property located on Big Island and designated as Big Island Record Lot No. 38, within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 25 and 26, Morse Island Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for after -the -fact variances to Municipal Toning Code Sections 10.55, Subdivision 8, and 10.31, Subdivision 9, to permit the construc- tion of a deck and accessory storage structure located within the 0-75' setback area, which structures comprise 480 square feet (or 6.51) hardcover where no permanent or temporary structures or hardcover are normally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File 1900. 2. This property is located within the RS Seasonal Recreational Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on March 18, 1985, and recommended approval based on the following findings: a) The property has a substantial hardship in that the steep topography and uneven shoreline terrace make access to the property difficult and posssibly hazardous. b) The property is not served by a developed road and the lakeshore is the only access to the property. ob) City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. . The Council finds no hardship demonstrated which would justify allowing the storage structure to remain within the lakeshore setback area once the principal structure is constructed. 5. The applicant has stated that the decking is under- lain by sandy material and boulder rip -rap, has no plastic sheeting or other impermeable material which would retard infiltration, and will remain in this condition permanently. 6. The applicant has allowed the natural vegetative screening to remain on the site. 7. The City Council has considered this application inclojing the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the ae,,licant, and the effect of the proposed variance on ti health, safety, and welfare of the community. 8. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this :1roperty are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or dif- ficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keep- ing with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants an after -the -fact var4nnce to Municipal Code Sections 10.55, Subdivision 8, and 10.' Subdivision 9 to allow construction of a deck located withi he 0-75' setback area, which structure comprises 424 square zet (or 5.8%) hardcover where no permanent or temporary structures and no hardcover are normally allowed, subject to the following renditions: 1. The deck structure may never be underlain with materials which would decrease the permeability of the land below the deck, nor shall it be enclosed, covered, or altered in any way so as to become hardcover. r'-: y of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ° NO. ° °2. The 7' x 8' storage building must be removed from +^' the 0-75' lakeshore setback area prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the principal structure on the property, to be verified by staff at the time of final inspection. 3. Applicant is placed on notice that no future hard- cover variances will be granted for this property, and no other variances are granted at this time. 4. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the owner, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (April 8, 1986). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishabl< as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this Bth day of April, 1985, ATTEST: Dorothy M. Heflin, City Clerk Mary C. Butler, Mayor Property Owner Spouse Properly Owner Spouse City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. APPROVING A LOT AREA VARIANCE FOR RECORD LOT NO 38 PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 246, MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.31 RE IT RESOLVED by the Citv Council of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesotr: FINDINGS That ,tames W. Ogland is (are) the owners)/tax- payer(s) of record of the following described property located within the RS Seasonal Recreational Zoning Dis..ict of the City; Lots 25 dnd 26, Morse Island Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota That in adoption of Ordinance No. 246, the City Clunci1 reviewed ownership, development ana use patterns on the island and has deter- mined that all the above described property combined is and shall hereinafter and henceforth be one "RECORD LOT" as defined in Section 10.31 of said ordinance. That all the aoove described property when combined as one RECORD L01' is still less than the minimum lot size required for new lots in the RS District, but that this RECORD LOT is being used and/or may be used in the future for any permitted use in the RS District without adverse affect upon public health, safety, or welfare. CONCLUSION The City Council of Orono hereby grants a lot area variance to the above described RECORD LOT based on the above findings and subject to the following conditions: This RECORD LOT including all the above described property combined shall henceforth be continued in common ownership by the same person or persons even if recorded as separate lots or tax parcels, and it shall not be subdivided, sold in parts, reduced in area or otherwise separated without application for and approval of a subdivision by the City. Thia condition sha 11 not preclude future sale or transfer of the complete 'RECORD LOT" as a single unit. Granting this variance means this RECORD LOT may be used for one - family seasonal recreational use without a structure; or a single new seasonal dwelling may be built; or an existing seasonal dwellinq may be used, improved, added -onto or replaced; all without requiring further City Council review of lot size, but subject to strict com- pliance with all buildinq permit, setback, hanlcvver, en -site sewage treatment and other performance st.,ndards t,,t d.v+-1+q m,•nt in thr RS District. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL j NO. PAGE 2; RECORD LOT NO. 38 RESOLUTION NO. 3. Granting this varian;;e shall not vest any rights in the property other than as specifically provided in Ordinance No. 246, and shall not preclude a future City Council from amending, modifying or otherwise limiting development rights and/or performance standards in the RS District. 4. The undersigned has read and understood the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, agrees that the above described property constitutes a single RECORD LOT; agrees that the RECORD LOT use may be so limited by the City; and agrees to the reeording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 22nd day of April--, 1985. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, CiTy Clerk Mary C. Butler, Mayor (1) Property Owner(s) (2) STATE OF MINNESOTA) )as. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this day of , 1985, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared .......... to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instru- ment, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION P]RES This document is being recorded for the benefit of the City of Orono per Minnesota Statutes 386.77. State Deed Tax Due Hereon: Cx'�mpt. This instrument was drafted by: City Of Orono P.D. Rex 66 TO: John R. Gerha rd son, Public Works Coordinator COUNCIL MEETING FROM: Jack Brinkhaus, Street Department Foreman APR 2 21985 DATE: April 5, 1985 CITY OF ORONO SUBJECT: Spring Cleanup Days - May 11 and May 18, 1985 The City of Orono Public works Department is planning a spring cleanup on Saturdays, May 11 and May 18, 1985, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The collection point will be behind the long, gold equipment shed at. Brown Road South and Spates Avenue in Crystal Bay, next to the Administration Building. The following items will NOT be accepted: tires garbage trees brush chemicals truck loads Leaves and small items will have to be bagged and tied. Newspapers and all paper products must be tied securely. ORONO RESIDENTS CNLY!! TO: Orono Council FROM: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Coordinator DATE: April 15, 1985 SUBJECT: Temporary Employment - Orono Golf Course COUNCIL MEETING APR 22 10,85 CITY OF ORONO Each year it is necessary to employ temporary counter help and groundskeeper help at the Orono Golf Course. The following people have been employed at the golf course for several years and have stated that they wish to be employed for the 1985 golf season. Therefore, it is my recommendation to employ the following counter helpers and groundskeeper helper at the following hourly rate: Douglas Erickson (counter helper) $4.70/hr Betty Stevens (counter helper) $4.25/hr Stephanie Sligo (counter helper) $4.10/hr Roy Peterson (counter helper) $4.00/hr Dan Oas (greenskeeper helper) $4.00/hr COUNCIL MEETING APR 2 210,85 TO: Orono Council FROM: Lorraine McGowan, Liquor Stole Manage[ CITY OF ORONO DATE: April 19, 1985 SUBJECT: Connie Manuel - Employee Classification and wage Increase After a review of employees, I am requesting Connie Manuel's classification be changed from part-time to permanent part-time. With this change I also request her hourly wage be changed from $4.84 per hour to $5.60 per hour, effective May 5, 1985. Connie has been working at the Orono Liquor Store for over 5 years. Her duties have been increasing to almost the same as the full time employees. The responsibilities and duties include opening and closing store, making bank deposits, stocking shelves, merchandising and taking over duties for full time employee on vacation and sick leave. Her schedule will amount to 20-30 hours per week. COUNCIL MEETING APR 2 2 19c5 CITY Of ORONO To: Orono Council Members From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Coordinator Date: Apr4.1 15, 1985 Subject: Lake Access - Dock Purchases Currently the City of Orono places 48 feet of dock at each of the following lake access's: Loma Linda access - North Arm Bay Elm Lane access - North Arm Bay Stubbs Bay access - Stubbs Bay Carman Street access - Carman's Bay The type of docks placed at these accesses are the wood plank and cedar post. Maintenance and installation is costly for this type of dock, therefore, I have received bids for replacement using the wood deck sections with steel brackets and posts. Bids were received from: A a G Sales, Excelsior @ $237.00 x 24 sections = $5,688.00 Tonka Dock, Mound @ $244.00 x 24 sections - 5,956.00 Therefore, I recommend purchasing 24 dock sections from A & G Sales for an amount not to exceed $5,688.00 . The funds for the docks is available in the park dedication fund. MKIL MEETING APR 2 21985 "'"two, R, 4.t4:4 a XU OF Rnrnx r/ R—Y I— ,u.4.. P[ -----�----`-��wµR--J �3 V. 7._a .V. A, 36 ,mrP,(•vM,u,.P/ L L,.,^,r.P! arJwe • ,r,a.,, n / .,. t .w.w. r! /1J. Af.....rJ. 33113 R^+••ue ,^•+•. Pe /armor s.•l.ra. r[ Irtl A lvd. P [ Mv,MrRn •P[ Rufvr R. HJR.w r[ Lwm.PC l,v,n A. [rv, w. C.. v hr�b _r L'�'-S April 17, 1985 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 CITY OF ORONO Attn: Mr. John Cerhardson Re: File No. 13922 Old Crystal Bay Road Overlay Dear John, The City will need a variance for the vertical curves on Old Crystal Bay Road between County Road 6 and County Road 84. The variance is necessary as sev- eral of the existin6 hills do not meet present MSA design standards. The enclosed resolution outlines the locations of the hills where the variance will be requested. Pleave have the Council pass the required resolutions at your convenience. Yours very truly, BONESTR00, ROSENE,, ANNDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. �r.�•eeC— Glenn R. Cook GRC:sas Ent 7252c City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM CURRENT MUNICIPAL STATE AID STANDARDS WHEREAS, Municipal State Aid Street 102 (Old Crystal Say Road) was constructed with a vertical alignment which provides for a 30 MPH design speed on the Hill Crests @ 60+67, 88+17, 91+92 and 106+17. WHEREAS, reconstruction of the present roadway to correct the vertical alignment would not be in the best interests of the City because extensive work would be required with no significant benefit. WHEREAS, the vertical alignment problem can be mitigated by properly signing the street segments for a 30 MPH speed limit. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota that the City Consulting "ngineer is authorized to request a variance to Municipal state Aid Standard 14MCAR Section 1.5932, 8SR 2146, 8820.9910 (Rural Undivided Geometric Standards) for MSAP 152-102- 08. The question was on the adoption of she resolution and upon a vote being duly taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: WHEREUPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted this 22 day of April, 1985. Maly T. Baf•fec, Mayor ATTEST: DaroiAy M. Harlin, rjiiy 2iYdik COUNCIL MEETING APR 2 2 1985 TO: Orono Council CITY OF ORONO FROM: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Coordinator DATE: April 18, 1985 SUBJECT: 1985 Sealcoat Program This year the Public Works Department plans to sealcoat approximately 122,000 square yards of bituminous streets. The streets that are proposed for seal coating were last sealed in 1979-1980. Therefore, I request the Council to direct the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for sealcoating 122,000 square yards of City streets, with those plans and specifications to be approved at a future Council meeting. ., COUNCIL MEETING APR 2 21985 LIST OF LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL WV OF ORM FOR MEETING OF April 22, 1985 SPECIAL EVENT - American Youth Hostels, Minnesota Council "Minnesota Ironman Ride" Bicycle Ride April 28, 1985 Blackowiak and Son - Garbage and Refuse Collector Gtii ° APPLSCATION LSF PARADES and SPECIAL EVE' ^'-•�.. CITY of ORONO, MINNESOTA 55JeJ,i; 1}l__v Date:_ _, 19 App11s�7tx !'tYnlg4eF- Name ..1.: _:ma:r,f.::cf. ''.7 i:'.; ;.�?i. I:1 �'- -:t :1-.'. Address 1' 7CP. 'I'ls, Location of Parade or Event :•o 1;. 'fhao•,rei:' -,.-- in ', 7.' ':' Name of Persons and/or Organizations Handling the Event .ericsn foot', Hostels, `"i tr-. :,:, o_. i_ Phone Numbers Date of Event - -^i, 2n , 19 Hours of Event _ r} ' Reason or Purpose T;;ie is the 1f tL ..n-ranl :_ ., .,;'..,1�.i S,m_.av in A';ril Insurance Coverage ,es Amount .n.-- rider T.- . Company "o • _c l' ,t. _ _ _ , i,_ �7:1^ it n. Copy of Insurance Certificates to be Submitted with tSlis Application. I am aware of all appficable State and other laws regarding Parades and Special Events and will abide by same. I also agree to hold the City of Orono harmless from all liabilities that may arise directly or indirectly from the Parade or Special Event approved by the granting of this permit. . 7 __-7 Fee: $25.00 Signature ef Applicant Fee Paid: Date: ,19�� Check Cash Initials Office Use Only: K 21A Public Safety Director Approved: Yes_ No Clerk -Administrator Remarks: Alexm¢Ie, A Alaxnndm Inc. Wulli P.ux C•ama Pb W.. bsll ALmaayoN•., M.nmxda SSmn TelcnlxMe W? 1,2e M TWx 010516 MO February 21. 1985 Ms. Cynthia Harrison Office Manager I!u - A..,.riC!n veath Hostels; rn. Room 203 41.EA Hinnea;,olis, MN 55602 RE: Accident Policy 41 SR 130376 Dear Cynthia: text.• '.pr exaiider The above capt`oned policy is up for renewal on April 15, 1985, The policy provides for the following: For: 1liking, biking and skating: Accidental Death --------- S5,000•00 Rates: $.40/per oersor, Accidental Disriemberment-S5,000.00 per day or Accident Medical Expense-$5,000.00 fractional Deductible Amount -------- $ 0.00 part thereof Dental Expense Limit ----- $ 250,00 For: Skiing and Canoeing: Accidental Death --------- $2,500.00 Rates: S.65/per person A:6dcntcl :i a•rarbt r.:. rt-eo Snn nn _ _ , _- . Accident Medical Expense-S2,500.00 fractional Deductible Am,)unt-------- S 0.00 part thereof Dental Limit ------------- $ 250.00 For renewal, the policy can be written as is at the same rates, with the $100 deposit and audits of events, Please let me know if you have any questions. Sinccjjer//el��y, Alice Peterson HRH Department ap M � In {W / I Ii • Il v Il IIMIRlp Ms) pMW 0.[Si 40.2 smr t1 r 0 )) ml 12 6 lei 6 UQ U i I 1 { I 1 Is YO MlstMl Il f S CITY OF ORONO License Year P.O. Box 66 Date Rcaeived�.—__— Cry;otal Bay, M14 55323 Fee Paid/y' r?�—"- 473-7357 /:- Initials . GARBAGE L REFUSE COLLECTOR'S LICENSE APPLICATION The undersigned wishes to operate the indicated business in the City of Orono and herewith makes application for a license to do so. Business/Firm Address 1745 Business Phone Number 471-3398 - Applicant's Name FAank Stackawiak. Ja. Address 1)55 Sunnogictd Rd N. A(ound Blinn. SS33d (Street) (City) (State) (Zip Code) Phone Number 471-1977 Check One: Individual y Partnership Corporation Number of Vehicles to be used in Orono IL.... Description of Vehicles (attached list if more) Loaded Loaded Year Hfgr. Gross wt. Rear Axle Wt. Sire/Yards License Nunber 1983 MACK 56,000 34,000 _ 15 Y6. YX17122 1981 RUCK _11_ UL11783 _ 1976 AIACK " UL 15 39 3 General area of City served Aeon[ N..0..ann exropt nnath o5 Fox St. Schedule of Collection charges/ dates 6 doge a week $8.75 a Approximate number of customers in Orono 1000 Location of dumping area LpuiAevitte br Chae F,a 445-1848 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Id ORDER FOR THIS APPLICATION TO BE COMPLETE, YOU MUST ENCLOSE THE FOLLOWING: Surety bond in the amount of $1,000. Proof of inburance in the amount of $300,000-$300,000-$50,000, and 10-day cancellation clause. Annual fee is . $30.00 flat rate fee, plus $15/truck, and a $30.00 transfer fee (if applicable). -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am the owner and operator of the above business and I have paid all license fec- a�ndaxxe.-srerequi redbyby law. The above information is correct. ,! r - Ann i.l 10, 1985 Applicant Date -------------------------------------------------------------------------- R ITY US 4j6V After eview of application, staff recommends: App4o al Denial Other !specify) i gcat ure q ity Official Dace C 1T1 -F „':'.. y u/ vlia yn,e*1) 17 �Ps IEvPL-rll n1,y,: iry d0"-0 SQY vL 31 11223v 59 1152, 72 r . 7 . 6=0.701 JR 12 5K2?025 165.-1 7(' II -& ; 4 51 5211.50 ^.54 .44 COUNCIL MEETING 9°:1JEF C4 9: 16�.^S i.:J 8Q1141KFAUS J° 42 9-669/5 1.4,. 1 APR 22 t°85 6UKM4GTLR 47 31 9%69.77 1'39,44 C+BLS.r1 JJ 9? '543.2: '"7'._:1 CHECK Jm Y; 11=.5:: - CITY OFOWO CK:swj TCv 3H 31 91llf Sn 11 7..'i2 E.m E+vc_1G OL ''J' 4^47. . -1 E':;LI SH I :H 31 2935.99 721.5+ E':CK1'CH )J 03 'F CCKSCI e4 31 11+13.51 1152.-2 F:'.. TZLt' J4 31 1'_'r5.56 1152 .:2 d.r F9 C1 vo 3S 7493 .4v 1 ;4. .4 d_Vr1in]ii'+ J* 47 1-612.:4 1565,•4 GR;_96U:5' 41 Y" +520. '. P4.'1 9'7 J+J9T JO 42 79': 9.41 959, I =:FF :IM$ SE i1 1555.It! '45, w3 HS'_Li `. v 17 fiN2.52 `1'. 52 F'.'-n 'C 4c /171951 144.'f. M='%'a .'; �J 31 1?m9,43 1J1.19 n. :'i'li r4 V' 4713.44 ;93,)4 J-Z15q TJ 31 7424949 Y2d956 J:Y':S 9J K.L°7 '•H 31 1'7'9. .. 147-44".; K '.Tt2'JK * 31 1,.• y.16 1? 54 432 K':UT3 .H :4 19 5511, 16 S92.24 K=.:'"4 EL OL 93 - L.1 TTt JC 15 65L1,,., :1• ;2 V.r?"s TA Jl 13 972 i..1 1'21.0•; M]•IU_L rM p1 I?31 .1; 177,-4 MCu..IdV LP 7' 2371 .5a 1'51.52 v J.3rIC2Tk: J 51 765-1411!S?132 Mcuei %T 51 5314.?6 -734:4 r:A 91 9n..•! Li 53 4vp= %24• 1 7 n>S 1.4 CC I1 h1 ,53 1114. Ot T ER�Li =H I' I 1 11 9' 9j!.T •. "' 1;34.4J _ JJ t< ',. 571 f2 144072 Ln_ _L LST=. v.l .+S F,`P L-nU 'IA°_ OIv Gi 75S ;R75z `_Tc/ALLOa SMITH JP 92 7571.08 419.14 ST'FF_N"Ai PC 93 /667.27 )63.'4 STEVENS PG 43 .;J 7.3' So I TJN of 12 340 3.67 491.53 T^MCZYK MH 31 97.4.:8 1152,32 CCU NT G*.NO 37,Sb7.52 4 'A I: i. 1.44 TOTAL 97^.S6 T']T'L TOT-, FICA T:v i50_S = 2'T593.91 -t4 L7Y;.RS FI:A u%UP wi ALTi !! = P�YII.::N•S HZILTH FLIN C = 9LU'_ :")3S/9LJ:. SHI:LJ = PFU]E:jT:AL e = C:7-7. HEALTH CAR'. G = u":N:i)TA All H = T^V-3-4HFPI7. +CC. I = PIadE:7 LIFE J = 4L•TJAL lE"!T.__ K = "OVAL ._ '"44 L E'1%l VL?`S AZNEFIT N = ht.'LL.T E:TCL C = L`-Z Uf 9F CITIE`- Z = .-LT" ^.A^C 46:4IT ACC'. .a I:4G VCSY C):1L FIR ^.)ME =MPL•S 1NS CITT OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER oa-xz-es na s •� CHECK NC. DATE AMOUNT VEVD01 ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INN. C P.O. A MESSAGE r ]{/la/SS 1OJ.Ls ALL STARPal COLF CO PO'J:sow)RESALES Ta-LaS2.59 9) ------- a/1S/eS yaJe ALL s+aa IPf col[ CD aP0 SMOI R[SaE )t-ae01-S10.oS 20601 F11 a//f/E1 2{.1A 1PJ.YINN'sUT{ INC ']FF SUPPLIES 01-a210-os9-12 • 4/19/65 15.!O 1CAR-•IVYws3TA INC IFF SUPPLIESOI-a2+ONSMH- :Alla/[s 2a.44 ACaOM: W.Ei OIi INC OFF SUPPLIES •9N210469-11 - Mama .an[Fes 41.16 AC.O.-INY:SOTA INC OFF SUPPLIES OI-{2t0.129-)1 a L:. .. tla0]a - .NUI[f IT,12 AC9O.-!NAZSe" INC DF• SUPPLIES :1-4210.tpMll _ - 1/2O]6 :UtI qS if .[a Asap.-IVNIsHI INC JF1 SUPPLIES 01.1210.219-42 • •. t1r.6e • �' -- 11 M,7 - c"tegs I9.s0 .11Rr It.]:CC OPT IM MNI NLDO/GOS I1.4I4 3-st S." - 39.31 • • ...... ...-CRs - t 1121" :1/lA1qs 251.1-9 tr-R;CAY :IYCN 141 )L)SISPAS 71-431Slil.90 llaYtY L401P/11 ts.I- A --.:UN L:WN ANT 106/aROS M-U 0-51 Y 90 ` 11a019 _a/ti/)) Za ,c 9. .`41PAN L!1:4 YNT NLO]/O-DS II-UU-0IS-9) 25.19 • ...... -CMS Iltuaa ]411-/4s II.M 1--LIE] s•1-•.I:S !NC IF• IJIPL!EE 7s.4?10.I59-12 •' ls,1a . .....• ..r CNS - • it a'. I' .UC/!: 11 l 1 .9•J il.". 1--L'I.1NE 71-131O.Sls.oc 112:1. .A/1`rti !t :,•P 0L F .11:RI:'11ISC a ..0 :LF 71-4233-241-A2 11lL1N .N 11/.5 +t1.9a etil ° e'.;E.I'•: 1L:C -IT;`N9L 31.4 122•340.13 112:5V ,1/1 •/1) i.-Ll -9 'N `i '•i ./`Vel a i{52:•IFa•15 .1v • ...... •..-CMS I1 L•H Atli", I..:7 'C<:.l +t t .'Y: ..T s10':/1.:S :1-4I3-399-tT ' 112101 .41141!1 .L' •11: . 1 .`Y: .11 •l]"d SR:T 11 ..1f I-f1f-9C 112].5 a/11/15 $1..] : 4I:R'.-;u s :]V: ..T .U91CaY. I1.1'11-S-19 G 91 1. 2C91 .t/tags It. 11.: J PL vs1-pt { +•YI -'.+ RL DiI IRJS [IN 1U.f9G91 • It-2)/4 ..11./F• 11.111..5 a•YL T. JI •A.NT -'N C4 NL:t+ 11.4313-40s-Cc Sl.lsl.nf . • 19115 CIT1 OF ]RWIO CNEM REGISTER 04A22•85 PICC 2 CKCIi NO. WE &AWAY VE NOOi ;TEN JESCRIPTION ACCOUNT 0. INN. B P.O. A AESSAK • II t:H -A/I9/P5 11.11 SAM PN91] OFF SUPPLIES C1-1210-114-33 -- -- 10.15 ...• .u_CKS . A, "'SAY la/IR/BS 95i.2B BURL E CA3.S34 INC ST PAT SUP 0I•4211-219.42 OeP.•1 111n 91 .4/15/1S 1.•3 BUTCSCS 810 SUPPLY StlRE SUP )1.4220-515-90 11t491 .4/IA/ RS RI•RS PUTCSES SIR iUPPLI Aix PJRCN )1•N20•S15.90 13.e5 . tl tlta 1.4/1e/R5 134.15 COCA COLA 4CVO[MB +4 PURCN 11-4520-S1S-90 •. na•ts uu•• ...•ENS i 1121r: .4/I1/SS 1(.:- C)L"ZVL LSFE :NI CO AWLTI ;N; ^,1-tlf l-Ize-31 11217E .4/1a/9s If.'i C:LSVISL LIFE INS CO n_: L'• :.. :1.1151.129.11 IF AS..; • M1 41 .4/1S/es 55•.17 Cllr•glll bLJO +47 J:9•T .III ii3Y 1-a1a9-)99- R 112151 .4/1491 12T.43 C-wi9: p: AU; RNT 4:11^ORAL SCAM C1-4SN-1T0.51 511.13 • .•u.• ....0 NS 112111 ,4/ls/ri _ !+9P•:Cv .LL. TIE ;-Lis TAV-Pa RCI• St-15)0-0]0-00 ,tells .a /1 NI of it.[ Cwr. vEY ill . t3. S:Lii Tll..I.0 N 11-22t2-300a00 111151 .4/14/6S 2.199.'4 Cnry9iY 4a Lia 11R S.LSY Nt PA• •ttt 31 '.a/1a/s 112..: .^+r.P^r LLiS Tu ;-Lis TAX -MA -CI T2•t 22bJJ0•]0 M 2.111. 1 •••••• •..=I t12112 -....... 151.1. CIA, 11. PR IN: FP 111PLIEI 71.6110.129-11 15O.1. • 411 •••••• A.-00 f Ite15. 111-115 EVLLi ILf. +;I ^L.:/eP O4 '•.4; U-J99-17 qr CVLL:U.N ANT 4LT4FS•CS C, Sa1.H 5-/0 • 11211, .U1N/•5 i9 ,4 )• CVLLI;IN +NI 9L0:/OR 05 C1-15Is- f 5S-90 11214. .111/55 Zia+ CULL i AN -%T R0 iI CRIS 11-1343-$11-90 flT1 r. .:...... GILL: :a% 4'.1-LO:/443S T1-4141.59:-91 • 51.y •..... ..A•C0 • Tpf city 09 "wo CMECR RESISTER OM22-95 PAGE I Q:] CHECK NO. DATE 1NUUNT GEYOO- ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOJYT 49. IRV, 9 P.O. A MESSAGE •'� 1Rtp! OUI/IH 1.509.1/ DAY 113A •iYtIY{ tl BEEP PURCM 71-4 el s. a s-v0AR -. 112161.._. 6411418: 69,53• WI OISTRIOVTIAIG C1 dOT RET )1.4116-31 S•90 112163 aGltl/9S D{T 11STR:d U1IM3 C1 xT1 OURCN . 11.4120-S1S•90 --- - _-- -� t.a 5.24 AR ' 112/97 0{/1-IPS 1.2IW, !AST SIDE aEVIIAIC SEES PUR CM /1-4a1f-111-90 i216) J4/13/H 11.'1. IlST li JE aEY -315C 9Ot dCT )bldtp-513H0 1072.66 . ...... *..CRS 112191 1a/1l EIS 65.49 •:*.9E40 1?LI CMS AST RISC CGV Iv 74•4342-590-91 ee.+a . ` \ ..u•• ....CRS ` 112199 .a/19193 3.339••3 •'1- C E •:R39Y 4:SCISI'.3 SEMI 0I.430i.059.14 3.370. 1 - ...... •• •CAS I'll. 1 .a ltrll5 1/4.:0 'IIL430411JAT AVT1 TGUIP O1-4f :0-129. I1 Ata.10 AIR t11211 _11111.1 11.19 ial341YIv1E •:L'i'L 11-419t-14-I3 15.+9 . ` .....• .. .CAS 112111 .4/lilli 191. 14 0"Ai UL •,.,:A !Y 790:P/PT/IA:C-S3 23. 42!2-569-92 11115a .411.n5 1A.'9 GExrAAL ..I.I1 SY -It I:SC EVIL )3-4311-549.92 ...... ..i-C42 111 Hs "4 /151 of �12."- VWV:E ;!it! :l .0I4 ".E'S :b4120-249-42 11115. 'Wdlil -vJ:v: JI'I. C) -.w. -ri ACCi55 )1.1232-129-31 111116 all•/!f 194.11 OEiN: it .:Ila IS i:J:.11-214C CRS Ol-.2I1.249.42 112 AA .1/19111 19.q 9CSVINE "If$ CO •14:1. PTl qC"£S 1)-4)I2-S19.9T 11221! a11.10% 14.♦1 %_W:SS "I5 CO : W:. Pli .CC"SS )1.{2It. $19.92 193. . ' ...... u4-CNI • 11115. .a 11.19! 1..., ;L-rU:O :r3LEYW0 41!L:T:CE M.4314-099-I) ...... AR'r CIM Ila,. .111-19, W. ; "I' E?YA,: SUIT AIN N,Y L'Y1My )btJ!]•f90-H • /9115 CITY or OSRO CMEC9 REOtSt-R CMCC9 No. DATE A.W4I 9C4091 ITCP OESC.IVTi On 114t/2 :4114t O/ 12l. iS A { ( SCIYICCS CUI4146 -- 1112I2 .0 19/21 IJ.SO a 0 4 3E.91CCS $I PAI SUP 11221E o4/19t11 15.10 9 a . 3E•4CTS NMI nLOO/OPCS 11223E [4/19/2s SS.13 0 4 . SE..•,CCs vd 9LOV000S 112E12 ]4/10/91 V.69 n {+ %E•IICCS :Lll.)YO lum .4/16/9s 4.5E { a ;nC CC5 UTIL YnT SLv 112E/2 .t/16/R big 9 A + CCCi UTIL ant SUP 112212 .4/11/41 61.1J a 1 + P/•L"S :LIT.!W 11E1/2 .a/)4/O 6.19 a 1 4 SOIIICES UTIL PUT SUP 11221E Jt14/S1 •. S) ; 4 1 SVY!CCS UTIL MIT SUP /1221t ../li/tS 11.'d 9 4 . SC•v CCS C0t4lft0 ' t31.IS tl tif[ .U1+/.: IS.V -acH CIE -::AL CJ UI:L SYS PAT 5UP •' uuu 11229/ .{/1•/P1 lit.`• .I°VY C11 :qEt; ai; c"At SCY):L9 t1lLa .t/1•/61 e. 1s Y:T +%Ja 1p:.1Py a.IA oC 1+.•.31 • II Ja: .UI+/!1 11a.•S •VL laly Ll4 YPLS aD+i/Pi:)nCL4 u.. 11 .41111.1 :'/+i: 1.Cf CSi 11E5/i ../I1/9> •Ii... ..... e-4. %U7; All-L• J.-Yi LY'[ aiiaLl :UI i1 Ti/at CiT .19. Ir . 1111/e .t/11L5 J1.4.I1 ..-!, •l itJi_ $"PAL'''f • 112 !•S '1/1. AS .19 4•WC•.IS )190 VP 3VPVL:3T 1 .15 IIt Gt V/LHS 1011.11 LL%I 41I,=f1)Y. 1114 PII C9 YI:9! 04•2i.ss PAGE 4 ACCOUNT W. INV. S P.O. r MESSAGE • •«R3 11-4221-249.4E 01-4273-249.4E 01-433-129-1 01-UQ•I N-31 . 71.42.a234A-1-119.91 1249.91 /2.4341-169.91 11-421.169-92 15-1214.16092 13-1163-199.92 14-at 21-f 90.93 •••-CRS _ •. _LRS . •• •LR5 ••••LRS s au .Y!!e'-99RS N1e1�•�ilNSe .. I.�ilYPL.YIIS$Y'<S JY. -.. 1 .S�•.9'.. _.. .�. .),yyj't]�}. INS city OF 00.0IG CNCCR RIGt5TI0. 0442-35 PAGE G 11] CNCCN N0. DATE 1.3U4T 9!1004 IT[N 0ISCAIPTION ACCOUNT W. INV. a P.O. a "MAK 11 ri01 Ga/fa/IS --lat.te --- UaOt 1EL�TI ON4 IS'� �- iC0.30NTfl POL---- Olt l0a�020-11 ------ • , 1.6a1J} ..•.0 _.__.__ - ..«08 .. • • 91.) _ _ 0a/1a/as +95.ss L'1Y'J;u>2 \ rule !OV:P/Nrsncc`_ I 71-4232.590-9! 9e.s1 . 11zaz5 V/P4165 1.165.10 LE GIC 11 IN CIT:IS 3r4EN C0%WLT 01-4306-129.31 ...... ..-CRs d/14/65 ). 27 l"W;+;JIrr 32. 1EPT!c LAM! CI -a 210-Va-33 At111415 111435 -1111/15 ir6.2e L".Ii"urie s2' •"C) 3\IY. nN It"J52-369-15 lidu$ -4115/•5 Q,.46 327 ].N .9JC-N,s ❑-U SS• 1e9-1S H 2t35 .1/1D/eS •eS .SO l^:I9.9u!'E 32) ].TA PNUC•PAI JI- a1SS-Ira-!! • 112a3S .1/it/5S 1 l :(5J4J:T! !2: r2-a352.Ha•91 112415 ':H1)/9S 123.91 23 Nor1111rE 121 11C."ar I.T.S. TI zp[-nr. 32.4315.169-01 11,41, it /1 !I y5 io,Sr NissJSJtt! 12` .••!Y sI•rani 13-a352669.92 • ftza35 :a/19/95 115.1• l•il i/Su!!- 12' a. tJ P1 Ii-n. q.a lSS •f e9-9t 1 .94f.15 • ...... ...-CUG 11h 6. 'alliH1 •11.10 ltM It[ -IL-. -'+ PACK" n.ae H.sts-91 • iT2a0: A/11J95 3I..]• +\iR r:! :Jl'] P'r i:r tl-alU 41S•90 :. • •••••• urtaa ' 1124.1 .1115/•1 111.55 •YiVli 9tl, i•' M 1fIlU .1/IS/.5 Ill.!)v, •Tt wi N1y41C 5S IJl"1V Ou!• :1-4SS0-129-51 100.1s . ...... ..••Cas 114.15 ./v/•S 11151t.13 •'A> .Y •• C^Sri,L -.c!-•41 3-1212.130-03 05, _ ••.... -CAN 1114e5 .a/v n3 ia.q •YU .111:4 C^. 7t It SLI ^1-a23l-tag-a2 ` 1RWC 1aI1e/NS +. a2 D.v]e•1U IfLLlttu I3-4324-569-92 ' e•.ar . ...... ..rat ' tlta9S .6/11/a5 5v 9!Si R1 \i :v N[aLw1 :SS CI-4f%1-I2G•31 w w F i 4 I"S CITY of oRORO CRCC4 REGISTER 04-22.45 PAGE 6 40 CHECK 60. DATE ANOUYT YC4001 ITV OCSC.IPT:Oy 4CCOU0! 00. IRV. 6 P.O. S YCSSKC r• a •u_u• -- - ....CRS ti •i 112 $9 6tJ10/ti iS7.77 •V OCPI PIN "IETI )P/ SUii L]CS C/-4210.121.31 •. u.ia. •. .CYS � 11l s22 14 /161!S ISn.}O •:MRC S)f6 IHO IYC MVI •S iC iGU li 11-UR.Sp0. p1 . fS7.1s • f o.o• ..•-cYi 4 .4111185 A4 OJTIROL4 INC .VT FOU71 11-/]Q•114.31 112534 Bs oil 101.55 :VC -V .;SC COU:1 - 112S34 111til :1/16r y! 16Z.s5 IMIdL1 aJ1)1JLA :I- IISC .VI •Iu IOU:. 12.4142.I19.12 12-434E-1t0.91 114Sdt :4/10/05 •64.1t YJ •94 JLI :VC PVI •S SC IOU:- /3.114I-Sf9A2 +,zsl.Sf .....• .. -CRS ♦ 11lf15 ;4/1!/BS 2I1.^6 V>YLAIC lira Ii>414 .VT WTI •I1-4'3.1-114-11 M."6 . H lS 19 '1"ilia $.'f Rs- UTIL•T•CS :1.4124-290-61 119559 .11101I5 .11.:9 Y:. 9T/l'TI1I :1.412S.Z49•42 6 11,55- •./1T n5 2;S.41 41• 4TIL:rit1 I1-41 PA. It 1-40 11,559 ^1/H/•5 171.59 RIF JTIIII/C< I2.{1Zb f4p•pl 112539 ;t lfw/SJ .41.44 43. UTIL:TICS 11-4 3 24-S69- 92 119339 ;HIl1l5 IB. 11 VS• UT1L'IICS 1"326-310.91 10 tI..3 . e •••••. ..«CGS .411-1-1 95.•1 v'•Ff.s STU Y PILL dl):/Sy 9i/i•rt SUa 11.1211.19f•11 I II5,'. .4/t0105 •,.,I 1•II It ST-.IY BILL :W:•I1TS141.ZaSS n ZSr .anPre> 2s.9E -114.:ST'•L 41LL "w:•,PYJaccns :+•4z lz•v4-11 112s," .1/11, if 6-02 1^IHLSr.IR BILL ww:i117;,4C0..f: 't •tjYj- N 0.4E 4 1121,' .Hle/!s ].Sp ^r11'S1;40 PILL "JJ:a/•i: nCtlss :I-42]2.I90•fil tl2f,': .a/1!1.5 TI.,* -+t1 YaT'.IY OIL. T%:•-11C 11-4320.1n.34 It?$, .411.115 I1.3} 1^a1w.CSr:16 BILL ']lJ-C YC -1.4129-219.4E 11jfF ..111/3s 1".1i \^a H.:lT[1M B"LL TtL_l-CVZ 11.4120•SH-on 11T>, 4/1.1.s n,^ "aH 4f•.IY PCLL {}4:4*I:T46 11.{RI.510. oC 1115,. .11H/15 ^•N.: ST •. RM BILL I,y:.I.r S,3CC la I1.128•510.91 y 1125, .4,1 ., PS T,. + '.HEST:44 BILL •IL:•-:Y: 1•.4913-$49.91 Ms, .411-145 1.11 ^aM.'SF .y BILL :w:•,•IS,LCC"_53 II-121Z•S49.92 11251 .4/t.145 .'1 BILL Iw1I,-Is1aCCrf3 „-1E SL f6o-o2 O 112$/" ../16/B> !:.•n ^:M •!eY. IN BILL L _Iy nYa I1- U20•f6"I +1I5/' .•/1 •, •: 1!.+^ :T1 .'S .+B VLL "rJ?,.13IBC RSS R•4212-Sp0•% IF 4 ...... •...LO IF Ross CTI9 09 MONO CNECK No. OS IS A • n:fg 04118tes 04 Mem _ _ I11591 .1118tes _ +11591 - .4/14/81 112S9t A/Y/a9 1 tf Sot t4tlags II2sP/ 4 tl2s0r 94/U/1116/tl 112591 ,4/14M 111W '4/14.11111ES II2541 .41111R• ` .4ne/n IM91 I It59/ 1lIlaM u ts9t .tn et es • fljS.P .11,81-1 ttt 5•I .atteRf nis9r _4/IR1H 11 I ti411 a/1•IRS • a uu.• 1I14I3 .; 11,113 PI•r.R Ilia•t .4/t0/.1 ' 11t 14 .11-1145 III424 -4119,41 11262. .an aes • .o o• Host 4IIY.1 t CNCCK REGISTER 04-22.e1 PAGE T ARM, -'-'------------_.. 9!N001 ITEP DESCRIPTION .-------. ACCOUNT N0. INN. S P.Y. a PM NE • III-) OFFICE PRGO OF M OFF SUPPLIER --_ _. _ -'-------- 01-4210-31 -12 Y.42 OFFICE PR03 OF RN 3FF SUPPLIES 01-4210-174-13 ales . -_ _ ___-_. • •••eeKs S4.1S PIRA -IRA 1025 to lR 01-41U•019-1i _ 2.09 PSIS PSI. 3121 1C 4/7 91-4141-040.13 2.11 PrR4 -t4A 1125 TC All 11-4111.019.14 91.39 -,% PE14 3115 to ♦/F IA4I41-069-11 • R04 r44 P-RA $125 19 41, `1-4141-099-1) 1.3C1.9 aril PSI, 3129 t0 A/r Ct-4141-111-11 36.24 vR. PrAA IRS It 41? 91-1141-111-31 PP5.14 er. PFR. 5115 TO 4/r ^.1-Itll.121.31 N t.Y Prg. .CRI 3/29 TO a/P 11-Nat.12G.11 1 r0,at P°1 .!RI 3/ts 10 .11 :I.N at-1 )a•1l i14.eS P•.. uRI 1R5 TC Vr 01.Nat-219-12 24.14 Pn4 P:•. Ms TO 4/) 6-1141-290-01 14445 .-R4 PER. 1Rs to 4" 11-At AT. sts. of 91.21 P•..4 P7R1 5/21 TO 117 )2.4141•SNHt 1041 31?5 IT aq 23.4141.34a92 P-J ari. WS P• 411 )4-N 41 d9J. 95 ...-CKS •)•*0 _ ,! 12-4820.111.90 urCK7 It I'Jt: 2.tR 1-Sa q-SI P'-.•• '. 1: -IT •a i9r: -U N•fa1.92 � ••.-ns • I, ,1: P.^n NC•Mr )v 3911 .:!^. UM110.129.11 H. r ....to, 7.10 -)A:.. %.r :9C ir0 •C iJ..t tis 1ba210•s If-90 Rn. .:3t :90 Y'1• ..... M.6S1S. 111-90 t9.4.. ., :It P :T :IC .1T i-t r1-48 la-SI%.N i•111.45 . .-CAR 7.15 --. rn ,uP 1.15 ••.-CK3 13'• ' . f ;Y): arl•tCe rI JM1! )ir SWPI ICE 31-4210-130-IL 5s �� 1955 CITY Or ONONO CMIC31 REGISTER Ohi;-ON P"9 } m W--CN No. 041E 3x0Y9T 9ENO0• :tEM OCSCAIr110M ACCOUNT 40. INV. 9 P.D. 9 NE %GNE .,J. i5 1RA, _Oa a x...... C4 96.11 LIr REO:+AIIING RLOL/GR21 'NY . •••••• .wv.ON; N 11tssl .all.leS 41.11 YEA )!St :0 INC SEC+ vu ?"St3-SAS-90 -_ 61.15 . 111e69 c4119115 171.60 Sr 1C0ts 1AATA co °uYIr PISIKCEfy 01-4232-269.42 113.4E . y 11 - r ttte9a .WBIRS OIL -1T K%/MS CI-4343-099.15 i • tt2e9C .•/13/+3 16 :-]aE YJ 00 11L sW YjR RWWR -1r 9L06/6R$ 1MaJaJ-s9 o-o3 365.1, ...... ....CRT 112/t2 1a I1./.! IR.'1 31 r:.f5 )3 CAI rO ) 112s "I CI-410-)3M12 112/tl .1I11 M) 1.96 41 1.74S :S C.Y ra A 3121 T; A// 01-4142-340-13 112/12 .4/1./!, 3.13 Sr IIC9s 33 CJl r0 r:.A 3123 15 "1 3I-4142-159.14 ~' 112,12 .a/1•/s1 IS1. A^ $1 If-,$ is C1'. 11 A:CA Iles f; U1 31-1142•:69.11 111 /lj .a/1 .1 •` 1•. r1 a" R1AS la CS'. sO :,. 311, 1' 11 :1-1111-J99•II I1z /12 .4H a/Y: Y.12 S. I.:13 ': :•4 10 1T:. sets 1) a/• 1-4112.111.11 N 111M .a/I ?9/.a1 ST It_AS ; CS'4 rO I:CA Iles I. 4N JI-11 42-241-13 1R/12 .A/1•/13 I .!1• Sr T1343 Sy CJ1 r1 r:.A 3/rS T. 42 112 /11 ,4/1+1•) 311.1• it r1E.i Ss OC1 11 r:,• 3/r3 11 W 01-a10.140.4z n rr.• .in1/.: 41.•1 31 CI f AI s3 E,11C 1:,4 Sees n 11, 21.,IQ.290-61 )1••1a2-ro•3-e1 II s..11 31 13 :S 'a 19 See 1S 41, :/I T1-atA2.Sts•9C A111 11A 11. .4. r+/u s. .5 3 iT ta_is !3 C)1 .O " .:C: 31S .:CA 3ITI a/1 12-4v112-S49-11 112112 'a /1. ry5 11•.•1 T T4!.S ::120 'CA ?I a/r 11•Na2.390-93 112 /12 .t/le/+i St ra EA3 sf C1•i+O Ms 11 qt• I/js TO t/I !«Nt2-390-% S'.31 tay1..1 • 9' ' •..... .Ar CNf 112/4. f1/111 GO M." ,1; + i V+ sus: :LS)-'41 .LL +"A 211_1.0. 31 112 H' :•/to/93 ta..t C)a .ryCI"TER >IN; ilJ :1/>1a/ACr-y; E1-♦2 R•le9-J1 a t1.r• ...... .a.-CNf lu /a1 .•/•e1e! r, ) 1,. W-LA%.I 1o=.111 ar al)s ,ns 14. ua1. svp 9I 11 It 1. a11v13 1, el 1.-1 r-Ra: J!31 ec 4-c> 1W ;. 11-4415.21S•9: t+11:! ]nf C. 37t RrtuN. 11_1816-il Ylz 1.m .•3 . Ty p` ..000 • 1955 CITY OF CHECK RESISTER 04-2"l qOt 9 r] CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT V-400V ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUIT N0. INV. N P.O. O MCfSSK 1* ,I ...... ....CAS • uuf5/!f ea R.le iR4ef OIL Ce 5•SOLJNC -0f•ItW000-00 • J 11iiiv -a 11N/•1 19..95 TRACT OIL :0 UTILITIES 74-4324-59"S 601e.11 • ...... ...-cMS GY 112h) J11111!5 22+.1f TURF 1001T CO RL051GR95nNT Sul 11-121t.590-93 12205 N • ..•..• .—Cal • - 11219, .411N.e 3.52 11411 )OPIi VALO 9F $JPPLIES ]f-12f0-IR-lI 3.S2 •u..• •'^lft • IReJC .1114,65 Ir V-:VERSITY 11 .I4, ::.F/9CN133 11-1I55-11'. 31 • w •....• ....C.$ • 112, 15 a5 59.•9 .1.43•I4 LiTEi INC Qlu:Y RC N.A. 0I-1111.1•9-42 w .4/1.1 5••:1 • • 112ev .ltt.,'Sf 15.11 .:12:'. "TO $2Fv i5u •a nri/1:CFfs :1-1]lt-zl9.ai 11.15 w 111<•! •11.10f 1.51i01 rY21•..c7TT 2. :•f ,+q 1Y1 2:MY tt•a 359-fag-91 1,515.13 - ...... ..TAIL 11 t•o. '•d` .♦;S 311, A•G •R :l I•.L 4•E :b•3,.•I SSJS 112.a• .1I1±'•; 111.14% It t. '9 .•:C RC.' 44ru( '0 ..I vl .a.Afl ct .t la l•ISY 3f 112`+, •11.nf T•. I:'1+:. MA Pb aLl9 1 4-13 11-a111-115.9C • II).( .111V.5 ±55.'3 A A . 9P.%;flYT CC 4irc •WIN :b4SSO-t29. 11 eft. w n n.1 ,111 •/•+ C.`) •.*'•:' 'N �4 41) 1.91 461 S1.23)0.3)0•4C E IN! CIt1 OF OMOMO Z] CHECK 40. OATS. 'fir-----_- ntaz GI/t ue! 11iv36 -6/lslft 112atS A/141 Is H i9:6 ]6/11 IIiL 2 JI/1 0115 112v;+ .utlnl 112v .1111/0 - It iv.o _an •1 •.p K/1t2 .Well! 1CrJl l .♦/n/!! ' K/Il4 ,a/•,/e1 -Cr 11s .41,11.1 it, 31> .I11 YL) rC/1 .1111, Kn10 .4/-u11 +L/nL KrSt1 .40.111 a/•✓6! 1Cn./ ..Il usl .unr vn+nl ✓. n.r .an.1+/ � .(/11• .a/I Vf1 aCr tt• a/tahl a CHECK REGISTER 04-r2-61 PAO( tY AP3J1, 4:4001 fIEP SCi CAI'TION ACCOUNT .10. INW. 1 P.O. • IIESSAK 11.10 FIRE C4IC• SARS PESICOCLS EI-4240-1zMs/ - . .... CFO S].]J OM1011 C9E41CAL1 St PIT SLP 01.a233-219.12 465.]] v.:R:E Witt I-TJ/111L 41.4322.401-CC a65. i0 • • 136.eA P)M aCSCJE MVIR Pa• ACCESS C1-4232.129-31 116..4 . ill.-? 3!313 A •)IUC. •JU7a/Pr1/ACC:SS 91-4212-129.31 ns.•! . 1 r.•H ST ), YI: PEACE Cr1 SIC 91-436Mt20.lt IN 4•.S] 'J V:Y-e]:•r J• Yv ]"✓/iM a1 91-a 216-;39-12 •✓.SI u•':v:,1:11 11 -1 :11.13C.12L1 O..t lI6-129. 11 IF M. 1.3 AN 41.12 •a a,]nR 4YJ1.34 nUd •Ali .11 31. :1-L2S1-]q-fi 'AW-L t • 1]1.11 •)STYe SIE• vT3•Jli N-t Sir-l91.00 •AMV.t. s.•1 . • r1Y.'1 J'•Yi"11 .:Y. N.:. 21-I112.31i9E -14. L la.q- J: •v3 i1 P .;V: .:SC Ib111AS1 S.1: NWA 2 .. p3.H P.M. IT.: •:Yt 'N•CP 11.1912-111.9C PaWLL IF 21.12. 1:04 .!^.: a9: O:SC !t-a 113•SH•10 .AMOK 104.01 2 rL9i•22 QLL " i ♦:Yi .V1[Y /1.1112.SIs-9' +AW.L Ii.is r.:LL•-1 .f4: 11.6111-1t S•20 PAWLL I. �� its: . SI 11.IHS.SI S.9] 1.4"L SL•a -,;LLtli s,;LL::; : I-- ,ya:P rt.a RTf.3f f. r: vaa.L L11. •] '•IL:'I .2Y:4P L-1 'V\C• 21 .I f10.SH•9C •AL • :%t P.L:: L:.. S- ra-W-q 21]:+..•t2a nVl:Il .:.f r•.612.s11-9a nt.n •• ..•wCr •rs< 11.4e11-51s•a u.MaL •n.tt • •!1.'3 0-K: 11 .V: LIP 1JLCn Il-S11-93 -111AL I a. H• CJ .L: 11 RYf L:1 O}ft P.4!11-111-4: UK1L i 7 1945 CITY OF "No CKCK NEG.STE■ O4-22.45 PAGE 11 CM(CK N0. OITC ARWIT VClOOt ITCP OCSCAIPTION ACCOUNT 40. INV. A P.O. Y MESSAGE /�/f_ KKII771fY iK. --OWLITY MINE INC DUN Cx --- -- -)1>•iY q-fl S•90 gWAL� O{/Oqf f$- WALITY YtMC NINE OTSC 71-4415.513.90 MANUAL O • xCry1N a{/1B/R5 255.99 il"4341 8-93 YINC PNPCN 11-4612.511-9C ' __.11CL$o __Vi/5ep! 4.•0--___JOWSOY. 2t7S J:NC JISC 71- Nq•515-90. MAWAL 251.10 • PYNIL - _. KN2J 44/fe/61 1.561.19 641"3S Ca).Ct LIO P•JNCR 71-4610-m-90 PANUIL KF122 KFs20 .4/14/45 34/14/a5 5f,. o{. 1-104S co)." LIN OISC F1-44fl-515-90 NAWAL .4118,05 453.20 1.97- "Alas? CO) -CM 6i!"s YIN! PUNCH 11.4Aft•1I1.9C PAWAL COIKA •IN! JISC T•4sts-s15. NO NIw AL 1.9F6.30 . f 4CF321 h111r1! 1.ASJ.27 E) Px$LI-i LIO PORCH )1-46f0.f1 S-90 K9121 lU1•I55 12.20• -7 -RILL:aS Ua DISC 71-4111-Sts.90 PAW AL K1321 _a I1!/ts 134.36 !) P-ILL ;% Y!N( -UACP N.141Z-PSAn •A YUAL KI RI ,1/1-/I5 55.f1- ?] IrILLI-J NNL OISC )1-4415-StS-90 PAW IL v-II:L J.asS. •z . K1512 .1114,65 ti^.'^ C!TT Of 0-091 ;aLF CN441E --,%a +4-IO42-100-00 •1W IL '1315 K7311 .4/1.16) 15.111.14 M)RtJ a5 )•X Ev CO LIP 14-4Sf0-613-00 •eN q P 1I/14/1E W16.11 K^.NTIFNS D-Ata EWP i"SAO-6JI-OC --41AL 1v, W.12 1 ' . ,4/10/41 2S•.1: FA!Y 1INi 9:11' aU4CR )1.4412-511•90 r1NWL rC+121 Cr3?1 .I /1 !. i5 l-•f. P4I9• IN I; Y" 91tC )1-111J-ff S•90 •IW IL i e44.9? RC/115 K/SP5 9t/5 NA! 1!).21 C' pV:Ella: r) I'rC PUICP 71.4AQ-515-90 PAW lL i ,4/14/S6 f09• -r:LL:-J IaE )tit F1.4415•SIS-90 rAW4 ffS.tS KFR6 ,W414! lil.14 J)Wi)% 8-15 1.41 PUCCN )1•N 12-SIS-iO •4WLL KlR6 ,A/N4S .19• J144104 B•9S .'NE JISC F1-N15-S1S.90 -AWAL r O2.1S 61.1? .4/1114! 1?. •1 LTL' 1-14 r:.L E9'.E a•1J 11.1Fh 1) MINJ AI 12. •1 -..95a,11 FU19 ]I f9TfL SEN:iAI FLYC -CMS -U99 14 T91q 1-;)YE A EGUIP OUTLAT F A V .ah•11 F"1 41 i91q rv- :;-ACV' 4NOLNP.9 F }1041.14 •U4+ F- IOf-L I:JWi CP(P42:44 Fula 1.112." FDIC +] TOTAL 111C4 JP-PAIING FJ13 _ 15012.14 IU49 F5 TOTAL S11IP aP1F1I114 I"D �.9U.fA -U'IO F4 TOTIL 4CLF COUPS( CPCN ATING 19 PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Bearing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS 2. 3VQ Fox pro 5. 6. 1 ✓L 7. 8. 9. F l 2. Ar C' AL v,lCr"= ik 15pa W ca Y.�d,r Ali,- 7 19. !l _._- 66 zo. � 7�Cr-� r< . , PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay'Sewer Project - Public Nearing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS .t [ 2 q — 5 : i/ 7 6. Mal M. i ill• - , „ . �a�.�. .tii r7�� rim, FA i%%�w� • �� �'� PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Nearing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS J e T"rKy A- l4v'r C(46re -lq5c, sla //-e o"-f 2. VAVb C�"tq 10 Togo K60 Wcl 3. y0), S� kt Sr ii 00 A10. J, ( Qrti k it �/4 4. a :35`9 o hCJ'A ,' eie " [✓ S. Ck 0 7 0 V I;- 8 1f4 9. C o SLti\ as 6c- o,.)'" v 3S-5; � awe, t3. .4. E C/ 37�" /7oaw (s. .6. i_ �7 . 9 f ex;o' t 5'Ti�f — 19 PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Bearing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS l . % � r c • 7-0 ! � .,J i°.r�rj ,tom 2 .� 4 VA r: d L C 19 Su LrA &TA AV C ovtu C140 sdd'�2�ti / 67a,c Lt_veri v. 7. o-a ;J , Ist, L 8 0 L1.�- 12. L3 ftis 14. �,r - 1_ 17. , lr, r \QYACi y�S 19. 19. 2 0 %> 7 J PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Hearing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) n ADDRESS 7,f Q 2. \C I 9 Kp- . .(/17 4. lay 7 A 8. e r 30�` 10. /J /s 11. L 12. a S � C, r2w l � ISJ �ti�`L jJq, 6 / c<i 18. 2.2. 9.4 % �*o 27 .. 1 9 6 0 LJ, R k PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Hearing - April 220 1985 Please fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS 7 .mac XO�n a Tub )7. s I I // e/!7 Cv V19+/(ia -sssY/ mN PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Bearing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS t1,11'Lp'�+/fRti �7�ts S /1D GI�vQ 2 L�V - - V Iffi 3. >>n 9. v, � J C�a o O.0 /fly 5. T, c�S- JI %fit/CRY i,-L 6. �t'�7 ✓KC� QL' 'L 7. 2" e. 7` LO S L1. zIdv L2Z L3. L—' e LC u4 3S7' L,�, S-/o a� VE. (skit 2c..4r, ' L4. �d�UC,V cl ��K Ls 77 77 AJ Z IAJ1/�rlU tt r C�Aa 19.c.- ;/ r2 PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Nearing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS �. WffA'a. .v.. , WrOW-111/ow/041 ♦ .�� . " iWADI I� PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Hay Sewer Project - Public Hearing - April 22p 1985 Please fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS KIM r 7- I 4 PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Bearing - April 22, 1985 'lease fill out thr nformation requested below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS 1,801 Kee cllq 1115 4 . eYv 10 h✓ �' S 6. 8 'wo Piro/{44'A.0 u C 9. S o .o a -�,�- , 13. l4ll� f— 15. C) 17.Je-C c ',✓ t c Cif; 11�UE,a IZ ri le. 19. 20. LA PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal bay Sewer Project - Public Bearinq -- April 22, 198, :lease fill out the information reaue �tci below. NAME. (please print) ADDRESS 2.A/='AR-IVJ/Q Id C'/'FvH /*'/Ark py PUBLIC ,1TENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Bearing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the information requested below. NAME (please rint) ADDRESS 1 / 4 1. 3. �h�, W. C�,1>Ri 20& 41a W4 14 a 5. 6. 11W�1 �..Sr--�: iL zi 9. 2 6d L2. l CAI S�U L3. ' -S `^'a -2-� Z,LC _ L Lkc ia. l 15. 6l.a. ) /*- PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Searing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS 3 LL. y .Ltl 4 J//1f. W '1. CIS Pi"J �'O.S L741 — 6. 01 -eres,ccii C41 -d,,L, 7. SAIAN NWIS-Y-, 9. C'i bi-o 1 L �_ FSO �ti�ti l5. �fU o `1 20 c ^ .0 PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Bearing - April 22, 1985 Plcaa e fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS 3i S-L, .E'1n6<,- s 4 C-- 2AN AOIC, < o — N a. 1 n L 5. l- - 4/ • �•O l "i�./ a kvk. C e 15. 16. 17. a 18. 19. 2U. PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Bearing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS 1 e. t l✓ � � f 0 - r S- 3�R 4 .0 fNtf5S ' /Ion/ 37 o o C,4 5 d /9 ✓/C LAI ✓z 6. 7. Grwi / v� 3 L ,9 i ;, �ti s 2 8. 9. jT. d✓ 300 9 i �e.o- L1. 3. 14. 6 eos L l q d 15. ., A , 'CL bore 1 16. 17. 18 -it PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Nearing - April 22, 1965 Please fill out the information requested below. NAME (plea �e print) ADDRESS I. - 1u..., �'s . '_ . �. I t3c,l 2. p, 4. ` . 6. a� 2 7. 10OJT 11 l33 �- f giV 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. I8. 19. 20. PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Searing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the information reluested below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS 1. LqLlqsq SI - i� r ; 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. lo. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. is. 19. do. PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Nearing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the information requested below. NAME (pl )rint) ADDRESS ` 3gaGOF �Iw q C )ice V ! U 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 19, 20. PUBLIC ATTENDANCE City of Orono Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Public Hearing - April 22, 1985 Please fill out the information requested below. NAME (please print) ADDRESS 1.A,F• (<ALL(S-PEL_ 'Iya-y (Asw '?T--RV _ Eirwood.4OR „d 2 Gar ,c4- 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. N 9. l0. ll. 2. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. ,u. Central rr i1eS ROBERT W. CARLSON 1080 Shadywood Road Wayzata Minnesota 5539;,,-`—, .. City of Orono A APR 2 2 1985 Orono, Minnesota "� To: Council Members STY f ORONO Subj: Sewer Assessment Proj. 85-1 With regards to your undated letter on the above subject, I am very distressed with at least 2 aspects and would ike to voice my opinion as follows: The entire aspect of the proposed payment schedule (having the entire city pay for a local assessment) is contrary to all previous assessments, historic:! assessing, etc. etc. My personal feeling is strictly against this and I would do all in my power to fight including some suggestion that the parties involved in trying to push this thru be legally removed from office -including any other person involved as for example, the hired city attorney. On the 2nd page of the letter - 2nd paragraph, is a statement "No appeal by the affected property owner _ _ _ _ hearing. I object of the wording of this because if the proposed financing goes thru, I will be an "affected property owner" and I don't think I have to object in writing or in -rson by any specific deadline. Robert W. Carlson M. APR 2 21985 RONO 4/-X)"2.- ofs-. jdL - 7 _ V ✓ Lam`.-� =�-�� �� r ii APR 2 2 198IFF LV; �f - 2 - ' 9: 3 CITY OF ORONO , L r -ly�. A41-1 r '�.::ti f� I_'•`1 _ice_' 11 APR 2 2 1985 (� , L Q!TY OF 0R0+i4.) Hate ;•'?o,�.� 22 5 I (we) the undersigned property owners located at street address -'not PC ►pox pije ¢o •optmmi the 100,E project cost assessment in the amount of :E M50.00 per unit for sewer in Crystal Signature (s ), JEFFREY A. CARSON WILLIAM G.CLELLAND CARSON AND CLELLAND ATTORNEYS AT I.AM BROOKOALE CORPORATE CENTER SUITE 30S 6300 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55430 April 22, 1985 City Council City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Special Assessment--1950 Shoreline Drive TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: TELEPHONE (6-2) Sol .2800 APR 2 2 1985 1 J L CITY OF OROIJ Please be advised that this office represents Mr. and Mrs. Robie Wayne who own the property at 1950 Shoreline Drive. This correspondence is intended to operate as an objection by the Waynes to the proposed assessment for the following reasons: 1. The proposed assessment exceeds the benefit to the subject property; that is, the assessment does not increase the market value of the property by at least the amount of the assessment. 2. That the method used by the City Council in arriving at the assessed amount for the subject property is arbitrary, unlawful and invalid. On behalf of the Waynes, I would appreciate receiving any and all documentation relating to the assessment proceedings at my office address. Thank you. Very truly yours, CARSON AND CLEI.LAN Mf f Yey A. Carson Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Robie Wayne ` APR 2 ?_ 1985 nate I (we) the undersigned property owners located at 7w4r"'.— street address - not PC nox 100f, project cost asressment in the anoint of $10,n50.00 per unit for sewer in f7rrstal Pay. Signature(a)� L FTY ' APR 2 2 1985 C'TY OF GC�'���_._ hate I (we) the undersigned property owners located at street address - not PC pox �j�W45j sou the 100% project cost assessment in the as amount of Ws P50.90 per unit for sewer in Crustal Bay . Signature (s ), :r'22!985 OBJECTION TO: Presiding Officer of Public Hearing on Proposed Special Assess- ments for Sanitary Sewer Project 85-1 Crystal Bay Area. FROM: George F. Rovegno, Jr. and Susan J. Rovegno We hereby object to any assessment against our property located at 2010 Shoreline Drive as no specific benefit accrues to the property as a result of the project and the project would reduce the value of the property. Sincerely, i/If George,F. Rovegn r. C Executed this 2.2nd day of April, 1985. Sit an J. Ro egno APR 2 21985 OBJECTION TO: Presiding Officer of Public Nearing on Proposed Special Assess- ments for Sanitary Sewer Project 85-1 Crystal Bay Area. FROM: George F. Rovegne, Jr. and Susan J. Rovegno We hereby object to any assessment against our property located at 2010 Shoreline Drive as no specific benefit accrues to the property as a result of the project and the project would reduce the value of the property. Sincerely, eorge F. Rovegn r. tfsan J. Rovfgno Executed this 22na-4ay ,6f April, 1985. J gate I (we) the undersigned property owners located at street address - not Via. "ox r 4� � ap. 4-the 100X, project cost assessment in t!,e amount of a10,n50.00 per unit fer sewer in (7r-rsta] Bay. S if -nature (e) . _ \ J�rJ�S APR 2 21985 i !' ! APR 2 2 1985 rid `: r;::.r;i.. 'LJ gate i� e�.i(�i I (we) the undersigned property owners located at street address - not PC Rox appeal Vie 100%, project cost assessment in Vie amount of tIM50.00 per unit for sewer in Cristal Ray . Signature (a )s, zlL 4, 1 APR 2 2 1985 4 / 2 2 / ', .e, ti;c :-rol,erty owners at wish to appeal the amount of sewar assesr„ar,t 10�'�`f,. "_his written ob-*ecticn to lie fi-lc(! Ij with th ^i r1 �r',,. or presented to the of l icc.r at the hearinF ,:}. r.-?_2, 1� . `;. APR 221985 JL 4/22/85 We, I the property owners at wish to appeal the amount of sewar assesment 10,850. This written objection to be filed with the City Clerk or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing April 22, 1985. Z nfo r in a..+ i"orl 1E 4voo tv% s meeb;job COUNgL MEETING O APR 2 g 1985 CITY of oaoNo WILLIAM J. SIME, JR. 2106 SNADYWOOD ROAD • WAYLAIA, MINNESOTA 55391 • 471 •0296 April 11, 1985 DEAR CRUCIFIED TAXPAYER: YOU ARE ABOUT TO BE ASSESSED UP TO $450,000.00 TO PAY FOR � OF A SEWER PROJECT TO BENEFIT 78 HOMES 1N THE CRYSTAL BAY AREA BY CITY HALL, YOUR SHARE !S $1.12.50 -- IF YOU ARE AVERAGE You have been notified by the City of the assessment hearing to be held at the ORONO MIDDLE. SCHOOL AUDITORIUM, 685 OLD CP.YSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH on MONDAY, APRIL 22, 1985 at 7:00 P.M. If you are as concerned as Ian, about this ,:angerous NEW taxing procedure which can very well set a new precedent, write a letter expressing your objections AND show up at the hearing to protest this action. DO IT TODAY !! Please send your letter to: The Mayor and Council Members of Orono -- P.O.Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN 55323. SAMPLE LETTER: Dear Orono Mayor and Council: I paid for my own sewer, and Iam strongly opposes: to paying for any part of someone else's sewer. Please vote against the Crystal Ray Area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited properties. Send a letter, then at•end the hearing to see if your elected officials listen to you. The Mayor ane two council members are up for re-election in November of 1986. DON'T BE APATHETIC !! SP£AK. UP TO STOP INCREASED TAXES !! IT WORKS !! It' YOU HAVE ANY (QUESTIONS, CALL ME AT 471-0296 (my home) or 553-1163 (office) Cordially yours, PLc/9 SL- SH046' e- TTc,-x w TN ye" G t Govc_p N I ,q c'`-oxr) 76 57c`V.(` A E 7,rej( 7 n E Vk-x 1/ 0 Jrt E" S 1 pe?V ) C:ARSON AND CLELLAND ATToRN. LYs .AT LAW BROOKDALE CORPORATE CENTER SuITE 30F 8300 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY JEFFREY A.CARSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55430 WILLIAM G. CLELLAND 2 April 1985 Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Zoning Administrator CITY OF ORONO PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: 1950 Shoreline Drive Dear Mr. Gaffron: APR - 3 1985 l� CITY OF OfRONO TELEPHONE 612) s6, 2900 Please be advised that I represent Mr. and Mrs. Robie Wayne with respect to this matter. We are obviously concerned about these proceedings which seek to burden the property with an assessment of approximately $41,000.00 which property has a present market value of only $65,000.00. It strikes me that the proposed assessment is not fair or reasonable and certainly does not increase the market value of the property by at least the amount of the assessment. We are also concerned about the tenor of the letter advising that the assessment may be reduced as the number of cabins on the lot are reduced. I have represented Mr. Wayne for years with respect to this property and I am aware of the City's hostility toward this property and more particularly the number of dwelling units located thereon. I had assumed that the City was still satisfied with the agreement reached with Mr. Wayne as to the pumping and maintenance of the tanks but the tenor of your letter suggests that the imposition of assessments is designed to accomplish a reduction in the number of dwelling units on the parcel and that the assessments may be retaliatory if Mr. Wayne does not comply. I would first appreciate receiving a certified copy of that portion of your Assessment Code dealing with the imposition of special assessments. I would also like to make arrangements to receive a copy of the assessment file. We will pay the cost of reproduction of this material and arrange to pick up the file if it cannot be mailed. We would like a complete copy o" the file including all correspondence from your counsel. If attorney/ client privilege is claimed, please at least identify those items as to which the privilege is claimed. Michael P. Gaffron CITY OF ORONO 2 April 1985 Page 2 Your letter suggests that the City Council may be sharing a portion of assessments for some individuals. I would like to know the authority under which this proposal is made. Please advise if the Assessment Hearing will be scheduled on 22 April 1985 as earlier indicated. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Sincerely, Cf%RSON AND CLELLAND C ,I G. 1 e l l a n S WGC:sb CC: Mr. and Mrs. Robie Wayne LEONARD G. CARPENTER ONE THOUSAND BUILDING SUITE 1020 15500 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 A p1 1 l 11, 1985 Mary Butler, Mayor Orono City Offices 1335 S. Brown Road Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Mrs. Butler: ir;:J IV OF OJ .ONO I am a resident and taxpayer in the City of Orono and I was convinced several years ago that a number of problem areas should be sewered, and the Sanitary Sewer Project 85-1, Crystal Bay area, is one of them that, in my opinion, certainly needs attention. I have reviewed the current Notice of Public Hearing regarding the above Project and would not oppose a proposal whereby a 50% assessment is made, i.e., the property owner would pay 50% and the City of Orono would pay 50%; but, it is my hope that at the April. 22nd meeting, you will have projections as to how much this type of a division of costs (50-50) would mean to each of the property owners that must share the tax increase. I trust that the City Counci? will consider the several assessment options and that before irrevocatle decisions are made, it will understand the plans of the sewer system and that what is done in this area is the most effective and economical means of doing it. It would be a tragedy if after the money has been sl. t, it is discovered that the matter could have been accomplished to better effect or more economical in a better way or, worse still, that what was done was ineffective and would have to be done over again. Thanking you for your attention, I am Sincerelvvours, v l,eonard G. Carpenter I.GC;/mc 1 4-10-85 Orono City Council We object to the possibility of an increase in taxes to help pay for the Crystal Bay sewer project. The cost of the sewer should be paid by the people who will be getting the sewer. � C.@q;N0W7, ; II APR 12 1985 CITY OF ORONO 2720 Kelly Avenue Excelsior MN 55331 April 11, 1985 City Council City of Orono Crystal Bay MN 55323 Gentlemen and Ladies: We, as property owners in Orono, want to go on record as being STRONGLY AGAINST any assessment plan covering the special assessment for construction of sanitary sweres in the Crystal Bay area that provides for pz!rtial payment out of city funds. We very strongly feel that property owners in the area — and builders, if there are any who plan to develop the area — should be responsible for the entire cost. Their property is the property which will be enhanced in value. We would very much object to an increase in our property taxes that was caused by the city paying for part of the assessment. Sincerely, AV, . t 1. .t.�l. CAI L, 4 Catherine Hanson Meagher Gordon Henry Meagher APR 1 1 1985 Dear Orono Property Owner: The City Council of the City of Orono will meet on Monday, April 22, 1985, at 7:00 P.M., at the Orono Middle School Auditorium, 685 Old Crystal Bay Road North, to pass upon a proposed special assessment for the construction of sanitary sewers in the Crystal Bay area. The notice of the public hearing is enclosed for your information. As stated in the notice the City Council will consider several assessment options including a partial assessment of the project cost to the benefitting property owners with the remainder of the proms ect cost to_be paid out of City funds, whicfi couTB result i an increase in property taxes of the entire City. - G �- t j ��. APR - 9 1985 %STY 01 ORU",;f; Ms. Dorothy M. Hallin City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ms. Hallin: 3150 Ridgewood Cr. Long Lake, MN 55356 475-1597 The purpose of this letter is to object to the proposed property tax assessment for Sanitary Sewer Project 85-1 Crystal Bay area. I feel that this assessment should only affoct the property taxes of the benefitting property owners and not those of the entire city. I will await the decision of the City Council. Respectively John C. Grable, Jr. Property TD# 04-117-23 23 0022 Legal Description - Routson Addition Lot 2, Block 1 April 9, 1985 Mayor and City Clerk City of Orono P.O.Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Sirs: I am hereby serving notice with my writted objection regarding "Sewer Project 85-1 Crystal Bay." The Mayor and City Council should give no consideration to paying any part of this project from city funds. The property owners within the legally descrjl:)ed area should be assessed 100% of the projects cost. We were assessed for our project and they should be as sed for their's. Si y Y ohn H. Anderson 2195 Shadywood RD. Wayzata, MN 55391 R. C'. BAGLEY 634 brain !7xtb. Bldg. j MINNFAPOLIS, MINN. 55415 �'— fit - OF j C��tOira'" Y elf" ♦ � C -,� '1 �T'`•' �"LLB':!; . /, �' `r /C � � mac• l 7 .1(,� r. • ^� a- c r m o/ w .7r 41; 000�* -0j X—egt.. no, 7 �l��C�LD�JC I - N CITY OF ORONO I.....*...;.... - yti L ' .J Drar Mayor and Council Members, Adril 1221585 4e wish to convey our objection to help ;gay for th' Crystal Hay area Sewer project e5-1. A• an Orono property owner we Were assessed for our sewer and water installation and have just concluded our pay- ments of 15 years. Tnorefore, considering wp Bret our oblJgaticn, we strongly urge the mayor and the Council members to vote that the monies nee0ed to finance this project be ass^ased only to the ben- efited properties. Thank you. Sincerely, 2#0 �;: -'r� f CC � L •: � .'t •.mot-(�" i+ (', <. y t L r�- c:�i � ./c z .. c c' � L �l / aL ._-�. yr ,. y...t�/ .�.� , ra/ �Li,1 .�'/ ,"�" .Jt )ra.[ .l.I- .s' �Ja y• �%�fa tiZ/. . �1.. tt✓t' Tt. .r/ �/NLt�R.}.c ..J•.. 't �• ;,/j. ���. a � r...� e. .�� GiCi. ('t �^,,;�� �:u r , Mt9(0L9uv[_�! -CITY OF ORONO ,;A� Q.d�ar- OFORONO ! I 5;9,q 619 Y 11W i973ou r PC) I-IC14l � /'Jt r,4 y C:) 72,) 7Z ht/& -5 126) 7- Av 7-0 Xv,ow-*S '77264;-eY OC,/,7 W/o*'77Z5i—" I CIL-W 0 0/70 */ p Yek id C-cou"?Ce f o /,3v?k 46 IXV-SZ22Z all ROBERT SIMMONS 139 CHEVY CHASE DRIVE WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 553 April 13, 1985 el f y 0 Mayor City Council Members Village of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, 14n. 55323 Dear Sirs: It occurs to me that it is highly unfair to be asking all of the residents of Orono to help pay for a sewer project that will benefit but a very few homes. I urge you to vote against the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited proper- ties. Thanks in advance for your consideration. S.cyours, 'Ins rgs/ jm ����� ZA c W 15" ,. r CITY --o no -.-, - r� iiu IT Y OF f) i-i 0 N 0 e4l' 6L .-- ev, IL Y Lo. rl M• QC Lt =� c• MRS. DONALD J. SCOJI,2300 LONGVIEW CIRCEli` , i �• LONG LAKE. MINNFSOTA':*t4 $, tlei 4t�j it 6 e- 1 -4--' • -r,C �.� Cott .1,6t r ,,Oct /�L • � �C�..� ram..--� N • eLr r --AC 4A it-& l.E ' �� e r f 41 2Oo4 Snadywood iid. 4iayzatu, MH 553-;1 4-12-u5 -;ayor anu Council Members of Orono r.0. box bu Crystal bay, r-IN 55-323 Lear Orono 1liayur and council: We are very much opposed to havinL, to pay for anyone else's sewer assessment. We paid for our own without help from anyone and that is now it should be. `i'riere is no acceptable reason that we should be required to pay for anyone else's assessment. Please vote against the Crystal Bay tirea Sanitary Sewer ?roject unless it is totally assessed to those properties receiving; sewer service from the project. Thank you. Sincerely, Neil and Jan Blesi ,After votint, on this issue, we woulu like to know i.ow the i ayor and each of the Council .'Lembers VDLeu. please send us this information in the enclose: self-addressed stamped envelope. 'i`iiank you. �-c Aj, / -F ss- e.t�l►L.- l �.L1La NaL-Ill..-Y�-�'�'i "�- �-sw L-L�..�y/1 4- �t Lju C' L� ,t-LV-,e. ..s -.tc L'—f-,�,,l�Q % Ao ul �c�ctF Q . NORTH CENTRAL ERECTORS. INC. P.O. BOX 51 U� SPRING PARK. MINNESOTA 55384 !� Isay, y "olio su��»-74o7 L �loo w �� �� 4-1 C e - • / do /4 J i 1f2-&,Li A 1 v �-O 0iU0R ��� AFR 1 519� ✓ CITY OF ORONO 49 41 L�/ Slrc-ilp� Zt A_ RI L I0 ,19'5 5 Dear Orono "?Tor aid Council; I paid for ny on,,I setrer, a-.d I ari s"U'ronf-ly opi)osed t paying fo-r any part o:i someo' a else' s seeier. Please vote ar-ai-nst t--e ur; stal fzy ��ea sa:..-iitar;r sewer project :.-nless it can be totally acoessed to t_ne be efited Properties. Uy main objective is the raisin;- of my taxes, which I definately feel ase :nirb eno»-h. '.: ithii the 4 years ''hat Tie have lived here o-Lir taxes have more than tripled. bincerely, Linda iiolle:n';amp 126 a%:u+y ef�,�E 2zirt (IVayzufa, �fli,:,:esota 55391 c1l", ) CfA.: 1 191 �U i;� f Y Or ORONOJ �! C. Wi 1 1 i am and Joan K. !4ol fe 3255 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, Mn. 55391 April 13. 1985 Councilman Tim Adams: PO Box 66 Crystal !gay, Mn. 55323 Dear Tim AdamF: Sanitary Sewer Project 85-1 is. certainly a positive and essential element it the infrastructure of the City of Orono, and critica'. to the proper management of our beautiful natural resource, Lake Minnetonka. The disturbinq matter of ccncf-rn for us is the concept of special assessment, <iaxation), of n,,i-benefitted homestead property owners in the city of Orono to finance this project. We have been,residents r.)f the City of Orono since 1967 - going back to the time when Village was the proper descriptive civic title. When we purchases. our small lot and home, Sanitary Sewer Project XX-X serving our homestead had been implemented. As a newly married couple, one spouse a recent Army veteran and the other burdened with debt repayment responsibilities of a ;ust completed college education, financial resources to pursue home ownership were severely limited. We looked for a suitable home for over a year before locating one small enough to fit our available resources Well into the purchase process, our first, the matter of special assessments of Sanitary Sewer Project XX-X to benefitted property owners surfaced. As this financial liability fell on us as a part of the purchase agreement, we faced what was, at that time, a very serious_ crisis: pay the bill or forgo the home. Having no outside resources, (family), to draw upon, we still resolved to pay the bill and took the appropriate steps to assure the purchase. The steps taken included extensive over -time, three jobs between two people, a VP mortgage, a short-term personal note from a credit unic-i. and semi-annual assessment payments, (which, incidently, continue to this. day). Our struggle with this sort of civic responsibility is certainly not unique to us, but rather has been experienced, in one way or another, by a vast number of the residents of the metropolitan centers of this great nation. The points- to be made include, but are certainly not limited to: 1. Sanitary Sewer projects are a necessar>• civic responsibility. 2. Assessment of project costs. to benefitting property owners is a time -proven, acceptable approach to firance these types of projects. 3. To consider the assessment of non-benef i t i ng property owners brings financial liability to our door, again, eighteen years after we "Paid Our Dues". 4. The average per unit assessment to benefitted property owners of $10,850.00 sounds like a very sizeable figure. However, if this amount were converted to 1967 dollars and ratioed against 1967 property values., then compared to the same ratio in 1485 dollars, we would suggest that the ratio would be essentially unchanged. Perhaps. the burden is even lower today when one considers earnings rates experienced in 1985 compared to 1967. 5. We are charitable people given to contributing tc Church, the United Way, Heart Fund, Cancer Fund, MS, etc., however the payment of our neighbors sewer pro,iect ,lust streaches this notion too far. In conclusion, we support the Sanitary Sewer Project 85-1 financed by special assessment of 100of the costs to the benefitting property owners. We soliciate your support in this matter and encourage strength and resolve with this emotion -charged issue. Regards, C. William and Joan K. Wolfe cc: Lynn Adams, Councilman Mary Butler, Mayor lom Frahm, Councilman Jim Gr abek , Councilman C. Wi 1 1 i am and Joan K 3255 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, Mn. 55391 April 13. 1985 Councilman Tom Frahm: PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323 Dear Tort, Frahm: Sanitary Sewer Project 85-1 is certainly a positive and essential element in the infrastructure of the City of Orono, and critical to the proper management of our beautiful natural resource, Lake Minnetonka. i AFC? 5 IR5 �I OF OR The disturbing matter of concern for us. is. the concept of special assessment, (taxation), of non-benefitted homestead property owners in the city of Orono to finance this project. We have been residents of the City of Orono since 1967 - going back to the time when Village was the proper descriptive civic title. When we purchased our small lot and home, Sanitary Sewer Project XX-X serving our homestead had been implemented. As a newly married couple, one spouse a recent Army veteran and the other burdened with debt repayment responsibilities of a. just completed college education, financial resources to pursue home ownership were severely limited. We looked for a suitable home for over a year before locating one small enough to fit our available resources. Well in:n the purchase process, our first, the matter of special assessments of Sanitary Sewer Project XX-X to benefitted property owners surfaced. As thisfinancial liability fell on us as a part of the purchase agreement, we faced what was, at that time, a very serious crisis: pay the bill or forgo the home. Having no outside resources, (fami)y), to draw upon, we still resolved to pay the bill and took the appropriate steps to assure the purchase. The steps taken included extensive over -time, three jobs between two people, a VA mortgage, a short-term personal note from a credit union, and semi-annual assessment payments _, (v.1hich. incident IY. continue to thi s. day?. Our struggle with this sort of civic respon_ibility is. certainly not unique to us, but rather �a.s been experienced, in one way or another, by a vast number of the residents of the metropolitan centers of this great nation. The points to be made include, but are certainly not limited to: 1. Sanitary Sewer projects are a necessary civic responsibility. 2. Assessment of project costs to benefitting property owners is a time -proven, acceptable approach to finance these types of projects. 3. To consider the assessment of non-benefittinc, property owners brings financial liability to our door, again, eighteen years. after we "Paid Our Dues". 4. The average per unit assessment to hPnefitted ^operty owners of $10,850.00 sounds like a very sizeable figure. However, if this amount were converted to 15'�' do, ars and ratioed against 1967 property values, then compared to the same ratio in 1985 dollars, we would suggest that the ratio would be essentially unchanged. Perhaps the burden is even lower today when one considers earninq_s rates experienced in 1985 compared to 1967. 5. We are charitable people given to contributing to Church, the United Way, Heart Fund, Caner Fund, MS, etc., however the payment of our neighbors sevler project just streaches this notion too far. In 'u_,on, we support the Sanitary Sewer Project 85-1 f i n by special assessment of 100%. of the costs to the bene g property owners. We soliciate your support in this and encouracie strength and resolve with this emotic rged issue. Regards , C. William and Joan K. Wolfe cc: Lynn Adams, Councilman T►m Adams., CoounciImar, Mary Butler, Mayor Jim Grabek, Counc i lrnan April 12, 1985 Dorothy M. Hallin City Clerk Village of Orono y'1` Crystal Bay, Minnesota Reference: Sewer Project 85-1 Crystal Bay Area Gentlemen: My husband and I purchased a home in Crystal Bay in 1969 and lJ-ed there 11 years. (1290 Arbor) We totally upgraded our home there plus sinking a new well, which was monumental,being we had to drill deep on account of the sewer problem. After living there some time, we realized how bad the sewer situation was. We put in an extensive sewer system running the drain field as far as -+e could,being we were 3 houses to a city block. (houses that are 4 to a block cannot possibly be ample no matterwhat they do) Even with our new system, we had to be pumped at leased 4 times a year. We than decided to go for city sewer. I personally spent 3 months getting petitions signed, taking my time and signing people on, writing letters to the council and planning commission, working with engineers to get a feasibility, working on payment plans, and doing most of tha telephoning to get people to come to the meetings. It would have cost less than $2000.00 than and most of the people you are trying to service now was 100% for it. Everything looked positive til the night we were to vote it through. Kingsley Murphy sat in the front row and cried to the council members on how broke he was and couldn't afford the sewer running along 51 in front of his property and the Council indefinitly tabled our sewer. Who does Orono think they are now trying to tax me for sewer now in Crystal Bay. I moved out of there because of it. I have no further obligation with Crystal Bay and wished to t_ deferred. I have paid my dues to Crystal Bay. Very truly your:,, I-oq Don & Ginny Kees ing 1384 Baldur Park Road Wayzata, Minn. 51;"91 . 7#9 DAY AFTEr. .Vd- ifc; c �, �i�vs sL y v/cL /rGF To G�iT sW rMM INC- Pooh Ti1Ey rAAZeo OCA,4 SEWFe nl a t p k y WFau T Do w iu 70 7AVE A pf t fv T rae * V F I Nf 57 iL L A(A.s p phwf T p 1*,eTL o w CK plRfd7lo/ 1WT0 M11)JU17004A. AF W f R Ll if cwA iCN Tko a i '�- f `�-s.- •, � / Ill - I. ' Y.._ � s'w> `"�- _...� •ram. ��` / - C. Wi I 1 i am and Joan K. 3255 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, Mn. 55391 April ' j. 1985 Mayor Mary Butler PO Boca- 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323 Dear Mary Butlers Wolfe Sanitary Sewer Project 85-1 is certainly a positive and essent' ' element in the frastructure of the City of Orono, o critical to tri.. proper management of our beautif.. eatura.l resource. Lake Minnetonka. The disturbing matter of concern for us is the Opt special assessment, (taxation), of non-benefitted homestead proper-ty owners i r the city of Orono to finance this I sect. We have been r -side► `7 of the City of Orono since 1967 - going bs.ck to .he ti a when Village was the proper descriptive civic title. When we purchased our small lot and home. Sanitary Sewer Project XX-h s^-wing our homestead had been implf-r•ented. As a newly marri d couple, one spouse a recent Army -veteran and the other burdened with debt repayment retponsibi 1 i tie_ of a just coiw4plete,: cnl lei_. education, f i naric i al resour ,. es to pursue n ,rn. ..,nersh i p were severely limited. We looked for uitable home for over a year before locating one sm; enough to fit our available resources,. Well into the chase process. our first, the matter o-, special asse6sinents of Sanitary Sewer Project XX-X tc benefitted property owners. surfaced. ►., this, financ liability fell on us as a part of the purchase agr , we faced what was, at that time. a very serious cri pay the bi 1 1 or forgo the h -ime . Having no outside resou, ces, (fan 'y), to draw upon, we still resolved to pay the bill ar. took the appropriate steps to assure the purchase. Tice steps taken -ncluded extensive over -time, three jobs between two people, a VA mortgage, a short-term personal note from a credit union. n d _ s:. rr, I ri U -R ? S ✓ c : rTi f Il t a • m �- ri t . tor, r, I C h . I rl i_ 1 J - rI t I , continue `.h1 ?•''. Clur struQQle with tr11s =or-t of ci -ir- respor, slblllt) Is cer to l ri l V not un i . Je to us. bu t rat her h :-�s bc.en e? [ er I enCed. I n one Way' or another . by a V a.s t nUmber of the r e s i den t s of the me tropol 1 tan cen tens_ of th 1 s great nat i on . The point= to be mad-e include, but are certainI>, not limited to: 1 . .-an I t -r•y -t.ier pro lec is re a. necess3r Y c 1 ,., I c re spc,n _ I b I 11 t; , 2. Assessment of pr'o.ler- t costs tc, berieflttinQ proper-t;; ovjner s I s t In,e-proven , a.ccep t 3 b I e appro%+.ch to f i na.nce the_e t;'pes of projectS.. Tc, con£ i der the assessment of non -genet I t t I rig pror, er t I., ok,1ners br i ncis_ f 1 n a n c i al 1 1 abl 1 i ty to our door , aQa.in. eighteen >,ea.rs a.tter Ode "Paid llur Guess . 4. The a':'er .-Qe per un i t assessment to benef i tted property' ca.orlers c,+ I.Iit,E:511,CI0 sci,Jr,.ds I Ii!e a -)erY SIZtablir f i pure . Howet.'er . I f th I s amour t were cor. ver t e d to �67 do) '�ars and rat ioed against 15'•_•7 property 'value_.. :n comp'.ar ed to the Same ra.t i o I n 15185 dot I a s. roe ixjou I d suggeSt that ttie rat 1 o viou I d be es=en t i a I :: unchanged. Perhaps the burden I s et)en I over today' I: -!hen one cons 1 der s earn I nas rates exper 1 e n c e d i n 1965 compared to 15'67. S. We 3. -e char) tat l e peopI a gi v e n to contr 1 but I nQ t - Church, the Un l t e d Way He.;.r t Fund. Cancer Fund. HS, e i _ however the p-o-ment of our neighbors Seller protect us streaches this notion too far. In conclusion, we support the Sanitarr Seiler Fro_lect 85-1 f 1 nanced b✓ s[ec I a.I asses E m e n t cif 11111',, i,4 the cc-Sts to the benet , t I rig pr'Oper t>' owner r (-le Sol 1 c 1 vour =uppor t I n th I S rTlat ter and encour aQe strength and resol'Je WI th th 1 s. emot i on-cl,a.roed issue. - F.'ec,a.rds , �1 1 I_ . Wi i l i am and Joan F.. lord -ie rc: L;nn "damp, I_c,uncl Irrian I IrT, Adams, Counc1Iman Tort. Fr ahrr, C o u n c i l m.•n J 1m Cyr abet Counc i Irriari 0 ,.nlq MrMla Lane wavzata. MN b5sol I ll.�r I I ,' , " I't i I Uitv. Louncii Ll-f uruno F. U. bux 66 Gryti,tai bay. MIA b n,-,. 2 we: Avevsbments banitar y sewevrwect ut-i bent iemen: Precedent decrees tnat rho benwtittej ptuparty owners at this prolect must pay 10v% of its cusn. Any char inq o+ this cost by the Uity woulo be camoleat ely untair to the uther prooerty aw"ers. Very truiv vours. John M. 0.0 ictt...j. n' SCC' C IRCI� ?L E A ( ?,f AjVJ.Si b -That T ,4M •t c, PA F< c Apr..: Honorable Mayor and council; Due to the fact t 3t I am paying for the sewer that goes thru my area I feel that 1 should not be asked to share in paying for part of the projected new sew-r in another area. Kindly vote against the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer unless it will be assessed only to the benefited prop- erties. Thank you for your consideration L% ' J: G. othmann 2216 Shadywood Road Wayzata Phone: 471-7291 . r15m e�TY of oR g)-O�O aw i I CITY OF ORONO Courici Iman Orin ~;darns PC' box 66 Crystal Eray. Mn. `,5?__ Dear Lynn Adams: C. Wi l 1 i a.rr; :.rid JoRn K. 1.1c•1 fE. 3255 1_r; =.tal Eta. Road Wa>,z a. t a , Hn . 552:51 Hpri1 13. 1985 San itar; Sewer- Praiect -1 is certairil, a positive and essential element in the infrastructure of the CItY of Cir'cno. and cr- i t i cal to the pr Oper man aQement c,i c, V r beautiful na.turaI resknurce. Lake Hinnetonka.. The dist,irbiriU matter c•f corocerro fc-r us IE the ccincept Of spec i a assessment . [ to>'a.t I on i , of non-benef i t Led homes tend proper t> ok.roer s, i n the c i t; of Orono to f i ria.rice th i pro..iec t . We have been res i dents Of the C I tv c•4 E i nc: 1` '•7 - goi nq bask to the t ime when 1::1i I I age was the pi -oiler descr i p t i -.:-e c i i) i s t 1 tic, Who::%ro ije purctoaseo our srTia l l 1 c•t and home, 'San ite.r _,e!>>er Pro,itct XX-k ser• iroQ our home=.tend had t-pen impiErTien tc.0 Hs a n e w I Y rfi e•.rr i e d •i _LJ[ Ie. One .pC•UcF a recer•t Arm• .PE•ter %-n ?nd the other bur!-Jenc•d koi th debt r•eC,a>'merit respor, =it.i i i tires c.t lust cortipleted COI i e Q e e d u o'.. i inancial rE=c.1Jrce to purs- ue home of r,erChip i.ier& se'-ere1 1 imi tc-d. We I C-0 ed for a. su i t abl a home for over a. >'E ?r be+or F 1 ocat i nil c,n, _ina i i rnniJQh to f i t. our a«a 1 1 a I F resour _e=_ . We I int_• t ,, purcrir_(- process. our first, the matter of spec i at aSs-e==i.oen is =t Sari i tar 'Y Sewer Vrc. eC: t '� ' --`, tC. tie roef i t ted pr oper t cu•)ner s surfaced. As th i s f • nanc i al l i ab, I i t, fe l l on its as a par t of the purchase aclr e e m e n t . we +aced wheat oJas . : 1. trio t t IrriF, a vfr?' %-er i o-1s cr 1 E I s [•ar the h bi 1 1 or f or go te home . Ha- irig no outside re_ourceE, (fami11Y), tc, dra1•) upon. iE st!1I resoli.,ed to pa.. the bill and took the apprr_.priate steps to #-sure the purchase. The steps tal'en included ex tens i ve c• er -t ime , three lobs between ti..io peor. I e, a k.iA mor tua.Ue, a shor t - term persor, aI note 4rOm a c r e d i t union, R and semi - _.nnual as sessm ts. (l,!hlch, incidentl'Y. continue to this day., . Our struggle with thiss is responsibiIit>• is certain]>• not unique to u= ather has been experienced, in one way or another. by a :._ c number of the residents of the metropolitan centers of this great nation. The points to be made include. but are _c tainly not ;,mited to: 1. Sanitary Sewer projects. are a necessary civic responsibility. 2. Assessment of project costs to benef i tt ing property c�ners is a time-nroven, accepti.ble approach to finance these types of p. jects. i. To consider the assessment of non-benef i t t i ng property owners brings financial liability to our door, again, eighteen years after we "Paid Our- Dues". 4. The average per unit assessment to benefitted property owners of $10, 850 . CCU sounds 1 i Ke a verx sizeable figure. However, if this amount were cor.verted to 1967 dollars and ratioed against 1967 property values, then compared to the same ratio in 1985 dollars, we would suggest that the ratio would be essential]), unchanged. Perhaps. the burden is even lower toda:),• when one considers earnings rates experienced in 1?85 compared to 1967. 5. We are charil, ble people given to contributing to Church, the United Way, Heart Fund, Cancer Fund, 115, etc., however the payment of our neighbors sewer pro(.tct just streaches this notion too far. In conclusion, we support the Sanitary Sewer Project 85-1 financed by special assessment of 100 of the costs to the benefitting property owners. We soliciate your support in this. matter and encourage s•t r th and resolve with this. emotion -charged issue. cc: Tim Adams., 1--ounce Iman Mary butler. Mayor Tom Frahm. Councilman m Gr abet: , Count i lrtian FP9a.rds, 9114-&4i . C. Wi I ] i r.m and Moan K. Wol it I ANDREW S . MERW T t 1 2605 Pheasant Road Orono. Mi nr.esot a `5" 1 Apr i 1 A;:. 1905 M vur Ma- Uut l er P.C. Bc-, Crystal Low, "1inncs_ a f572: Dear Mayor butler: I oaid for my own sewer. 1 am strong1v opposed to pavinq for any part of someone else's sewer. Pleala vote aosinst the Crystal Day area sanitary sewer pro pct inlets it can be totall, assessed to the benefited properties. Si ncerel N . Arld-ew '_r. M?( ;, i 2 ~ " ANDREW S. MERWlN 2685 Pheasant Road urono" Minnesota 57�01 April '1Z, 19% Mr. 'homr, P.;. Bo� 66 Crystal Bsv, Mi. .esota 55327, Dear Mr. Frahm: % paid for mv own sewer. I am skronqly opposed to pav/'.� for anv par* of someone else`s sewer. Please vote aqainst the Crystal Day area sanitar° sewe project unless it can be toi+ll/ assessc'' `o the benef^ ` properties. Sincere]v. �indrsv^ S. r^k—'sin I 4 I,ii) Y OF ORONO ANDREW S. "EPWIN '60! E,. ., '111nnesota 15 5 7-- La c & t Hr-. ! f my it: wer am strr:.nql part of s,-ime--ne else's sewi., Please %.2.-,te aijainst the Crvetal ?a. sanita--v n—wer or 0 cc t ur I ess it can be tcA a l I Y, xk---se isc.-d to try b en #p f i t. i-, d v r v r 4 1 c-,-- . ri , r, f: or (-.. ' , . . ILI, �_;Ac5L9uv�� f11 �j M)R i s gB6 I lei CITY OF Cvornn. ,;t ;,rr„rcil La,iies 1,n;: .;F- -'I.1#- 4•r. vF. I-P-''Ivc _ •'ntIcF..- C < e F'ceF. •q *-.t �i.at nrc— Derty resultl.. "ro :evr. r.•f ,'e . ' ".'-1. J.^i I notice ,:. ?= cA P5 ± • t iVie total a •o• r.t ,* `_:' ;^ ,-r:) i4 ct dz!-t+•s l'� a -inst -.'.r 'fr:E'^ Alps 1 c,rn•F »tJ c'v'ri<Cs t.e.n fist:R y'f tC c!)ver irme .... E. .^•�.'t.�E" lEr::. increas< ir. t :F a t _ .r ; .1' E tt:. "or rA io-: of 14 ..f -rs. As �,r.,.,,..L; )u.ncr PI. •s -..' t".t hs-E'er,.,.rr.t f,r <,:wry bon., `.'i.t inc property + 4t.'nl: ',-ct t;' or..,. 'or 1r ?-' mFnt ,'ace . e:.C��ET• �; rFcti _ .. � .,_'i:^-. cLl;� o . it. eaFwct"ully , Lr "j. L 1:�� .rive Apr. 12, 19P5 3065 N . Sh.. Dr. iveyzate, Mn. Xavor find Council '-'umt'ers of Orono f.0. Fox EE Crystel ra.% , !;tnn. 553 ` Gent.lemen n(; Ladies: Ti-X S PLID PER ;;1000 of PO counties In Minnesota --- 049 Seven -county Brea ---------- E2 Our home in Orono ---------- 83 ir.ith '75 sever ee,:essr-ent -- 93 The mt:rket velue of our parcel on the tex statement has increased 249% since ae t:eEan Davin on our own serer asses�:ment 10 veers aco --- from "45 4P0 to gl5P,P00. .;e still hvvt five years lest to pay off our or.�n �e'rer aaFessmcnt. It would seem totally unjust to us (since ve received no help) to hel.) pay for someone else's newer when we still heve fivE more veers to pay off our own, Ser.!or citizens Pre ff�st tecominE an endangered species In Crono: leu!:e do not clotter us with even hiEher pro .perty tf:xes thsn we are elreFdv payinE. Thank you for your consideration of VA9 metter. Sincerely, ^f Mr. & Mrs. Geo. Grooms f --� , , i APR 1 610 : ! ' I // .�J �7�'t�• �r ' � . CITY OF ORO«0 ; 17111 eq -Ile C )z //��j Z��- 71e—foL- i1 ............ UL April 15, 198 �) Orono Mayor and Council T. v"l N.C. box H Crystal Bay, 1>.n. Dear Layor and Council t,.errbers of Orono; As a horse owner and taxp,%yer of Or,)no, we undo —stand we art - about to be assessed up '.o �4 ;:, :C:�., to r.ay for 1/2 of a sewer project to benefit 78 hones in the Crystal bay area. Living on Northern Avenue i n ?;avar re, we had our seyrer put in our street a couple of years ago, and with only a handfull of homes on Northern Avenue to share the NI71i cost, we are now paying extremely hiEh taxes for the next, ten years. E.y question to you is - why isr: t our sewer assessment. t^ei nT shared wi Ln t ,,e people of Orono, instead of only the six families on Northern Avenue? If this action is voted upor an:i inacted, it will set a precedent in Orono ..... a precedent we do not want! it. is not fair to the Orono taxpayer to pay for his own sciker aret:ssment and also ;gay a share of the Crystal Eay assessment. For our small Fiore in ;.sivarre, our 'aixtF jumped from about `.3--'— a year to way over a thousand dellhrs a yf:a-, and now Crono is considering that, we pay more!! Se urge the I+:ayor ar,.d Council mer,bcrn of Crono to Support 'he taxpayers and voters in Crono on tnl: issue, and vote NO on this issue. :'he Crystal Bay area sanitary eewer project ;Lust be totally arse, qed to the 71� Crystal lay nor.,ts wrio will benefit from it. :.� ectfully, Barbara and J ► L/ . ry c1Y 3680 Northern hvc . Wayzath, Ln. `;5391 April 14, 1985 APR 1 6 1985 Dear Orono Mayor and Council: iV1L� CITY OF ORONO I have received notice of the public hearing on proposed special assessments for sanitary sewer project 85-1 Crystal Bay area. I see no reason to tax non-benefitting property owners in Orono. In the past, City funds were not used to offset the liability of sewer projects to those property owners benefitting. Why should this be done now' Please vote against the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer pro- ject unless it can be totally assessed to the benefittinp, properties. Thank yoj for considering try view on this issue. '?d.,;�) "-A) Ronald G. Dudley 3125 Casco Circle So. Orono, Minnesota LCLITYOF April 15, 1985RfO5NO! i The Mayor and Members of The City Council Box 66 Crystal Ray, Minnesota 55323 Gentlepersons: I was advised that on Monday, April ?2nd, a meeting will he held to ratify the installation of a sewer in Orono near. City Hall. While T am sympathetic with the plight of others, I fail to see how I or my property will benefit from this work and feel the users must pay. When sewer comes to my property, I expect to pay for i t . Sincerely, 'DAN A. BERGERON IQ80 6th Avenue North Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 CSC DC�IC F APR 1 6 S85 �i J L L TY OF ORONO April 15, 1985 Mayor & City Council of Orono P.G. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Mayor & City Council of Orono: At the present time, I am still paying on the assess- ment for my sanitary sewer wnich was assessed directly to me. It does not seem feasible or ethical that I should be assessed for others private sanitary sewers. Having been involved in the city engineering profession, assessments were made for storm sewers on an area basis but all private sanitary systems were assessed to the benefiting property owner. I therefore feel this proposition of having a city wide assessment for the Crystal Bay -,;,ea be dropped. Very truly yours, Robert W. Langgu h R W L : c 1 71- �ek"I'Lc .Z.! se "AN F. THOMAS 15uO BONN'S POINT ROAD WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 1 IC 1 6 +9 A 6 C! I Y OF 0R0 10 Api-4; l 14 1'If; `' Mayor and Council Orno , Minnesota Dear Nsyor and Council Members, Your proposed Sewer I roject and its specifications of assessment have upset a majority of Orno's already overburdened taxpayers. We join in their protest of any such consideration of taxaticn. Former sewer rroject.l have been funded by those properties who benefited, and we h<<ve paid dearly. Your proposed assessment methods for this project wculd not only create inequality among tax payers, but it would also imply illegal discrimination. We strongly p*ctest the Crystal Hay Sewer project, unless it can be totally funde y those properties which benefit. Respectfully, -Ixllau sup Dean F. Thomas kauline N. Thous GRAY, PLJANT, MOOTY, MOOTY & BENNETT • ►•R•Nt Rf YI► INCLUO."G ►ROrtefiON•. ASSOC-•-ONf .e.•. . .•!,• slot....• all, e.... •.•»,..oa•,. Yoe,. a ser«en, ► . •.r...r a e.•. ,o»• w •..n q.r r reon •e.Y.ta • s«.a r•r,. Ya v.r to «VO,• r.C.•ta • eU«r...... .11 Cv»•O« . Be «.ttot• •YO•[W a /hel» te..•o J u..•«•r.,• na«••o • Yooa.,• .•Y[s • f.rerfOr fre•.ar J [Yoe[• .•t.••o r •a.r. ,t•.•t• J .a••e r.cua. • srl.�.•r •I.Uct .o.oa. ••Jat a A. is »a WIaU.Y \ rtlr0» t s,e•a. '..afo. ,e.r • J•.aa JO••« f [•Ouf. tNaN[. .. .. .O.,o. C.•. • ea««... Apr. a •.O.a• to... t e... 1.•ta ••.ta• . ra..\a l .ile. • e.•Ne Or r«O—f t•.,.e City Council City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 LAW OFFICFS 3400 CITY CELATE t TIUR'LY-THRF•E SOUTH SLXTIi STRFFT MINNEAPOLIS. WNNESOTA 55402 TF.LEPHOME 612.343-2600 TELECOMR 612.333.0066 TWX a10.576.2778 DIRECT WAL V12-343-2834 April 15, 1985 Re: Sanitary Sewer Project 85-1 Crystal Bay Area Dear Council Members: ;985 L 4y ��/��ti� Yas . se ago r•..I ••..s r Yppr. •••e.•• r •eaaY.» I•'\a�•Y o 41.r boot. L cen.t. •ro.a. r. ..e... wf•r L ft••a .r•tor••IOYN co —sea JOr« \ ..arr ,.•»•\•r a 'toot, J. a s••ra. s:rra rye « co•.t of ee.,r•e. eve ..c.•t. c ne. •ert.. • s,t�« o•+•e c ••.:r "•••«• • v.+ of .[. •a,a• • •oleo r,....s s •oswre.. tuu . rat.a. .•., wa. I will not be present at the public hearing on this matter on April 22, 1985. However, I wish to file my objection to the special assessment to the extent that there is any assessment, general or special, which will fall upon any cf the taxpayers of the City of Orono other than the property owners directly benefited by the proposed sewer improvement. I have heard various figures given as to the possible im- pact upon taxes of the residents of the City of Orono, in general, depending I suppose upon the percentage of the proposed sewer costs which may be passed on to the general rolls rather than being taxed against the property in question. Regardless of the amount involved, I believe that it is improper to make any of the taxpayers whose property is not improved responsible for the sewer project. It has not been done in the past and even if we were to assume it to be legal to do so, I believe it sets an improper precedent for future actions and varying widely from past practice. Therefore, I am recording my objections -o any assessment_ or cost for the project which does not fall directly on the pro- perty to be served by the sewer. Very truly yours, Edward J. Callahan, Jr. EJC:j8 APR 16 CITY OF RONO.(--! et -17 1'1 ' APR 1 61985 VILLAGE OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN. 55323 Dear Orono Mayor and Council Members: There are many of us in this area who have paid there dues with reguard to sewer. If any taxes are to be assessed in this reguard they shduld be paid by those who will have the benefit, not by those who have already paid. MR b MRS BRUCE W. MacCALLUM 720 Tonkawa Rd. Long Lake, MN. 55356 CITY Or April 14, 1965 The ,Mayor and Council Members of Orono P.U. Box 66 Crystal Bay, YLN 55323 Dear Orono Mayor and Council, Two years ago, when we put in a new septic system to meet Orono's guidelines, we did not ask, nor expect, others to pay for our needs. Therefore, we definitely are opposed to paying for any part of someone else's sewer. Please vote against the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer unless it is totally assessed to the properties that benefit from it. Thank you, Timothy J. Kerber Mai yi a rbe i 60 0 no Orchard Road Wayzat ' MN 55391 S�LUTv`1_r� 16 i The Mayor and Council Members City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Madam Mayor and Councilmembers: 3587 North Shore Drive Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 April 15, 1985 We are unfortunately going to be out of town on April 22 and therefore we are taking the liberty of writing this letter. We object very strongly to the proposal before you wherein you are contemplating spreading the cost of the Crystal Bay area sewer project over all of the taxpayers in the City. We have all had to pay the cost of our own sewer development when it was put in and object to paying for this project. The affected property owners are the ones who will benefit from the project and therefore should bear the cost of the project. Please do not vote to spread the burden nn all Orono taxpayers. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, c �y Ronald an Maybeth Christensen HARVEY T. ANDERSEN 1101 Willowbrook Drive Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 April 13, 1985 MtoMuvLza3jP�� Tne Mayor and Council Members of Or P.O. Box 66 , APR 16 10 ; Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Orono Mayor and Council: elTY _0_F ORONQ_j It is difficult for me to describe the feelings which were aroused in this household when we received the public notice relating to the sanitary sewer project 85-1 as it related to the consideration of an option to tax "non- benefitting" property owners in the city. Three words beginning with the letter "a" which might come close to describing the feeling could be; appalled, astonished, and angered. The taxation of "non-benefitting" persons is the key and far more important than the financial impact on these "non-benefitting" parties are -the idelogical and philosophical consequences that such an approach espouses. If the lack of sanitary sewers is creating a problem, it should be the responsibility of the parties creating that problem to correct it just as each one of us should shoulder our own individual resposnibilities. Any other approach, especially one such as the proposed, can and most assuredly will further open the Pandors's box to release further inequities in our society and also further erode the foundation of our free enterprise system which as a matter of fact is responsible for the existence of your individual positions. Thank you for your consideratiol April 1", 1')65 ear Orono l'ayor and Council: .hen the Sewer project wns initiated in our area, we ,,.,erer-ore than willingto tale the additions l t^V burden. e do, hov:c•.ver, object very strongly to pay for any part of someone else's s-erer. 'NP. would appreciate your voting against the Crystal B,, y Area sanitary so--:er project unless it can be totally assessed to the -,-properties th-It will benefit. �j C- 16 !985 It_Y U 0H0N0-. inc �V 'J.B. Huzio %t- CLtC;CA;v tC.-I o 7-tugA04 V 90`tom vl.-� vv... 1 SS \j ), �R 1 6 cITY OF 0R0INI4 cb U�S. L S , l 1� M- � �h3�4- t APR 16 FA --C_I Y of (. !"011dl 1G ,\lkS<S H. HAMILTON MORAN �' ,\ l� 2965 CASCO POINT ROAD I '1) L� L �.. WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 iJ � - 6121471 9510 April 14, 19 � ! a ( 6 1993' ' 1�tVrl:t. Mrs. nary Sutler, Mayor of Orono, and Members of the Council of Orono P . 0. i,ox 66 Crystal ::ay. KN 55323 Dear Mary, Tom Frahm and my other neighbors on the Council: I have received your notification of the plan to commit the City of Grono to a typical Socialist project - taking $450,000 out of the pockets of the rest of us, to benefit someone's friends in the Crystal bay_ Area, who theoretically are too poor and too close to being welfare recipients, to pay for their sewer or keep up cesspools at their own expense, as all the rest of us in Orono have done for many years. Unless this Crystal Day Sanitary Sewer project can be totally asses -ad to the properties that are going to benefit from, it, as we all have been in the past, Then I feel strongly against it as strictly a profit making special deal for the owners of that area to get a free ride on the pocketbooks of the rest of us. I can assure you that many residents in the Casco Point area feel as I do, and I believe some of them will be as vocal to you on April 22nd as they already have been to me; and I trust you will be fair to the re.st of the residents and voters of Orono AND VOTE AGAINST Tlii: CWSTAL .,AY AREA SANITARY SO4EH PRLJ EC1' - unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited properties. Cq. c rely, HI-B t : m iam ' on b.o ran Cc: -ill Sime P.SS If this project is absoly needed for the health of the people in the Crystal 1:ay then may I suggest that if there are some of them who financially are not able to pay for the increased assessment, but have li ved in the area for a long time, maybe senior citizens like mystlf, for these the assessment could be charged, with interest as 1equired, as a lien against their property to be paid when sold but in any case the assess= ment should be against the properties benefited and not the whole city's population. PPS E ary, after talking to cyou, iwas able to get this out of my, TAilbox - I sympathize with the problem ou have and the people in e Crystal Ja area; but I feel that ether the property in the concmon anda thosee peopleo shouldc moveo elsewhere. 1Suosi izing bne neighborhoods, bad companies, or people in the wrong location, -ely breeds more waste and cost to the community, and has for the more than 50 years that have been cognizant of it in this state and elsewhere. H APR 6 1985 -Brat. O&epla Ma.et. d 640-m-,- -e: ate.- `s�"aVy °�� /j -�4 �,s /,j s P12V L i APR 1 61985 ClrZ�ej __— �-� ✓�J\ c ��/C.1` L�1/..v Z` �1. _ ...� � 7 i l.. �� 1 ,. G! / y� Gc.� �.5� _ -M)K.L- QY T, Ni C ►�?r' 10 t. C 4o 4- / NORTH sfkr, E o R ) ✓/` r � I3oO� i y Skit k6 D >>'E W I&-() NOR —IN 1111901clE Pirl rr'F 1�/ pry A 7 ". *0 Mrs. gesso S. Myer, Jr. 146 Chevy Crate Drive, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 ,��►r urono :..cyor in.: Counci 19 l _.s� ;:--.1: rac:iv your notica of the r,a s c in.- to ba ha I ..pri 1 n-i, 1 t,mon.. othar information cons Dina,, in thi l::c,�,r, you i .icc.c.:ri t►ia F.os,i5i lit; tr,z.z tha ci ty cocnc I wi ! 1 consid::r tn:: (i cy of �'rono inclu- ;;inr, a E;:rtiel cs::._js.,m.;nt of ch:: projact cost to be I iJ out of city fun,.s E.n►j �-.ssas.,aJ to the r ;emz i n i nL, resi dan c•i of (-ronol tharab; r j- su 1 t i n:, in en i ncra - s of our I. ropar t y ci✓xas. n 1;;?G, th„ r :s i ;;.:n c s of r�huv y he s Jr i v s star c.:d } a y i n;, ct,.; t* t, our Zn�, wa,c.jr proj,�ct and h4v.;s ions so t or Lr, st t it cs-n y,:arS, r,nicn c:a:���5r';snt is to jn.j trii, yter. free t,it f of % rono uid not nelp us pa/ try:, cost ot* -I ni - E. roj:•c,, and in t' F_c c, oac� u 5,: of nav i r,�_ to n ago t i ? t:: wi th ,a; ZEi t2, VIrlo 5ur.; l i .:s ucr sz. ry i c3, a I hz•va b:vn ka; in;� 1� to _ ti,i .-,s ahiit w.- shoulu be ..i.yin`, for this s.;.r.r in., c:r s.:rvic.:. .at tharefordq are strongly ol.pos::d to bain�. ::,ktc F,ay any portion of tha F.roF,osad S.-v, :r in .r-- Crystal `'.E� y area anti f-teI the.t. tha resi j„n ;s who a 1 1 ben.�t'i t t'rom thi s should pz ti-4i r oan wt y a5 ► e h.-,v.3. .a, the ratiiuz-nt1 of Chivy C�.;:.:t: jriv::9 urn: you to void albs inst 0 c Crys 1 6-ay arez. szni tary sJw4r pro j�c unless it ►ii 11 b3 to to 11 y i:ssdesed to tI;a benaf i i i:dd proI_;sr t i es. Y 4 inc r Z ly, 4- a- ?1611 J,,�atAA- �! 0 O p C► D G � � �-ti.t �� � y -� a'k, &"? r^4-. -14C /V ii-- APR 1 6 M C! fY 0` oi�Uf_`�C� &AA W I _ t 57 no - APR 16 ' u �J CITY OF ORON3 MA/. I r APR 1 61985 1, CITY OF ORONO . vu.� -144 4--e ;Kv 19-1 0 Nj117'' APR 16 FA CITY (T �._�"� � l� � _ ..� �- ,•' - - .�t =ass:- .. i C /w 55 3 :a -;�- ,1 l APR ► 6 W t c;TY of �� mow• / /III�V Dear Orono Mayer and Council: CITY of 0ROI�fO Apr i 1 1 . 1 '3 I paid +or m,..- Fewer and I ;m =_tron-al , ol.pc_ed tc _ inU +or somieon.- eI ce el,ier . PI ease - 0 t e again_t the I_r'.at?.� Ea. Area Sanitar;' SeU,#er unless it can be asses--ed. en t i r al v, to the benefited r,r c,pc--r t i es. APR 1 61985 Y (1 (ts)rl ,Ire r �/-/ 3. -As 1 hC Ike%• � yr 6 V `i APR 161985 r i;I T 17F oKou �()_ cr �"�.•�v'v ►.ate'• -A V kv Q►SS.ty� � ( •-� /Vy'1OS r� �ti.r.- j C..=�..►tvav� lam.► Ii.SI.�e�-� y-s,- ate► C.t 1 �`. �-..% C4.s�-'�.�- � F� (�-�+ ,� ^�C._.. �. S 11 I.� c-LC�-»(J�/ . i� 1 f-t c s k% L, w �.e.. i�.,.. J n L w.✓ c. ►- J, a s i,, s S j�--� --r-s � � �� ��-a G�� 3-4: tLL �•_ � (....,LY c�� t., S ..ram �^"" ��'� 1 'A? ..ram+,+`.+ � b't� N �-.1J'' W-� r�4..-� � w. �/..l ,►1 C� 11•�+� Lvz , (�,k t') `YJ— q S. PGR PACIFIC GAMBLE ROBINSON CO. ee1 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55405 April 15, 1985 Orono Mayor and Council P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Orono Mayor and Council: L.s � 161985 GITY I understand there will be a hearing on April 22, regards the sewer assessment for the Crystal Bay area. Unfortunately, I will be out of the state on that day, so will not be able to attend. If I understand the situation correctly, I would ask that you vote against the project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited properties. When the sewer was put in our area, the entire cost which was very substantial., was assessed against the property owners. Sincerely, Donald P. Gamble, Jr. 1205 Shoreline Drive DPG/hm Wayzata, MN 55371 i APR 1 61985 i CITrvY ti!rT 7tPr�-�2. `/So 000. ao s G -C�� 2Q-2. ../„i��C.tJ'��'� .•(,t1G 1G -- � - 'l.. ��'� 'C.C.'' ..Lti�a.. L.C�� a- /�"�-✓� J� at a.. -.ccrzt 'S o 0 0 APR 161-985 April 15, 1985 The Mayor and Council Members of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Orono Mayor and Council: I paid for my own sewer, and I am strongly opposed to paying for any part of someone else's sewer. Please vote against the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited properties. Sincerely, 'Ita_n� N. L. Strickland -Balogh APR 16 FM i op j� ii/ C "y / / f�•� .ia"z �C �� I rl2Eal� 9 d� �� Grui:T-.c Toj-c ?,ct.d iarll. 1,, !th YIP.9 A-r. D,Ll. or i--n(i uounc-', i cf Lrono: .L,L,E.r Lir: t i V APR 6 Sw y or ' -rice 7 t not tc; be F-A -our mpv'-nf i.rrll i nitely hf-ve Lo vote I jjt�.!n p !,j f " i.lth' l,roblf;r:jl rtyir, ber-'.c;es beirill over PO ywr :v yu crtn 1,t:,Y-,11,! CXT'(!Ct fone u c r to py Fer-,.e f �. tR;s for, otl-.er t:nouj-h trouble v,ltli wir bill for :;ol%, them s Zoo mAch for rif, j'ot ric)-.1ce, tl.e'.' L-11 I-rllf, -c) vi-v ti-,v rr.n,c-. .1,1- c.c.-:ur. to tht-.t now thrit the poor nccrle I.t-AYL to 71." for '.111kt I. v-,Liter.!!!! '-Ancf!rely Klaus P. Becker Construction CLJSTC- HOMES - GENERAL CONTRACTOR T.m APB 1 61985 CITY OF 0 RONOL , 507 N FERNDALE * WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 * (612) 475-3245 Dear Orono Mayor and City Coun<.i 1: I am :strongly opposed to the proposed assesment for the sewer project. for the Crystal Bay Area. I feel that the property own- ers in the Crystal. Bay Area t-.hat, will be using the sewers should pay for their own sewers. Please do not vote for the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer p )ject unless it will be totally assessed to the property own- ers that will be served by the project. Respectfully, 4al— Dick Rinehart 985 Old Long Lake Road .G,c C/ J �s-►. ce- 001 Pfeifer 1,q / /5?S'.I- . ..... ... AS� I� ty lo/ ------ lod 74 41 klet IAG J' APR 1 61985 April 15, 1985 Dear Orono Mayor and Council: We paid for our own sewer and we are strong, i.pposed to p,-ing for any part of someone else's sewer. Please vote against the Crystal Bay Area Sanitary Sewer Project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited properties. Respectfull. , , J \ Allan Shirley Reza:ek 1989 Eagerness Point K 3(i Wayzata, MN 55391 / D ,' e. �� �a,�✓ 62. '20 16 196 z f y 0 ro late_ /14 a K 6Z4 t t,4 ANDRE:W S . MERW I N 2685 Pheasant Road Orono. Minnesota 55_31 Apr i 1 ' 1'. 1985 Mr. James Grabek P.G. Bo:: 66 Crystal Bay. Minnesota 5531..3 Dear Mr. Grabet;: �v o s ! APR 17 1,,�,, I ' '0I I paid for my own sewer. I am strongly opposed to paying for any part of somenre else's sewer. Please vote against. the Crystal Bay area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited properties. Sincerely. Andrew Merwin ANDREW S. MERWIN 2685 Pheasant Road Orono, Minnesota 5531.1 Apr i 1 • 1" 1985 Mr. Timothy Adams P.0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 5J7-.0 Dear Mr. Adams: 11 ! t APR 17 1955 `,try OF If `.- I paid for my own sewwer. I am strongly opposed to paying for any part of someone else's sewer. Please vote against the Crystal Bay area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited properties. Sincerely, Andrew S. Merwin 1 Sril' 111, 1115 aN 17 19SS Mc ycr c�c n� ► Mumk cY Orb Po - tox Lk,�- enno Cr )�) Urclj- i C� ; Oru-o re5i ff-7, c Cid -'Kkx -tW 1 Ca an Cori atfG)l 4ht Cfy 'L6 �L. r- few 6a,r 4' a .. e� + rv��c.-� � 1 h o2L y cdread� Chu w� red I Jf�u J h CwC ameu : cjw,;) Y-w er= Woild Want 40 pi'l PC( an I Cl � io 4r `,�'v,Cc UOt� ��e : + ;� W 4(-)JUJl\j (IaY, Pbua- ,v.)ka�cv m 1 . 6rJl .).� bc� bankl�-� 'I fy jed -1 � ltfe, ate, ro .okff a.a C-S - 5 hUi C.. William and Joan K. Wolfe 3255 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, Mn. 55391 April 13. 1985 Councilman Jim Grabek PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323 Dear Jim Grabek: Sanitary Sewer Project 85-1 is certainl• a positive and essential element in the infrastructure of the City of Orono, and critical to the proper management of our beautiful natural resource, Lake Minnetonka. T;.e disturbing matter of concern for us is the concept of special assessment, (taxation), of non-benefitted homestead property owners in the city of Orono to finance this. project. We have been residents of the City of Orono since 1967 - going back to the time when Village was the proper descriptive civic title. When we purchased our small lot and home, Sanitary Sewer Project XX-X serving our homestead had been implemented. As a newly married couple, one spouse a recent Army veteran and the other burdened with debt repayment responsibilities of a just completed college education, financial resources to pursue home ownership were severely limited. We looked for a suitable home for over a year before locating one small enough to fit our available resources. Well into the purchase process, our eirst, the matter of special assessments of Sanitary Sewer Project XX-X to benefitted property owners irfaced. As this. financial liability fell on us as a part of the purchase agreement, we faced what was, at that time, a very serious crisis: pay the bill or forgo the home. Having no outside resources, (family), to draw upon, we still resolved to pay the bill and took the appropriate steps to assure the purchase. The steps taken included extensive over -time, three jobs between two people, a VA mortgage, a short-term personal note from a credit union, and semi-annual assessment payments, (which, incidently, continue to this day.). Our struggle with this. sort of civic responsibility is certainly not unique to us, but rather has been experienced, in one way or another, by a vast number of the residents of the metropolitan centers of this great nation. The points to be made include, but are certainly not limited to: 1. Sanitary Sewer projects are a necess.a.ry civic responsibility. 2. Assessment of project costs to benefitting property owners is a time -proven, acceptable approach to finance these types of projects. 3. To consider the assessment of non-benefitting property owners brings financial liability to our door, again, eighteen years after we "Paid Our Dues". 4. The average per unit assessment to benefitted property owners of $10,850.00 sounds like a very sizeable figure. However, if this amount were conve-ted to 1967 dollars and ratioed against 1967 property values, then compared to the same ratio in 1985 dollars, we would suggest that the ratio would be essentially unchanged. Perhaps the burden is even lower today when one considers earnings rates experienced in 1985 compared to 1967. 5. We are cl;ai•—ttila people given to contributing to Church, the United Way, Heart Fund, Cancer Fund, MS, etc., however the payment of our neighbors sewer project just streachPs this notion too far. In conclusion, we support the Sanitary Sewer Project 85-1 financed by special assessment of 100% of the costs to the benefitting property r#wners. We soliciate your support in this matter and e, _.,rage strength and resolve with this emotion -charged issue. Re gar ds, C. William and Joan K. Wolfe cct Lynn F4• Councilman T i m Ade- Cooui,c i t man Mary Butivr, Mayor 'rom Frahm, Councilman C 44LA ORONO CS� Fnd S. Hyan ao No. Arm Or Moomd, MN SW- ear 0ro�wAli or -and CoantiC *mb1 ? paidf,M, awn) siewol; nilealm Yak JL44�1 tom.n ion C��s c4-x-he�d . T, , 7 Pt8 L u CITY OF ORONO L 565 ,N • f=i (ZNP,A1 l RV • N\.A't ?,-% TA - NA N - ,ear Orono ;erty Owner: APR 17 1985 ICJ, _"ITY OF 01RONO The City Council of the City of Oronc will meet cn Monday, April 22, 1985, at 7:00 P.M., at the Orono diddle School Auditorium, 685 Old Crystal Bay Road North, to pass upon a proposed spek.ial assessment for the construction of sanitary sewers it the Crystal Bay arE-. The notice of the public hearing is enc1oE for your information. As stated in the notice the City Coun--i 1 will consider several assessment optio inc 'uding a partial assessment of the projec' cost to the beneiittin.g prop,.-t-y owners with the remainder of project cost to be paid out of City funds, which could result ..n an increase in property taxes of the entire City. le 1 A:�;P441 zzr; I fo ;14v�_ /t) .41L etc,' C (' • i %PR 17 hc5 CITY� OF ORONO 1240 Spruce Place Mound, MN 55364 April 15, 1985 THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Orono Mayor and Courcil: I paid for my own sewer and am strongly opposed to paying for any part of someone else's sewer. Please note against the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited parties. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, i ►j l�I.LC ' �[ t. t to Ronald J. Du n & 1; L,,-, I T. Bradley Hays, Jr. 680 MTKA Highland Ln Long Lake, MN. 55356 April 15, 1985 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN. 55323 Attn: Orono Mayor and Council Dear Orono Mayor and Council, 1 (1 r I f �,rl R 1 7 I,,..5, , CITY OF ORONO Your proposal to spread the costs of the Crystal Bay sewer assessment across the entire city, would be an extremely poor precedent to set. It would only encourage a class action law suit that could cost you more than the cost of the sewer assessment. Your jobs, as thankless as they may be, are to keep the costs of government at a minimum. Please vote "NO" to t'-' dangerous precedent. Sincerely,. T. Bradley Hays, Jr. 0-44 I' 1/ L.l t1L-r.�j \lL /f.4 dt.cc' C ,,4.t .641 <. - ! �J 0 n 6 cue � I i ! I N, 711 A 76-C t.. jAM 17 10 z (0 DMI A 3 u :3 0> 1 3 OrjGt'�C) f .,%ONCE V. REARDON Y,M0 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WAYZATA, MAI 55391 BECTCN DICKINSCN r c3C -L".-;(z t- 'fko " Q •7 �,b,�.c, may,, �f!„r�cr��►��! �,/- L ����t•L'"G:.' •!��a��c.�c.•c� .Ls' ..L��ujkL �-�B-d-P..D•-t/[.�, C4 /,k!, i / v "/Oltt c,.. y�- �0\� OA-�� MOO To 0, 0 a Speed Message Frnm e4n:l Q Subject Date L4 - 4A� WilsonJones zy,�, 17 I. Signed sea @ APR 17 1025 14,77 L.E. T-Y -0i k7l( 1 �11 APR 1 7 IS Ll I �/'/ Y ice• —I /� � � � � �� n 1 � � � r l/ '� - d � - ,� .�� ,_� �_., L'.. ' � f� Jeannie Ashmun 117 Chevy Chase Dr. • Wayzata, MN 55391 O ! 1 CITY OF ORONO v , 7 oat -ow -*Wfmw�„+Y'�y.�ip... �w�'�. .�'�•,w� .{� 1�i� +�•1,r.'�►'�Y,;:t i' 'tr".e i e .R Charles E. Truman 1570 Long Lake Blvd. Long Lake, MN 55356 AlR11 ' y APR 17 I i;►TV OF 0IRc)t"',O 119ti SS-3 z A A,1d y e e 7L /N �/ C SC�'V f0 fe 41 / 2S be Ve ' t I'S as M � t J t� A ✓e- / dVee~2- o� ate' � AJ �a � 1.4,41 Alf a f 5a.v✓yeoAv� s i„c'Vr sc 04 Charles E. Truman 1570 Long Lake St Long lake, ud. MN 55356 >t APR 17 1985 i CITY OF ORON { a.�. B n.cio '7'no-kr � U pat. �y 0 Own. , a." d / / to d 4) 4"",o Gil l�i7rl 55336 i APR 7 1915 u w.w ; ,(� ,� CITY OF o c ��_ ,U .eat /L, (� &n-eL Zati �;.t, -�- �t�-� c �(Z 1 J j - / l %) ! c r .1 c rr A., o , { 46C r 1 rp rp, i APR 1 7 M l' "'!TY OF nRG,.4'0 .5,44P( 4L Me. and Mr. r. Edwin Schuchrnann 1180 Loma Linda Avenue Mound, Miruieaata 55364 April 16, 1985 .CITY OF ORONO P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minne:..,ta 55323 Attention: Mayor and Council Dear Orono Mayor and Council: �r rev n�0 - OFL ll f 1J RE: CRYSTAL BAY AREA SANITARY SEWER PROJECT We strongly urge you to vote against the Crystal Bay Area Sanitary Sewer Project unless it can be totalIX assessed to the benefitting properties. We've paid for our own sewer and we are strongly opposed to paying for any part of someone else's sewer. Thank you:! Sincerely, /. LuAnn Schuchmann Edwin Schuchmann LS:ls jl �+PFt t ? M5 ' —r----! Osi0N0 /71", . tl.Lll �.- '�'`� N WILLIAM J. SIME, JR. APR i 7 2106 SHADYWOOD ROAD • WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 • 471-0296 553 CITY OF OfG�C1 April 16, 1985 Village of Orono Administrative Offices 1335 S. Brown Road P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323 Attention: Office of Mayor and City Council Re: Proposed Special Assessments for Sanitary Sewer Project 85-1 Gentlemen: As taxpayers of the Village of Orono for the past twenty-eight (28) years and residing on this piece of prcperty for that length of time, we are definitely NOT in favor of the "precedent setting" proposal of assessment for any part of the cost of the above pro- ject to the properties of the entire City. Only the properties involved in the above project should bear the cost, as was done in our area. This Chevy Chase area of Orono endured the installation, the delays and controversies in connection with same, resulting in more than double the original estimates of the cost(of same- which costs were solely born by the individual home owners. Any change in the method of assessment in connection with the above project, or any future sewer projects, would oe setting a dangerous and unfair precedent! Our vote is: NO. Yours truly, Ethel M. Stockton James B. Stockton Address: 100 Chevy Chase Drivn Wayzata, Mn. 55391 U� ) `�1 + APR 1 7 191915 �J (;ITY OF ORONO Ay, A�9_3 t'l /0-f/ .'e" / April 15, 1985 Hann C. Weilem 113 7 EX.-4 To the ',!nyor and Conucil Members of Orono P.O. Box 66 bear Oturn Fayot and Council: AN 1 7 1985 T_ paid for my "ewer, and I am a strong Leliever, that I an. not ;)a - for ti.c -fewer Pro j�-!t iUr Noi 'R In 1:1-C (, TvSn1 Hay rr'.7. !Ili i pay too sUWf: o"e elrias S.-twer .iYa@ra. e!T.i:`i, %%eu 1 st::11 j. ] i for 'ty own. MY vote is st. r icily :it" . I� I L C S`77)Z-7 ,ear Oran o Ila ,,car• an (I C CyC�( owl 1-' . _CITY .__ �..•-_ _'- i-; C. r i 1 i`. .. _' ` I cia.id c,r m , stWer Rn I �.�;, -.rr r,,�,i omc.neei to r.-virlo i 0,-.:dr,ito1-1e e1 =.c - cef,.,er . F'I ?.zcn 'c,te aaa.i ,s� file L.r =t..l E:_ i=,rc—R =,ani t?.r .=-'4Vef I e5n It c8.n t-e z+ emtlrt1 .', to the bene+ited pr c,per t 1 e-- . April 15, 1935 Kanu G. Weiler Ir3� NdPPJ4 `IRM. R To the ;,ayor and Council Members of Orono P.O. Box GG Crystal Bay, Ni nn. 55323 Dear Orono :fayor and C%ancil: 1 fj� APR 1 71985 ;!, L: I paid for ny Sewer, Pa..'. T am H strong believer, that I am not payine for the Sexier Project for 'S Rotes in the Crystal ^ay Area. 'iliv should I pny for nomn one e1s:.3 Sr:x:cr assesarents, when T- still rav for xtty own. Tty vote is strictly 1 AN i i;jt�;; April 16, 1985 CITY OF OROliel Dear Orono Mayor and Council: Concerning assessment hearing April 22, 1985. Unless you assess in full the benefited properties, 7is would seem to be an "ultra vires" act as you will be providing welfare which, I believe, is usually a county problem instead of yours. Yours truly, Dale R. Anderson 970 Tonkawa Rd. Long Lake, MN 55356 P-e ��t L�iLtnr 7'hcC,cleit CU�c���ct J// S-PL -c' /C; � sty f • xej'�It4lns 7- 446 /%ram `yIG W C ,4tl ..S't"/�-'i-C.�� `t,C l� 6ZL�• "Lt C. �L��o �7?�2c� e led /S / LG1� - 6tiC� ��Yi a'�/L•GC CITY OF t)RONO �• ;.,I (Y OF ORONO { April 17, 1985 Dear Mayor and Council Members of Orono: APR 18 W + U LJ CITY OF ORONO I bought my house and included was the previous assessments for city sewer. I personally am opposed and will not pay for someone else's sewer. Taxes are high enough and if the people in the Crystal Bay area were not prepared to pay the assessments they should have not and could not have afforded to buy their house. Please vote against, the proposed project unless the people involved can pay cheir way. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Allen Bakke 1127 Loma Linda Avenue Mound, MN 55364 April 17, 1985 The Mayor S Council Members of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Orono Mayor b Council: I received a notification that property owners in orono may be paying for instulation of a new sanitary sewer in the Crystal Bay area that would not benifit my -self. 1 paid for my own sewer instulation and an extra one when I purchased the lot next to me from the county. (I can only use ONE and I have to pay for TWO!) Please vote against the Crystal Bay area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited properties. Than*( you, Mark & Karen Cuff 3572 Livingston Ave. Wayzata, MN 55391 r9wRIR � 97� OROtJOS- eq �-� t Cc�z< � � � ✓ �� Z�- -�•--mot_-�--..-.c—l�—F-d� • ,jam/?-.�---�� tL-a 1 I). W _IIn1%1FRtiON' 505 South Wdlo%k Dtive Lung I ake, MN 55356 IC1. (612) 473-2409 April 16, 1985 I The Mayor & Council Members of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mayor & Council: D E @ I �' H )205-1 ;;In APR 1 8 1985 ' ! ITY 0F In answer to being notified by the City of an assessment hearing and possibly being assessed for a sanitary sewer project, please regard this letter as my request to you to PLEASE VOTE AGAINST this project unless it can be totally assessed to the properties it will benefit. I believe it is totally UNACCEPTABLE to expect anyone to pay for this project, particularly those of us who have paid for our own sewers. Again, I STRONLGY urge you to vote AGAINST this! ///Vee-----.ry truly-y6ur�, D .'W . IMME ON DWJ/jaa Calhoun Property Management Company April 15, 1985 Mayor and Council Members of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 RE: PROPOSED SEWER ASSESMENTS Dear Orono Mayer and Council: Presently, I own and manage the following properties in the Village of Orono: 1745 Concordia Street, Wayzata - Single Family 1750 Concordia Street, Wayzata - Single Family 1755 Fagerness Point Road, Wayzata - Single Family 1760 Fagerness Point Road, Wayzata - Empty Lot which contains two sewer taps 1376 North Arm Drive - Single family managed for Mr. William Bowen 1825 Fagerness Point Road, Wayzata - Single family home managed for Mr. Richard Brechwald I am opposed to the proposed assesment of approximately $112.50 per sewer tab, which would be to the benefit of some 78 homes in the Crystal Bay area. At the time that the sewer was installed in our area, there was no mention or any proposal for any abatements regarding installation of a sewer or water on behalf of the residents. Therefore, I am against any new taxing procedure that would set a precedent for now or future installations on behalf of or for the benefit of those individuals, outside the direct usage. Sincerely, Paul J. Bozonie 1745 Concordia Street Wayzata, MN 55391 nd4vt1,�r8,��in„�„iQm�ry 922-5258 - work 7100 France Avenue South / Edina. Minnesota 55435 / (612) 922-5258 1.3i)L v�'� ►�1� 1zo. C ! T y l% r JAG /-, / �. � � � 2pcc>�ti k L` • � O CIZyS r1� i�1 ��l�1 %J= TN � F; FLy e,A/ZT O ✓= ✓v'TE f�G/ailJST THr G'ItyST�L- yv v T J s � C YJ C K �> Jz'9 J F� 7- (j Jj L F-� S ��A it u1 T� � CY 5 't3Ay i /Y 1T Cla�1 13� ! J7�iLLy /' R C5�L5 {i APR 18 FA CITY OF City Council of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN. 55323 Gordon Foster Jr. 577 Park Lane Long Lake, MN. 55356 April 16, 1985 Dear City Council: Re: Upcoming Vote for the Sewer Project for the Crystal Bay Area This letter will formally register my vote against paying for any p;.rt of this project. When the sewer was put into my neighborhood in the mid 1970's, none of the other Orono residents was asked to help pay for it. Why should I be assessed for someone else's sewer now? I ask that you vote against this proposal unless the total amount is assumed by the homeowners that it will benefit. Sincerely Gordon Foster Jr. C01 f 1 APR 18 CITY OF ORONO April 15, 1985 The ;Mayor and Crono Council M-!mis-rs P.r . Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323. Dear Crono dayor anti Council: I am strongly oppos-d to paying for any part of so-jeon- -1se's s-wer, since I paid for my own s-w-r. Please vote zzainst the Crystal Bay Ar-a sanitary pro j-ct unless it can be totally.Q4dF.s� to the benefit-d prop-rti-s. Thank you! Sinc-rely, 11,17/1 . t4it4 YlLaAa-; 'ri i ri- Svang 2528 Casco Point Boat 'dnyzata, MN 55391 I D 0 18M CITYOFO i� MONO H. Faye Donart 1310 Rest Point Lane, Mound, 55364 Fp�., APR 18 1985 ACT, 4-40- L - / 7 - J J-' April 15, 1985 Hans G. Weiler uzs Wvp,44 To the Mayor and Council Members of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Iinn. 55323 Dear Orono Mayor and Council: I paid for my Sewer, and I am a strong believer, that I am not paying for the Sewer Project for 78 Homes in the Crystal Bay Area. Why should I pay for some one elses Sewer assesments, when I still pay for my own. My vote is strictly "NO". Sincer APR 1 8 1935 i; I CITY OF ORONO April 16, 1985 City Council of Orono P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 To Whom It May Concern: I have received your notice of the public hearing on certain proposed special assessments for the Crystal Bay area. I strongly oppose the inclurzion of my property in such an assessment project. I see no benefit to my property in the Pheasant Lawn area, and I see no reason to pass the cost along to anyone other than those homeowners directly affected by the project. I do intend to be at ey 2760 Pheasant Rd. Excelsior, MN 55331 4 "6, / A-L- * @ APR 18 SM f CIiY �F (� I�OI�J C� I - L___ 1.hu Ui.YJ i „L ..,Y . =,, ,, , I f nr,' , _ _r� i..:v':�. r I .iL _J J I i i LL s . iv I MLL Y (bq /06 Chtvp C�-,e- p1 . U . , VN-,5539/ � I ct O1+. 4 -m 'fo. a-t� 0 3 G 41k �,°4k , 00ir- . LV 4ttl� In . ss39/ ov AIR 181N CIT OF ORONO J "tt APR I8 M I �1 CFrY9L.6��Oo�C- 0ci I r-5 ITY OF ORONO ✓41ts. Atthut 6. Allen 2118 SWywwd mad Wayzata, .Minnesota 55391 4/14/8E Dear r . - so Mayor, and Council: 9e jaid for our orm sewer, and I ar. strongly opposed to paying for any part of sorenne else's setter. Now that I'm a widow on a limited income and do not have transportation to atter.-i the meeting, I'a expressing =y indiplation about any more taaes,in this letter: Please vote against the crystal Bay area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited properties. Sincerely, lrs . .Arthur S. Allen APR I R M CJTY OF 4RONC-) Y5- 8 ROGER L. HEADRICK U4044 PILLSBURY CCNTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 L L CITY OF ORONO C'CL'L.tax cs w Io- Kf till tf 11111 KI:11 f:�I "I April 16, 1985 Dear Orono Mayor and City Counsel Members, D11 CITY `J Y OF ORONO I am writing to you regard to the upcoming Meeting on the proposed Special assessment for construction of the sanitary ewers in the Crystal Bay area. When I bought my home in Orono I had to pav assessments for sanitary sewer . These were placed soley on the house and not paid out of City funds which would result in an increase in property taxes of the entire city. I ask that you represent your constituents by placing the entire cost of sewer assessments against those homes directly affected. I don't feel that it would be fair to increase Droperty taxes to benefit a few home owners. Sinc�ly��� i T Merl�arold G. 630 Park Lane Vogt Long Lake, Mn 55356 473-2489 Home 476-1714 Office 730 fast take Street watizata. MinnruKe 55391 612/473-4646 Z. -1 ra ill I arks � 1 c p _ u(I NO Wit— "'4' . �'�� a ej Mir c: m-CAJ d r�� ju'i Vul 614 �- ��.� u^ Gt�( i t1��, � a �`4,'c.c�'�� ;i''d,C v' (�✓ ��s� �d_�!cr� . •.j TOO 6 �i la. tL'._ Q n tl'1Jx1 jkt .. l�I� % of �t L/1 �, ��,. 6t1� o+..T (�,r-c,h of a �i: ✓► !�'n,j �,,�r',Q c �'�� (24 �' ► AP 1 iga5 �ci'�Its. ��lc�Ijrt ./1 epclall Putd 8I) y iU Ll L1 1077 _�'a�e?►tec< <l�nrpt �Rcxlcl a APpIL 15, 1985 TO! THE OrONO MAYOR, AND THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF OROP�C,. UE WOULD LIKE_ TO GO ON RECORD AS 9EING AQINST OUR TAXES BEING TMCREASED TO HELP PAY FOR THE CRYSTAL BAY SEDER PROJECT. CHARLES AND SANDIE LArSON 4285 6TH AVE. NORTH LONG LAKE, MINNESOTA 55356 APR 8 t1 V) T T OF ORON Dear Orono Mayor and Council: April 16, 1985 I paid for my own sewer, and I am strongly opposed to paying for any part of someone else's sewer. Please vote against the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited properties. I trust that you will vote appropriately for the people that voted you into office. Thank you. 7 April 17, 1985 Dear Orono Mlayor and Council; I am strongly opposed to paying for any hart of someone else's sever. Respectfully yours, April 15, 1985 Mayor and Council Members Of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 RE: Proposed Sewer Assesments Dear Orono Mayer and Council: � � ����•�-t � ram.. ) 1 (� 1 i , �� � 1 APR 18 t� CITY OF ORONO Presently I own and manage the following properties in the Village of Orono: 1740 Concordia Street, Wayzata - single family 1725 Concordia Street, Wayzata - Single family I am opposed to the proposed assesment of approximately $112.50 per sewer tab, in the Crystal Bay area. I do not feel that I should have to pay for their sewer/Water. Sincerely, Alice S. Oskey " 1740 Concordia Street Wayzata, MN 55391 471-8369 s APR I A 1985 CIT FOR I - �', 1�ev /� �, - / r-,- -- I— " - 1� APR 18 19�i u CITY OF ORONO �= << 37b5" T s .S -3 7/ 17- 1/7-.z3 31 oo �D r / J ctc -r .t . i c�G _;Iv- A cam- �• rc�, �' �-4� ���� ✓ � � ��-n _ G� -1 t._- tom- �;`_., t . _ . - tom- � � (.�C' �n l�- � )'"�•�-E., � Dear Orono Mayor and Council: I paid f.Qr my o•.►n sewer, and Iam strongly of nosed to I paying f6r any part of someone else's sewer. Please vote against the Crystal Say Area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited properties. April 17, 1985 Mayor and Council Members of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Orono Mayor and Council: I have been reading about the sewer project being considered for the Crystal Bay area. I realize that something needs to be done to provide good sanitary facilities for this area because these homes are quite old and need new sewage systems. Our home is close to Crystal Bay and is more than forty years old and the sewer was very insufficient to handle our needs. Of course, we were notified by the inspector to put in a new one. This was a devastatingly large amount of money for us to have to suddenly come up with but we did get a loan to have it done. I am very sympathetic with these homeowners who suddenly must come up with this money to pay for a new sewage system. 'these homeowners can't even sell their property to get away from this tax assessment. I think it's unfair. Neither do I want my taxes increased. I think the whole project should be investigated further. Something else should be done to provide Sewage facilities for Crystal Bay homes. Yours truly, Douglas and Gayle Sjoberg 775 South Brown Road Wayzata, MN 55391 r)., 'I 1 , 1148 CITY OF ORONO April 16, 1985 Dear Orono Playor and Council: I paid for my own sewer, and I am stronclIN, opposed to paying for any part of someone else's sewer. Please vote against the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited properties. I trust that you will vote approuriatelN for the people that voted you into office. Thank you. i i r THOMAS B. BUELL 142 CHEVY CHASE DRIVE. WAYZATA. MINNE5oTA 55391 April 16, 1985 The Mayor and Council Members of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Orono Mayor and Council: I paid for my own sewer, and I am strongly opposed to paying for any part of someone else's sewer. Please vote against the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited properties. Thank you. Your sincerely, Thomas B. & Marilyn D. Buell Lois M. Fossen 155 Hackberry Hill Long Lake, Mn. 55356 &AA.K.OK 41 IL tA.) �.JI..• dJL� � � O-�.s,iV • W tea,,,; s f�'! / ��'`,'f �_ sf o to CA.IflaX AX couf '14, . — . I- dt eeA APR A 1985 l ' cliY OF GR0 J01 April. 17, 1985 Dear Orono Mayor and Council Members; We are opposed to paying for any part of some one else's sewer. We think this would very unfair to all viho have had to -gay for their own sewer and would also be an extra hard- ship for the Senior Citizens in this Village. Please vote against the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assesed to the people who will benefit from it. Respectfully yours; ���@��ovc�1 !fit � 81� ; D i CITY OF ORONO. a �CR�C��ICE� APR i a 1985I i_C�TY O QR(JiJp-, Dear Orono Property Owner: The City Council of the City of Orono will ineet on Monday, April 22, 1985, at 7:00 P.M., at the Orono Middle School Auditorium, 685 Old Crystal Bay Road North, to pass upon a proposed special assessment for the construction of sanitary sewers in the Crystal Bay area. The notice of the public hearing is enclosed for you: information. As stated in the notice the City Council will consider several assessment options including a partial assessment of the project cost to the benefitting property owners with the remainder of the project cost to be paid out of City funds, which could result in an increase in property taxes of the entire City. v J v V ir from KEN ALLISON ........... .. 0 F 0 iR'Cl 10va,d J4-,o,� ?77 All, I L P 1, O ti C i --.... -� 10.L-k- QIC 11 r� i C, C_, rLe— I� 2 oCJ.ea•c: �iz�n.c� ate a rd <"c►� r., L', ,� � Abu : �'�-►� "'� a� qCGS 'jam L � I tl,La� �caJ I A 1985 THELMA A. WRIGHT 285 N. Old Crystal Bay Rd. Lang Lake, Minn. 55356 Ask 1819� CITY C Cv Dear Orono Mayor and Council. I paid for my own sewer, and Ism strongly opposed Jo CITY OF QRQN� payinq for any part of someone else's sewer. Please vote against the Crystal say Area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited properties. WAi.-ri.it H. Wi[1•rt--, 1100 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD, WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 April 17, 1985 Mrs. Mary Butler jor and the Members ,he Orono City Council P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 , CITY-0 F ORONO Dear Mayor Butler and the Members of the Orono City Council: I am writing to protest the consideration by the Council of only assessing a portion of the cost of Sewer Project 85-1 to the affected land owners. This would mean that the unpaid portion would have to assessed against the rest of the community who would gain nothing from the improvement, and that is niether fair nor equitable. Citylogewers do enhance the value of the property they serve and it cli jusi"Pnot seem reasonable that the city should enhance the property values of a small segment of the community and expect those unaffected by the improvement to pay for even a portion of the improvement. Twice in my life I have had city water or sewage or both brought intc the area where I was living and in both cases I paid my full pro- portionate share. ? both cases I was able to realize the cost of the improvement when 1 old the property. I realize that sewer projects are tremendously expensive, but surely the Orono City Council can devise a more equitable means of accom- plishing the improvement to a small portion of the community without assessing the community as a whole. Yours very sincerely, Walter H. White 612.473.0554 ► L. C N A I S T T CASCO ►OINT, USE MINNU ONKA 2141 CASCO ►JIN( kDA0 NATZA TA,RINNES0TA 11311 April lu, 1985 To the Mayor -•nd Council of the City of Orono: With regard to the proposed sewer project for the area of Crystal Bay coming up for discussion at an earl;; meeting of the Council,this is to express my objection to being assessed any part of the cost to anti• but the property owners benefiting therefrom. Present taxes on my owm property are all but unendurable and to assume any part of that of others would be noning short of an outrage. r.tV Paul L. Ch s y ---- U�F1C�� Mayor i nd City Council Members of Orono � 7ARI P 1985 L. P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 1_ V� 1 I Vi- 0i;0;';;�_i Dear Orono Mayor and Council. I am strongly opposed to paying for anyone else's tax liability, and that is what is being proposed in the Crystal Bay sewer project. I received no such preferential treatment with respect to my sewer assessment. My property taxes have more than doubled since 1981, and this will only contribute more to the: inequity. I request your vote against the Crystal Bay Area sewer project if it is going to place a financial burden on properties other than those directly benefiting from the project. Sincerely, Wil iam TOWARD 3460 Birch Lane Orono, MN. 55391 C-1/14 10 7L4 lq-- 6.4_1 Cl tz - Ce a CITY 0 4-17-85 The Mayor and Council Members of Orono P.O.Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323 Dear Orono Mayor and Council, APR I R 198 It has come to my attention that you want to to assesse me, a taxpayer, for a sewer project to benefit 78 homes in the Crystal Bay area by City Hall. I am strongly opposed to paying for any part of someone else's sewer. I have paid for my own sewer and personally feel that the other 78 homeowners should do the same. I am asking you to to at least vote against the Crystal bay Area sanitary sewer project UNLESS it can be totally assessed to the benefited properties. r, I will be following the hearing and trust you will vote according to the majority. Thank you. Tresa and David Gardella 1230 Orono Oaks Drive Long Lake, Mn. 55356 (we are in 6rono and pay Orono taxes) l �C'• ,all/c.-. pi. C!o—mot .a.u.�9 L 11 �..t, ate— � � (t,t• ,fit,,.—f v lT t-'►�+'��./ �.�YLr+'T..-� (!' l,t �✓ �- :t. Z� y L1r[. /�t.L—:-� � a'Y . {1 0-Lt.L-a.t_ � •-t't�� fir - d 1-4 cp. J c r // I1 �c ------------ �r r APR I p lwaos� IOUA --U�ww x.. CJ4 eA, L�. ; -oL, A4rmr ot-i 4" V� AA4'-o *" "v"7 --)o� J-4 44 *-;' ljl� 09,C- 40 CA"Joodl-V O/Lo"r AjaVx&t. . jLO-0 ;& V-0-t /0'7 k�4* k 4c J,64�� 416-44e-A- V.S4 P-� CA4 e4AV.**4 . 9 q aiauiia 1496 `MO"17.% c4111-. 55364 WILHARM 1� PHARMAC 36TH ST. AND CHICAGO AVE. MINNEAPOLIS. MINN. 55407 TEL. NO. 1?127.2315 "iExcellins in courteous personal seruire" RONU , -z`-j '/fT 3 /-mot-C�✓`tz� I �Ve O pec zdv-%�� — 3 -7 yJ f CITY .OF OROP OJ Orono Mayor and Council City of Orono P.O.Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Orono Mayor and Council: Eva S. Jacob 2725 Shadywood Rd.Orono Excelsior, MN. 55331 April,16 1985 I paid for my uwn sewer, and I am strongly opposed to paying for any part of someone else's sewer.. Ple-.se vote against the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited proper -ivies. sincerly, Eva S. Jacob Katheryn and Willis Duryea. MD. 2.iG5 ' r.taywood Road rono Excelsior Minnesota 55331 April 16 1985 Orono Mayor and Council: I paid for my own sewer, and I am strongly opposed to paying for any part of someone else's sewer. Please vote against the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited properties. sinserly, Kar the '.-Diuryea ��� / : i�►' will is : r..YYefaMti Eileen and William H. Nicholls 2 30 Shadywood Rd. Orono Excelsior, MN. 55331 Orono Mayor and Council City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN, 55323 Dear Orono Mayor and Council: We paid for our awn sewer,, and we are strongly opposed to paying for any part of someone else's sewer. Please vote against the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited prcperties. sincerly, 4��V �' , 4 �"e - � /IV i' / Eileen Nicholls C � William H. Nicholls `IC @rpi0I 19 r Mr. and Mrs. Ken Chapman 2695 Shadywood Road Orono Excelsior, MN. 55331 April, 17 1985 Orono Mayor and city Council City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay,55323 Dear Mayor and Council: I paid for my own sewer, and I am strongly opposed to paying for any part of someone else's sewer. Please vote aga' st the Crystal Bay Area sa„itary sewer project unless= pan be totally assessed to the benefited properties. Sincerly, Patricia Ch .pm� Ken Ch /pn L-5 Cei EAFRI ii 191f WY OF oFONO Ursula and Richard Breustedt 2675 Shadywood Road,Orono Excelsior, MN. 55331 April 16 1985 Oroni Mayor and Council City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Orono Mayor and Council: We paid for our own sewer, and we are strongly opposed to paying for any part of someone else's sewer. Please vote again3t the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited properties. sincerly, Ursula Breustedt RicYtard Breustedt MAURICE ADELSHEIM JR. 825 TONKAWA RD IONO LAKE MN 55356 PHONE 161 2) 4 7 1 8816 (15j � [�iq 0 C U V �r law �1 .� To: Mayor and Council of Orono Mn. CITY OF OF?0jo Subject: Proposed sewer assessment for Crystal Bay Gentlemen, When the sewer was laid along Tonkawa Rd I was assessed for my property and for the share of the overall expense. I do not feel it is proper that I now be asked to pay for the sewer expense for someone else. I ask that you vote against the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer project unless it Is assessed as was mine just against the benefited properties. Sincerely, P•lauri ce Adel sheim �r . 825 Tonkawa Rd. Orono ��A' � U1� ILU �U CITY OF ORONO The City Council City of Orono Hennepin Counts Vinneaota Gentlemen: Robert G. Laurie 3015 Casco Point Rd. Wayzata WE' 55391 April 16, 1985 An a property owner in the above City, I object to any assessment for Sanitary Sewer Project 85-1 Crystal Bay Area except to property owners within the legal limits of that project. Those property owners, as I recall, had a sewer option some years ago which they rejectmd. It would be unjust and wrong to assess other property owners to subsidize those whose procrastination Is responsible for the increased coats. The assessment should be levied 100% against the benefitted property as it has been for others. Owner s•r Al an J. Ri t0hi e 1815 Fagerness Point Road Wayzata, Minnesota 5J7-91 April 11, 198" Honorable Mary C. Nut1e.'r, Mayor, Lity of Orono Orono City Hall Crystal Bay, Minnesota .,' '•::'_: Re: Crystal Day Sewer Project Public ►Jeer- i ng Dear Mayor Hut1er: 1 am writing to yuu to e?xpret ti my coticur n aiid uppusi tion t�fj certain assessment options under consideration at your April 22nd public hear iiig on thu Crystal lay sewer- project. 1 will, be in Dallas on the night of the meeting and unable to attend, so 1 wortld like to briefly summarize my reasuns for (.onr_ern. 1) I strongly believe that expenses that relate to capital improveme_ant.ta should be totally atisesseri t.o those property owners that benefit directly from the improvement.. !-his i-, a fundamental issue of fairne-is. ') Except for• the Minnetonka Bluffs Sewer Project., it is my understanding that all Other Ururiu property owners with s,er,er access have paid the full cost. of those projects. fhe lli&') decision to pey a portion ut the cost of the bluffs pr uject from city funds was an er-ror in Judgment and that precedent should bE• soundly rejected. _) if there is any logic t.0 bprUading this c.ust to all City property owners, than this same logic would seen to require that *you provide cur r Eatz.purrdi iiy ta:c cr e,di t.ta to property owner who have already paid the full cost of their own sewer, projects. 4) Ci ty-wi de asseamc:antis of this type are grossly unfair to t..1 ie approx i matel y 81 Orono residences that are not 1 i k.el y to ever" have acteSiSi t.o sanitary sewers becaUbe of low density and the availability of perfectly acceptable alternatives. Uri thu basis of thu iibove, 1 r.rryU you and iAI 1 the Member s 04 the Council to take action that will assess Lhu full cost rat t hv� a improvements to the benef i tt i ng property owners. Si ncerel y, Jane M. kit.r_hrR �1�,,, •i. kitc:f,�� f,JI Cc Al 1 Lc Ly l.uutic_1 ! Mc,>mhii r r ✓ ��i.lr t•.,,..aa till :f { t.t..r Kesel ` T'nrf\ !�;Z c•.-,.. 0.-.2 7`i 1-.. f•n•, rrn ji �•r't _.1 .`...5- . i� V C , ... _ . .� ..... ... , 4'ili\ic,nt� Prnr'rncnd !isposSmP'At fnr Crrvptnl 'Pnv n\"f;iPna Tr .q— '. .+nr rrra f'r ••rni l . T fi— !� v.n e.\i .2 nr+• ,,f *hf+ `tl rv,na.. rlr •. 171..ff'Q !l ++r�^ r\P (�rnrn Tr �•:-n e.,,..r,f,r�/'^l l n" i inn r.•r• v ni r-ht-n-+C nrr� T n....l,t c•t-.�•..i }hrn,,...�., s• - thn rl)r� i..ga•�nt^ .\..."•., ..r(� p.,.rnrnp of •e.nl..irr .�l.r n-.., •.n. r..+.-•�e•M '.�c, s•...�,.•.� f r . �t n n�c} (ji f'£i n.. ) a a n +nT+ �•r 1 e-n. �- n�` ,ta Cr... -h+ 4'4 nrn:.tl ni .l rnlltrrj., *4 n ri t•• r c Thn 14'rt..nv i +•, nQ(� 1i•t)a 1]rn-'• +rO r*TPC+• :+'a fa .-.7 ah^ /`i i'tl f nl t+'tni !'.. .. r: r� ''n :,l)v. ripr t4•n •. r. �„tTt, v/i a.. n 3• 1 far^.'. cnr +•I..n Cn111t� n+'• s^ n n lr, ..ali7^.^ r•T ni �i r. .-. 1..-r.r-- ..+:••..v. «rn.. .\•n C� rvr,nn.7PMa iv. r•M rra.7i n„- ..Mr, in�ac• nr,7 rlai rt f•l i••pv.. rt .. fn4 v... -•.- . t.Ip n krj ,-,.�.��nnlh 71l)rfe•' T+tlj a n.tr ..,rr ,..o•• T enn:� is nr T.A,tirR nr.,p A tnnv,�h lt�th t�•nr.. Ln.•cn r,n..MOrt Tvp rhni^r." .naAra ivt QQ�! •Prp rqi ff l n,11 t n"rl t4+n r.ne+ c ,.rpra hi ph ti.l.+ r.+n r.r,.tfnrr,pri i n DTp(iF. ptrt n-fi to the nnll r-.v np ,ni »�..�1 n�,.. .«ytMar tr)1 v,tp..I`prra _. v1(• P �ln +hP ]4rnc• of ni r17,Pr'lr`0 P. T n+. .laA l.rn rlja Tr) CI nCi "ivy T wnuI r' j 1 le Fs to \+ +h^4- T fa••+ a rr,r+l,r ntrnn•;nrl t f\ n'atrj np 1'nr p-rPrl q nq'rt of t ho end t) t i nn �n cr —nnv,P PI cr,c ap+.•a on nv n?^l pfn Pvlra T t.7nt)1 rl l)rr•e lrnil +•n 'tIn •'R'+ !'��^i rc•Y tl+,p 7�rl7QtC11 D^,• C04t r L... P Tlrn inn 11+11 pCc j+ 1 c n^i ri FAr P'-ti ^' �' i. a► n nnn.,l .•hn ..i l 1 ,,v-1Pf+� t j April 17, 1985 The MaYOR AND Council Members of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Gentlemen: I paid for my own sewer, and I am strongly opposed to paying for any part of someonce else's sewer. Please vote against the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the bene- fited properties. Sincerely, Helen and Jim Kramer 1837 Fagerness Pt. Rd. Wayzata, MN 55391 (I t j f A f y 701 1 T I C ILL. �; . - I N L Y 7it�vc., y @ IF, ' -sl (�( APR 19 W IN Av ,IJ lo- � y c �6-ncil C �� a� i�i�,S-"cl io,&.t, a. lxa,� 0,-e-d- (�21� act4c&, .. -^ J ✓IV4eL vJ_4jd . titer (4/(,LU h, aA d e ai--, Ct--,,cA- Al, "I ; 71 Cl� .a��..c.�+..�..: _.eY..av .6tts�•.v-� . f�.+�r�J G 4011# F. Ocksoor 419e IM3howe aN iuoe, 0 •5364 y-/S-?; lot- 0L9@C� APKR j)_O o 0 i i APR 1 9 W L� �!- Y OF oRoNn ID d � (Yl �J R-4-co - C•�� r�� JIMf 4e-yj_U oya 4&'Le P64 aA.to-, Lo,h fly -/kj MR GARY PEITO 1169 NORTH ARM DR RT 1 • 110UNDflN SS765 CC) 6t O u.) A `S ek) r a ld a Al (2A r y �S CL"' Q� f ro, c �,-- --�- � d 4f,b �-10 s�_ y (\es 4 �- /-[& -/ X-6 - le U ; lctP C�/e� .t CvO rrc Atd �n /-,.o n4'-;4y an J � Ca �- e +v pxl 7_�et' t /C-5- /49 `f 6 -67k p APR 1 910 {� _CITY OF ORONO AIIIN � 3 MR. AND MRS. FREDF.RICK WINSTON 765 SPRING HILL ROAD WAYZA A, MINN. 5591 Gj''� i �/'V (-4( �✓-yl� �� 1.� ' � '_ j�-...�, tom- ti..� � << Dear Orono Mayor and Council: I paid for my own sewer, and Iam strongly opposed to payinq for any part of someone else's sewer. Please vote against the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally as eased to the benefited properties. fit,%, + ?Y��✓. z. P, Ss3s� Terris M. Sadler 1396 Baldur Park Road Orono, MN. 55391 City Council City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN. 5532-3 Dear Sirs: i h ` APR 1 91985 cVi Y OF April 18, 7.985 I am opposed to any assessment whether it be a property tax increase or of some other form to pay for someone else's sewer. The proposal for the city to pick up half tn, cost is !.ot a standara practice. The property owners with existing sewers have paid for the,'-- own. Why should they have to pay for other's? Vote against the Crystal Ba,•, Area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the bel,2fited properties. Thank you, Terris M. Sadler ir Rk, rR ow AM 19 ITY OF ORONO YOUR PROTECTION IS OUR PROFESSION CASEY AND CASEY. INC 7700 LOGAN AVE S(--, a MINNEAPOLIS. MINN 55423 - PHCA'a ti(-k 3091 APR 1 9 1985 CITY ORONO (.I H a, I I Crysvai tray, rN 15F,323 Tc. : Mayor and I ty v000c I vi. It.-, e r c, Re: Crystal t%,-w 131?w*t ProJect pie W, .4 '1- - Y00 -'�Q 4:10%, tht we are cjio-s.&cl t(. j-av,roq ,--..r tr-L water -v-iton For al inay. iO pii-J f.)r ow own aric t it-li thZn th,: ret,liVt. S. 6:y 1j.-ji_Ijd j;j ;,ffe P I VIA* a.ja ieii k, crystal Lay Artn s-Ir I ta--y , '.. 4. c Uri it cael k-e L-JI;I Iv to 1;:v bane f , .-M I t. 'trim and liha r I C asr: v Z E-�cp I S I(It" hN I MOM" AM WROOki" 94SURAW-1 I CA!,' A. Ty • Llll`c -, F114L 0 HEo. 41-17LIAL 1`0ND E S C O N O V E R -- Q DkL April 18, 1985 City of Orono P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323 Mayor and City of Orono Council Members: My wife and I reside at 1489 Shoreline Drive, O;:ono, Mn. We do not have the luxury of sanitary sewer and are of course obliged to maintain a drain field and septic tank. Based upon estimates supplied to me by Dorothy Hallin, City C"�rk, the method of assessing property owners in the City o_ Orono for the proposed construction of sanitary sewers in the Crystal Bay area could result in an increase in taxes on my property of. between $40. to $50. per year, or a total of $600. to $750. over the proposed 15 year period of assessment. If this method of assessment were to become common in Orono for sanitary sewer normally assessed to the benefited properties, non benefited properties such as mine, could wind up paying for sanitary sewers for others while obliged to maintain my own system. It is difficult for me to see that there is any fairness to this method of assessment and my wife and I vigorously object to its application in this instance. We respectfully urge you to defeat this proposed assessment procedure for this project. Yours very truly, D Elmer S. Conover Janet M. Conover ESC:js u'��% Cyr - . ���.}..--� � � � � �s- APR I go ►� \u L ciT OF 0 C73�� cr. Aul�� �r e- 2673 Pheasant road Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 April 1°, 1935 The Honorable :ayor and Council Fembers City of Orono P. O. box 66 Crystal Say, Kinnesota 5532) Dear Yayor and Council :rembers : We respectfully request that you vote against tc.e Crystal bay area sanitary sewer project unless it is to ce totally assessed to tre benefited properties. As you are aware, with the exception of ad valorem tax for streets, improvement taxation is assessed to benefited properties. We have paid, or are in the process of payinE, for the sewer in our area and are of the opinion that proper.;: owners in other areas s^.ould do the same. :hank you for your consideration. Very trul • yours, 0; 41 1 ZOOft1. ,),(7�, I�. Mr, r Mrs. D. C. Messer lii.::/ eE; GROETSCN-WICK & ASSOCIATES, INC. 6950 WAYZATA BLVD.-SUITE..2 04 r U p�LO�.IS. MINNESOTA 55426 i � c V , %w �I t( APR 19 M CITY OF ORON_O_ j ev A i D.W. "Duke" Wick Mon"facturea Representatives Willam Groetsch A19.0;41.ne9ri 91)_r�41.n4�0r� APR i 9 1985 U1JlL L April 17, 1985 i YY OF 0R0N0 The Honorable Mary Butler, Mayor, .and Members of Orono Council Orono Village Hall Crystal Bay, MN 55323 I am writing in regard to the Council. Meeting scheduled for Monday, April 22, to pass upon a proposed special assessment for the Crystal Bay sewer project. I hope the Council will vote against this assessment UNLESS it can be assessed totally against the property it benefits. I am very opposed to being assessed a tax to pay for a portion of the Crystal Bay sewer project. I do not recall any action by the Council to assess any other Orono resident for a share of the sewer assessment which I was responsible for. My property taxes payable in 1985 were increased over 12�%, and have increased considerably for the past several years. I believe in paying my fair share of taxes, but it gets to a point where a person cannot stand any more taxation. I have tried to retain my residence since the death of my husband, and financially it is getting to to difficult to keep up with all the taxation. I strongly urqe you to vote against this special assessment for Crystal Bay if it means assessing other residents of Orono for a portion of their cost. Sincerely yours, Ag s J. tetler 31 0 Nor Shore Crive Wayzata, MN 55391 Auril 1'J, 1985 Office of ;;a,yor and City Council Village of Orono Administrative Offices 1335 S . F rox n ;oa d, Box Crystal ray, ',;14 55323 Sir: In response: to the comrr.unication from your office i Assessmento for :sanitary �evrer Project 85-1; we are Kriting in support of a negative position on this issue. Susan S . Eoha ch -4 6�&'e — �� �-YA6) ..allace . Eohach 13.30 L ixth Avenue North i,ong Lake, i'*: 55356 ►,�( sm CITY F 0IR0 N1 0 � A4-,��ry t &Un"d, /IILI, ltiacct `,'Kf / Al APR t ; CITY ell,Z.- --J. April 11, 1985 Dear Orono Mayor and Council: 1 paid for my own sewer, and I am strongly opposed to paying for any part of someone else's sewer. Thank you, A,pr11 17, 1:'c5 DeEr Mayor Butler and counr71 Memb-rs We were completely stunned when we of the sewer project in the Bay ttre prcr-osal itself but by the proposed for it. fi i•. � .. .� til were informed a Y'P' 3 Not by plan to pay We were not notified by the city cf t'..e assessment heurine to be held on April 22 whlch le an appalinF oversight since it is scmethln;- than, does r,oncern us as a home owner in the city. Therefore y;;u -pan understand our aetonishment when we learn we ar'e tc to asses2ed for someone else•'s sewer pro.�ec,t. Cur horse has a sewer' assessment on it r'.Fht now that we are rayinF for and h.tve been ptyInF for since 1975. This year it is ccat.inF us 4678.73. hoone ,%t any time volunteered to pay it far' ue r.cr volunteerej to help us g-t an as,;Assment passed to help us pay fcr- it. At the time of our sever project belnc planner: we were owners of this property but at the time had nct put a house on it and we were at no time given any informal"_on on said pro tiect at all. We were t c: A it was up to us to de -'de whir- , cf two ays ve wanted to pqy for it ^rr'. thmt was al:. we find thit we ere not very well informed by the city In all matters thALt ar• of concern to us as hc:ne owners. Any proposal to pay for Rnyone elce's sewer, as,es- sment is a prcposal we Kr•e definately aFa:Est. The benerltlnE parties can pay for their- own assestne:;t just like we are or, else it is a sewer pre 1ect that can be forgott.er, riEi f;:r• as we are concerr:e::. We are eo thankful that we fin91l did learn of the sssessmert hearinF anc; we will definatel-. be treir to rely stop anc;.har• ir.crea^e in cur L.aXOS. Sincerely, If r 2y74 d� N.u:rr. �tC�c�t'�'�' \. ti t1 •ttt 2909 WAYZATA BOULEVARD MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 87405 612 / 374-9100 April 16, 1985 The Mayor and Council Members of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Mayor and Council Members: ,. APR 19 1985 IT)F p,_Y� I recently read of the proposed assessment of the Crystal Bay Area sewer project for other properties. I am responsible for my own property and it's already high taxes - I should not pay for somebody elses assessments. I am against the sanitary sewer project unless it is totals assessed to the involved properties. Please vote aqainst any proposal that would assess any .)ther property owner for this ;,-ciect. Sincerely, George*'�R . Bloom GRB:sm 1374 Rest Point Road Orono, MN 55364 �L' ��� L° • �%G�! � (.� % �Q..C.. •cb�✓ Q�%"cG'� C��iJ[�/%�i:C�C, l �,� Q=i�-' �Gl�?.�- Y� ,t�'1 ,�.�G%Q �-�/� ✓moo �.�u� f � �/ ; �'J✓�.c- r__�.� fir~,-ti ,c� ..�c� April 19, 1985 City Clerk Orono Muncipal Building Orono, Minnesota RE: Objection to Assessment of Public Improvement Project 85-1 Pursuant to M.S.A. §429.081 Dear Sir: I wish to go on record that I am oppos(,d to the Public Improve- ment Project 85-1. This letter is intended to serve as an objec- tion to the proposed Public Improvement Project 85-1 as required by M.S.A. §429.081. It is my understanding that you intend to assess my property at two units at -a cost of. $10,850.00 per unit for the cost of the sanitary sewer Project that is proposed by the City of Orono. I have attached a copy of a letter from my attorney that raises questions relative to the application of the proposed assessment in this case. Not only do I raise questions with respect to the appropriateness of the assessment, but I also question the amount and how the assessment was calculated by city officials. In addition to my questioning and objecting to the amount and the method of arriving at the proposed assessment, I am opposed to the sanitary sewer project because I do not believe it will benefit my property. There is no need for the sanitary sewer project. Craig Olsgn d/b/a Tonka rar-nission & Gear 1960 Shoreline Drive Orono, Minnesota I-irims,-r 8, Tw,:E, ITD. ATT1)UNLYS A"r LAW II Nf)ItI)IWESTLHN FINA%(,L\1 1 1 NI I It 7SWO XLUXL`, AVI.N,.L Sol Tit At>mAN G. tirt+n,t TElevttovr DANIEL D. Tttt:c 1�I,OO?li'�GTON, �11vNE.SnTn 5r,-I: +I I17+5 (012) e35-24:34 CARY R. MATZ JotIN F. GI©A1 Tort TooAs VICKI L. BAILEY April 19, 1985 Mr. Craig Olson Tonka Transmission & Gear 1960 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Dear Mr. Olson: It is our understanding that you have received notice from the City of Orono about a proposed assessment for Public Improvement Project Number 85-1. It is our understanding that the City of Orono intends to conduct a public hearing on Monday, April 22, 1985 to consider whether or not to order a storm sewer. Further, as a consequence of the ordering of the storm sewer it is anticipated that property owners within the area to be assessed will have to pay an amount of $10,850.00 as a unit cost. Further, you have been advised that your property will be assessed two units at a cost of $10,850.00 per unit. Subsequent to your visiting with us in regard to this matter we contacted two individuals at the City Hall of Orono to ask certain questions about how the proposed assessment was calcu- lated. We are unclear as to the method by which the assessment was calculated or the basis upon which you would be required to pay two units of cost when other properties in the area would only be assessed one unit of cost. We believe that under Minnesota law all properties must be uniformly assessed for any public improvement and furthermore, the assessment must relate to the benefit to the property being assessed by the city. At this time we recommend that you object to the proposed public improvement and assessment applicable to your property on the basis that if imposed in the manner in which suggested by the City of Orono, we would question its fairness and appropriateness under Minnesota law. You should bring this matter of concern to the attention of the City Council of the City of Orono. It seems highly unfair that you would be assessed more than one unit when other properties in your area are being assessed only one unit. HERBST & TxuF, LTD. Mr. Craig Olson Page Two April 1.9, 1985 Further, you should make it clear to the City Council of Orono that this improvement will not benefit your property to the extent of the assessment that is proposed by the City. Ve y truly yours, Adrian E. Herbst Daniel D. Thue DDT:pla April 12, 1985 WEEK OF APRIL 15 - 19 1,U, L i (� CITY OF ORONO O � NOTE: This publication contains a one -week list of meetings and agenda items for the Metropolitan Council, its standing committees and advisory committees, as well as similar information for the Regional Transit Board. It is mailed every Friday to a contact person in the region's local governments and to the Twin Cities media. Meetings and agendas occas;cnally must be changed. For this reason, anyone planning to attend meetings should verify the information in advance. Call 291-6464 to do so. Media should continue to call Ken Reddick, 291- 6422, or Lynna Williams, 291-6511, for more information. .Metropolitan Systems Committee - Monday, April 15, 4 p.m., Conference Room E. The committee will hold a public hearing or the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board's request to reallocate acquisition funds for Central Mississippi Riverfront Regional Park in the 1983-84 regional recreation open space capital improvement program. It will also discuss and act on cournents on the draft environmental impact statement for the Prior Lake northshore trunk sewer; the development grant amendment request for Spring Lake Park Reserve in Dakota County; the Miesvil,e Ravine Park Reserve master plan in Dakota County;and the combined sewer overflow amendments to part I of the Water Resources Management Development Guide. Regional Transit Board - Monday, April 15, 4:30 p.m., Council Chambers. The board will hear the Policy Committee report on the Hiawatha Av. environmental impact statement evaluation and alternatives analysis, and the legislative progress reports. It will also review the Administration and Finance Committee report on authorization to advertise a secretarial position and an administrative assistant position; agreemen' of funds distribution regarding, 1984 tax levy receipts and 1955 tax anticipatien certificate note proceeds; and review and approval of Title VI document. House Environment and Natural Resources Committee (tentative) - Tuesday, April 16, �0 a.m., State Office Building, Room 10. The committee will act on Rep. Valento's CSO bill. House Local and Urban Affairs Committee (tentative) - Tuesday, April 16, noon, ta�G— ce Building, Room 200. The committee will act on the Merriam/Rose solid waste bill. Metropolitan Waste management Advisory Committee - Tuesday, April 16, 1 p.m., Council hambers. he committee will hear an update on the Council's solid waste actions, including an abatement team update. It will hear a review of the solid waste processing permit for the Metropolitan Waste Control ash use program; the Hennepin County waste flow designation plan; and a review of committee bylaws. F'enate Finance State Department Subcommittee tentative - Tuesday, April 16, 3 p.m., State Capitol Building, Room 120. The subcornnittee will hold a hearing on the regional parks bonding in the governor's capital budget. Transportation Advisory Board - Wednesday, April 17, 2 p.m., Council Chambers. The board will introduce its new member, Kiki Sonnen, and a resolution honoring outgoing member James Scheibel. It will also discuss TAB reorganization concepts. Environmental Resources Committee - Wednesday, April 17, 4 p.m., Conference Room E. The committee will hear a presentation on the waste Management Board's household hazardous waste report; an update on the Council's solid waste abatement team activities; a Waste Energy Systems request for exclusion from Hennepin County's solid waste designation plan; and a review of the solid waste permit for the MWCC's ash use program. Governor's Taxicab Commission - Thursday, April 18, 8 a.m., Conference Room E. The commission will hear reports from its Airport Service Cornnittee and Industry Initiatives and Incentives Committee. Metropolitan and Community Development Committee - Thursday, April 18, 1:30 p.m., Council Chambers. The committee will discuss and act on the Miahtomedi comprehensive plan amendment; the Health Planning Board's request for a resolution addressing spending cuts in social services; the recommendation for authorization of revised program objectives and guidelines for the Metropolitan Housing Fund; and health systems plan revisions on acute in -patient service: and burn care. Management Committe,� - Thursday, April 18, 3 p.m., Council Chambers. The committee will discuss the personnel report. It will also consider a grant agreement between the Council and Hennepin County, and between the Council and Anoka County; and the proposed 1984 final statement of costs reimbursable by the metropolitan commissions. It will also be informed about the joint decision with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and the Regional Transit Board on space. Metropolitan River Corridors Study Committee - Thursday, April 18, 3 p.m., Conference Room E. Aviation Policy Plan Task Force - Friday, April 19, 9 a.m., Conference Rooms 6 and C. 7he task force will consider the Aviation Policy Plan, including the revised assumption of four alternative strategies. It will receive a range forecast from Charles River Associates. The task force will also discuss the airport classification system. Metropolitan Council Planners Forum - Friday, April 19, 9 a.m., Council Chambers. The forum will address several issues involved in siting group homes, including the history of the deinstitutionalization movement, and state and local controls and licensing. 6,12-348' -68, ; o Dorothy Hallin, City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN Clerk 55323 (C� n/ 1� �! i�' Or- r C�itC'N April 10, 1985 The County is required by law to prepare a county -wide solid waste master plan. The purpose of this plan is to specify the programs and facilities that will be established in order to meet the goals and objectives set forth in the Metropolitan Council's Solid Waste Policy Plan, which was approved on March 14. The County's plans will include waste -to -energy and transfer -station facilities; City and County recycling goals and activities; program costs and incentives; financing methods; the County's plans regarding control of waste disposal I ocations; and short -and -tong -term waste -management objectives. Minnesota Statutes 473.803 specifies that the County will consult with all affected local governmental units early in the process. The County has just begun preparing its Solid Waste Master Plan. County staff will be preparing the plan in conjunction with a 40-person Solid Waste Management Advisory Comrittee, ten &. -hom are city representatives. The County plan is to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council by December 14. County staff, and the advisory committee, will have a draft report ready in late -September. Copies of this draft will be circulated for comment to Hennepin County cities, and others. In Noverrt--�-r a final report will be submitted to the County Board for approval, and will then be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for their approval. Your comments now or at ary time during this plan development are welcome, and should be directed to Dave Winter of our department. His phone number is 348-4491. Sincerely, 2-xew, Luther D. Nelson, P.E. Director LDigAGV►' : mvr MUNICIP cc: County Board of Commiss iorxrs Vern Gen linger, Associatc. county Administrator HENNEPIN MI TY COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE OFFICE HENNEPIN A-1005 Government Center HMinneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0105 n1 L-, April 5, 1985 Dear Community Leader: APR - 9 1985 RE: PLAN REGARDING CONCENTRATION OF COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES During the 1984 Session, the Legislature adopted Chapter 617 which requires counties, including Hennepin, to engage in planning to promote the dispersal of residential treatment facilities for persons with chemical dependency, mental illness or, other disabilities from overconcentrated neighborhoods. In formulating the plan, counties were to solicit the participation of affected persons, facilities, municipalities and advocacy groups. In January you were sent a draft copy of the Hennepin County Plan Regarding Concentration of Community -Based Residential Facilities, with a request to provide us with comments or feedback. rall reactions to the draft were generally positive with a strong emphasis on municipal involvement in every phase of the development or relocation of residential facilities. According- ly, we have included minor revisions in the plan to emphasize county:municipal roles in locating group homes. Hennepin County does not make decisions regard- ing the specific sites of group homes and will not override local land use plans or patterns. This document does not define specific pre -determined relocations; it establishes a coordinated process for making those decisions. Municipalities clearly must be involved in every stage of the planning and implementation process. The enclosed is the revised plan. Prior to submitting the plan to the Department of Human Services, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners will review the plan, take publics comments, and approve a final plan. The item has been scheduled for: Tuesday, April 16, 1985 - 10:00 a.m. Commissioners' Board Room 24th Floor - Administrative Tower Hennepin County Government Center 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota You are invited to attend and to present comments and reactions. Thank you for your involvement to date. We look forward to working closely with you as we implement this process. Sincerely, � MICHAEL W. WEBER, Director HENNEPIN COUNTY Community Services Department an equal opportunity employer HENNEPIN COUNTY PLAN REGARDING CONCENTRATION OF GROUP HOMES Developed in Response to Laws of Minnesota 1974, Chapter 617 by Hennepin Countl Community Services Department and Zoning Task Force March 1985 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND PLANNING PROCESS . I II. COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . A. Community -Based Residential Facilities: Definitions and Descriptions B. Current Level of Concentration and Future Development C. Minneapolis Concerns . D. Suburban Perspectives . E. Barriers to Geographic Distribution, of Cormunity-Based Residential Facilities . I. Authority to Mandate Relocation 2. Conversions of Vacated CBRF s . 3. Zoning Requirements 4. Funding . S. Support Services . . 6. Other Clinical Issues . 7. Availability of Suitable Buildings F. Goals for Locating r oimunity-Based Residential Facilities G. Committee Recommendations to Hennepin County 111. COUNTY WORK PLAN 4 4 8 10 12 14 14 15 16 17 19 20 20 22 24 27 IV. APPENDICES 32 I. INTRODUCTION AND PLAt R J11 IG PROCFSS Background The concept and practice of deinstitutionalization are now 20 years old. During the last two decades, over 600,000 mentally retarded, chemically dependent, mentally ill and indigent elderly people have been discharged from public hospitals across the country. In Minnesota, over 11,000 adults have left state hospitals to return to their communities. There is ro longer any debate that initially the communities were not and many still are not ready for their return. A large number of clients left the back words of the state institutions for the back alleys of the cities. Many ended up in substandcrd inner city facilities such as rooming houses or board and lodging facilities, which offered no rehabilitation services and little or no client supervision. Others become part of the growing numbers of homeless people, drifting from shelters to the streets and, frequently, to the hospitals. Some refused treatment; others needed aggressive outreach and assistance to access existing programs. For most clients, however, the treatment resources simply did not exist. There was no way to obtain the help they needed in the community. During the years that followed, cornmc-nities began to slowly respond to the neglect and abandonment which had resulted from the depopulation of the institutions. Legal rulings, advocacy and the availability of Federal funding led to the development of community -based residential programs for mentally retarded children and adults throughout the notion. In Minnesota, special state appropriations also created a system of residential programs for emotionally disturbed children and adolescents, and for adults with chemical dependency problems. Finally in 1982, the Minnesota State Legislature again provided national leadership with the appropriation of funds for residential treatment programs for mentally ill adults. The development of these facilities was not without problems. Funding limitations often dictated program design, and the location of appropriate buildings and of support services limited areas where programs were established. The multitude of private, local, state and federal funding sources and regulations prevented overall coordination in the planning of community -based residential facilities. The result was the overconcentration of facilities in large cities and a serious shortage of programs in suburban and rural areas. This pattern was repeated in every area of the country where community facilities were developed. The dual problem of overcon- centrotion and underserved areas finally led to renewed attention toward community - based residential facilities (CBRF-s) and CBRF clients. The situation in Hennepin County and Minneapolis was no different. Large family mansions and unused dormitories were converted to group living programs for deinstitutiono;ized clients. Support services followed the clients and additional residential facilities followed the sUpport services. Resources became clustered in the inner city neighborhoods, while other areas of Minneapolis and the County had only limited access to services. Between 1980 and 1982 two factors combined to dramatically increase the visibility of community-N:ised residential facilities in Minneapolis. First, the Minneapolis Planning Deportment and Planning Cornmission conducted a s' -dy of CBRFs which ►-Jgt.lighted the inequitable distribution of programs. The lack of regulatory control over "unlicensed" board and care and board and lodging facilities was also described. A community survey outlined neighborhood residents' perceptions of the benefits and problems associated with living near a licensed or "unlicensed" facility. This report was widely disseminated and actively discussed by the City's Citizen Participation Organizations, particularly those representing the most concentrated planning districts. Second, new funding was made available for residential mental health orogrorni, in 1982. In supporting the special appropriation for Rule 36 programs, the Legislature m-indoted that funding priority be given to upgrading unlicensed facilities which were already housing five or more mentally ill adults. Ninety-five percent of the unlicensed facilities were located in Minneapolis' five most concentrated planning areas. When these facilities added program services to meet state licensing standards, they were also required for the first time to apply for a conditional use permit. During the next two years, a total of 20 initial conditional use permit hearings were held for these "new" programs. The conversions of board and care and board and lodging facilities to Rule 36 licensed treatment programs was viewed 'is a positive change by most neighborhoods. No new facilities or facility beds were added; in fact, conversions resulted in a decrease of nearly 100 beds. However, the issue of concentration was again raised in a very public forum and there was criticism that State -imposed funding priorities were perpetrating the inequitable distribution of community -based residential facilities. As a result of all these issues, the 1984 Legislature passed Chapter 6! 7, which included prohibitions against further concentration and required some counties. including Hennepin, to promote decentralization. Hennepin County Planning Process - By late July, Hennepin County had organized c four -stage planning process to develop the required plan: • Survey. In August 1984, the Hennepin County Community Services Department initiated the planning process by sending a questionnaire to each of the 97 facilities located in Minneapolis' five over -concentrated planning districts. Facility operators were asked to give information on their buildings; the location of support services frequently used by their clients; benefits and obstacles to relocation; and willingness to voluntarily relocate their program by 1990. Eighty-seven (87) questionnaires were returned (90 percent). This information was compiled and made available to c, Zoning Task Force to use in developing recommendot ions. •' Zoning Task Force. The second step in developing Hennepin Coun'y's decentral- ization plan involved appointing a Task Force representing municipalities, neighs-orhood residents, providers, ;rurnan service councils, advocates and county stof "iis group met weekly from September 14 through October 23 to discuss the 3 of facilities involved, their distribution, future development and ba; to relocation. They developed a set of general principles to guide the loco:,,,) of facilities and made specific recommendations focused on removing barriers to redistribution of residentiol programs. The findings and recornrr.en- dations of the Zoning Task Force constitute a major portion of this report and form the basis for the County workplon. 0 County Workplan. Based on results of the survey and recommendations by the Task Force, the Community Services Department developed a plan to promote deconcentratiun, including a coordinated effort to assess residential and support - 2 - service gaps, educate communities, involve municipalities in decision -making and provide technical assistance to vendors. The workplan also included procedures tc improve monitoring and compliance by facilities which remain in concentrated neighborhoods. This document was then submitted to the Social Services committee of the Hennepin County Board for review and distribution to the County's 45 municipalities. • Municipal Review. In the final stage, each municipality within Hennepin Count; is now being given the opportunity to review and comment on the plan. After revisions, the final plan will be approved by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. The committee findings, recommendations and County workplan which follow therefore represent months of careful study, review and input by a wide variety of providers, advocates and municipalities throughout Hennepin County. - 3 - COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Community-Bos;d Residential Facilities: Definitions and Descriations The term "community -based residential facilities" is used by the City of Minneapolis to describe a vo;,iety of residential programs for children and adults which are required to obtain a conditional use permit. Included in the Minneapolis code of zoning ordis)ance were all facilities that house seven or more residents and meet at least one: of the following conditions: I. Program staff on pre , 2. Funding going to organization, not client; 3. Transportation arranged or provided for residents; or 4. At least some of the residents in the facility during the day. This definition allowed for municipal review of all facilities licensed by the Department of Human Services as residential treatment programs for seven or more emotionally disturbed children, chemically dependent or mentally ill adults and mentally retarded persons. After the 1980 Report on Community -Based Residential Facilities pointed out that board and care and board and lodging acilities were not subject to community review and yet were the subject of a disproportionate number of complaints, the Minneapolis City Council amended the definition to include all facilities which provide "group dining for residents" or are "eligible for licensure under State or local Health Department rules for board and carp and/or board and lodging facilities". The amended ordinance now requires a number of types of custodial or supervised group living situ- is to be regulated through the conditional use permit process. New board ..xi care, board and lodging and supportive living residences must now receive prior approval from the Minneapolis City Council and all facilities will be subject to annual reviews. Minnesota Laws of 1984, Chapter 617 requires counties with concentration of community residential facilities to develop plans to promote their dispersal. Community residential facilities are defined as those required to be licensed under DHS Rules 5, 8, 32, 34, 35, 36 and 80. Since Minneapolis is the only concentrated city in Hennepin County and since Minneapolis treats all CBRFs, including correctional facilities, board and care, board and lodging and supportive living residences the some for zoning purposes, Hennepin County will be using the broader definition developed by Minneapolis for this plan. The following is a brief definition of each type of facility included. Rules 5 and 8: Residential Treatment, Group Homes and Shelters for Children and Adolescents - Children and adolescents who use shelters may be infants or up to 18 years old and they may be abused, neglected or delinquent. Group home residents are generally 12-18 year old adolescents with behavioral, emotional and/or family problems that require treatment but are not so severe as to prohibit living in on open community setting and attending community schools. Clients who use residential treatment centers are 5-18 years old and have more serious emotional problems that necessitate placement in a self-contained setting where nearly all services are provided on -site. - 4 - Shelter facilities provide short-term (30 days or less) services, including physical care, staff supervision and limited counseling and educational services. Group homes provide relatively short-term (3 months to I year) services, including physical care, supervision and a program of group, individual and family counseling aimed at returning the youth home or to a more permane,.t place- ment. A wide range of community services may be used that include public or alternative schools, vocational training programs, Alcoholics Anonymous, therapy, work study, etc. Residential treatment centers offer 12-18 months of program services. The services are similar to those offered in group homes but more intensive and generally all services are provided within the facility, including on on -site school or' a wide range of therapeutic and recreational services. All Rule 5 and 8 facilities are monitored by the Minnesota Department of Human Services, the Minnesota Department of Health, the Hennepin County Community Services Department, as well as fire -safety and housing inspecto-s. Funding may be through private insurance (Rule 5 residential treatment centers only), private pay or, most commonly, by Hennepin County Child Welfare funds. Since these programs are dependent upon County funding, Hennepin County coordinates the planning and distribution of Rule 5 and 8 facilities. Rule 34: Residential Programs for Mentally Retarded Children and Adults - Mental retardation affects 3 percent of the population, but mentally retarded persons vary significantly in age, functioning level, abilities and handicaps. Some mentally retarded people may have severe or profound mental retardation coupled with significant physical disabilities and medical problems requiring almost total lifelong physical care. Others may be able to eventually move into their own housing arrangement with minimal follow-up services. progrom design, staffing and services in residential programs for mentally retarded children and adults vary with the needs of the clients they serve. Some facilities are short-term; others provide long-term support. In-house services may include physical care, teaching daily living skills, counseling and recre- ational activities. Mentally retarded clients are also required to attend some kind of day program, such as school, developmental achievement center, vocational programs or jobs. All of these support services are available within geographic "catchrnent" areas of Hennepin County. Rule 34 programs are monitored by the Minnesota Department of Human Services, the Minnesota Department of Health and the Hennepin County Community Services Department. Fire safety and housing code standards also apply. Funding is provided through federal Medical Assistance (Title XIX) funds. Hennepin County is responsible for planning and coordinating new service development and for approving changes or expansions in existing programs. For changes or new developments in residential or DAC services, Hennepin County must also seek approval from the Commissioner of Human Services. Rules 32 and 35: Residential Programs for Chemically Dependent Persons - hemically dependent clients are divided into two populations, those in the early stage of the recovery process and those still engaged in harmful use patterns. Most residential programs serve the former group, who are generally capable of restoration or development of fully independent functioning. While clients may be only temporarily or episodically disabled, the lifetime incidence of 20 percent means that at any given time an estimated 5-30 percent of the of -risk population is affected by chemical dependency. - 5 - Rule 32 facili ies provide only short-term detoxification services; Rule 35 programs offer primary treatment (high -intensity treatment for 3-6) or extended care (6 months or longer). In-house and supportive services include «educational/ vocational training, counseling, recreation/socialization and assistance with other issues such as domestic abuse or other disabilities. Funding for chemical dependency programs includes private insurance, private pay and funds provided by Hennepin County through use of federal, state and local dollars. Monitoring varies with the funding source and may include the Minnesota Department of Health, the Department of Human Services, Hennepin County Community Services Department and some insurance companies, as well as housing and fire -safety. Programs seeking a Rule 35 license document the need for their program and seek a "needs determination" letter from the County in which they plan to operate. Rule 36: Residential Programs for Mentally III Adults - The incidence of schizo- phrenia is I percent and affects all ages, geographic areas and socio-economic classes. Clients who require residential treatment have a number of problems, including anxiety, difficulty in forming interpersonal relationships and deficits in the skills required for independent living in the community. They may require episodic, short-term treatment or long-term supportive treatment. Residential treatment programs focus on teaching independent living skills, medication self -administration, counseling and recreation/socialization. Some programs provide most of the services needed by their clients in-house. Other programs encourage or require clients to use community resources such as vocational rehabilitation, school, day treatment or drop -in centers. Programs may be transitional (60 days-18 months), intensive (18-36 months) or supportive (over 3 years,. Staff and program costs are generally paid by Hennepin County, using a combination of state and local funds. Clients pay for residential (room and board) expenses with public assistance, disability funds or private resources. Rule 36 programs are monitored by the Minnesota Department of Health or Minneapolis Health Department, the Department of Human Services and the Hennepin County Community Services Department as well as housing and fire - safety inspectors. Hennepin County plans the type and general distribution of all Rule 36 facilities which rely on Purchase of Service contract funding. Rule 80: Residential Programs for Physically Handicapped Children and Adults - Clients who utilize Rule 80 facilities may have any of a number of physical handicaps, such as cerebral palsy, epilepsy, paraplegia or even quadra- plegia. These are frequently complicated by additional disabilities: mental retardation, mental illness or chemical dependency. Clients may need moderately short-term rehabilitation services to enable them to learn to cope with or compensate for their handicaps, or they may need long-term care and support. Some may need additional support for emotional, be;.cvioral or intellectual problems caused by or occurring with their physical disabilities. Rule 80 facilities offer a variety of services related to the types of disabilities experienced by their clients. Physical health care, training in independent living skills, counseling and socialization activities are provided on -site. If clients are able to leave the facility, they may also use community resources. Many Rule 80 facilities have a dual license, generally as a Rule 34-Rule 80 program. Under - 6 - dual licensure, the facility would then meet all standards established by both Rules. Thus a Rule 34-Rule 80 program would also provide services needed by mentally retarded persons and would meet all requirements for assuring day program activities in the community. Rule 80 programs are funded through federal Medical Assistance funds (Title XIX). They are monitored by the Minnesota Departments of Human Services and of Health, in addition to fire -safety and housing inspections. The Hennepin County Community Services Department plans and monitors all Rule 80 facilities that also have a Rule 34 license. Correctional Facilities - Clients in correctional facilities are adults who have been convicted of some crime or juveniles who have been adjudicated as delinquent. All these clients are required to be involved in correctional programs as a condition of probation or parole. They may have problems with chemical abuse or dependency, anti -social behavior, sexuality issues, learning disabilities or emotional handicaps. Facilities licensed as correctional programs include group homes for children, secure juvenile detention centers, juvenile residential programs and adult half- way houses. Some of these facilities may be locked; most are 'open" programs. Services provided in-house may include educational or vocational programs, counseling and training in independent living s!<ills. Clients may also use a variety of community resources such as AA, schools, vocational training programs, therapy, etc. Correctional programs are generally short-term (90 days-6 months); a few are a year in length. Correctional facilities are licensed by the Minnesota Department of Corrections, and also monitored by the Minnesota Department of Health and by Hennepin County Court Services, in addition to housing and fire -safety inspections. Funding is extremely complex, including any combination of client payments (private pay, public assistance), grants and contracts, funds from the Department of Corrections and Hennepin County. Since most corrections facilities are dependent upon client referrals and funding from Hennepin County, the County is generally involved in the planning and development of these programs. Board and Care and Board and Lodging Facilities - Clients in board and care and board and lodging facilities are usually single men and women who are low- income and sometimes transient. They can have or have had problems ranging from chemical dependency and mental illness to physical handicaps or borderline mental retardation. They are frequently vulnerable individuals with little or no support system to turn to. Some are elderly. Residents of board and care facilities may also require sorne health care and supervision of medications. Board and lodging facilities are not licensed to provide any kind of rehabilitation services and usually offer little more than a bed, three mcG!-. a day, laundry and a TV room. Some provide limited activity programs and assist residents in using community resources. There is usually no 24-hour staff coverage, record - keeping or medications supervision. Board and care facilities, on the other hand, offer 24-hour staff supervision, recreational services and medications super- vision. Each resident in a board and care facility must have on individualized service plan. - 7 - Board and lodging facilities are monitored for sanitation and safety by the City of Minneapolis. Rates are set by Hennepin County, based on minimal certifi- cation standards, and some monitoring is provided by the Hennepin County Community Services Department. Board and care facilities are monitored by the Minnesota Department of Health which also sets rates. Funding for these facilities is paid by the client to the facility. Clients funds may be private, general assistance, medical assistance (federally certified board and care facilities only) or Social Security. Supportive Living Residences - During the 1984 Legislative Session, a new category of residential facilities was created. Supportive Living Residences (SLRs) will serve "functionally impaired" adults who need more structure and supervision than a board and lodging facility but do not want or require residential treatment. The Minnesota Department of Human Services will promulgate licensing standards, probably by January I, 1986. The size of these facilities will be limited to 40 beds and there are prohibitions against concen- tration of SLRs in any municipality or planning district. Funding sources for SLRs have not yet been determined. B. Current Level of Concentration and Future Development of CBRFs There are 150 community -based residential facilities in Hennepin County, with a total capacity of nearly 4,800. Seventy-five (75) percent of these beds are located in Minneapolis, 64 percent within five of the City's eleven planning districts. Only 25 percent are located in suburban municipalities. The concentration of some types of facilities is more marked than others. For example, 63 percent of the County's 27 Rule 35 facilities for chemically dependent ar+ults are located in Minneapolis, compared to 97 percent of the 33 board and care and board and lodging facilities. Only 41 percent of the 29 Rule 34 facilities serving more than six mentally retarded children or adults are in Minneapolis, but 94 percent or 16 of the 17 licensed Rule 36 adult mental health programs are located in Minneapolis. The following is a breakdown of the distribution of CBRFs in Hennepin County: Minneapolis, Minneapolis, Concentrated Non -Concentrated Suburban Districts Districts Municipalities Total Number of CBRF Facilities 97 20 36 Total Number of CBRF Beds 3,088 508 1202 Percentage of General Population of Hennepin County 17% 23% 60% Percentage of CBRF Beds in Hennepin County 64% 11% 25% In terms of any plans to develop additional facilities, very little expansion is predicted. outpatient services and pre -admission screening, availability of public funding, has resulted in a CBRFs. Projections vary by facility type: community-bosed residential An emphasis on in -horse care, coupled with the decreasing stabilization in the number of Rule 5 and 8 Facilities - Group home, shelter and residential facility needs have been relatively stable over the los' few years. As compared to five years ago, the County is contracting for approximately 25 percent fewer beds. Future expansion is not anticipated other than occasional development of a specialized service. One new program is planned for the near future, on independent living skills group home for older teens. Rule 34 Facilities - In 1983 Minnesota placed a moratorium on further develop- ment of federally certified MR facilities in the state, while requiring additional client movement frorn state hospitals to the community. Minnesota has received federal authorization to develop alternative community residences and day habilitative services under Medical Assistance (Title XIX) funding. New residences under this program will be limited to serving no more than three children or six adults. Rule 35 Facilities - No major areas of program expansion are contemplated by Hennepin County, although ongoing changes within programs are likely as program neeas charge. Some type of long-term facility may be needed to house a growing chronic alcoholic population receiving case management services from the County. The supportive living residence may provide a model to meet this need. Rule 36 Facilities - During the last three years, 13 board and care and board and lodging facilities have upgraded to meet Rule 36 licensing requirements, and another two programs have been developed at new sites. Six or seven new programs are planned for 1984-85, all of which will be located in suburban or non -concentrated districts of Minneapolis sites. No further expansion is projected. Rule 80 Facilities - Hennepin County currently has two proposals from vendors who wont to develop a Rule 34-Rule 80 program for physically handicapped/ mentally retarded clients. Because of the state moratorium on new federally certified MR facilities, these programs are being postponed indefinitely. No other Rule 80 programs are projected. Correctional Facilities - Court Services is focusing primarily on maintaining access to placement beds in the current residential system, with some modifi- cation of existing programs to meet changing client needs. There is a possibility that one or two new programs may be developed in the future to serve women; however, there are no current plans for these facilities. Board and Care, Board and Lodging and Supportive Living Residences_ - There are no plans within the County for ony development of new board and lodging facilities in the near future. Pooid and care facilities must go through the Minnesota Department of Healt'r nerd determination process prior to providing services and there is current y a statewide moratorium on board and care facilities certified for eligibility u,..�er Medical Assistance (Title XIX). Licensing standards and funding mechanisms for supportive liviny residences have not yet been developed. It is anticipated that three board and lodging facilities will upgrade to meet these standards. In summary, there will be little expansion of community -based residential facilities in Hennepin County. Chapter 612 requires counties to develop plans to promote the dispersal of residential facility populations. One method of - 9 - dispersing clients is to develop additional new facilities in suburban areas and refer clients from facilities in concentrated areas to facilities in underserved areas. The great majority of new programs scheduled for implementation in the next year will be located outside Minneapolis; however, unmet client need for these programs is expected to be high and the new programs may do little to decrease the concentration of CBRF clients in Minneapolis. Redistribution or relocation of current facilities throughout Minneapolis anc; Hennepin County would have a more direct impact upon concentration. Planning to redistribute services may well focus primarily on the types of facilities which are most concentrated in the center city. Other types of programs may already be distributed in general proportion to the population. C. Minneapolis Concerns Minneapolis has 40 percent of the population of Hennepin County and 75 percent of its community -based residential facility beds. This disparity also exists within Minneapolis. The five core city planning districts have 42 percent of the City's population, but 86 percent of the City's CBRF beds (see Appendix A). Residents of core city neighborhoods have expressed several areas of concern related to CBRF concentration. Ine uit - There is a strong sense of injustice among center city residents. Their perception is that their neighborhoods are being forced to take care of the problems of the entire City and even the entire County and State. Statistics confirm many of their fears: 25-50 percent of the residents in Hennepin County's CBRFs are from cut -of -state or out -of -county. Even though a roughly equivalent number of Hennepin County clients may receive services in CBRFs in other counties and states, this does nothing to lessen the feeling that inner city neighborhoods are doing more than their fair share. Core city neighborhoods are actively involved in promoting community develop- ment and stabilization. Stable communities are represented primarily by owner - occupied housing. As such, group homes are viewed as negative: every building used by a community -based residential facility is unavailable for homeownership, and short-term programs add an automatic transciency factor. While most neighborhood residents do not want to see facility clients "dumped" out of their programs, they also want to see the disparity addressed. There is some consensus that the overconcentration in their neighborhoods is probably a permanent fact of life. However, they are strongly ^posed to the development of any more programs and hopeful that at least a few of the current facilities can be relocated. Some community organizations also feel that there are economic and social costs to overconcentration for which neighborhoods should be compensated through additional community development funds. Lack of Enforcement of Standards - Community -based residential facilities are regulated by a number of city, county and state agencies. Standards vary with the type of facility but include health, building code, fire -safety and prograrn standards. Facilities which comply with applicable standards are considered to be good neighbors. Yet there is a perception that facilities in overconcen t rated neighborhoods are not, in fact, operating according to established regulations. Neighborhood residents complain about poorly maintained buildings and lack of attention to yards. They believe that inspections are not regular or thorough and follow-up is poor. Publicity about problems with housing and fire -safety inspection agencies has contributed to concern by communities where CBHFs are concentrated. MDm In addition, the recent steps taken by the Department of Humor Services tc upgrade and license facilities housing mentally ill adults hove 'ncr-ased the vis'oii;!y of board and lodging and board and care facilities. City residents concerned about the vulnerability of and lack of services for mentally ill adults a •e now acutely aware of the issues surrounding Rule 36. Most neighborhoods shingly supported conditional use permits for re,6dential faci!ities attempting to become licensed as mental health treatment programs. Now that conversions are nearly completed, community residents question whether the remaining bourd and lodging facilities are operating illegally. They question whether the Department of Human Services will actually enforce licensing standards and why the County continues to provide client referrals and funding to these facilities. Unlicensed Facilities - Neighborhood residents express few complaints abort BRFs licensed 'Wy the Department of Human Services as treatment prograrns. Most consider these programs to Le well-rnaintained and adequately supervised. Some residents even participate on advisory committees established by the programs and the annual conditional use permit review process offers another vehicle for community participation. State -licensed programs are also monitored more closely and neighborhood residents are often familiar with channels for expressing complaints to City, County and State agencies. All in all, the results of the Minneapolis Planning Department's 1980 survey of CBRF neighbors seem to still be valid: smaller, licensed group homes may actually have some positive benefits, such as the availability of more people at home during the day (crime prevention), increased population diversity, fulfillment of social responsibility and neighborhood improvements. In contrast, board and care and board and lodging facilities are seen as not only les,, supervised but also less accountable. Neighborhoods see vulnerable avid/or disruptive people living in these facilities without the benefits of adequate supervision, protection or monitoring. The 1980 Report on Comrhunity-Based Residential Facilities in Minneapolis found a higher proportion of complaints associated with board and care and board and lodging facilities, including disruptive behavior, increased noise, traffic problems and an overall threatened sense of security. This problern is particularly actue for the concentrated neighborhoods, where 98 percent of the City's board and care and board and lodging beds are located. In fact, over one-third of all CBRF beds in the five core planning districts ore "unlicensed', compared to only 4 percent of the CBRF beds in the non -concentrated districts. (See Appendix A.) Size is also an issue for the center city. Most complaints expressed in the 1980 survey concerned larger facilities. The smaller the facility, the fewer complaints were expressed. Size interacts dramatically with licensing status in the concentrated neighborhoods. Of the largest buildings, those originally designed as dormitories, convents, rooming houses and hotels, only half are State -licensed treatment programs. In contrast, 70 percent of CBRFs using single family residences are licensed by the Department of Humon Services. If "unlicensed" facilities and larger CBRFs are the basis of the greatest number of complaints, then facilities which are both large and unlicensed could be expected to cause the most problems for neighborhoods. Because of concerns expressed by community residents, on December 30, 1983, the Minneapolis City Council amended its zoning ordinances to include board and care and board and lodging faciliites in its definition of group homes. This revision means that these facilities will now be required to obtain conditional- use permits and undergo annual reviews. However, all facilities operating at the time the ordinance was amended were automatically grandfathered into compliance. Annual reviews are expected to be required, but have not yet been implemented. Finally, there is some debate about how to define over-con,.:.ntrotion in Minneapolis. Although only five of the City's eleven planning districts have more than .5 percent CBRF beds. However, these five districts a -: so over - concentrated that the total number of CBRF beds in Minneapolis is .97 percent, or nearly twice the acceptable level of concentration. One argument is that Minneapolis should be considered as one unit rather than eleven, which would then mean that no new facilities could be developed anywhere in the City, although facilities could be redistributed within any of the eleven planning districts. There is not unanimous consensus on this point, however, it would have significant implications for any future plans for developing or relocating CBRFs. D. Suburban Perspectives There are more differences than similarities between the inner ring suburbs, the developing suburbs and the rural areas in Hennepin County. Like Minneapolis, each municipality has its own regulations, land use patterns and plans for development. Socioeconomic status, education and attitudes toward social services, including community -based residential facilities, all vary considerably. But despite these differences, there are several concerns shared by most municipalities as they consider the prospect of accepting a community -based facility. Lack of Availability of Data on Local Need - Little information is availablt about the extent of need for specific types of facilities in suburban municipalities. Residents from these areas who want Tesidential treatment have had to migrate into Minneapolis to receive services and there has been no way to track their community of origin. Despite evidence that disabilities occur in oil communities in similar proportions, incidence statistics are not always accepted by citizens or elected officials as valid indicators of local need. And because of the stigma associated with many handicaps, families are frequently unwilling to come forward to request services, contributing to the perception that these problems are city, not suburban concerns. There are fears that community -based residential facilities will bring city clients and city problems into their neighbor- hoods rather than helping to return and maintain suburban clients closer to their own communities. It must be noted, however, that many suburban residents are not only aware of the need for residential and support services, but also working to promote the decentralization of a wide range of needed resources. The Human Services Councils conduct public opinion polls, collect service utilization data and hold hearings to determine service needs and priorities. The lists of needed resources include emergency and crisis services, counseling, employment training, transportation, respite care, drop -in centers and other support services. The West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board also identified residential mental health treatment aria respite (24 hour) care for mentally handicapped fornily members as two of the top 15 priorities for County funding in 1985. Anticipated Negative Impact Upoii Neighborhoods - Because communities are so unaware of the prevalence of chemical dependency, mental illness and mental - 12- retardation, there are few suburban facilities for disabled people, who must then move into Minneapolis to receive needed services. When disabled or handicapped people are isolated from their communities and families are reluctant to discuss the realities of social problems, stereotypes are difficult to overcome. Despite the fact that research has shown that disabled people are no more violent or dangerous than "normal" people, fears about the handicapped continue. Even though studies have found no negative impact on property values, group homes are still viewed as precursors to neighborhood decline. Another concern of municipalities is that development or relocation of group homes will not be carefully planned and coordinated. The problem of over - concentration in Minneapolis is well-known and suburban areas are deter-'ned not to allow a similar pattern. There is a widespread perceptio, that Minneapolis, Hennepin County and the Department of Human Services are unable to properly moni'- - and enforce quality assurance standards in residential facilities, reinforcing beliefs that these facilities will not be desirable neighbors. However, several municipalities recently faced with decisions about new group homes initiated efforts to learn more about CBRF clients, programs and the interlocking roles of state and county agencies. Officials visited facilities, met with County staff, attended Human Service Council meetings and participated in planning groups examining issues related to residential facilities. During recent months, these officials have expressed commitment both to local responsibility for meeting human service needs and to a planned process of educating community residents, evaluating land use issues and coordination with Hennepin County. Lack of Support Services - Another concern is that suburbs lack the kind of back-up an.i support services needed by CBRF residents. Although medical emergency facilities are available throughout the County, detoxification and psychiatric crisis intervention services are not as widely distributed. Transpor- tation may be limited or non-existant, particularly on nights and weekends. Developing a social life and support network may be more difficult for a single client in the suburbs, where the emphasis is on family activities. Municipalities ore uncertain about the implications of developing CBRFs without adequate support services. Yet they also fear that support services will follow the facilities and the availability of services will attract more facilities. No one seems to know exactly which services are needed or available. Social services are less visible in the suburbs. They may share offices or staff with other agencies and advertising may be by word of mouth. Since most core city CBRF clients have been able to find needed services within a few miles of their facility, professionals have never needed to build up a network of resources in the suburbs. Services may be more available than is usually assumed. Strong Emphasis on Local Control - Each municipality has its own priorities, politic.; and process for community development. Land use patterns and plans vary considerably and local jurisdictions do not welcome central planning decisions by County and State government. Although suburban communities are becoming aware that they are not receiving their fair share of needed services, they naturally want to maintain some control over the types and distribution of resources in their areas. - 13- E. Recent legal and legislative actions have highlighted the issue of local control. In Northw( A Residence -vs- Brooklyn Center, the Minnesota Court of Appeals limited factors which can be considered by municipalities during the conditional use permit process for community -based facilities. Just a few months earlier, Chapter 617 not only imposed additional legislative limits on local control regarding group homes, but also mandated counties to promote the dispersal of suc.' facilities from overconcentrated neighborhoods. Within this context, many municipalities perceive the potential for rupid influx of facilities at the same time that they see their own control being consistently eroded. With few established linkages to State end County staff responsible for planning, funding and monitoring facilities, they have little direct access to information. Without the time and resources to thoroughly educate themselves about CBRFs and CBRF clients, municipalities are likewise unable t- respond `ully tc the questions and concerns of local residents. Barriers to Geographic Distribution of Community -Based Residential Facilities I. Authority to Mandate Relocation. There are two current methods which con be employed to force a community -based residential facility to relocate involuntarily. The facility can be closed by revoking its legal right to operate or funding may be terminated. Facility Closure. Community-bcsed residential facilities operate within a complex system of licensing/certification standards. The Minnesota Department of Human Services establishes program standards for facilities providing treatment to children or adults who are emotionally disturbed, chemically dependent, mentally re•orded or physically handicapped. The Minnesota Department of Health regulates sanitation and health-care services. Both Departments issue several types of levels of licensure and a variety of license combinations is possible. Fire safety and housing standards are monitored by State and local agencies. Additional require- ments may be established by Hennepin County through service agreernerirs or Purchase of Service contracts. Finally, the local municipality may impose other restrictions through its conditional use or zonin, review process. As long as a facility is in substantial compliance with all applicable standards, that facility cannot be denied the right to continue operating. Even when standards are not fully met, enforcement agencies at all levels ore require-' to provide the facility with notification of any deficiencies and allow a ret-sonoble period of time for corrective action. Only prolonged, seri„us violarions or client abuse are considered to be grounds for facility closure, and even tl-,^ prograrn may often re -open later under different management or undo _ .afferent level of licensure. Facility closures are rare; those that do occur pose a significant hardship for clients who may suddenly be transferred to other facilities, possibly even in other communities. Termination of Funding. Funding for community -based residential facilities is equally coviplex and diverse, involving client payments, third -party reimburserTrents, grants and/or contacts. The mix of funding t_�i # --h facility varies by facility type and by the disabilities of the clients 5. - 14 - For example, public assistance clients may use general assistance to pay for room and board but not for program costs in a mental health treatment program. Medical assistance can be used to pay for board and care facilities and facilitie or mentally retarded, but not for adult mental health treatment. I hruugh Purchase of Service contacts, Hennepin County provides program operation costs for two-thirds of the chemical dependency facilities and all but one of the residential mental health treatment centers for children and adults in the over -concentrated neighborhoods (see Appendix B). But the County has no contracts for facilities for the mentally retarded. No contract payments are made by Hennepin County to board and care facilities; clients have free choice of vendor and purchase this type of housing with their own funds or with their public assistance benefits. Continued funding is 5 nerally contingent upon continued compliance with applicable licensing, ce: tification and/or contract standards and with ongoing utilization. Termination of funding is therefore relat;rely rare. Depending upon the type of facility, loss of one funding source could result in closure of the facility. In other cases, the facility could change its license status or clientele in order to replace lost funding with a different source of support. In summary, even when a CBRF is substandard or deficient, a major orchestration of funding and enforcement agencies is necesscry to close the facility and find alternative placements for clients. When facilities are in substantial compliance with funding and licensing standards, and clients elect to use those facilities to receive services, forced relocation is neither feasible under existing law nor even necessarily desirable. Any plan to disperse facilities mus- herefore focus on voluntary participation and incentives for relocatic While many facilities are unwilling to consider relocation (38 percent), a few are already willing (IS percent) (see Appendix B). Nearly ha (47 percent) "don't know" if they would be willing to relocate. The support and incentives available to these facilities might be a significant factor in their final decision. ?. Conversions of Vacated Community -Based Resi-'Pntial Facilities. Redistribution of CBRFs depends on both the relocation or development of programs outside concentrated areas and the cor•-ersion of buildings previously used as CBRFs t,� other uses. There are two major obstacles to the conversion of CBRFs: "Grondfath Status of Current Facilities. On December 30, 1983, the Minneapolis City Council amended its zoning ordinance to include board and care and board and lodging facilities as conditional uses. This change hod the effect of grandfathering all current facilities into con-mplior Also, although Chapter 612 limits the concentration of CBRF be, one- half percent of the population of each planning district or m -ipality, existing facilities may have some grandfather rights under this leg...jotion as well. It is not yet clear whether buildings vacated by programs moving out of concentrated neighborhoods would have continuing grandfather status, or whether new programs would be prohibited from locating at those sites. Types of Buildings Used by CBRFs. Buildings which have already been converted for use as CBRFs are difficult to reconve. ) other uses. Half of -IS- all CBRFs now Ir sated in over -concentrated areas are large mansions originally designed for use as single family residences (see Appendix C). Almost all of these facilities are too large to `-, converted back to single family use: 50 percent are in the range of 2,...._-3,500 square feet and another 30 percent are larger than 3,500 square feet. Buildings of this type are occasionally converted into office space, but in general, the City has been reluctant to develop commercial uses in residential neighborhoods. An additional one-fourth of the CBRFs were originally duplexes, triplexes, 4-8 plexes and smaller apartment buildings which h6ve generally been extensively remodeled, with one large commercial kitchen and a central dining area. Conversion of these facilities back to their original purposes would be difficult and expensive. A substantial number of CBRF buildings (20 percent) were originally designed for residential use as dormitories, hotels, rooming houses, convents or health care facilities. Nearly one-third of these buildings are over 30,000 square feet. Few of the buildings could be converted to other uses without major financial investment. Even through Minneapolis has a strong interest in the dispersal of residential facilities, there is some concern that relocation could actually cause greater problems. With the current focus on the number of homeless persons in Minneapolis, it is at least debatable whether any conversion of residential units is an appropriate goal. But there is another practical concern. The City's 1980 survey of Minneapolis residents showed that residential facilities withou State -licensed treatment programs cause the most problems for communities. If licensed programs choose to relocate and the buildings are not converted to other purposes, they may revert to less structured, less supervised residential uses such as rooming houses. A clear understanding of the legal status of CBRFs in concentrated neighborhoods and close City/County coordination is essential to any plans for dispersing CBRFs. The buildings and clients left behind by relocating programs will require as much attention as the new sites in the suburbs. 3. Zoning Pequirements. Prejudice and stereotyping present a real barrier to relocating community - based residential facilities into suburban areas. Despite the fact that studies have shown that CBRFs do not endanger the neighborhood, increase noise and traffic or decrease property values, community assumptions have not chooged. Prejudice against chemically dependent and mentally ill adults is particularly difficult to overcome. Nowhere does stigma play a more crucial role than in the zoning process. The zoning ordinances in many municipalities make no provision for community -based residential facilities. Where CBRFs are described, they are viewed as atypical or at; mal land uses, subject to special reviews and conditions. Some ordinances limit group homes to certain "compatible" nK'ghborhorx;s or certain types of buildings. Restrictions regarding lot size, pa ning facilities, etc., may be so stringent that no available site may meet the municipality's requirements. In addition, almost all local zoning ordimmnces requi- pecial or conditional use permits ;prior to occupancy of - 16- the facility. The process of applying for and obtaining a conditional use permit is often both a reflection and a perpetuation of the negative attitude of communities toward CBRF clients. Notices mailed to property owners (but not renters) reinforce fears that property values will be adversely affected. Brightly colored orange or red signs posted near the property may appear threatening. Public hearings attract those most opposed to facilities and offer them a forurn to express stereotyped beliefs. Elected officials are then put in the "no win" position of voting against handicapped people (by denying the permit) or against their constituencies (by approving the permi t). The process is a difficult one for all involved. Community fears are real even if unfounded, and neighborhood residents resent the feeling 'hot decisions are made without their involvement or contrary to their wishes. They want information about programs moving into their communities, a mechanism for expressing their complaints and some assurance that their problems will be addressed. So for communities and CBRFs have had to deal with zoning barriers on an individual, case -by -case basis. Facilities have tried, usually with little success, to rely on their reputation, community need and/or education, with litigation as a last resort. Litigation is expensive and time-consuming for both parties, but the courts are becoming the major o►triter of decisions about where CBRFs may locate. One current lawsuit m well be a legal milestone in determining how local municipalities may regulate group homes. Another alternative is to look at the conditional use permit process itself. Community access to review and grievance mechanisms is not necessarily incompatible m,"h the rights of handicapped people to be included in the benefits of livi:,y in a normal residential setting. The current process can be revised --either locally or legislatively --to better protect the rights of all interests. The incidence and prevalence of disabilities such as mental retardation, chemical dependency and mental illness are not related to income or geography. All communities have problems. But when people with handicaps must leave their communities to receive treatment, prejudice against disabled people is reinforced. Isolation fosters the illusion that CBRF clients are different and that suburban communities are immune from social problems. Zoning barriers have preven ed many suburban families and clients from receiving services. "Comsumers" are becoming more visible and effective advocates for needed services, but the current zoning process puts them in a defensive position as adversaries against their neighbors. Some change is needed before any facilities are able to successfully relocate. 4. Funding. Most of the barriers to relocating comr-nunity-bused residential facilities can be resolved. Some require time, coordination, planning; all require money. The costs of relocation are both direct and indirect, initial and ongoing. Depending on the type of facility and funding mechanisms involved, some costs are reirnbursable and others are not. - 17- The most obvious expense is the property itself. Property values and real estate taxes are likely to be considerably higher in suburban areas. The scarcity of appropriate buildings results in vendors being required to pay top dollar for the purchase/rental of facilities. Extra costs may be incurred by writing "escape" contingencies into the purchase agreement, so that if the conditional use permit is denied the program can find another building. Furnishings and remodeling costs are high, particularly the costs of developing a central commercial kitchen. Fire -safety improvements may involve replacing all doors, adding additional exits, sprinkling systems and/or alarm pull stations. The Health Department may require additional changes in the physical plant. During the conditional use permit process, the city may require cosmetic and other improvements, such as additional parking spaces, sidewalks (even if adjoining properties do not have sidewalks), dumpsters, landscaping. Other costs are more indirect or unpredictable. If litigation is the only way to obtain a conditional use permit, thousands of dollars may be needed before the case is resolved. Additional staff are sometimes required to provide in-house services when the community cannot offer what is needed. If the facility must also provide transportation, funding may be needed for vehicle rental or purchase, repairs, gasoline and staff time for driving. Start-up costs may exceed $50,000-$100,000, most of which is required prior to opening the program. Although many CBRFs may regain the majority of these costs through long-term reimbursement of depreciation and interest, programs must still qualify for initial financing. This may not be difficult for larger corporations, but owner/operators may have to use their own homes as collateral. Some costs are not reimbursable at all, such as legal costs, and the staff time required for legal proceedings; and some facilities are unable to receive rate increases even if their operating expenses change significantly. Board and lodging facilities are currently reimbursed at one of two levels. This flat rate reimbursement system provides disincentives for facilities to relocate. Even when can be recovered by the facility operator, those costs mL:ar continue to be paid by someone —usually the client and the public sector. Not only are total costs higher in suburban facilities, but due to the small !r buildings, those costs are spread over fewer clients. The cost per day per client is therefore considerably higher. In fact, cost comparisons of programs with Purchase of Service contracts in Hennepin County show (with few exceptions) a steady and significant increase in rates as programs move farther away from the inner city area (see Appendix Q. Suburban chemical dependency facilities show an overall increase of 24 percent compared to CD facilities in concentrated neighborhoods. There is currently only one CBRF for mentally ill adults in suburban Hennepin County. But when budget r,-oposols for new suburban mental health facilities are also cc-isidered. the al difference between suburban and core city facilities 74 percent. hese costs may reflect other differences such as program design; the actual cost increase for a particular program to relocate may be sub- stantially less. One mental health provider who is attempting to relocate from a concentrated to a suburban site estimates an 18 percent increase in program costs and a 15 percent increase in room and board rates if no additional staff are requested and the program remains at the some size. - 18- Finally, another indirect cost of relocation can be the development of the additional support services needed by CBRF clients. If crisis intervention, vocational development, socialization/"drop-in" services are needed by facilities, the cost of relocating or developing these programs must also be considered. Planning must consider how many support services are needed and how for from the facilities they may be located, so that service accessibility does not create service duplication. Any plan to relocate facilities will require financial incensives and ongoing support from funding sources. If existing revenues and reimbursement mechanisms are unable to provide the level of support needed, new funding may be needed. 5. Support Services. Clients in community -based residential facilities generally have a wide range of acute or long-term problems, includinj physical disabilities, emotional or mental health problems, intellectual deficit- and/or chemical dependency. Many of the services needed for treatment and rehabilitation of these problems can be offered within the program, but many others must be obtained outside the facility. In fact. the degree to which a residential facility can be considered to be "normc:lizing" can be measured by the integration of its residents into the larger community. Reliance on the community for vocational, educational, recreational and social services teaches independent living skills, builds natural support networks and decreases the stigma associated with disability. .Most of these services are readily available in the core city area and clients make use of a wide variety of resources (see Appendix D). Each :.BRF uses from 3.5-8.2 community resources. Almost all of these support se rvice; are located within walking distance or within easy access by public transpor- tation. Fewer than 10 percent of the services used by CBRF ciicnts are located more than 9 miles from their residence. In comparison, suburbans areas offer far fewer services; resources which do exist are widely dispersed. Public transportation is frequently a problem, with many areas receiving only partial service. Bus service may be completely unavailable on evenings or weekends. Facility -operated van or car pools may fill some of the gaps, but require additional funds, reduce staff time available to residents and do not promote normalization. The paradox is that support services tend to develop in response to identified service needs. Until a residential facility moves into a community, the need for support services may not be visoble. However, many facilities are not willing to move into a community that does not already provide the services needed by its clients. Suburban areas may offer more services than professionals realize. Because facility staff are not familiar with communities outside the Minneapolis area, they may have difficulty locating suburban service providers who operate out of smaller centers or are combined with other non-traditional services. However, any plan to decentralize residential facilities must also include the developr-neat or decentralization of rehabilitation and support services needed by the residents of these facilities. This is particularly - 19- critical for smaller, more normalizing facilities which provide fewer in- house services. Unless and until support services are accessible throughout the County, all facilities located outside Minneapolis will have to rely heavily on transportation. Improved transportation for CBRFs may be one of the single most important variables for the success of program decentral- ization. 6. Other Clinical Issues. The ovaila6ility of support services is not the only clinical issue to consider in determining whether a facility should relocate. For community -based residential facilities to succeed, the purpose of the facility, the type of clients served and the community environment must be rnutally supportive. Shorter -term and more institutional programs rely less on outside •esources, while facilities that provide more normalizing or long-term services seek to create stable ties between clients and their communities. Community resistance, while usually temporary in nature, does not promote the develornent of normal support networks. Public assistance clients generally have few personal resources to buy good quality clothing and may be lackir • in social skills, a fact which may increase their visibility in some of the muse affluent areas. Also, many urban clients have developed strong ties to the core city. These relationships may be productive or destructive, but relocation can cause a serious disruption in their lives. Finally, even after treatment, the extent of some clients' disabilities will prevent them from becoming fully employed and independent for sorne time. These clients frequently must continue to rely on public assistance. The level of benefit:, available to them decreases substantially once they leave the residerrlial program. Many must then move back to the core city to find affordable housing, leaving behind the support networks and services upon which they hove learned to depend. These factors are obstacles, not insurmountable barriers. Some clients are probably best served in the central city. But increased levels of public assistance benefits, a greater supply of affordable housing throughout the County and access to support and transportation services would remediate these problems in most cases. Also, most clients from suburban areas of the County have been forced to leave their communities to receive treatment. For these people, the availability of suburban facilities will enable there to maintain or reestablish relationships with their fcmilies and neighborhoods. 7. Availability of Suitable Buildings in Suburban Muiicipalities. Just as CBRFs are often highly specialized to meet the unique treatment needs of residents, their building requirements may be equally diverse and specific. Some facilities ore intended to provide treatment settings that closely approximate normal independent living; these programs generally look for single family residences or smaller apartment settings, where little remodeling is needed. Other facilities provide a highly structured schedule of in-house program services and may need a combination of staff office space and open areas for group activities such as educational or vocational rehabiltation, health core and/or recreational events. Extensive remodeling is often needed for this type of program regardless of the type of building seipcted. A third type of CBRF offers only minimal support to its clientele. -20- Board and lodging facilities require little more than individual client sleeping rooms, a commercial kitchen, central dining a, -ea and lounge space. This type of facility is most easily developed in a single family residence or converted hotel. A recent survey of 87 CBRFs in concentrated neighborhoods suggests the diversity of buildings used by these facilities (see Appendix Q. Half the buildings were originally designed for single family use; another 27 percent were 2-8 plexes or small apartment buildings; and 21 percent were originally constructed for residential use --as dormitories, hotels, rooming houses, convents or board and care facilities. Only 2 percent were conversions of commercial space. The survey suggests several issues which are relevant for any plan to decentralize residential programs. In Minneapolis, many large old single family residences are actually zoned for multiple family occupancy, usually because their use as group living facilities pre -dates the Minneapolis zoning codes. However, in suburban areas, single family residences are zoned for single family use and their use as CBRFs is seen by many municipal planning commissions as contrary to local land use. These residences are also much smaller in the suburbs. While 80 percent of CBRFs in single family residences in the core city are over 2,000 square feet, most single family residences in middle income suburban neighborhoods are well under 2,000 square feet. Even when this type of building can be converted into a CBRF, the number of clients served by a program will decrease substantially. Some programs which must provide a high level of staff and in-house services may not be able to use suburban single family residences at all, or only at great cost. Also, while 27 percent of CBRFs use duplexes, triplexes, 4-8 plexes and small apartment buildings, this type of multiple family residence is rare in most suburban communities where apartment complexes are often in the 50- 200 unit size range. Finally, large residential dormitories and hotels are virtually non-existent in most suburban municipalities. In Minneapolis, this type of facility may be 100,000 square feet or more. Clearly such a program could not be transfer-ed to another area in its current form. In general, programs that choose o relocate will have a difficult time locating a suitable site. Plans to develop an accessible continuum of services in a geographic catchment area will have to be flexible enough to allow facilities to "follow the buildings". Some relocating programs may also have to reduce their occupancy in order to accommodate to the buildings available in suburban areas. While this may provide a more normalized living situation, the overall number of residential bec may decrease unless the number of facilities is increased. One option that would maximize the flexibility of matching building size, location and design to program need is for CBRFs to construct new buildings. This has impli- cations for both the length of time needed to relocate and the type and amount of funding which must be made available. -21 - F. Goals for Locating Community -Based Residential Facilities There are a wide range of obstacles to decentralizing community resources. Facility size, location and even program design have often been determined more by practical realities than by client and community needs. In fact, it is very difficult to separate ideal criteria for locating residential programs from the constraints that exist within the planning, monitoring, funding and zoning environment in which CBRFs exist. However, unless certain goals or principles are established, current inequities are likely to be self-perpetuating. The following are recommended by the Task Face as general principles for creating a more balanced system. I. Communities should have built-in protection against overconcentration. Overconcentration is not desirable for clients, facilities, neighborhoods or communities. Some basic protections should be provided to prohibit overconcentration. Suburban municipalities want assurances that if they accept group homes, they will not face the clustering of facilities that has occurred in Minneapolis. 2. Criteria defining overconcentration should be the some for both Minneapolis and other areas within the County. One definition of concentration should apply to both the City of Minneapolis and the suburban areas within Hennepin County. While many parts of the City may never attain the criteria for acceptable concentration, the criteria should be the come. 3. One-hclf percent is an appropriate definition for the maximum acceptable concentration of group home beds. Limiting the number of group home beds to one-half percent of a planning district or other political subdivision is an equitable method of controlling the total concentration of facilities. 4. Density of facility beds within a smaller geographical area should also be limited. The one-half percent should also apply to smaller neighborhoods within the community. Limiting the number of group home beds/square mile, based on the population density of the community is a more equitable way to prevent overconcentration than to use linear spacing. Group homi-s vary consider- ably in size, based on the target population and the intent of residential treatment. Linear spacing does not differentiate betwen the different sizes and types of facilities, nor does it allow for the f-exibility needed by communities and group home operators to locate the most appropriate type of building for a particular type of program. In communities where the population density is too low to allow any facilities to be developed within a square mile, one facility per square mile may have to be allowed. S. The location, size and type of bulding chosen for a residential program should be determined by the purpose of the program. - 22 - Residential programs are already subject to a broad array of licensing standards which determine their maximurn size, staffing and services, and programs should be si r uc l urcd crou-nd the put puse of the f aL i l i ty. For example, programs which provide most of their services "in-house" must usually be larger, to be able to offer a broader array of services. These facilities are usually less dependent upon easy access to support services within the community. On the other hand, programs that are long -terra and/or more "normalizing" in intent are generally smaller and should be closer to support services. Communities should not develop rigid require- ments concerning the type of neighborhood, building or size that all CBRFs or certain populations who use CBRFs must follow (e.g., "chemically dependent clients must be served in mixed use neighborhoods" or "all CBRFs should be limited to 10 beds or fewer", etc.). Communities must recognize that different programs have different needs and work with prograrns to select a site that is appropriate for the program. 6. Program structure should be based upon client need rather than on the availability of support services. Institutionalization is determined to Borne degree by the number of services provided to clients within the institution itself. The more normalizing programs require clients to utilize more services in the commu^.'`y at large. Facilities that locate in suburban areas may create more services in-house to make up for a perceived (or actual) lack of resources within the community. The end result is that suburban programs run the risk of being more institutional than center city programs --which may be contrary to client need. Client service needs should determine the normalized or institutionalized structure of the program --not the availability (or lack) of support services. Therefore, access to community resources is important and must be built into the service system. 7. While more support services are needed in suburban areas, each area will not and should not create a full range of support services. The lack of support services for group homes is self-perpetuating. If no group hornes are located in the area, the need for support services will not be addressed. At the same tirne, group homes do not locate in suburban areas because there are no support services. Some support services must be developed or decentralized, yet this will probably not occur until after the facility locates within the area. However, one group home will not create enough service dernand to support an entire range of support services. Duplicating support services within each municipality in the County is unnecessary and impractical. B. Transportation is the most critical support service needed by group homes in suburban areas. Since a full array of services will not be available within close proximity of suburban group homes, and since the more normalizing facilities will not be providing all needed services in-house, facilities are dependent upon trans- portation for their clients. This is currently very difficult; MTC service in the suburbs is less available, and facilities cannot (or choose not to) provide van transportation for their clients. Staff time and the non -normalizing aspects of facility vans are factors that also limit transportation. ?3 - 9. Facilities should be located so as to serve community residents as close to home as possible; however, specialized programs must be able to serve the wider community. Em Services should be equitably distributed so that connections with family and community are disrupted as little as possible. However, programs for very specialized populations are available in limited numbers. The location of these programs may be determined by the availability of specialized support services, cultural/ethnic community ties, etc. Planning is needed to balance the needs of communities, the County, clients and group homes. Communities should be able to plan for the development of group homes within the context of local development Mans for increasing social services, transportation, etc. County efforts to plan new programs or relocate existing programs should be coordinated with local areas. G. Commit`ee Recommendations In determining recommendations, the Zoning Task Force considered the barriers to distribution of residential programs and the ideal principles which should govern service development. The recommendations which follow address the full range of issues identified by advocates, providers and community residents as barriers to geographic distribution of CBRFs. They address both relocating facilities and those which will remain in Minneapolis; they include legal, fiscal, administrative and clinical actions needed to promote deconcentration. Although Hennepin County is viewed as the primary source of coordination for planning and implementing service distribution, ongoing cooper,3tion with munici- palities, advocates and providers is also essential to achieving any real change in the current situation. Recommendations I. Relocating Facilities. a. Hennepin County should provide overall direction and coordination for the relocation of all types of community -based residential facilities, whether or not the programs have a Purchase of Service agreement with the County. b. There should be no involuntary relocation of community -based residential facilities which are operating legally. c. Hennepin County should involve municipalities in the review of the County's plan to promote dispersal of community -based residential facilities. d. Hennepin County should collect and centralize data on service needs in underserved areas of the County. Data should be made available to the Human Service Councils and to providers for service planning and working with municipalities. - 24 - e. Hennepin County should plan and implement a continuum of residential and support services in each Human Services Council catchment area. It may be useful or nec- -nry to relocate or develop nonresidential components prior to residC;„,al facilities in underserved areas. f. Hennepin County should assure that crisis services are readily available as buck -up support to facilities in suburban communities. One method might be to develop crisis intervention capability in suburban emergency hospitals. g. Hennepin County should work with each municipality that accepts a community -based residential facility to develop a transportation plan which assures clients adequate access to community support serviceF. h. Hennepin County should appoint or coordinate a group to work with the League of Municipalities to assure that community -based residential facilities will be treated like other multiple family uses during the conditional use or zoning review process. This may require modifi- cation of local ordinances or legislative action. i. Hennepin County should work with municipalities to determine factors which will increase community acceptance and support for facilities which relocate to underserved areas. These factors may include size, building type, community education, etc. j. Hennepin County, the suburban I Service Councils, advocacy groups and providers should work lv, , .tner to educate municipalities about service needs and community -based residential facilities, using a network of resource people. k. Hennepin County should develop and make available model guidelines for facilities to use in working with neighborhoods prior to imple- menting their programs. I. Hennepin County should provide consultation, technical assistance, fiscal support and advocacy to assist facilities throughout the relocation process. m. Hennepin County should support the development of a fund to nssist facilities to defray the costs of relocation, such as legal fee' improvements, moving expenses, down payments, etc. Thi. t should also be available to facilities which cannot or should not �; c to assure needed capital improvements. Criteria should be developed for use of this fund, i.e., who is eligible to apply, what expenses are allowable, terms of funding (grant, loan), etc. Tenants of buildings which are converted for use as community -bored residential facilities should be provided with relocation money. o. Suburban facilities should give admissions priorh/ to sub +rban clients, as long as they meet all other admissions criteria. p. To be consistent with local community development planning, relocating facilities should give priority to sites within the metro urban - 25 - service area. In other areas of the County, facilities should locate in areas where support services are available or most likely to be developed. 2. Minneapolis Facilities. a. Hennepin County should request a legal opinion of Minneapolis' ability to enforce the conversion of buildings vacated by relocating community -based residential facilities to other uses. b. H -mepin County should also resolve legal issues regarding the status process of converting board and lodging facilities i:ito Supportive Living Residences (SLRs). c. Hennepin County should assess whether the conversion of board and lodging facilities to SLRs would result in a change in the facilities' target population. If conversion results in a higher level of support to the existing population, the change should be supported. d. Hennepin County, the City of Minneapolis and the Minnesota Departments of Health and Humor. Services should develop a process for identifying and reporting unlicensed facilities to the proper enforce- ment agency, and for withholding support (funding, client referrals, etc.) to unlicensed facilities. These agencies should also enforce licensing/certification standards and provide consultation to assist facilities to meet all applicable standards. e. Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis should study the "costs" of overconcentration and mutually support appropriate methods of compensating planning districts which remain overconcentrat,;d. f. Nccrojepin County should work with facilities which do rot relocate, to assure proper maintenance and capitol improvements. - County should provide needed funding through the contracting :ess and other financial agreements with residential service providers. g. All new community -based residential facilities should give priority to locations outside the City of Minneapolis. The only exceptions should be programs with a clear and demonstrated need to be located near a particular ethnic/cultural group or specialized support resource. 3. All Facilities. a. Hennepin County should collect data on the use of community -based residential facilities by out -of -county and out-of-state clients. b. Hennepin County should bill for the full cost of residential and support services used by out -of -county and out-of-state clients. c. All community -based residential facilities should be required to have advisory committees, including community representatives. d. Hennepin County should examine the feasibility of smaller residential programs, with options such as staft shoring to increose cost effective- ness. Where possible, smaller programs should be developed, perhaps on a pilot basis. - 26 - III. COUNTY WORK PLAT j In response to the recommendot ions of the Zoning Task For, , H,- ,epin County his developed the following plan for promoting the dispersal of community -bored residential fociiities. The wort- pion in-ludes five overall target areas: I. Need Determination. During the first 12-18 months, the Community Services Departmen* look at the distribution of specific types of community -based residential tucilities and the support services most frequently utilized by residential clients. Facilities which serve functionally impaired clien+s: residential pi gams for clients with an indentified usability, such as -nentvl retardation; and programs for cli--nts who require highly specialized services related to multiple handicaps or cultural identification within each of the Hurnan Service Council planning areas will be located. Suppol t bervices, particularly transportation, will also be identified. Based on the continuum of programs needed oy the different client populations, service gaps (both residential and non-residential) will be assessed. .' Groundwork for R docat ion. A number of barriers to logy-ting rPRFs in subur;., icipalities were identified by the Zoning i .jsk I -ce, i .-.hiding- lengthy or �,,;clear local zoning requirements; Mader, r�lannii,c >rdination: lack of informatio! seeded by municipalities/residet,t:: and lack of funding for relocation and increased onPrating costs. D,Ir• the first two to three years, the Community Services Department will wor y with municipalities, providers, Human Servicf- Councils and odvoco, these barriers without undermining or usurping local developrnenr plan jislation or spec '•,ndir.g is needed, the County will wort; with appropric.to support nee.,ea changes. 3. Suppe-t Servif . The Zonir .-nmended the development of needed support services .onto',-)n of residential programs in underserved areas. .,n.:t;on pr )cess identif i,:s a significant gap in support service- 1el r rr %.,;II seek to increase the availability of community resourc. ` :. :!a, tnv- ,� improv.'d ,,_ress (transportation), reloc_c,tion of support se— -- +�-,e Imnlem.entation of nci, opeiated or contracted programs. Since every mumcip; iity will not hove a full continuum of resources, County planning will focus m coordinating overall service development within, the larger Hum -in Service Council "catchment areas". However, the County will also assi.re thot this init. -iv zomplement., rather than conflicts with local plonninq. Efforts will be mode to have support services in place by 1988. 4. F.,citity Relocation. If residential service gaps are identified in suburban are County will determine the extent to which •i: ty reloections feasible AV -ere vendors are willing to relocute to fill sl, fic set vice gals, the Coml. . 'y Services }epartment will work with the provid. rs and the municipalities to facilitate relocation. T" Count- ro:e wilt be to provide informal io../educat ion a+,d technical assistance; ir. no way will He in C:, -inty override local land use -ontrols. Relocations, if they occur, w been in 'he third year and are ^xpected to be c, ,Meted by Joni---ury 1990. - 27 - 5. Remaining Facilities. Hennepin County will also continue to monitor facilities which remain in the concentrated neighborhoods. CommL"-ity Services Department staff will assess current procedures for funding, r- rerrals and monitoring —with the goal of improving facilities' services, me'ntenance and cooperation with Minneapolis residents. This effort wiil begin immediately, in coordination with the City of Minneapolis, community organizations and service providers. COUNTY WORK PLAN I. Collect Dates -n Service Needs and Service Utilization by Suburban Clients. Target Date: 3/85 - 6/85 Responsibility: C- -nmunity Services Department/Community Resources C. pion, in coordination with Disability Divisions, Hurnan Services Councils and service pr^ 7 lers. 2. Develop Description of the Continuum of Resid anc _-port Services Needed by Each Disability Group. Target -Date: 5/85 Responsibility: Community Services Department/Community Resources Division, in coordination with Disability Divisions, service providers, advocacy groups. 3. Survey, Assess Continuum of Residential nd Support Services Available in Each uH mcci Services Council Planning Area. Target Dote: 9/8-) Responsibility: Commclity Services Department/Comma tv Resources Division, in coordination with Disability Divisions, Human Services Councils, service providers. 4. Dete. Residential and Support Service Gaps in Each Human-;ervices Council 7lonni-ig Area. Target Dote: 3/86 Responsibility: Community Services Departine-J/Cnmmunity Resources nivis:on, in coordination with Disability Divisions, Human ervces Ca Is. 5. Determine Suitably Locations for Needed Services. Target Date: 9/86 Respor,sij.i1;ty: Corn, nun ity Services Department/Community Resources Divis-n, in coosdinatiinn with Disability Divisions, Hut -non Servi,_ s Councils, municipalities. - 28 - 6. Develop Needed Support Services in Each Human Services Council Planning Area Through Relocation Contractingand/or Operating Non -Residential Services. Target Date: 1 /88 Responsibi, •y: Community Services Department/Community Resources Division, in coordination with Disability Divisions, service providers, Human Services Councils, municipalities. 7. Identify Community -Based Residential Facilities Willing to Relocate to Fill Human Services Council Planning Area Service Gaps. Target Date: 6/87 Responsibility: Community Services Department/Community Resources Division, in coordination with Disability Divisions, service providers. 8. Asse!,s and Develop Appropriate Transfer Plans for all Clients Living in Facilities Whi;.h will Relocate. Target Date: At least 30 days prior to each feloca ..n. Responsibility: Community Services Department/Community Resources Division, in coordination with Disability Divisions, service providers. 9. Provide Consultation, Technical Assistance and Support to As—• Facilities to Relocate by 190. Target Date: 6/87 - 1 /90, Ongoing Responsib"ity: Community Services Department/Community Resources Division, in cooeration with Disability Divisions, Department of Human Services, Minnesota Department of Health. 10. Coordinate a Meeting to Identify Factors which will Increase Community Acce[)tance of Facilities. Includinq any Needed Modifications of Local Zoning fi-r�;c-edures. Target Date: By 6/85 Responsibilit; Comn,.,-�ity Resources Division, in coordination with Disability Divisions, Human Services Councils, providers, advocates, League of Municipalities. 11. Coordinate a Task Force to Develop Guidelines for Facilities_ to use in Working with Neighborhoods and to Develop MaterialsSpeakers and Methods to Lducote Municipalities About Community Service Needs, Clients and Residential Se- rvices. Target Dote: 6/85 - 1 /86 Responsibility: Community Services Department/Community Resources Division in coordination with Disability Divisions, Human Services Councils, municipalities, providers, advocates. - 29 - 12. Participate in Providing Education and Materials to Municipalities Where Residential Facilities Will Locate. Target Date: 1 /86, Ongoing Responsibility: Community Services Department/Community Resources Division, in coordination with Disability Divisions, Human Services Councils, advocates, providers. 13. Project Non-Reimburseoble Costs of Facility Relocations and Relocation Pay- ments to Tenants Displaced by Conversions of Rental Units to Community -Based Residential Facilities. Target Date: 6/86 Responsibility: Community Services Department/Community Resources Division, in coordination with Disability Divisions, service providers. 14. Consider Legisk .on for an Appropriation to Fund Relocation Costs. Target Date: 1/87 Responsibility: Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. 15. Participate with the Department of Human Servic s in the Development of riteriu for Utilizing Relocation Appropriation. Target Date: 6/87 Responsibility: Community Services Department/Community Resources Division, in coordination with Disability Divisions, service providers. I., Cooperate with CitX of Minneapolis in Studying "Costs" of Over -Concentration and in etermininc, Equi!able Methods of Compensating Neighborhoods Whi,7h Re —main Over -Concentrated. Target Dote: 6/86 Responsibility: Community Services Department/Community Resources Division, in coordination with Disability Divisions, advocates, service providers. 17. Request a Legal Opinion Regarding Conversions of Vacated Group Homes to Other :'yes and Conversions of Board and Lodging Facilities to Supportive Living Te-sider,,:es. Target Date: 1/85 Responsibility: Community Services Department. - 30 - 18. Assess the Impact of all Proposed Conversions of Board and Lodging Facilities to Supportive Living Facilities. Target Date: 1 /85 and Ongoing Responsibility: Community Services Department/Community Resources Division, in coordination with Disability Divisions and service providers. 19. Develop a Process for Assuring that Client Referrals .and Funding Agreements are not Initiated to any Facility Which is Operating Illegally and Develop Procedures for Reporting Facilities Suspected of Operating Illegally to the Appropriate Enforcement Agency. Target Date: 6/85 Responsibility: Community Services Department/Community Resources Division, in coordination with Disability Divisions, enforce- ment agencies. 20. Include Advisory Committees with Community Representation in all Purchase of ervice Agreements and Board and Lodging Provider Agreements. Target Date: 1 /86 Responsibility: Community Services Department/Community Resources Division, in coordination with Disability Divisions, service providers. 21. Include Priority for Suburban Clients in Contracts with Suburban Residential Service Providers. Target Date: 1 /86 and Ongoing Responsibility: Community Services Department/Community Resources Division, in coordination with Disability Divisions, service providers. - 31 - Appendix A CO NCI NIIZArION 01- Hennepin County Community COMMUNI I'Y-BASED IZLSIDEN1IAL FACILI fIL-S (ClIRI's) Services Department IN MINNLAPOLIS, 13Y PLANNING DISTRICT October 1984 Current CBFZF Beds Maximum Current Level Allowed Board and Care, of Concentration Planning CBFZF Beds Treatment Board and Lodging Combined of CBRF Beds District Population 02%) Beds Beds (Total) (All Facilities) I. CONCENTRATED DISTRICTS Central 19,035 95 1,030 (7G%) 371 (26%) 1,401 (100%) 7.36% Phillips 17,115 86 273 (57%) 204 (43%) 477 (100%) 2.79% Powderhorn 51,443 257 476 (69%) 218 (31 %) 694 (100%) 1.35% Northeast 37,080 185 31 (10%) 265 (90%) 296 (100%) 0.80% Calhoun -Isles 30,678 154 130 (59%) 90 (41 %) 220 (100%) 0.72% N SUBTOTALS 155,351 777 1,940 (63%) 1 , 148 (37%) 3,088 (100%) 1 .99% 11. NON -CONCENTRATED DISTRICTS University 30,273 152 130 (100%) 0 (0%) 130 (100%) 0.43% Nokomis 40,037 200 168 (100%) 0 (0%) 168 (100%) 0.42% Near North 33,721 169 80 (100%) 0 (0%) 97 (100%) 0.29% Southwest 52,946 268 72 (77%) 21 (23%) 93 (100%) 0. 18% Longfellow 28,962 195 20 (100%) 0 (0%) 20 (100%) 0.07% Camden 29,652 149 17 (100%) 0 (0%) 17 (100%) 0.05% SUBTOTALS 215,591 1,133 487 (96%) 21 (4%) 508 (100%) 0.24% 111. TOTAL M NNE:APOLIS 370,951 1,910 2,427 (67`X>) 1,169 (33%) 3,596 (100%) 0.97% Appendix B Facility Type Hennepin County Community Services Department October 1984 RFLOCATION AND FUNDING STATUS 011 COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES IN CONCENTRATED PLANNING DISTRICTS IN MINNEAPOLIS CENTRAL Purchase of Service Willingness to Number of Number of Contract with Relocate by Facilities Beds Hennepin County 1990 Don't Yes No Yes No Know Rule 5 1 20 1 - - - I Rule 8 0 0 - - - - - Rule 34 4 222 - 4 - 1 3 Rule 35 3 136 1 2 1 2 - Rule 36 8 336 8 1 2 4 Other Treatment* 4 316 1 3 - 2 2 Board and Care 1 15 - I - - I Board and Lodging 6 356 - 6 1 - 5 TOTA,.c 27 1,401 II 16 3 7 16 PHILLIPS Rule 5 1 24 1- Rule 8 1 9 1- Rule 34 0 0 - - - - - Rule 35 2 108 1 Rule 36 3 87 3 Other Treatment* 2 45 - 2 Board and Care 0 0 - - - - Board and Lodging 6 204 1 5 2 1 3 TOTALS 15 477 7 7 3 5 6 POWDERHORN Rule 5 1 8 1 - - - I Rule 8 6 59 6 - 3 - 3 Rule 34 4 94 - 4 - 1 3 Rule 35 9 220 6 3 - 3 6 Rule 36 3 55 3 - - I I Other Treatment* 2 40 2 - - I 1 Board and Care 1 22 - I - - I Board and Lodging 9 196 - 9 1 6 2 TOTALS 35 694 18 17 4 13 17 *Includes Correctional, Rule 38 Programs. - 33 - NORTHEAST Purchase of Service Willingness to Number of Number of Contract with Relocate by Facility Type Facilities Beds Hennepin County 1990 Don't Yes No Yes No Know Rule 5 Rule 8 Rule 34 Rule 35 Rule 36 Other Treatment* Board and Care Board and Lodging TOTALS 0 0 - - - - - 0 0 - - - - - 2 31 - 2 - 2 - 0 0 - - - - - 0 0 - - - - - 0 0 - - - - - 2 257 - 2 - 2 - 2 8 - 2 - 2 - 6 296 - 6 - 6 - CALHOUN-ISLES Rule 5 1 14 1 - - I - Rule 8 2 20 2 - 2 - - Rule 34 4 29 - 4 1 1 2 Rule 35 2 27 2 - - - 2 Rule 36 1 25 1 - - I - Other Treatment* 1 20 1 - I - - Board and Care 3 90 - 3 - 2 1 Board and Lodging 0 0 - - - - - TOTALS 14 220 7 7 4 5 5 'Includes Correctional, Rule 80 Progrorns. - 34 - Appendix C Facility Structure/ Original Purpose Single Family Residence Duplex 3-4 Plex 5-8 Plex, Small Apartment Buildings Commercial Residential: Dormitories, Hotels, Rooming Houses, Board and Care, Convent, etc. Hennepin County Community Services Department October 1984 TYPES OF BUILDINGS USED BY CBRFs IN CONCENTRATED PLANNING DISTRICTS IN MINNEAPOLIS % of All CBRFs Size (Sq. Ft.) 50% Range- 864 - 22,000 2,000-3,500 50% Over 3,500 30% Under 2,000 20% 15% Range: 1,800 - 7,500 5% Range: 3,3,k - 7,454 7% Range: 5,000 - 10,000 2% Range: 5,000 - 5,481 21 % Range: 4,000 - 163,000 15,000 - 30,000 40% Under 15,000 30% Over 30,000 30% •Based on surveys returned by 87 facilities. Some data was missir .; or MCOrnplete; therefore, this information should be considered representative rather thou actual. - 35 - Appendix D Hennepin County Community Services Deportment October 1984 SUPPORT SERVICES USED BY RESIDENTS OF 87 COMMUNITY -BASED KESIDEN' . ' �_ FACILITIES I1\' 5 CONCENTRATED PLANNING DISTRICTS, MINNEAPOLIS Average Number of Resources Used By Distance from Facility Type of Facility Each Facility to Support Services C-2 Miles 3-9 Miles Over 9 Miles Rule 5, Residential Treatment for Children 4.0 100% Rule 8, Group Homes for Children 4.0 75% 25% Rule 34, Facilites for Mentally Retarded 6.0 55% 38% 7% Rule 35, Chemical Dependency Facilities 8.0 83% 16% 1IX Rule 36, Facilities for Mentally III Adults 8.2 93% 6% 1 % Board and Care 5.8 45% 45% 10% Board and Lodging 3.5 93% 5% 2% Other 4.6 76% 16% 8% - 36 - Appendix E Hennepin County Community Services Department October 1984 AVERAGE PROGRAM AND ROOM/BOARD RATES FOR RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS WITH PURCHASE OF SERVICE CONTRACTS IN HENNEPIN COUNTY Rule 5* Rule 8* iiule 35 Rule 36 Program Room/Board Program Room/Board Per Diem Per Month Per Diem Per Month Minneu, Ais: Ovet- Concentrated Planning Distr' is $90.16 $63.29 $24.72 $406.75 $23.57 $541.50 Min,iAapolis: Other Plur, 'ng Dist- -ts $95.64 $64.93 $15.99 $431.66 $16.26 $658.00 Suburban No Sites $65.98 $3U.58 $511.(,6 $46.69** $767.46** *Rc.'.eOs toial cost per day. No progr..n/room and boara Breakdown available. **Includes proposed programs for which contracts have not been finolized. - 37 - COMMUNITY -RASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES IN HENNEPIN COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES, EXCLUDING MINNEAPOLiS- Facility Type Population Rule 5 Rule 8 Rule 34 Rule 35 Rule Y Rule f10 Corrections 81,831 - I ? - 31,230 - I I - - - - 43,332 - 3 - - - 35,674 - - - - - 15,543 - I - - - 16,263 - 1 2 - - 21,775 15,336 1,747 18,683 - 1 1 - - 2 23 . i187- 2,)14 31,615 14,422 3 - - - 42,931 - - - - Hennepin County Community Services Department t 1„ .:ember 1984 Board and Current Level Lodging/ of Concentration Board and Total Total of CBRF Beds Care Foci!;ties Beds (All Facilities` 5 71 0.09% - 2 17 0.05% - 3 55 0. 13% 1 20 0.06% _ 1 12 0.05% - 3 90 0.55% 1 1 12 0.46 E 2 80 0.35% - 1 27 0.IF% 1 8 0.4E )b 5 231 0.60% 3. %j-b I 1 r 5.04% _ 3 114 0.36% 3 150 1.04 % _ I 13 C.03% 2 P9 1.43'�, TALS U 5 17 7 1 3 2 36 1,201 -t3asei1 on Minnewto Dep•rtment of Humeri Servwes listu s, rune 1984, and Depar'rner.t of Correct— - ;.Dings, January 1984. APPENDIX G ZONING TASK FORCE Minneopolis Plonnina District Community Representatives Barbara Buckrn-in Al Eggen Central Community Council Phillips Neighborhood Improvement 1916 First Avenue South Association Minneapolis, MN 55403 1304 East 24th Street (874-8836) Minneapolis, MN 55404 (721-5591) Ann Norton Northeast Improvement Council Steven Pundt 835 Columbia Parkway Calhoun Isles Community Organization Minneapolis, MH 55418 430 Oak Grove Street (789-8921) Minneapolis, MN 55403 (870-7733) Glenn Sampson Powderhorn Community Council 116 East 32nd Street Minneapolis, MI`1 55408 (827-3747) City Representatives Mary Anderson Mayor, Golden Valley Golden Volley City Hall 7800 Golden Volley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 (545-3781) Ann Perry Director of Planning Minnetonka City Hall 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55343 (933-2511) Suburban Human Service Council Torn Esser South Hennepin Human Services Council Roorn 100 9801 Penn Avenue South Bloomington, N1f J 55431 (888-5530) Marcy Shapiro West Hennepin Human Services Council 4100 Vern(s) Avenue raith St. Louis Park, MU-4 55416 (920-5533) - 39 - Michael Cronin Minneapolis Planning Department 210 City Hall Minneapolis, MN 55415 (348-2587) Jan DelCalzo Minneapolis City Council 307 Cit, Hall MinneaF.olis, MN 55415 E i leen Moran tJorthwest Hennepin Hurnan Services Council Thorson Community Center 7323 - 58th Avenue North Crystal, MN 55428 (536-0327) Advocacy Organization,: Jim Auron Mental Health Associo-ion Hennepin County Number 103 5501 Green Valley Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 (835-9046) Susan Lentz of Legul Aid of Minneapolis 222 Groin Exchange Bui Iding 323 Fourth Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55415 (332-7301) Dick Rothwood/Christy Boswell ARC of Hennepin County 2344 Nicollet Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55404 (874-6650) Residential Service Providers Diane Wright Northwest Residence 1928 Stevens Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55403 Mental Illness (872-9035) David Wienke Clara Doerr Residence 1 71 7 Second Avenue youth Minneapolis, MN 55403 (Representing Harold Tapper, Association of Residences for the Retarded in Minnesota) (870-4440) Jon Thornpson/Mark Tcllefson Joan's Harrison Horne 3700 Cedar Lake Avenue Minneapolis, MrJ 55416 Board and Care (820-2030) Sail Wik Freedman House 3020 L yndale Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55408 Corrections (827-3300) Lorraine Teel Eden House 1025 Portland Avenue South Minneapolis, Mil 55404 Chemical Dependency (338-0723) Steven Nelson Southwood Manor 3400 First Avenue South Minneapolis, Mtd 55408 Board and Lodging (823-8649/922-7270) Kathy Murphy Pathway Group Homes 2418 Pillsbury Avenue South Minneapolis, WJ4 55404 Children (871-1991) Howard Poulson/Norm Doeden Lutheran Social Services 2414 Park Avenue South Minneapolis, Mt 1 55404 (871-0221) County Staff Roger Engstrom Community Resources Division Task Force Chair (348-38S0) Suzanne Douglas Adult/Child Placement (348-3505) Julie Gottesleben Mental Retardation (348-5962) Peggy Wallace Adult/Child Placement (348-6877) Carol Engel Probation Unit District Court (348-8114) Chuck Hei.iecke Chemical Dependency (347-7994) Marge Wherley Mental Health (348-6294) M IPIN, fN �N MIIIt NEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT lAR[ MINNEfONRA P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 r� ,r+IA BOARD DE MANAGERS. David H Cochran. Res . Albert L Lehman -John E Thomas fdic hael R Carroll -Camille D Andre . James O McWelhy . James H Spensley wRV1_7jk-w3_1111 April 2, 1985 TO: Interested Citizens Re: 1984 Annual Report Dear Sir or Madam: r.-- I CITY OF ORONO Enclosed is a copy of the Annual Report of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for 1984. Should you have any questions regarding the District's activities, please feel free to contact any member of the Board of Managers. Very truly yours, . ,--- (( / / David H. Cochran, President Board of Managers Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 0439n Enc. MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1984 March, 1985 INDEX Page Introduction...................................................I The Managers and Meeting Information ...........................1 Expansion of Board of Managers.................................2 PermitApplications............................................2 Hydrologic Data Collection.....................................3 Gray's Bay Control Structure/Lake Minnetonka...................3 Water Maintenance and Repair Fund ..............................4 Minnehaha Creek Channel Improvements/ Cascade Lane Area, Edina (Project CP-8)........................4 Upper Watershed Storage and Retention Project (Project CP-5)...............................4 Watershed Management Planning Chapter 509......................5 Floodplain Regulation..........................................5 Boundary Amendments............................................5 Maple Plain Treatment Plant/Interceptor ........................6 Legal/Pnysical Boundary Differences ................. ........... 4; Goals and Objectives .......................................... Budget/1984..................................................... Financial Records..............................................7 INTRODUCTION This Annual Report of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District provides a summary of the major activities of the Board of Managers during 1984. Any person wishing additional detail is encouraged to contact any individual manager. THE MANAGERS AND MEETING INFORMATION As of December 31, 1984, the names, addresses and terms of the managers are as follows: Camile D. Andre 10401 Cedar Lake Rd. Term Expires Apt. 419 March 8, 1986 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Michael R. Carroll 4509 Washburn Ave. So. Term Expires Minneapolis, MN 55410 March 8, 1985 David H. Cochran 4640 Linwood Circle Term Expires Excelsior, MN 55331 March 8, 1987 Albert L. Lehman 3604 West Sunrise Drive Term Expires Minnetonka, MN 55343 March, 8, 1985 James B. McWethy 4380 Thielen Avenue Term Expires Edina, MN 55436 March 8, 1986 James R. Spensley 5117 Chicago Avenue Term Expires Minneapolis, MN 55417 March 8, 1987 John R. Thomas 6326 Smithtown Road Term Expires Excelsior, MN 55331 March 8, 1986 The present officers are: David H. Cochran President Albert L. Lehman Vice President John E. Thomas Secretary Michael R. Carroll Treasurer During 1984, twelve regular meetings were held by the managers on the third Thursday of each month at 7:30 p.m. In order to make the meetings of the managers more accessible to all residents of the district, the managers meet in odd numbered months in the St. Louis Park City Hall and in even numbered months at the Wayzata City Hall. -1- The managers exchanged information with other governmental units affected by the programs and policies of the watershed district and honored requests to attend meetings of municipal, county and state officials as well as meetings of interested citizens and groups. The managers received substantial support and assistance from the Hennepin and Carver County Boards of Commissioners through the year which greatly assisted the district in carrying c.ut its programs during 1984. During 1984, the managers continued to serve in organizations dealing with water resource issues. The Board participated in the activities of the Chapter 509 Section of the Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts to deal with issues in implementing Chapter 509, Laws 1982, and in the deliberations of the annual meeting of the Association, held November 30 - December 1, 1984. The managers supplied copies of minutes of all meetings and reports to interested citizens and to public officials throughout the district. Copies of the 1983 Annual Report were filed in 1984 with the Minnesota Water Resources Board, the Department of Natural Resources, the Boards of County Commissioners of Hennepin and Carver Counties and with State Senators and Representatives from the area within the watershed district. EXPANSION OF BOARS OF MANAGERS On November 3, 1983, the Water Resources Board conducted a hearing on the question whether to expand the size of the Board of Managers. Following hearing, the Board ordered that the Board be expanded by two managers, both to be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County. Pursuant to that authorization, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners appointed James R. Spensley of the City of Minneapolis and James B. Mcwethy of the City of Edina to the two additional Tanager positions. Manager Spensley took the oath of office on March 15, 1984 and Manager Mcwethy took the oath of office on April 19, 1984. PERMIT APPLICATIONS The watershed district received 197 permit applications during 1984. In each instance, the proposed project was reviewed in detail for environmental soundness and for compliance with the district's rules and regulations. Applications were received for projects such as dredging, shoreline erosion protection, highway and utility crossings, setback variances, filling, preliminary plat review and drainage and grading for site development. A summary is attached to this report showing the project location and type of application received. As in previous years, a large majority of the applications received were from the Lake Minnetonka portion of the watershed district, reflecting the continuing urbanization of that area. All permits granted by the watershed districts specifically require compliance with applicable municipal ordinances and, if the permit involved Lake Minnetonka, the applicable ordinances of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. In addition, permits issued by the watershed district require compliance with any applicable rules of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The Board of Managers also took action as necessary regarding complaints, permit violations and activities which had been undertaken prior to issuance of a permit from the district. HYDROLOGIC DATA COLLECTION The district's hydrologic data collection program was continued during 1984. The data for 1983 is published in the Annual Hydrologic Data Report dated April, 1984. Copies of this report were submitted to the Minnesota Water Resources Board, the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Department of Nati-ral Resources, and local government officials and citizens' groLIs. GRAY'S BAY CONTROL STRUCTURE/LAKE MINNETONKA During 1984, the district operated the Gray's Bay Control Structure under the existing Management Policy and Operational Plan last revised and approved by the Department of Natural Resources on May 20, 1983. During 1984, the managers continued to rely heavily upon participation of each of the municipalities on Minnehaha Creek in recording creek elevations and flows and reporting that data to the district. The district prepared monthly summaries of this data and made these summaries available to interested municipalities and citizens. The assistance of each of the municipalities was invaluable to the district in making the operational adjustments required during 1984 to accomplish the management objectives of the Headwaters Control Structure. In connection with a request from the City of Minnetonka to use the surface of the dam and weir as part of a city trail, the district commenced an investigation of means to add public safety measures at the Dam. This study was pending at year end. -3- WATER MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR FUND The Board of Managers continued its practice of requesting from the municipalities within the district siggestions for maintenance projects to be paid in part from the district's Water Maintenance and Repair Fund. From the numerois requests received, the man jers approved the following projects for 1984: Applicant/Location City of Mound City of Long Lake_ City of Orono Project Description Shoreline erosion protection Channel improvements and sedimentation basin in drainage way tributary to Long Lake Culvert replacement at Long Lake Creek in Orono Orchard Road Al lnr-At i nn 40% of actual construction costs to a maximum of $3,000 40% of actual. construction costs up to $7,500 40% of actual construction costs up to $7,000 In addition to the foregoing municipal requests, the :Managers authorized modification of the elevations of the canoe landings on Minnehaha Creek located at Gray's Bay, the Horse Ford, Big Willow, and County Road 73. The costs were paid from the Water Maintenance and Repair Fund. MINNEHAHA CREEK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS/CASCADE LANE AREA, EDINA S PRGo tCT CP- 8 ) Channel improvements in the Cascade Lane area of Edina were authorized by the Board on December 19, 1983, to be paid from 1983 Water Maintenance and Repair Funds. That work was not ccrr:pleted by the contractor during the Winter of 1984. During 1984, the contract was amended to call for the contractor to complete the work during the Winter of 1985. PPER WATERSHED STORAGE AND RETENTION PROJECT _PROJECT CP-5 Aerial photography and topographic mapping were completed :n the Spring of 1984 for the Upper Watershed Storage and Retention Project within the Painter Creek Subwatershed (CF'-5). Topogriphrc mapping was completed ind easement descriptions were prepared. Un November 8, 1964, the duard approv.,-d plans and specifications f),, the project. Independent appraisals were obtained of all easerents needed for the project and offers of payment to individual owners were made based on the appraisals. In addition, the district commenced an eminent domain proceeding to acquire those easements where voluntary agreement could not be reaches] with individual owners. On December 20, 1984, the Board awarded a contract for the project. Work is scheduled to commence in January 1985. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANNING CHAPTER 509 During 1984, the Managers held nine special meetings regarding water management planning under Chapter 509. The managers' efforts were directed toward development of water management policies applicable on a district -wide basis. Preliminary drafts of such policies were prepared early in the year and submitted to the Chapter 509 Technical Advisory Committer: and to all municipalities within the District frc review and comment. Thereafter, the Managers held three meetings at various locations in the watershed district to secure comment front municipalities and interested citizens. Following review of the comments received, the Managers prepared revisions of the draft policy statements to respond to the comments received. These revised drafts were again distributed to all municipalities and interested citizens on December 20, 1984. The Managers also approved a timetable calling for the preparation of a draft Watershed Management Plan during 1985. FLOODPLAIN REGULA7ION The issue of floodplain filiing continued to be an area of attention by the managers, particularly in St. Louis Park and Edina, where residents along Minnehaha Creek have experienced high water conditions and have brought those concerns before the managers. The managers met with municipal officials on the subject. The managers urged all creekside municipalities to amend their ordinances to prohibit any further filling in the floodplain in Minnehaha Creek, since additional encroachment in the floodplain contributes to higher peak flows therety increasing the potential of damage to structures and property. In 1984, the managers also undertook a cooperative study with the City of St. Louis Park to determine the causes of seepage at the basement level of a private residence in St. Louis Park. BOUNDARY AMENDMENTS During 1984, the district submitted peti'ions to the Water Resources Board to amend the legal boundaries of the district to more closely approximate hydrologic drainage patter--;. A pet:ticn was submitted jointly with the Nine Mile Creek Watershe� 11:!-tract, Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, and Lower Minnesota River Watershed District to amend portions of the common boundaries of those u„tershed districts. A second petition was submitted in Noveriber 1984 to amend the boundaries adjacent to the Middle Mississippi Water Management Organization, Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission, Pioneer Creek Conservation Commission, and the Carver Creek Water Management Organization. A hearing was scheduled fo' early in 1985. MAPLE PLA;N TREATMENT PLANT/INT:.:RCEPTUR The Board reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on the phase -out of the Maple Plain Treatment Plant and interceptor construction. This project will remove the last remaining sewage treatment plant which discharges into Lake Minnetonka. LEGAL/PHYSICAL BOUNDARY DIFFERENCES The managers reviewed the roblems assuciatEd with review of projects located within the leg l boundary of the Watershed ")istric,_ but which drain into another watershed management organization. The managers adopted a policy to address such situations providing for the application of the standards of the receiving organization whenever possible. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES In 1984, the managers developed policy statements on surface water management in conformance with the requirements, of Chapter 509. During 1985, the managers intend to prepare a draft Watershed Management Plan for review during the latter part of 1985. The schedule calls for completion of the plan by December 31, 1986. The managers plan to complete construction of the Upper Watershed Storage and Retention project of improverrents in the Painter Creek Subwatershed (CP-5) in 1985. The Board also intends to complete the channel improvement work in the Cascade Lane area of Edina. The managers will continue to emphasize active use of its Water Maintenance and Repair Fund during 1985 in order to accomplish desirable maintenance projects within the district. The Board anticipates that it will continue reviewing and issuing permits pertaining to individual site developments duiln—, 198r.. 0 BUDGET/1984 As required by law, the managers, pursuant to notice, held a public hearing on September 20, 1984 on proposed budgets for the district's Administrative Fund, Water Maintenance and Repair Fund, and Watershed Management Planning Fund. Following the public hearing, the managers adopted budgets for 1985 for these funds. FINANCIAL RECORDS The financial records of the district are kept by a certified public accountant. All financial transactions are recorded in the minutes of its meetings. The treasurer of the district maintained separate records for five funds in 1984: (1) the Administrative Fund; (2) the Water Maintenance and Repair Fund; (3) the Data Acquisition Fund; (4) Watershed Management Planning Fund, and (5) the Upper Watershed Project Fund (CP-5). Records for each of these funds include the dates and amounts of all expenditures, the names of individuals receiving payment and the purposes for which payment is made. The official depository for the district is the Wayzata State Bank, Wayzata, Minnesota. During 1984, the financial records of the district were audited for the year 1983 and a copy of the audit was filed with the State Auditor for the State of Minnesota in March 1985. Respectfully submitted, David H. Cochran, President Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 0105n 1984 PERMIT APPLICATIONS A B C 0 E F G H I Chanhassen 1 2 3 Deephaven 4 4 Edina 1 1 2 Excelsior 1 4 1 6 Golden Valley 0 Greenwood 1 2 3 Hopkins 1 1 2 Independence 0 Laketown Twp. 2 2 Long Lake 5 1 1 1 8 Maple Plain 1 1 Medina 2 1 3 Minnetonka 6 3 1 2 1 2 15 Minneapolis 3 3 Minnetonka Beach 7 7 Minnetrista 3 1 1 5 Mound 5 4 9 4 1 23 Orono 6 3 14 1 1 25 Plymouth 6 1 2 2 1 12 Richfield 1 1 St. Bonifacius 0 St. Louis Park 10 1 1 12 Shorewood 6 1 5 1 13 Spring Park 1 1 2 2 1 1 i 2 10 Tonka Bay 3 1 7 i 12 Victoria 1 1 6 11 Wayzata 3 1 6 11 Woodland 3 _ _ 3 Total Permit Applications 62 11 1 4 10 79 1` 8 13 197 PERMIT APPLICATION CATEGORIES A - Grading and Drainage B - Bridge. Culvert or utilities C - Floodplain uevelopment D - Dredging E - Shoreline Improvements or Rip Rep F - Shoreline Setback Variance G - Fill or excavation H - Other Categories I - Municipality Total L/•KE IAINNUONKA COH-JERVATION DIFITRICT F I N A N C I A L S T A T E M E N T 1 9 8 9 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District FINANCIAL. STATEMENT 1984 STATEMENT OF CASH RECEIPTS, DISBURSEMENTS, BALANCES Balance Disburse - Fund 1-1-84 Receipts ments General $51,662.22 $ 100,917.32 $ 98,859.59 Petty Cash 200.00 — Save the Lake 46,842.58 26,517.33 14,918.65 Total $98,704.80 $127,434.65 $113,778.24 Advance payment of dues Fee Advances Fee Deposits Investments Balance 1-1-84 General Fund $48,615.57 Save the Lake Fund 46,768.17 Purchased Redeemed $71,068.01 $39,000.00 8,543.37 - 0 - Jon Elam, Treasurer CLASSIFICATION OF RECEIPTS - 1984 Save the Lake Fund Balance 12-31-84 $ 53,7'_9.95 200.00 58,441.26 $112,361.21 4,498.00 27,215.00 300.00 $144,374.21 Balance 12-31-84 $80,683.58 55,311.54 Donations $21,748.50 Other Income 4,768.j3 Total Save the Lake Fund $26,517.33 General Fund LMCD Communities (dues) $68,82,,. 0 Other Income 32,093.32 Total. General Fund 100,917.32 TOTAL RECEIPTS - 1984 CLASSIFICATION OF DISBURSEMENTS - 1984 Projects Total Save the Lake Fund Save the Lake Fund (Balance forwarded) $127,434.65 $14,918.65 $14,918.65 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District LMCD 1984 tio-•;i�cial Statement Page 2 CLASSIFICATION OF DISBURSEMENTS - 1984 (continued) Brought forward: Save the Lake Fund General Fund Administration Personal Services Salaries Auditing Services Total Personal Services Contractual Services Telephone Postage Printing,Publication & Advert. Utilities Maintenance: Office Equipment Janitorial Services Other Contractual Services Total Contractual Services Commodities & Supplies $52,480.�6 600.00 $53,080.56 $ 760.84 1,183.96 900.07 312.96 1,123.11 660.00 6,001.98 $10,942.92 Office Supplies $1,520.21 Books & Periodicals 103.20 General Supplies 271.59 Total Commodities & Supplies $1,895.00 Other Charges Office Rent Insurance & Bonds Memberships Employer Contributions Mileage & Expenses Total Other Charges Capital Outlay Office Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment Total Capital Outlay Legal Legal Services Total Legal Committees & Contingency $3,600.00 2,621.53 215.00 9,027.54 1,194.56 $16,658,63 $1,250.80 $ 1,250.80 $13,651.68 $13,651.68 Water Structures & Environment $ 49.82 Lake Use 1,213.43 Executive 116.75 Public Information & Program ---- Total Committees & Contingency $1,380.00 $14,918.65 Total General Fund $98,859.59 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS $113,1;8.24 westonka area chamber of commerce 5600 Lynwood Boulevarri, Mound, MN 55364 • 472-6780 Executive Vice -President: Chic Remien Chambee Moves APRIL 1985 OFFICERS President: Steve Wood President Elect: Diane Theis Treasurer: Donna Quigley Secretary: Roger Finnes DIRECTORS: Past Pres.: Ted Koenecke John. Burger Helen Daum Pat Meisel Carol Pitsch Dan Regan Dave Simonson George Stevens APRIL GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING "A Day at the Races" with Guest Speaker TOM BORROS Director of Mutuals at Canterbury Downs April 17th ..... Donnie's ..... $5.00 ..... 11:30 Social ..... 12:00 Lunch Reservations are a must! Call 472-6780 by Tuesday the 16th at 2:30 p.m. President's Letter: The pace is picking up. If you haven't received your Chamber Directory, you will soon. Notice the increase in number of listings and ad space as well as the two-color center section. Note the April and May schedule of Chamber activities. If you're itching to learn mole about government's involvement in your business, hearing interesting speakers, meeting folks in your and nearby communities, participating in fun family activities, or expanding your customer base, then satisfy the itch and get involved in the Chamber. This month's calendar offers several choices to get involved. Highlights: hear and see about Canterbury Downs on April 17 at the General Membership Meeting: bring the kids and help clean up the spring yuk during Operation Clean Sweep on April 27. Hottest rumor: Conversion of the Tonka Toys facility to a gambling casino. Why should Ely. MN have a monopoly? Steve Wood, President WHEW!! The 1985 Westonka Business Directory is being printed —finally —what a job! Looks like the distribution date will be the week of April 15. A big Thank You to the SOS crew for all their extra effort on this project. Welcome, New Members: TYRA'S SUPER VALU DUWAYNE TERLINDEN, INC. CATERED COMPUTING DOROTHY'S YARNS COMPETE TEXTILES FIRSTEL SHORELINE MEDICAL CLINIC SUNLIFE TANNING OF SPRING PARK MARLENE BISHOP THE COUNSELING CENTER OF WACONIA LIONS CLUB MOUND ROTARY CLUB WESTONKA SNOBLAZERS 1984 President led Koenecke and retiring Board Members Audrey Schultz and Paul Pond were honored at the March General Membership meeting. We salute and thank them for their dedicated ef)rts. It's time to remove the treetops from your Chamber Pots. Please be sure to dispose of them properly. Watch the May Waves for spring planting news. "Commercial Crime" CH1C'N SCRATCHES: A very special Thank You to our Police Chiefs Mel Kilbo, Len Harrell and Tim Thompson for providing us with such an excellent program for our March meeting. Sergeant Bill Hudson did a great job as Len's stand-in (Len was presiding over a Police Reserve graduation). It's a shame that so few retailers were there because the speakers had lots of helpful information on bad checks and theft. It was obvious that those members who took the time and made the effort to attend felt well rewarded! Joint Chambers Meeting We are the hosts!!! of a first ever joint meeting on Tuesday, May 21, al the Lafayette Club. Our Chamber will be inviting the membership of the Wayzata, Excelsior, Long Lake and Waconia Chambers to join us for what we hope will be an annual event! The guest speaker for this special occasion, thanks to the efforts of Mary Powell and Miki Banavige at the Wayzata Chember, will be Minneapolis Police Chief Tony Bouz i. So clear your calendar for noon on May 21 ! (This will re- place our regular Wednesday monthly meeting.) Mite A CLEAN SWEEP - 01 •11 26 Bus"esses fisted 11t'F and la be"It tl �inle to W A Free , BU1 HUFFY lnt Iva 1So Mp•f .uWtitLC FREE Weatonks T-SHIP.1 Nf/e_sq V 'S1wo N �Kn y�tco.1^o p.ce d Now: p,,&", t '"S.0 . tinot .a aK►« Who'cllMtl.t .F 1@ .1,CIW. IM OVA 1M .nlry ,y .n. app.n 1M..MMt page., 1nt Wt.i Marl GMwt' SEOQ lY^�'� 0 +C ,�__--- ,.01d___--- tylt S • e, 27. 1s * Oops! Luanne Gelb has joined us in a clerical, not chemical, capacity (see March "Waves"), although trying to keep me organized might drive anyone to drink!!! * Oops, again! It's Julia Williams at the Sailor, not Laura Williams. * Welcome to Paul Ostergaard, new owne, of the Spring Park McDonald's. I had the pleasure of working for him during my "McChic'n years" and know that he will be an asset to our community! * Captain Billy's Restaurant and Bar next to Stevens Market is also due to open in mid April. Good lurk to owner Bill Alexander, who has done a super job with the concept and interior design! * Can't wait for Stevens Market to open this month —that part of town is really coming alive! * Isn't the new building at 2434 Commerce go- ing to be stunning? J.J.'s Printing is already settled in there and ready for business and to answer questions about space availability in the rest of the building. Stop in and see them! * Congratulations to Cathy and Jim Robin on their new arrival —daughter Christine Beddor Robin! 5-1 * — N Westo47 nk• -� 1�1 7T+ N•r1,. N Wtao•4 \� ,✓.�, mow. �,,, •. ,.,� tip.,. `�..«... Attention all Retailers and Professionals Operation: Clean -Sweep 1985 April ,27th Operation: Clean ';,veep 1985 is � scheduled for Saturdey. April 27 from 9:00 a.m. to 1 1:00 a.m. Miry Pauly, mana- ger at Hardees (call I-er to "pitch in". she needs volunteers!!), is tkis year's chairperson (472- 1119). George and Bev Stevens (Stevens Market) will once again serve a breakfast for the whole community all that morn ing. Breakfast for all Clean - Sweep participants will be ' available from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. John Blackowiak of Mr. B's is supplying the breakfast rolls and pro- bably a surprise or two! Operation: Clean -Sweep will also have a cou- ple of new twists this year. FIRST: A number of Chamber members are par- ticipating in a promotion starting April 9th as an insert in the Laker. This will feature the new Westonka T-shirts-with-the-Goose �as premiums and a drawing for a VCR at 9:00 a.m. at the Clean -Sweep breakfast. The promotion had two goals: 1) to introduce area customers to new businesses and 2) to develop a community -oriented product (the T-shirts). T-shirts are not now available for sale. A decision regarding pricing and availability for sales to the public will be made by the committee and the Board after this promo- tion. Committee members were: Lynette McCullough (Lynette's), Helen Daum (Navarre Ceramics), Sandy Bothern (McDonald's), Clara Paz (Dueber's V&S), Gus Knott (Town & Country Foods), Dave Klein (Video One) and John Royer (Ben Franklin). SECOND: Mary Pauly will be "seeding" the Operation: Clean -Sweep areas with fun f ' f' t f d This is an excellent chance 4 to make contact with the community. We urge our Chamber members, especially the retailers, to be involved with the program —mention it to your customers and make a point of stopping in at the breakfast or volunteering yourself or an employee or two for Clean -Sweep. SEMINAR 14 Nedn"ay, April 171h 7 A.\I. - 9 A. I. Fr, ,1 • %%hs1's Happening in the Ranking Indu,lry" barn Iwm a panel of '}our frterttlly hankers". ewrythmg you wanird to know shout Nhal I, turrent1% happening in the hank Ing Inklu%tr,. and how it cllcct, you and your hu,irte,, John Berg. President, Wayrata Rank & Trust. Rick Miss. Prew k-ni. First National Bank III way.-dw. and C'hlI l.woh%nn. Scmof vice President N,,rwc,l %letr,^61 Nlll an,.cr ,our quc,tion, on ,uch ,uhicch as deicgulation. hu,iiw,,,onddton, Imeta,ling. aryl tluahh Ing for ,uwll husirtes, and ,on,kinier ham Incentives (gl t certi Ica es, ow coupons, whatever?) for the workers. She needs gift certificates and prizes from area busi- nesses —please take the initiative and make her job easier by contacting her with your contributions right away! All children should be accompanied by an adult! Please call Mary t472-1119, 8-4 M- -FI if you have any questions or suggestions. Remember, breakfast is offered to the whole community, so come join us even if you cannot participate in Clean -Sweep. Just as a way of saying Thank Youl SMALL BUSINESS SEMINARS Last Seminar - April 17th ----------------------------- i REGISTRATION FORM Non-1 hanther members Persons for Seminar 14 at S1500 l hander menders -- Perwns for Seminar 14 at S000 lnrludc, Nc,.onka ( hanihct mcmhcrs) Name ----- __-_ __—___—__-_—_�—_ Finn- --- — —-------. ---_ — Address 1%Inc Please return this form with payment enclosed for (;REATFR WAY'I.A-f'A ARIA C'HAMHER OF COMMERCE 402 1?,tsl I ike Street N'arrala. 11uuxHttr 553,41 u . i. Hh, t lifr Jrt,Ih.., CALENDAR Apr. 2 - Mound Retail Council, 7:30 a.m., Chamber Office Apr. 4 - Governmental Affairs Council, 7:30 a.m., Lafayette Club. Apr. 9 - Board of Directors Meeting, 7:30 a.m., Twin Birch. Apr. 9 - Clem -Sweep promotion starts Apr. 17 - General Membership Meeting, Donnie's, 1 1:30 So-ial, 12:00 Lunch Apr. 27 - Operation: Clean -Sweep. Breakfdst 8:00 d.m., 9:00 a.m. Stevens Market May. 2 - Governmental Affairs, 7:30 a.m., Lafayette Club May. 7 - Mound Retail, 7:30, Chamber Office May.14 - Board of Directors, 7:30 a.m., Twin Birch May 21 - Joint Chambers Luncheon - Lafayette, Tuesday (note date change!) 5600 Lynwood Blvd. Mound. Minnesota 55364 Bulk Rate U.S. Postage PAID Mound, MN 55364 Permit 022 westonka area chop .%er of commerce � APR f n 1985 0- oNO_; City of Orono -'P,O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323 Wo►kinq lo(jo,thco Working Together Working Together Working Together Working Together MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON MONDAY, MARCH 11, 1985 The regular meeting of the School Board of Independent School District #278 was held on Monday, March 11, 1985. Present: Dave McKown James Franklin James Seiter Don Anderson William Levering William Fenholt Kitty Crosby Reuben Palm UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Bill Levering, the minutes of the March 11, 1985 regular meeting were approved as presented. Kitty Crosby asked the Board to consider the use of paper ballots for the School Board election in May. The consensus of the Board was that paper ballots could be used should the committee decide this would )e the best way to proceed. Discussion ensued on the School District's agreement with Dow -Sat regarding the Cable TV system and the capabilities of than system. As the Board had some definite questions in this area, they requested that Mary Smith of Dow -Sat be asked to return to a Board meeting to clarify the agreement. Jim Seiter announced that Eric Tschida, 8th grader at Orono Middle School, had won the spelling contest which had been held earlier in the day. Eric will now enter regional competition. Mr. Seiter stated that there was good represen- tation of parents and staff at the contest. The Board will hold a special meeting on Monday, April 8, 1985 at 5:00 p.m. for discussion on procedures to be established/followed in the selection of a superintendenL. Reuben Palm MOVED, and Jim Franklin seconded, that the school year begin after Labor Day for the 1985-86 and 1986-87 school years. Discussion was held regarding the adoption of the school calendar. Kitty Crosby stated that the Board policy in effect now was adopted as a result of a survey which involved faculty and parents. Mrs. Crosby stated that she feels it is difficult to have a policy that vacillates and it should be a local prerogative to set the school calendar. Reuben Palm stated that he feels school should begin after Labor gay, not because of the Legislature, but because it is a better time for the school year to beqin. Jim Franklin stated that based on information he has received, he feels the Legislature will mandate the start of school after Labor Day, thus by changing the school calendar now, Orono would be a step ahead. The question was called on the motion. Franklin and Palm voted yes. Anderson, Crosby and Levering voted no. Motion failed. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Don Anderson, the school calendars for 1985-86 and 1986-87 were adopted as presented: ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 SCHOOI CALENDAR 1985-86 August 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 26 27 28 30 November 1 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 �1 25 26 27 2 9 February 3 4 5 6 7 11 12 13 14 �7 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 28 May 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 R © 27 28 aTeache, workshop/inservice/ articulation/curriculum development days OSchool not in session C Opening and closing of student attendance AEnd of semester; teachers will work (no school) September 3 4 5 6 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 23 24 25 26 27 30 December 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 16 11 go(a a 20 2 March 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 ZI ® ®© 0 0 31 June 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 23 24 25 26 27 30 October 1 2 ? 4 7 8 9 1 14 15 16 17 8 21 22 23 24 28 29 30 31 January 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 A 20 21 22 23 24 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 16 17 18 21 22 23 24 25 a 29 30 Student days (includes conf. days) Inservice days (8/19, 20; 10/25; 3/21) Teacher Prep days (8/21, 22, 23; 1117; 5/30) - TOTAL 172 4 6 182 Date Activity Date Activity 8/19-23 All teachers wkshp 1117 Semester ends; 8/26 CLASSES BEGIN Teacher wkshp. 9/2 Labor Day '_/17 Presidents' Bir. 10/17-18 MEA/MFT 3121 Teacher wkshp. 1Oi25 Teacher workshop 3124-27 Spring Break 11/ Conf. 3/28 Good Friday 11/ Conf. 4/ Conf. 11/28-29 Thanksgiving Vac. 4/ Conf. 12/23-1/3 Christmas Vac. 4/28 Holiday 1/6 Classes resume 5/26 Memorial Day 5/29 LAST DAY 5/30 Teacher workday * Parent conferences - to be determined * Holiday unless necessary to make up a snow day ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 218 SCHM^L CALENDAR -j86-87 August September 1 '1) 2 3 4 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 11 12 13 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 ® I" © © 22 23 24 25 26 26 27 28 29 29 30 November December 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 10 11 12 13 14 15 gl 17 18 19 17 18 19 20 21 4 ,(3 66 24 25 26 1 1 February March 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 11 10 11 12 13 9 10 11 12 13 17 18 19 20 16 17 • 18 19 EM 23 24 25 26 27 3 C' 31 May June 1 1 2 3 4 5 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 11 12 13 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 18 19 20 21 22 22 23 24 25 26 1� 26 27 -J A 29 30 r--1 Teacher worKshon/inservice/ articulation -iculum 0 School not i• ;ion Opening and closing of student attendance AEnd of semester; teachers will work (no school) October 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 13 14 15 ® 17 20 21 22 23 27 28 29 30 31 January q205 6 7 12 13 14 15 A 19 20 21 22 23 26 97 28 29 30 April 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 14 f13 15 16 r20 21 22 23 27 28 29 30 Student days (includes conf. days) Inservice days (8/18, 19; 10/24; 3/20) Teacher Prep days (8/20, 21, 22; 1/16; 5/29) TOTAL 173 4 5 182 Date Activity Date Activity 8118-22 A11 teachers wkshp 1/16 Semester ends; 8/25 CLASSES BEGIN Teacher wkshp 9/1 Labor Day 2/16 Presidents' Bir. 10/16-17 MEA/MFT 3/20 Teacher wkshp 10124 Teacher workshop 3/23-27 Spring Break 11/ Conf. 4/ Conf. 11/ Conf. 4/ Conf. 11127-28 Thanksgiving Vac. 4/17 Good Friday 12122-112 Christmas Vac. 5/25 Memorial Day 1/5 Classes resume 5/28 LAST DAv 5/29 Teacher workday • Parent conferences - to be determined Nay vote: Palm. Motion carried. The final calendar for 1985-86 will not be published until a decision has been reached by the Legislature. Discussion ensued regarding the tractor specifications. According to a consen- sus of the Board, the following specifications, as developed by the Board, will be put out for bids with the inclusion of the statement that deviation from these specifications would be allowed, as long as the deviations were indicated, and the bid chosen would be in the best interest of the District. The specifi- cations follow: SPECIFICATIONS ONE NEW TRACTOR WITH LOADER AND BLOWER FOR ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 685 Old Crystal Bay Road North Long Lake, MN 55356 Intent of Specifick ;: These specifications are designed so as not to limit any uidder from bidding equipment that basically meets or exceeds the specifications. However, the Board requests that all bidders provide complete and detailed information and brochures on all equipment bid. Service: Bidder will supply detailed parts and maintenance manual. Warranty: State warranty period and parts warranty. TWO -WHEEL DRIVE TRACTOR SPECIFICATIONS Engine Type ........................diesel engine Engine horsepower ........... 50-55 hp. Power at PTO................50 hp. Cooling system..............coolant recovery system Power takeoff .................independent, 540-rpm rear Clutch ........................11 in. dry single disk Transmission ............ .....specify type bid Brakes........................self-adjusting hydraulic disk, separate parking brake Hydraulic system Type.......................open center flow Pumps......................two gear -type, engine driven Hitch........................3-point hitch and multiple position draw bar Tires ........................specify type bid Additional bid: Same specification as above but with four-wheel drive. Tractor Specifications continued: Cab Features.................ROPS protection .................all -steel cab construction .................shipped fully assembled .................tractor matched colors .................tinted safety glass windows .................swing out rear window or sliding rear window .................removable doors .................padded interior .................roof -mounted flasher .................electric windshield wiper .................defroster fan .................hot-water heater with 675 CFM fresh air pressuri .................locking door handles .................outside mirrors .................front and rear work lights .................eme.rgency flashers Tractor Specifications continued: Rear Mount Blower Three-po.nt category ........... 1 or 2 PTO rpm........................540 rpm PTO horsepower range ........... 40-55 hp. Cutting width..................72" min. Cutting height.................25" min. Hydraulic rotator on chute Three -position hydraulic end -cap control on chute Individual shear bolts on blower and auger Two -stage design Loader Capacity ......................lift capacity at full height 2200 lb. min. Bucket size...................60" min. Hydraulic controls ............ selective control valve UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Bill Levering, approval was granted for Roberta Saunders' request to reduce her employment to 60% for the 1985-86 school year. UPON MOTION by Bill Levering, seconded by Kitty Crosby, approval was granted for the 1985-86 Capital Outlay Budget as presented. Bill Fenholt clarified various areas which were of concern to the Board regarding the Capital Outlay Budget. Discussion ensued regarding the summer band lessons. Some of the areas of con- cern were the fee collection process, cost compared to number of students in attendance, availability of band program to all students and fees for seniors. Bill Levering MOVED, Dave McKown seconded, that the Board establish the summer band program as a self-supporting activity and that the fees charged would be equitably allocated according to the amount of services provided. This item will again appear or► the agenda for the April 8 Board meeting. An administra- tive recommendation for implementation of the preceding motion will appear as an action item on the agenda for the April 8 Board meeting. UPON MOTION by Bill Levering, seconded by Kitty Crosby, the bills as covered by vouchers 047361 through 047412 and 046597 through 046710 were approved as presented. UPON MOTION by Bill Levering, seconded by Kitty Crosby, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: Dave McKown, Chairman (1-1 M-1 I Kather ne P. Crosby, C erk 3 t� COMMERCIAL ROBERT J. WOOD BUILDING PRESIDENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MAINTENANCE Aph.it 19, 1985 �SnIViV�'�_`!}; V I il� APR 2 2 19, Counc it Membeh6 o 6 .the City o 6 Ohono ! J CITY --()r- Pobt 066.ice Box 66 Orono, M.i.nne6o.ta 55323 DeaA Councit Membeh6: I am wAit ing .in he6ehence to the eanitany 6 eweA pho jec t .in .the Chy6tat Bay Rhea. I paid 6oh my 6eweA, and mu6t oppobe having to pay 6o4 anrj pact o6 6omeone eUel b 6eweA. Un.te66 th A can be totatty ab6e66ed to the bene6itted phopenti.e6, p.tea6e vote aga.in6t the Chy6tat Bay Rhea 6anitoAy 6ewen phoject. S.i,nc ehe.t y, CBM INDUSTRIES, INC. Robeht J. �_0�0d"w PuA i.dent RJw: kc6 P' NR22� .a C1iY of ORONO The Honorable Mary Butler Mayor of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mayor Butler: 1991 Fagerness Point Road Orono, MN 55391 Over the past several years the real estate taxes assessed in the City of Orono have increased at an alarming rate. The result is a substantial hardship imposed on many of our city's residents. I recently received your notice that the residents of Orono may be assessed up to $450,000 to pay for one-half of a sewer project that I understand may benefit only 78 homes in the Crystal Bay area. I vehemently oppose tni3 arbitrary imposition of an assessment on the residents of Orono and on myself for someone else's sewer requirements. It is my belief that each of these projects must be justified on their own meriLs based upon the ability of the individuals who benefit to pay for these ser- ,iices. I encourage you to vote against the referred to sewer project if in fact it would require any of the nonbenefit Orono residents to be assessed for part of the costs. OEF/jo cc: Tim Adams Lynn Adams Tom Frohm James Grabeck Your truly, ville E. Fisrier, Jr. THOMAS V. MARKLE 2SOB ARCOLA LANE WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55301 i�•���1C5C5 C=� D��C�I�► t•,w'j I ; AM n ICE April 18, 1985 City Council of Orono P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bey, MN 55323 Dear Council Members. We will be out of town for the council meeting scheduled for April 22, 1985 which is scheduled to consider several assessment options for financing construction of sanitary sewers in the Crystal Bay area. The noti::e states that one of the options involves: ..a partial assessment of the project cost to the benefitting property owners with the remainder of the project cost to be paid out of City funds, which could result in an increase in property taxes of the entire City". We believe strongly that benefitted property owners should pay the full cost of sanitary sewer improvements. When 'Much sewers were constructed in Minnetonka Beach, where our two houses are located, it is our understanding that we received no such sharing of costs from City funds derrived from property taxes of the entire City. For the record these two houses are at 2502 and 2508 Arcola Lane. We believe the Council will be fair and consistent in its financing of sanitary sewers no matter where they may be located. We urge you to vote for 100% assessment against benefitted property owners. Thank you for your attention to our plea. Very truly yours, �.�_hMau1_✓ ())1Aak& Thomas V. Markle Barbara F. Markle Tff£Arr- 14ND C-�4✓C�G /BEN 2S �' e:?� AeOA/0 40t //0 /,011f llu� RP,o / 4 / 7/ / 9s,S oEne Noyoe �a`u �tz- �'j'/u� �z<•,.t., /Q�u.u1JL� 0-4 U I U �- ,I-11�� 1I,I r( ( I 2 2 1� ; I� C! Y OF ORONO April 18, 1yII5 APR 2 2 1965 1i II .I Mayor & Council Members of Orono CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 5532.3 Dear Orono Mayor and Council: This letter is sent to express our opposition to our being assessed for sewers for another part of the city. We have paid for the sewer for our own home and feel that only the property owners getting the sewer should bear the cost of the project. This is the only fair way since they are the ones who directly benefit by the increase in valuation of their property. Please represent us by voting against the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited properties. Very truly yours, Harold Albrecht Carol Albrecht 4545 North Shore D.•ive Mound, MN 55364 1 ^ ^ L c+ i Y OF ORONO c17 a— Au • , .� /a(q- 6?7 4*2- �t APR 2 2 IIENRY W. SEE 1389 ORONO LANE WAYZATA, MINNrsOTA 55391 April 18, 1985 The Honorable Mary Butler Mayor of the City of Crono 3145 Casco Civ,:'p Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Mayor Butler: I understand that you are considering assessing all Orono residents for a sewer being planned in the Crystal Bay area. I vehemently object to this. A few yeirs ago, a sewer was put in through Orono Lane, and I had to connect to it, although my septic s_-stem could have been '-ought up to code for about $1,500. Since then, I been paying up to $1,600 a year for sewer serve, . By making the residents pay for their own sewer, Orono established both a precedent and a policy of having those forced to hook up to the sewer pay their own way. If you had taxed the whole of Orono for our sewer, I would have no objection to Daying for other sewers, but if you now change the existing precede-t, I will campaign vigorously against you in the nex, election. Sincet_ly, �\J� Henry W. See HWS: klj cc: Town Council (dictated but not read) CJ 7 o'er` •�C �' �:Ls+L APR 2 219Q5 ; CITY OF ORON11 i� 2«Z ` rpR 2 21985 � v C�iY OF ORONO April 1 , TO: Orono Mayor and Council d FROM: Keith and Joyce Olso 2510 Old Beach Road Wayzata, Mn. 5539 SUBJECT: PROPOSED ASSES NT ON CRYSTA BAI SEWER PROJECT We are in receipt of the notice sent on the Public Hearing on the proposed assessment against our property for he Crystal Bay Sewer Project. Please be aware that we are still paying on the assessments made against our property when our own sewer was installed... and are definitely not looking to pay for someone else's sewer too. We would ask that you vote against the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to those properties benefiting from such an improvement. i) 1 APR 2 2 1985 "'L- cl-T k,--'''`'`1 01 . , 9"ry& .I APR 2 2 M olTy ,(i �Q� � /DGc�-� QDdZo-a-Z-� 7'6 i //, st- o v --Il<<1I 1290 Briar Street Wayzata, MN 55391 (Orono) Dear Orono Mayer and Council: 1 APR 2 2 1985 CITY OF ORONO I paid for my own sewer, and I am strongly opposed to paying for any part of someone else's sewer. Please vote against the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited properties. Thank you, J Faye Hartranft ,yja.,6�1 /f t-OaNto. b zet eLu�- �1zC� y"fT- ��at_' 1%�zayc c hL�ja-c�fjZ�t•K� �u-Z�.�t, i f1-P�tJ /�'r lc.�f:cam c�t�-�lr�.cftJ It-Yt.v � ;� c./'' �� -ham' ,�✓--rc,ft.�c.J, LSE... �'-- L� 'aw-i� Q.�, _Zvi MUM Zlf4L,V,� KENNETH H. ERICKSI'N 2773 Casco Point Road Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 471.7882 19, 1 ' 5 Orono City Uouncil 1335 Brovin itoad So. P.G. Box 66 Grystal Bay, i-,inn. 55323 "I r I D' APR 2 2 Cf TY OF 0R0 U Notice of lublic :;e,:rinrr on lrorose(` Special ;assessments for Sanitary '3ev:er lro jest 95-1 ... ('Irys t,-,l :?ay rep_ e wisii to express our strong objection to the proy)osed sha__� of costs for this projct being.,s: sses:e. to residents entirely out of V.e area b'efitinV. Our sever and water assessments are levie6 -ctly to cur property and we object to already excessivE ' s being increased even more because of f-,-r.-ect milt:_ from here! iJ UL C11 Y.._0'F i..).'Ui io 17 April 1985 Ms..Dorothy M Hallin, City Clerk. Orono City Cou.,cil Crystal Bay, Mn, 553.'3 Subject: SpeciLl Assessment for Sanitary Sewer Frojoct 85-1. Crystal Bay 'area Dear Ms. Hallin ; Thank you for your notice of the Council's consideration of the above subject. Please transmit to Members of the Council my objection to a possible assessment to my property for a sewer installation to benefit properties owned by others unless they have been similarly sharing costs for the sewer installation to my property and for which I have paid. I believe the Council should be consistent in the assessment of costs for specifically individual improvements only to those properties benefiting; unless it can be shown thrut there is a general monetary benefit to all property own Sincerely, George C. Swanbeck 3447 Crystal Bay Road Orono, Mn, 55391 11' ; i APR 22 10 CITY OF ORONO April 19, 1985. Ms. Dorothy M. Hallin City Clerk, Orono Council City of Orono 1335 Brown Road Orono, MN 55323. Re, Proposed Srecial Assessments f(--- Sanitary Project 85-1, Crvst:al Bay Area Dear Ms. Hallin and Memt- of the Council: Your notice of a proposed ab.es to Orono pi •_ty owners in entirety for construc,i of a sewer system, referenced above, which will berg a few specific property owners, has me ala -ed. As an owner who ..ar.red the costs c)f sewer connection to m•- i.n o,),»sed to the arbitrary a..sticssment of .. sta to Le for the advantages of sewer cornf _i(- _ r,sl f b,,r:?fiting property owners. xr,.::t: the Ccn• c_t- follow existing jar i.nciples of fair- nt-:.s in assessing costs of improvements (long available at an c,ational cost) to affected property ck-ners at the time they choose to take the benefits, or are so directed by the Council. Resrectfully yours, a Maureen Swanbeck 1750 Sharlywood Road Orono, MN 55323. APR 2 2 P-6 'TY OF (►r0NO__j 59 M i�CStQti1C 2 2 Si ►�rY OF 0 r i i 1, 1 =' 5 ,j t _. r rri .' = eA,,i & r a rl d 1 a R, t r , n u p C- O= e d t C, d '.' 1 rl Q r-.rr,eOne e=e = cri.ier r1: ee c,te again=t tr,_tal E;a'. r,rea Sanitar. sewer JnIe = It .an be a_=e =eC1. entire)'.'. to the benetlted pr ,_G,Fr t 1 E-= . �. APR 22S ""OF OF OR NO j APR I L 18, 1985 THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS OF ORONO F. O. BOX Fah CRYSTAL DAY, MN JJ 2 ti C)E AR ORONO MAYOR AND COUNCIL.: I AM FE: QLJL- S'(I NG THAT YOU VU (E AGA I N.3)T THE CRY �TAL E'AY ARE (l BAN I TART SEWER PROJECT UNLESS I T CAN BE TOTALLY ASSESSED TO THE BENEFITED PROPERTIES.' I AM S*VctONGLY OPPOSED 10 PAYING FOR ANY FART OF IT BY AN INCREASE TO MY TAXES. SINCERELY, EDWARD Et, HL:NRA.CH 412tji HIGHWOOL) ROAD MOUND, MN `55364 tl i9- 8sf APRzz ci- ,✓ ,��t :c azzrA) ,�l�tl�e�, / 91- tom' CMG-ct.a� a '� �t,t_� «► �.! 1' (�?S (, a� ?. A / APR 2 2 M CITY OF ORONO "'] c /12- f 2 �tl C12c'� a �))rz VC;i' f C�,�nc 4 vc�cce- C r n-� cam._ �/ L✓7? %+Z�c� �-�L/ a T`7 •� • _�z �;,.� .•cr-r.�i_ �__ �j c-��...-ate ���- .- Ills. ice.. i O� Y JaX4,1, 2730 SHADYWOOD ROAD • EXCELSIOR MINNESOTA 55331 April 17, 1985 h I APR 11 w �+ cirY of UH0NO Orono Mayor and Council City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Orono Mayor an(, Council: ! paid for my own sewer, and I am strongly opposed to saying for any part of someone else's sew^r. Please vote against the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited properties. Sincerely. J. 1 �. John L. R Nancy L. Fiebelkorn (u U Ax !Pe CITY Or ORONO April, 17 1981-1 Orono Mayor and Council City of Orono P.O.Box 66 Crystal Bay MN 55323 Dear Orono Mayor and Council: I paid for my --wn sewer, and I am strongly opposed to paying for any part of someone else's sewer. Please vote against the Crystal Bay Area sanitary sewer project unless it can be totally assessed to the benefited properties. Sincerly, ! � I APR 2 2 i985 CITY OF OBQNO To ounc.l; Herman J. Renner 3180 North Shore Dr. Wayzata, MN 55391 As a long time resident of Orono and taxpayer, I wish to express my deep disappointment and disgust at the way Orono appears to have "botched up" another new sewer project. I fully realize that the present Mayor and Council are not respon- ,ible for "past mistakes"... The Crystal Bay sewer should not be "cast upon" the other Orono taxpayers, especially those who have already been "nailed to the cross". The area now proposed for sewer should have been included with the last project years ago along with Maxwell Bay...Sewage was flow- ing onto the ground across from Paul's Landing for years and still Crystal Bay area was not sewered... WHY? ... They needed it more than any area. Could it be POLITICS??? Crystal Bay should have been sewered FIRST...I am told that people didn't want it at thr;t time and were allowed to wait until the next sewer project ..They should have had the sewer without choice as we did. Now you are "granting" On Site sewer and water at the new con- struction area just a block west of Crystal Bay...Just a few years ago the 'Famous" Orono Sewer Engineer Mills told a crowded meeting that septic systems and on site systems were only a "temporary" and "not safQ". He stated that he had many acres of land to his property ... It appears _hat we are now going to dance the "Missouri Waltz"??? If the new area being built up just west of Crystal Bay is allowed to f.nstall their own sewer treatment, it will no doubt function well for a few years and at that time , again, the taxpayer will be asked to foot the bill ... This area should be included with Crystal Bay as part of that nroject... It would spread out the cost. Again more politics? If you people would get yours heads together, the costs may be reduces:. Your cost figures appear inflated, and I don't blame the Crystal Bay residents for getting "hot", however, they didn't want sewer when it was forced on its... i can tell y.._ now that if these costs are reflected on those of us who have already paid for a sewer project, there will be some seats on the Council changed and another Class Action suit to follow. If the residents of Crystal Bay don't want to pay, don't sewer the area - - - let them solve theif problems themselves. They can pay to pump out their systems. My taxes are over $3400, that is abort $3100 more than 20 years ago. I am tax poor and retired. I can no longer afford to pay for your past -nd future mistakes ... My home is very old and is falling apart.. You ve now reached my limit ... If they don't want sewer, DON'T SEWL ,..Let them solve their problem... Yours truly, Ok Herman J. Renner APR 2 21985 Ac(-,I k I lgse C-0-t-orke. toow, J*j 0- ) NA %,% , --> S''S`S I Der , �...� o✓ ��.�1{�.� Ow�.� C-►i � C.�+v-H c-i ( � 1..0-0 N a o ,,'t 1 \ Plu»-S� v �� �- o�-c1 �,.���' -�.� t� ���e-1 � a- � +4 r �.a. s a_►. �-t w � `� 4;t,WLr RLSpLcT�v.l(I �w S 1 ( 1 0 KV1 [9 APR??W5 CITY 0 F-G-Mi" zeAeAzl •Lt`t'i L°-xGt �G2t'� G�•tt�.J .« ti /roc/, .L�Cii'�-�-s•�i ,LCac,�C-c�-Z.�.�+� .G2 /�� Lf�� ��cc.e.�Z�e+✓ .t'�.c� i �fiZi,.- 42 •c �— //�� ic/ •G1 c-t 1 "jib 22 1985 - o CITY F ORONO lu—Lh— U-A C �ri t1'tu 6 C{ 0, YYl— m.16 uvJY) sooxx assessmehk avtck G.vv� he ��� •� k.�t�vv C.u� s ic�� ur��hsc i��cL�le�. `t-�ne� Y\esc3C lo3s Lowe Linda Q1 (Oj L9, U Vi L R- LAPR 2 1985 1- 140-7 J-d AL.A� D N.-I 0 FAPR 2 2 ►985 ' luu� i CITY OF OROPJO j ",- Z. /t4f,-Zt,-" 9 Cz� (Z L'or�s 1 ��w✓/ iL APR 2 2 19eE6 ji, b. CITY OF QWJO fc) APR 19 1985 J CITY OF ORONO April 18, 1985 Dear Orono Mayor and City Council Members .lust a few short years ago I invested a considerable amount of money to upgrade uy then, four year old septic: system, at the insistence of the Orono City Inspector. This was accomplished based upon the assurance of the city that no public sewer pr()ject was on the horizon for North Shore Drive. Within one year the North Shore Drive project was proposed, approved and completed, obsoleting a major personal investment and adding $18,466, plus $14,578 interest for a total of $33,044 out of my pocket over the 15 year pay-off period of the project, At that time, Orono officials assured my that the sewer project 1) would add to the market value of my property, and 2) could not be shared with the other residents in Orono, since Orono sewer projects were alw-ays paid for only by the residents benefiting from the project. Now Crystal Bay is in need of a major sewer upgrading, and the proposal has been made to "share" the cost with all of Orono. Why" How does this project differ from the North Shore Drive Project' In concept it doesn't! And I am certainly opposed to paying any part, no matter how small, of anyone else's project, unless the city would like to go back and re -assess all of Orono for my sewer program. I am not insensitive to individual people with real hardship needs. In such specific cases, I'm sure that most Orono residents would concur that some sort of help must be offered. But the need must be significant, and must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Orono taxpayers. I am absolutely in opposition to any proposa' which would require that I or any other Orono resident automatically fund a part of the Crystal Bay Sewer Project. There are many property owners, including the Art Center, who can handle the assessment just as well as the other residents have had to han(a a previous sewer projects. V.halen Scotch Pine Lane Orono, Minnesota 55391 1 705 Concordia Street Wayzata. IN 55391 Apri 120, 1985 The Honorable Mary Butler Mayor --City of Orono P.0, Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mayor Butler: We strongly object to the proposed method of assessment for sewer in the Crystal Bay area whereby up to one-half would be paid from the general fund, meaning that. each resident who has already paid for his own sewer assessment would now be paying for such service to the affected homeowners This proposed funding method sets a critically dangerous precedent, and is apparently one without precedent. If there is strong disparity on frontage feet or property values among affected property owners that lead to this dangerous proposal, we would suggest that the Orono Council consider an AO Kalgre approach to tie assessment This approach provided an equitable solution to sewer assessments in Minnetonka Beach within the past decade If there is no change in your solut ion to the current problem, we must stress that we, as homeowners who would be expected to pay our fair share, would strongly propose tax credits for each Orono homeowner who has already paid for his sewer without general fund assistance We strongly oppose your proposed assessment method and urge you and the council to re consider an equitable format for all residents, now nnfi in the fliture i^fF'rPt(1 , /;q./ el "IJZ g�� �nr+ A & Kathe A Ehlert JAEftth cc Council memhet o- � 2 2, 148s�_ Y - /- -J.- - J- .1 i wII.LIA" T u I L t S 347 ST 1"'IP KFY ..LV') ., MARATHWI Fl i3nc - Pln" ► I • • U0012575S111An? MUI?1195 ICS IPMHNGZ CSP HPSR 2 3O57432819 MGr. TDRN MARATHON FL OU-21 0836P EST S G MCwiLLIAMS 1130 wILLnw f)R SOUTH CRYSTAL BAY MN 553?3 THIS IS A CONFIRMATTON CUPY nF A TELErPAM AnopESSFn Tr) Ynl!t IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QHESTICN I RECALL THAT THE VILLAr.F ROAD CREW r1ID THE STREET REPAIR WORK AFTEW THE FIRST nRnNO SANITARY SEWER PPOJFCT, NILLIA" T MILLS IN THE F:VENT OF ANY SERVICE INQUIRIES, PLEASE DIRECT CORRESPON- DENCE TO: NATIONAL CONSUMER SFRVICF CFNTFR C/0 WESTERN UNION. TELFGRAPH COMPANY Ing WEST ROUTF 39 NnoPF'STOWN, NJ OP057 20:3q EST MGMCO"P IP L I APR 2 2 685 CITY OF ORONO /�T/� L'/�-ifs i��� �iiZE�Gi ,�h�� ,�l/iZ%�Z� �. ��/,C%C�.� S TIJ � /(.C7 l C2U6C. � /./l/� Date .:21, .. (� I (we) the undersigned property owners locatr,d at street address - not PC Pox appeal the 100;b project cost assessment in the amount of $10,850.00 per unit for sewer in Crrstal Bay . SiFnature (s), APR 2 2 M CITY OF ORONO Pate .l ,':,' :rl• — I (we) the undersigned property owners located at street address - n ox c y� l.aproeal-the 100% project cost assessment in the amount of tlO,P50.00 per unit for sewer in Cr-lstal Ray . Signature (s ). f1 / i APR 1 9 M TY OF ORONO Date I (we) the undersigned property owners located at �D �� � skIL , - street address - not ' Rox c�'r%a--appeal tie 100;, project cost as-essment in the amount of :G10 0.00 5 per unit for sewer in Crystal Ray . Sirnature (s ), -1C @ m OWN D APR 19 CITY of OR,0110 Pate / I (we) the undersigned property owners located at street address - not R, Pox appeal the 100% project cost assessment in the amount of tlOS ?50.00 per unit for sewer in Crystal Pay. Sif,nature (s ), C� 6 �( APR zz� lO CITY OF ORONO