Home Care In Mound, MN

As online platforms like Airbnb and VRBO have become more popular in recent years, many cities across the country have implemented regulations surrounding short term rentals, including the City of Mound. The Mound City Council at its meeting on June 27 denied an appeals request from the owner of 1665 Bluebird Lane to use the property as a short-term rental, upholding its policy prohibiting short-term rentals within residential districts.

The council first adopted regulations that prohibit the use of homes in residential districts for short-term rental use in August 2018. According to the city code, a short-term rental means any temporary occupancy of a dwelling unit that is offered for rent to a transient for fewer than 30 consecutive calendar days.

The appeal request was brought before the council after the Planning Commission denied the appeal at its meeting on May 2. Since the property had not been used as as a short term rental since 2012 and was used as a long-term rental for the past 10 years, the council determined that the property did not have lawful, nonconforming status as it was not being used as a short-term rental at the time that the council prohibited short-term rentals.

In other news, several residents came before the council to request that the city modify its plan for the lift station project on Wilshire Blvd/County Road 125 across from Lakewinds Condominiums. The plans for the lift station include a large concrete wall and a driveway for the city’s maintenance vehicles to use when they pump the lift station. The residents contended that the concrete wall will block their view of the lake and increase the amount of traffic noise, which could negatively affect their property values. They also suggested that the wall could pose a liability for the city if someone were to fall off of it or if it was used for graffiti and pointed out that vehicles may use the driveway to turn around which could be a safety hazard on a busy road.

City manager Eric Hoversten explained that it would be difficult to modify the project site plan because the city intends to keep the old lift station in service while it builds the new station. The city also can’t change the location because the existing lift station area is the low point for sewage in that area of town. Along with that, Hoversten noted that the retaining wall is needed to stabilize the hill after the soil is dug up to create a flat spot for the station.

Another agenda item for the council was to hear a concept introduction for a proposed subdivision at 5340 Bartlett Boulevard from applicant T. Cody Turnquist on behalf of owner Jon Jensen. The proposed concept involves the subdivision of the property into three parcels. The existing home is proposed to remain but will receive an addition. Two new residential parcels would be created to the north of the existing home and would be accessed by a shared private driveway along the east property line.

Nearly every property owner with property abutting the area for the proposed project came before the council to express concerns about the project related to tree loss, drainage, and privacy. In response, Turnquist asked the neighbors if they would be interested in a lot line reconfiguration to extend their property lines and promised to set up a neighborhood meeting to discuss the project further.

Justin Nilson, senior manager of Abdo also presented the 2022 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the City of Mound to the council. Nilson explained that the city is doing well overall and steadily paying down its debt. He noted that Mound’s tax rates remain lower than its peers, though its tax rate per capita is higher compared to other class four cities. Nilson also highlighted that Mound’s liquor fund is doing well compared to the statewide average.

Along with his other observations, Nilson pointed out that the city is currently carrying a deficit of nearly four million dollars in its water fund and over one and half million dollars in its storm water fund. He explained that with consistent planning and good budgeting the city will remain in good shape and noted that many cities are currently facing or will face challenges in the coming years as a result of aging infrastructure.

The council will hold a special meeting on July 6 to discuss a potential contract for strategic planning and long range financial plan facilitation as well as the procedures it plans to use to search, recruit, and select a new city manager.

Mound council narrowly approved the city’s work plan for the remainder of the year after turning over the possibility of striking from that list any continued discussion on keeping agricultural animals, namely chickens, as backyard pets.

“There’s always going to be things that all of us individually like or not like, but our job is to listen to all and try to make the best decision for the whole community,” said council member Sherrie Pugh.

Pugh joined council members Phil Velsor and Jason Holt in voting July 13 to keep the item on the city’s 2021 work plan. Mayor Ray Salazar and council member Paula Larson, however, would rather it had been plucked from that plan, arguing that the amount of time already invested in the topic didn’t warrant what would be a fourth study of it in just seven years.

Council most recently had taken up the issue last April after hearing from a resident who advocated for the keeping of hens in residential yards. The woman had made the case that it was a healthy hobby that yielded fresh eggs and that those few who were interested in taking up the hobby (around 20, she had estimated) had the University of Minnesota and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to consult on best practices for keeping chickens without raising any clucks from the neighbors. It was a self-enforcing hobby, the advocate had told council.

But that April discussion had ended on a note of uncertainty when the vote taken didn’t produce the requisite number of ayes and nays. Two council members—Velsor and Pugh—had voted to move ahead on allowing chickens in residential areas, but three others—Salazar, Larson and former council member Jeff Bergquist—had abstained from the vote entirely.

That 2-0 vote, for lack of a quorum, triggered the topic’s reappearance on this year’s work plan.

“The rules on abstentions are weird,” explained Mound city manager Eric Hoversten July 13. Abstentions fell in with the majority of the votes, he said. “An abstention isn’t ‘not voting,’ it’s actually a giving away.”

Larson, whose abstention last April was the final vote cast and so would have been the deciding factor in the chicken debate, said last Tuesday that her intention then was not to have her abstention fall in the same coop as those voting in favor and that, if anything, it should have been a vote against the keeping of chickens.

“How many councils before this council have turned this down? I think we’ve exhausted our time with this,” said Larson last Tuesday.

Keeping chickens—or other agricultural animals, like alpacas—on residential lots has been an almost perennial topic in Mound. Prior to last April, the city had also delved into the topic in 2014 and 2016, rejecting it every time and with the debate continually circling around questions of lot size, small prey predators, city aesthetics and, after the 2015 avian flu outbreak, public health.

Mayor Salazar went to the meat of the topic last Tuesday, opening the discussion beyond just the work plan and into the chicken debate itself, saying that allowing chickens would bring in requests for other agricultural animals, like pigs and alpacas. “Where do we draw the line?” he asked. “I think that line was drawn in 1962 with the prohibition of agricultural animals [in Mound].”

By contrast, both Velsor and Pugh, though they had specifically voted in favor of permitting the chickens last April, opted Tuesday to keep the emphasis on the work plan, not the chickens outright.

“[The issue] is of interest, and we’ve had many other issues which I don’t agree with but we’ve given way for staff to study those issues,” said Pugh.

Expressing more frustration than Pugh, Velsor said he’s had numerous calls and emails from residents about the keeping of chickens and that it was only right to open the forum again. “If you don’t agree with that, I think you’re squashing your citizens from coming up here and talking about it,” he said.

The chicken question is last on the city’s work plan for this year, coming after a possible streamlining of the building permit process and an update to property maintenance regulations.

“If they don’t get to it, they don’t get to it, but what’s the harm in leaving it on the list?” said Velsor. “I think there’s enough people in the town that have voiced that they’d like to see this happen that we would be doing those citizens a disservice [not to discuss it again].”

About Indian Mounds: A Sacred Burial Place

The landscape of Indian Mounds is a sacred place of burial. It is a cemetery built by ancestors of living people. The place has deep significance to the Upper Sioux Community, Lower Sioux Community, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Prairie Island Indian Community, Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska, Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate, and other descendants of those who are buried here. It is home to the only known remaining burial mounds within the Minneapolis-Saint Paul urban core.

BBQ grillsPicnic area(2) picnic sheltersPlaygroundRestroom buildingScenic overlook(2) tennis courts

Permit and Rental Information

Please call the Park Permit Office at 651-632-5111 for more information or to reserve facilities or permit events. Office hours are 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The possession of alcohol is prohibited in the park.

Picnic area photos

History

The Indigenous burial ground that is currently called “Indian Mounds Regional Park” has been a sacred site and place of burial for over a thousand years. It is significant to living Indigenous Peoples as a cemetery where their ancestors are buried. It is a place of reverence, remembrance, respect, and prayer. When the City of Saint Paul established a park in this location in 1892 with the purpose of protecting the historical setting and spectacular views, connections of contemporaneous Indigenous Peoples to the sacred site were not understood, considered, or valued. Over the last century the condition, name, and use of the landscape as a park have become beloved to the surrounding community. Yet many non-Indigenous people have wondered about this powerful landscape without knowing how to learn more about it. Through public gatherings with generous sharing by Indigenous Peoples and members of the public, strong support for protection of this sacred site has been revealed.

The Cultural Landscape Study and Messaging Plan is an initial step to update the City’s practice for preservation awareness, and understanding of sites significant to American Indians. The project team conducted rigorous research to provide a basis for a shared understanding among diverse project collaborators. The Study presents a comprehensive framework for acknowledging the sacred site and the living Indigenous People whose ancestors are buried there while:

The Cultural Landscape Study and Messaging Plan guides changes and updates within the site currently called Indian Mounds Regional Park. Visit the Indian Mounds Regional Park Projects page for more information.

Picnic Area

County jail records show the boy's mother and a 27-year old man were taken into custody.

MOUND, Minn. — It's been two horrific days for the family of a child found dead inside the trunk of a car in Mound, Friday.

"Eli was a very happy, energetic 6-year-old boy," said Josie Josephson. "He loved his dad immensely. His eyes would light up when he saw his dad."

Josephson is the fiancé of Tory Hart, Eli's father. She remembers the exact moment she heard the news.

"Great sadness and disappointment this happened, when this shouldn't have," she said.

County jail records show the boy's mother and a 27-year old man were taken into custody. Court records show the boy's mother had also recently engaged in custody disputes with Eli's father.

"Although Eli wasn't biologically my own, I fought side by side with Tory to try to get him custody of him; in my heart he was my own son," she said. "We expressed our concerns numerous times."

NEW: A small memorial sits outside Shirley Hills Primary School in Mound. It’s been two days since a 6-year-old, identified by family as Eli, was found dead inside the trunk of a car during a traffic stop. @kare11 pic.twitter.com/dIDo5AG2xd

— Charmaine Nero (@CNeroTV) May 22, 2022

It's a tragic event Mound Mayor Ray Salazar says has rocked his small town.

"Our hearts go out to the family," said Salazar. "For myself, and I'm sure I share with all of our great citizens in our city, it's a horrible, horrifying situation ... You can't imagine the pain that this family must be going through, Tory, Eli's family."

And now, a community is in mourning.

"I feel we failed as a community, the most vulnerable, a 6-year-old little boy, who was forgotten," said Mound resident, Jane Anderson.

For Josie Josephson, she's praying no other family has to experience a similar pain. "I'm going to continue changing things so this doesn't happen to another child, and fathers' rights are protected, and heard," she said.

School counselors and staff will be available in all Westonka school buildings to support students, staff and parents.

There is a GoFundMe page to help the family with expenses, which has already reached more than $33,000 as of Sunday night.

An investigation into the incident is ongoing, but Orono PD says there is no further threat to the public.

Charges for both suspects are still pending.

A massive, ancient burial mound in northern Minnesota, closed to the public eight years ago, may once again welcome visitors to learn about the sacred site. Grand Mound, located along the Rainy River about 15 miles southwest of International Falls, is considered the largest prehistoric structure in the Upper Midwest. After more than 30 years as a state historic site, access to the mound was blocked in 2007 amid concerns about treating a burial site as a tourist attraction. However, the thinking has changed, and the Minnesota Historical Society now has the backing of its Indian Advisory Committee to reopen Grand Mound to the public. “I think the time has come for it again,” said Indian Advisory Committee member Jim Jones, who also works as the cultural resources director for the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council. The concern about Grand Mound as a burial ground still exists, Jones said, but there’s growing interest in using the site - with the involvement of Minnesota’s Native American communities and possibly in conjunction with a historical center at burial mounds across the river in Ontario - to tell the story of the people who built the mounds and lived in the area centuries ago. The Minnesota Historical Society also is receiving a push to reopen the site from city and county officials who didn’t want it closed in the first place, arguing that the historical society hasn’t been equitable in its treatment of Grand Mound compared to other historical sites because of its location on the northern border. The state put money into a “beautiful building” at Grand Mound only to close that building a few decades later, Koochiching County Commissioner Wade Pavleck said. “If that facility were south - southern Minnesota, in the metro area, even south of Highway 2 - it would never have been closed,” Pavleck said. International Falls and Koochiching County officials requested an update on Grand Mound’s status last year, stating in a letter that they’re “very concerned as to the future plans of the Minnesota Historical Society regarding the Grand Mound facility and grounds.”

Meeting place for centuries

Slated to reopen in the next few years, the goal for Grand Mound is to “have a place where people can experience the Rainy River and the region and learn more about the people who lived there more than 5,000 years ago,” said Ben Leonard, Minnesota Historical Society manager of community outreach and partnerships. The site includes five burial mounds. Grand Mound is the largest, standing 25 feet tall and measuring 100 feet wide by 140 feet long, according to the state historical society. “It’s the only site of its type in the U.S.,” said Ed Oerichbauer, executive director of the Koochiching County Historical Society. In its potential reopening of Grand Mound, the historical society wants to ensure the site is safe and preserved, and is culturally appropriate, Leonard said. Grand Mound’s location at the confluence of the Big Fork and Rainy rivers was a meeting place for centuries. Grand Mound and Manitou Mounds, across the Rainy River in Ontario, both were created by a group now called the Laurel Indians when an international border didn’t cut in between. “Indigenous peoples from the region converged on this spot where the great sturgeon spawned. Here they set up camps to trade, socialize, feast and conduct ceremonies. And here they buried their dead,” stated a 2007 Minnesota Historical Society report to the state Legislature. The Laurel Indians’ use of the location dates back to about 200 BC. After the Laurel Indians - of which much remains unknown - the site was used by the Blackduck people. It’s estimated Grand Mound was created and used from about 200 BC to 1400 AD. A man named Fred Smith purchased the Grand Mound property in 1930 to protect it from looting. The land was sold to the Minnesota Historical Society in 1971, and the historical society built an interpretive center at the site in 1975, but it mothballed the building in the fall of 2002 amid budget cuts. The trails around the mound then were permanently closed in 2007 amid concerns about visitors at the sacred site. “Our consultations with American Indian elders have convinced us of the appropriateness of that action. We believe that the site’s designation as a burial ground supersedes all other uses,” the 2007 report stated. In 2011, Grand Mound was named a National Historic Landmark. There were valid reasons to close the site in the previous decade, Leonard said, but the situation has now changed. “We haven’t forgotten about Grand Mound,” Leonard said. Leonard said he hasn’t heard the concerns cited in 2007 raised in the current discussions about reopening Grand Mound. The concerns now are how Grand Mound’s history will be told, he said.

Cross-border cooperation

Across the river in Ontario, the Rainy River First Nations operate the Kay-Nah-Chi-Wah-Nung Historical Centre at Manitou Mounds. The center includes an aquarium, conservation lab, interpretive center and restaurant. Leonard visited that site last year and said he’s looking forward to working more with Rainy River First Nations as the process to reopen Grand Mound unfolds. Local officials would like to tie in with Kay-Nah-Chi-Wah-Nung to create a cultural tourism center on both sides of the international border that will remind visitors of the people who lived there thousands years ago, Oerichbauer said. The Minnesota Historical Society’s Indian Advisory Committee is planning a meeting in May with Rainy River First Nations leaders to take part in the annual fish fry at Kay-Nah-Chi-Wah-Nung and discuss plans for and possible cooperation between the two sites, Jones said. A reopened Grand Mound site needs to tell the story of the place, combining the spiritual significance with the archeology, and have a Native American component to it, Jones said. “What does Grand Mound represent? And there’s a cultural significance to it,” he said. It should offer educational opportunities, Jones said, adding, “people are screaming for it.” It could provide a place for students to learn, he said - not just history but also math and science, using nature and the rivers. City, county and First Nations officials met with Minnesota Historical Society staff in October to discuss the potential of reopening the site, and now those officials are waiting to hear a plan from the historical society. “I hope they don’t shortchange us,” Pavleck said. “My fear is that they’ve left it for so long, they’ll just open the gates to people. That’s not a solution.” Pavleck said the group would like to see the shuttered Grand Mound building reopened with guides for the site. Oerichbauer said reopening Grand Mound would be good for the preservation of the site, because someone would be actively watching over it. Several options for reopening Grand Mound have been discussed internally, Leonard said. They range from reopening the entire site, including the building, to a more basic plan of reopening only the trails with interpretive panels along the way. Once open, Leonard said the site needs to be sustainable. Grand Mound’s closure was partly because of operational costs and low usage. Annual visitor numbers decreased by 77 percent in the decade before the state closed the site, with 1,688 people visiting in 2002, according to the 2007 report. The historical society doesn’t want to reopen Grand Mound just to close it in a few years because of the decisions that are made today, Leonard said. It’s going to take promotion of Grand Mound to make people aware that they can visit the site once it’s open, Oerichbauer said. He pointed out that Split Rock Lighthouse probably would have the same number of visitors as Grand Mound if it was located in as remote a location. “If you do historical interpretation where it happens, you will have to pay the price,” he said.